TIM KELLER on presenting the Gospel as both challenge and appeal

The following quotation is from a comment by Tim Keller in a blog discussion about his views on sharing the Gospel by connecting the story of Jesus to baseline cultural narratives. He says, "you have to show in line with the culture's own (best) aspirations, hopes, and convictions that its own cultural story won't be resolved or have 'a happy ending' outside of Christ." At the same time he explains that an effective presentation of the Gospel will both appeal to and challenge existing cultural narratives. He makes the following exegesis of 1 Corinthians 1.22-25 to help illustrate this:

1 Cor 1:22-25 is a good example of what I'm talking about. Your own Paul Barnett talks about it somewhat in his commentary on the text. Jews wanted a powerful Messiah, and the Greeks' ideal was the philosopher king. These were 'baseline cultural narratives.' For Jews--power, for Greeks--philosophy and wisdom. Paul preaches the cross to both challenge and appeal. He uses the weakness of the cross to show the Jews that they've made an idol of power, and the foolishness of the cross to show the Greeks they've made an idol of wisdom. And yet, he also is willing to preach Christ as the true power and the true wisdom. So on the one hand, he adapts and on the other hand he challenges. He is saying to Jews, 'You seek power? Well, here is the true power.' He says to Greeks, 'You seek wisdom? Well here is true wisdom.'

I thought this was a really helpful description of what Paul is doing here and a useful model for sharing the Gospel.

I was reflecting recently with someone about modern cultural narratives which provide opportunities for sharing the Gospel - connection points. We're all familiar with the way that films, for example, can provide what you might call 'leaping-off points' for talking about spiritual realities; for example, a movie like the Matrix gave us a whole new set of vocabulary for talking about choices and faith and reality. But are there other cultural narratives which we should be making better use of, thinking creatively about connections with the Gospel story? One I considered was the environmental narrative that's so current right now, as we think seriously about the consequences of our choices and our stewardship of this planet. Are there ways to speak into this theme and engage with these questions that bring the light of Jesus to bear? What about the big themes of national security, terrorism, personal liberty and the surveillance issue (privacy vs security)? How do we respond and what story are we telling in the light of these?


Tim Keller's 'The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism' sounds like an interesting read.


Thanks Matt!

Preaching the Gospel

[From a link on Undercover Theologian.]

I liked this article by Tim Keller on Christianity Today's Leadership Journal on 'The Gospel in All it's Forms' about the different aspects of the 'one gospel' and, especially, his wisdom on preaching them:

1. I don't put all the gospel points into any one gospel presentation.

When studying Paul's gospel speeches in the book of Acts, it is striking how much is always left out. He always leads with some points rather than others in an effort to connect with the baseline cultural narratives of his listeners. It is almost impossible to cover all the bases of the gospel with a non-believing listener without that person's eyes glazing over.

2. I use both a gospel for the "circumcised" and for the "uncircumcised."
- or the moralists and the postmoderns

...I use the biblical definition of sin as idolatry. That puts the emphasis not as much on "doing bad things" but on "making good things into ultimate things." ...I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God. ...Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom. This is my "gospel for the uncircumcised."

3. I use both a "kingdom" and an "eternal life" gospel.

...I point out the story-arc of the Bible and speak of the gospel in terms of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. We once had the world we all wanted—a world of peace and justice, without death, disease, or conflict. But by turning from God we lost that world. Our sin unleashed forces of evil and destruction so that now "things fall apart" and everything is characterized by physical, social, and personal disintegration. Jesus Christ, however, came into the world, died as a victim of injustice and as our substitute, bearing the penalty of our evil and sin on himself.

4. I use them all and let each group overhear me preaching to the others.

No one form of the gospel gives all the various aspects of the full gospel the same emphasis. If, then, you only preach one form, you are in great danger of giving your people an unbalanced diet of gospel-truth. What is the alternative? Don't preach just one gospel form. That's not true to the various texts of the Bible anyway. If you are preaching expositionally, different passages will convey different forms of the one gospel. Preach different texts and your people will hear all the points. ...

Lots of wisdom there I thought! Read the full article.

Thanks Matt!

'Party on!'

The first miracle (or sign) in John's Gospel is the Wedding in Cana where Jesus turns the water into wine. I heard Steve Chalke point out that in a world of poverty and brokenness, the miracle he chooses to do first is to provide more wine for some people who were probably already less than sober! As Steve puts it, it's Jesus' first miracle, and it's "Drinks on me!" A reminder that the kingdom of God is something of a party and Jesus says to us, 'Come on in, let's party!'*


*See also Mt 8.11, Mt 22.1-14, Lk 14.15-24, Rev 3.20 ... :-)

Theological highlights from Revive!

Chris Forster - Revelation, not Information
Andrew tells Peter...'Come and meet the man who is the Christ' (John 1)
But it is not until later that Peter truly recognises Jesus: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" and Jesus tells him "this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Matt 16:16,17)

Greg Boyd

God looks like Jesus Christ.
(Anything that doesn't look like Jesus Christ is the result of wills other than God's)

"Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph 6:12)
- therefore, no person can be the enemy. If it has flesh and blood, we're not fighting it. On the contrary, people in bondage are those people we're trying to save - this is who we're fighting for, not against!

Regard every sin you see in someone else as a speck of dust, and your own as a two-by-four.

When Jesus was faced with sickness and oppression, he didn't pray 'accepting' prayers...he got angry. He had a theology of revolution, of revolt! In which we lay down our lives...

Faith is the 'substance of things anticipated'. We're rarely certain about anything, but faith is the having enough confidence in order to act on something (e.g. to get on a plane).

All prayer is powerful and effective...you have pushed the world further in a kingdom direction.
No such thing as a wasted prayer.

How you look at something determines what you see...which affects your life.

The Word of God is Living and Active

I'm making slow progress through NT Wright's 'Scripture and the Authority of God', mainly because I can only read small chunks before I have to stop and consider what's being said. It also keeps sparking off other chains of thought, which make concentrating on the next section tricky! Here are some further thoughts on the 'word of God' concept that I've been exploring as I work through the book.

In the New Testament the 'word' is generally used for the gospel (see Colossians 1:5). This 'word' is the story of Jesus, his death and resurrection, "told as the climax of the story of Israel and thus offering itself as both the true story of the world and the foundation and energizing force for the church's mission." (p.36)

But NT Wright goes on to point out that "the 'word' was not just information about the kingdom and its effects, important though that was and is. It was the way God's kingdom, accomplished in Jesus, was making its way in the world" (p.36). More than just a retelling of the story, this word carries power:

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. " (Romans 1:16)

Or, in a slightly different sense:
"...because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction." (1 Thessalonians 1:5)

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

In the verse above Paul is making clear that the gospel is not a story told by humans, the 'word of men', but the 'word of God'. The word of God is at work in all believers, that same creative power that spoke the universe into being (see earlier post) is bringing new creation in each one of us.

As NT Wright says, "the word was announced as a sovereign summons, and it brought into being a new situation, new possibilities, and a new life-changing power". (p.36)

He also seems to attribute a wider meaning to the concept of word / gospel as used in the NT:
"The earliest church was centrally constituted as the people called into existence, and sustained in that existence, by the powerful, effective and (in that sense and many others) 'authoritative' word of God, written in the Old Testament, embodied in Jesus, announced to the world, taught in the church." (p.37)

In the same way, NT Wright goes on to discuss the way in which Paul and the other New Testament authors were conscious of the importance of their own words and writings, believing themselves to be 'authorized' teachers, by the guidance and power of the Spirit. In his own words:

"The apostolic writings, like the 'word' which they now wrote down, were not simply about the coming of God's kingdom into the world; they were, and were designed to be, part of the means whereby that happened, and whereby those through whom it happened could themselves be transformed into Christ's likeness." (p.38)

The God who Speaks

I have been reading N.T. Wright's Scripture and the Authority of God.

I will aim to review it more completely when I have finished reading it, but for now I will say that it is shaping up to be an altogether refreshing read. Every now and again you read a book which doesn't so much give you something new, but instead more fully articulates something you already sensed was true, and in doing so helps to order your thoughts into something more lucid and coherent.

I was particularly interested to read this morning his reflection on a God who speaks, "who communicates with his human creatures in words" (p.24). He makes the point that this distinguishes the God of the Bible from other gods known at the time, and today. Indeed, in comparison with other creation myths, which incorporate many elements of a sexual and reproductive nature (egg, semen, birth, flesh broken...see the Wikipedia article on Creation Myths), the God of the Bible speaks creation into existence:

"And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Genesis 1:3

And, in John's Gospel:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1

Ben Witherington, on his blog, makes the point that the ancients saw words very differently than we do. As he explains:

"We are apt to see words as just combinations of letters or ciphers or symbols, but this is not how the ancients, living in an overwhelming oral culture, saw words. Words spoke things into existence if they came from God. Genesis 1 is quite explicit about this. But the Word could not only create reality, it could become a human being as John 1 says---‘and the Word took on flesh’."

I recommend reading his reflections on a 'Wordshaped Bible', if only for his thoughtful poem, which serves as introduction.

I was also interested in the comment from Sandalstraps on the power of speech and the connection between breath and speech as he reflects on his son learning to speak. He makes the point that there is an intimate connection in many languages between the words for breath and spirit.

The English word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, which means breath. Similarly the Hindu concept of Prana (life-force) is a Sanskrit word for breath (see also Qi). In the Bible, the Hebrew words for breath and spirit are the same: ruach; and the Greek word used in the NT for the Spirit, pneuma, also has the same connection with wind or breath.

I made the point in my sermon a couple of weeks ago that the breath of God (giving life in creation - Genesis 2:7) and the work of the spirit are essentially synonymous. I wonder whether it's not too great a leap to relate God's breath (and the Spirit) and his speech in a similar fashion. In this context it makes sense for Jesus to be the Word, God's fullest revelation of himself. Jesus is God expressed, God spoken.

And finally, if God gives life by speaking, as NT Wright points out, "the idea of reading a book to hear and know God is not far-fetched, but cognate with the nature of God himself."

Just the best bits?

Chris has highlighted some interesting websites on his web journal. Check out the Gospel Spectrum, which is not only an excellent use of flash technology as visualisation aid / teaching tool (the media here actually adding a new dimension rather than simply displaying), but also shows some really interesting results.

I was especially interested in the level of Gospel harmony during different periods of Jesus' ministry. A button in the bottom left hand corner allows you to limit the view to those stories which appear in all four Gospels (click '4'!)

The feeding of the five thousand appears in all four - perhaps because with so many people involved it was well reported?! The triumphant entry into Jerusalem is similarly well represented by all four, who tell very similar versions. Plenty of witnesses that day!

The most completely represented period of Jesus' life is of course the period of his trials and death. Interesting that Peter's denial is so well-told in all four (actually it has the largest total amount of verse-space!). That the story of the lowest moment in the life of the leader of the church in Jerusalem should figure so prominently in its Scriptures says something about the nature of that church, doesn't it? And surely something about Peter. The story is told in such detail - how did it become so 'public' without the assistance of Peter himself?

This reminds me of Paul talking about boasting in weakness that the power of God might be made known in us. Do we tell the shameful stories, or even 'own' them in ourselves, so that the grace and power of God will be seen more clearly? We're so adept at only telling the best bits..

Jesus is a friend of mine...?

I've been reflecting on Jesus' repeated comments along the lines of 'If anyone loves me he will obey my teaching' and 'You are my friends if you do what I command.' in John chapters 13-15.

In one sense it's easy to understand the latter statement as 'you can only be my friend if you do what I say', although I would normally take it in the sense of 'how can you claim to be my friend and not love one another?' (the command he makes repeatedly in the passage above is 'Love each other').

However, on reading it again, there almost seems to be two slightly different things he's saying here.

In the first part of the passage, i.e. Chapter 14, this is what he says:
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (v.15)
"They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me." (v.21)
"Those who love me will keep my word" (v.23)
(from NRSV to keep people happy!)

Verse 21 would seem to indicate is that Jesus is talking about our loving others being a sign that we love him (as I've mentioned above). Or simply that a natural fruit of loving him is loving others.

I think I've struggled with these statements in the past, taking them in a legalistic sense as 'how can you really love Jesus when you're so rubbish at loving others'.

However, he's not saying anything about how much he loves us (or what we can do to earn that love) - that's taken as given! Here he's dealing with the issue of how we can love him - in the context of talking to his disciples about leaving them ("Where I am going, you cannot come." 13:34) . In other words: 'I am going, but if you want to follow me and continue to love me, then this is what you must do'. Useful to compare with "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:40). We're definitely talking active loving here.

However, the part of I've been considering a little more is Jesus' words in Chapter 15. Here the focus seems to change slightly:
"If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love" (v.10)
"You are my friends if you do what I command you" (v.14)

There is a definite conditional edge ('if') to these statements.

I am sure it is easy to argue that he is simply continuing the theme of the previous statements, but I think the context gives it a slightly different feel.
From verse 9: "As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love."

As I read it again, I wonder if what Jesus is doing is continuing the instruction manual on loving God and being in relationship with him ('friends'). I have discovered in my own life that when I am taking seriously the command to love others, I depend on God more, I talk to and listen to him more, I generally feel much closer to him. We are participating in something together. One of the ways in which CS Lewis defines friendship (in his book 'The Four Loves') is the love that comes from sharing a common interest or goal. I wonder whether Jesus is just being practical in his suggestion to 'keep my commandments if you want to remain in my love and be my friends' - when you're pursuing goals and interests in common with the 'Master', then friendship grows.

Jesus then makes some statements about being friends (not servants) because we know the Master's business. And what is his business, but loving?

God's love for us is never in question for Jesus, I think he's trying to give us some clues about how to love him back. And, as the NIV puts it, "remain in [his] love". It's a practical suggestion, not a cause-and-effect statement. God's love is constant, it's us who have to do the changing. And the active process of loving people (and therefore Jesus, as mentioned above) changes us.

Not only is Jesus providing us with a concrete way of displaying our love for an invisible God, but he also suggests that this is the way to grow in our relationship with him, to discover the mutual joy of purposeful and loving friendship with a heavenly God.