In this series, I explore conversations with friends my generation about the things our shared Christian faith has inspired, affirmed, and challenged in our marriages, workplaces, church, etc. Geoffrey Mbaziira co-leads Exegetes, a city Bible Study, goes to Calvary Chapel Kampala and works with Interface Uganda, an Institute that provides space for conversation dialogue and collective thinking on faith, religion, and culture issues in public life. I asked him about healthy preaching, Bible interpretation, and why his house is full of old books.

1.    Geoffrey, why do I need theology when I have the Holy Spirit? 

In a nutshell, theology is the study of God,” theo for God and logos for “study” now while that can be the intentional pursuit of learning, it also means everyone is a theologian, so for as far as you think about who God is, the nature of salvation, the nature of man, if you have a view of who God is, or if you think he does not exist, so R.C Sproul argues we are all theologians.

Yet as Christians, to study God is our highest and noblest pursuit, to love God and to know him is not just a commandment, but a pursuit we are supposed to find pleasure in, and we only realize it with the help of God’s word and the power of the Holy Spirit.

So from the onset, it’s important to make clear that the study of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit cannot be separated. Attempts at proper theology mean it’s the Holy Spirit guiding too, I insist on that because the greatest danger we have today is the separation of rigor in Bible study and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

That’s our danger today, it is more pronounced today even when we may have witnessed it in Church history, a lot of well-meaning Christians conceive of Holy Spirit guidance in a sort of mystical way, as if they can wait on a special word straight from heaven, more like God whispering to you personally, such understanding of the Holy Spirit’s work is wrong. This is where the idea of “I don’t need to do theology” comes from. Because we have reduced the Holy Spirit to a mystical force that bypasses my mind and goes to the heart to lead, or “drops a word in my heart” which is totally wrong.

A lot of well-meaning Christians conceive of Holy Spirit guidance in a sort of mystical way, as if they can wait on a special word straight from heaven, more like God whispering to you personally.

Tweet

2. What warnings and encouragement can help those often bored by theology? 

So again, we are all theologians, there is a mistaken notion that theologians are the kind usually into useless arguments and complicated books, yet as long as you have thoughts about God, you are a theologian, just a good or bad one.

But as Christians, all of us are called to do proper theology and a meaningful Christian should ask, is my knowledge of God reflecting the biblical truth?  Is the biblical knowledge of man impacting mine? Is the biblical idea of what sin is changing mine, and so on?  Christians seek to align all these with what the Bible says, and we cannot do that without the Spirit’s leading.

Yet what that calls for is a thorough study of the word, and a guided observation of those who have gone before us in the faith, and yet through all that, the Holy Spirit leads, yet at the end of the day, It is through Bible reading, insight from a historical interpretation that is harmonized for us to know what God spoke in his word.

In Bible interpretation then, reading those who have gone before us in Church history, therefore, helps guard against heresy, its cure to the idea that you can interpret a passage in a way nobody in church history has ever done!

So we cannot divorce the Spirit’s guidance in the pursuit of theology, in fact, I would submit to you that one of the indicators of Spirit-filled life is the intent to pursue the knowledge of God. Without that desire to know what God says in his word, you cannot even begin to mention the Spirit’s leading. Intention to pursue theology is an indicator of Spirit’s presence.

3. How do you differentiate good preaching from bad, and healthy Bible study from unhealthy? 

This is one vast topic, if you were to ask ten people, you’d get ten answers, yet the biggest indicator of good preaching is whether it’s expositional rather than topical, the biggest mark of healthy preaching is expositional.

In topical preaching, the preacher gets a theme and then assembles verses to back him up, whereas the Bible is quoted, it is not submitted to.

The point of the sermon is determined long before he steps into the pulpit as opposed to expositional preaching, where you approach the text with a willingness to submit to what God meant in the text and what it means today, in that order.

So expositional preaching highlights the point of the passage while topical preaching often highlights the point of man. So as a preacher, I can seek to teach through the Bible, as opposed to letting my preferences determine the day’s message, this is how a congregation hears what God is saying in his word.

Now, is there a place for topical preaching? yes. But healthy preaching and teaching submit to what God was trying to say to the audience then, before we hear what he’s saying to the audience now. 

I recall a practice early in my Christian walk of closing your eyes and landing on a sudden verse as a way of hearing God speak. Unsystematic bible study and preaching almost operate like that. The point of the passage should be the point of a sermon.

Speaking of which, it’s also poor Bible study practice if we are not systematic in our Bible reading, picking verses here and there, we are in danger of reading favorite passages but it also makes ourselves the determiner of what we want God to say. The Bible is not a fragment of stories; you don’t pluck and read it’s a narrative, a grand story of redemption.

In topical preaching, the preacher gets a theme and then assembles verses to back him up, whereas the Bible is quoted, it is not submitted to.

Tweet

4. What consequences should we anticipate if we constantly read and interpret the scriptures wrong? 

There are consequences to this, history is awash with these, and they have been fatal results of bizarre interpretations, I know of people that have interpreted Mark 16:17 about signs and demons, drinking poison, and remaining unhurt.

James’s words in chapter 5 to call elders to pray for the sick have, for example, been wrongly interpreted in some circles as prohibitive of modern medicine or doctors.

Physical consequences aside, the most danger is with what wrong interpretation can do to your soul, there are spiritual devastations that arise out of poor interpretation.

At the very least poor interpretation is malnourishing, as the Spirit is not being inadequately fed, stagnancy in spiritual growth can be a result of poor doctrine, worst of cases, it can lead to death in hell, especially when unregenerate people are given the impression that they are saved or safe in their unbelief.

I mean, in the above case, it’s not hard to get a Bible verse and make the claim that you can continue to live in sin as long as in the past you made a prayer or “confessed”, or “walked up the altar”. Again, wrong interpretation has dire consequences, and we should run from it as fast as we can!

It’s not hard to get a Bible verse and make the claim that you can continue to live in sin as long as in the past you made a prayer or “confessed”, or “walked up the altar”

Tweet

5. Jesus died to set us free, yet he still requires us to walk a certain way, how may extremes on either conviction lead astray? 

You know, the two words that pop here are “legalism” and “antinomianism”, the first is the tendency to exalt the law over grace and the latter is the tendency to deny the significance of the law. In light of the first, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and on account of the latter, we are expected to walk as Jesus walked. (I John 2:6)

So the foundation is the belief that we cannot earn our way in the kingdom of heaven, that’s what Jesus told the Pharisees, who were physical descendants of Abraham(John 8:39), the New Testament is replete with teaching that counters that faulty pride.

So you see that the Pharisee is the typical legalist. His position reduces the law of God and makes a wooden interpretation; the story of the young rich ruler in Matt 19 is a good illustration. He’d obeyed everything there was, but Jesus’s answer to him and his resulting sadness shows his wealth had become his god. Seeing when you break one commandment you broken all, so we just can’t (James 2:10), Pharisees were guilty and we too will be, if we stick in their direction.

The other extreme is antinomianism, this extreme downplays the significance of God’s law in a Christian’s life, after you encounter a legalist, it’s easy to go the opposite and dictate God’s law, so some under this some will say I do don’t need to keep the law because I am free in the cross, they insist the cross frees us not only from the curse of God’s law but from the obligation to meet it.

The later can’t be more wrong, Paul is emphatic against this extreme, and he gloried in the new convenient and the freedom flowing from it, and yet he also condemned false freedom for example he asks…” Do we then overthrow the law by this faith, by no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law”. (Rom 3:31). So it’s a serious error to think we are not obligated to keep God’s law.

The other confusion with the latter group is the confusion of justification and sanctification, it’s true we are justified by faith alone apart from anything we do, yet once we are justified and are in fellowship with Jesus. We keep his commandments but not to gain favor which is the legalist extreme, we obey because we have received redemption.

So whereas it is not true that we can obey God’s commands to earn salvation-which undermines the work of Christ- we are called to obey out of loving gratitude to God. Yes Christianity is not a religion of don’ts but clear New Testament teaching doesn’t imply we have a right to do whatever is right in our own eyes. The commands earn us no merit before God, but obeying them confirms we are saved, the first place.

6. Tell us about Exegetes, what inspired the name, and what is it about?

It is a Bible study arm of Veracity Fount ministries, we started out as a group of young people, different churches and denominations studying God’s word, we meet every Monday in Kampala,

But the idea is to be able to develop inductive Bible study skills, and that’s where the word Exegetes comes from, learning to read and listen to the text, how it spoke to the original audience rather than letting ourselves impose meaning, coming to the word without biases, presuppositions, skills essential to every Christian.

We are mostly young people Anglicans, Pentecostals, passionate about seeing the city changed as a result of God’s word if you want to know about us visit, veracityfount.org or check into our Facebook page.

Yes, Christianity is not a religion of don’ts but clear New Testament teaching doesn’t imply we have a right to do whatever is right in our own eyes.

Tweet

7. What has struck you most in your most recent book reading, what do you find unique about authors from previous centuries and why, an example?

I have been reading a series of church history books, history of Christian church series by Philip Schaff among others, the reasons I have been intentional on these earlier works is because, for many, these are discarded yet they bring out controversies in the past that shaped Christian doctrine.

As you go through that, it all comes alive; you are in a better place to know why a certain generation of Christians in the past stood their ground. It has helped me appreciate Christian beliefs we often take for granted, confessions and creeds we only recite, and the struggle that brought all of them forth. Positions about salvation, sin, the Holy Spirit, I have come to appreciate their intensity and passion for God, and yet you also sometimes see their carnality even in spite of their fight for the purity of the church. So it’s an instructive beauty to read as far back in Christian history as you can.

It was C.S Lewis that made the argument of reading two old books for every new one,  certainly because you realize how rich past Christians were on doctrine unlike many newer today, my reading has been so influenced by this understanding.