Jesus is the Word of God
If you're lost, you don't need to find yourself. If you're lost and you find yourself you'll only find that you're lost. Which is no great find!
If you're lost what you need to find is home. When you're home, then you will be yourself.
The good news of Christianity is that Someone from Home has come to find us!
12 minute lunchbar talk for Exeter CU
based on Luke 15:1-10 (and Luke 3:21-22).
It's finally here - 321, the Story of God, the World and You.
I've been mulling this over for a while. It seems to me our presentations of the gospel are generally quite anaemic and, at times, outright Unitarian (not to mention Pelagian).
Recently I outlined the dangers of gospelling without Trinity. Then I considered the problem of side-lining our bondage in Adam. Then I explored the necessity of proclaiming union with Christ.
It's easy to pick holes with other presentations. Here's my attempt to do something positive. This is trying to be doctrinally faithful, pedagogically memorable and simple without being simplistic.
I'll grant that it's considerably more involved than many presentations. But perhaps it's best to think of it as catechism for believers. I hope it will bring Christians back to these central doctrines and inform our gospelling of others.
The outline is essentially this:
3 God is three Persons united in love
2 The story of the world is the story of two men
1 You are one with Adam. Will you be one with Jesus?
Here's the video, animated by the excellent Jeremy Poyner
http://www.vimeo.com/48734715
In future, I will unpack how 3, 2 and 1 do not diminish but are vital foundations for the planks of more traditional tracts - i.e. Creation, Fall, Cross, Repentance.
But for now, please go to the new website - 321. Show the video on Facebook and Twitter. And stay tuned for more videos, articles, tracts and a very affordable book - all in the pipeline.
I've been thinking about blind-spots in typical evangelistic presentations.
First I considered the dangers of overlooking Trinity in evangelism. Then I discussed the evangelistic importance of original sin (the doctrine, not the term).
Finally, let's explore "union with Christ" (again, the doctrine, not necessarily the phrase). Here's why it's crucial for union with Christ to be a major category of thinking as we evangelise...
.
We offer a Person not a Package
The Gospel is God's offer of Christ. Whatever blessings God might have for the world, they are all to be had "in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3ff). Fundamentally God's gift is not a thing but a Him. And what He desires from us is not stuff (we have no stuff worth offering anyway). For some strange reason, God wants us.
So the point of the gospel is not a transaction. It's not like getting a mobile phone contract... you know the deal... God offers a decent package, some nice extras and an easy payment plan. We reach into our pocket and dredge up what's required.... no it's not that.
Yet so often I hear the gospel offered in terms of its fringe benefits - eternal fire-insurance, freedom from guilt feelings, a sense of Purpose in life... all for the low, low price of "repentance and faith."
In such presentations God's love is portrayed in contractual not covenant terms. Which means God's love is not really portrayed.
.
We can avoid licence and legalism
People are always saying “If you offer salvation freely it’s too dangerous, because people will just take salvation and then go off and sin all the time!” I want to say, Wait, which salvation are you talking about?
So often people think of salvation a little bit like those old films set in the middle ages. Imagine some Lord snootily throwing his bag of silver to a servant girl as payment for a job. The servant grabs the money and runs off out of the palace to enjoy life with the silver – and without the Lord.
Now if that’s what salvation is, then of course its free offer will mean licence. They'll take the heavenly blessings and run away from Jesus to enjoy themselves.
But what's the response? Well the legalist feels they must rein in their gospel offers. They refuse to offer a "blank cheque" willy nilly. No, no, they only offer salvation to those who really, really are committed to turning their lives around and submitting everything to God. And probably they should mean it too. Like, really mean it.
You can understand this approach. It doesn't sound very much like Jesus' whole approach to gospelling, but you can understand it. If you think that the gospel offer is stuff, then putting a price on it seems the natural thing to do. But salvation is not a stuff!
Salvation is far more like the Lord who loves his miserable servant and marries her. He gives her himself. And now they are one forever. That is a very free salvation isn’t it? It’s a much more gracious salvation than the licentious have dreamt of! Immeasurably more is offered in this salvation. And it’s offered completely freely. The girl isn’t expected to pay a penny for the privilege. But she’s not given some blessings which she can go and enjoy elsewhere. She is given the Lord himself.
Does such an offer make the hearer more likely to sin? Rubbish. It’s the only power to save someone from sin. Give them Jesus. And offer Him freely, because that’s the only kind of salvation He offers.
When we do, we'll avoid both legalism and licence. Because the offer is not a package but a person. Therefore the response is, unmistakably, the receiving of a Lord and Saviour.
.
"Repentance and faith" are considered properly
As believers in "faith alone", do we have a place for "repentance"?
Is it some kind of pre-requisite for faith? Or is it an obedience that we add to faith?? Do we call non-Christians to jump two hurdles, one called "repentance" and another called "faith"? That would be an odd position to adopt if we're "faith alone" people.
We've already said that "repentance and faith" are not our payment for gospel stuff. Well then, what is "repentance and faith."
Well think of union with Christ. He offers Himself to us like a Bridegroom to a bride. He says "Be one with me." If anyone receives Him, what have they done? They've repented and believed. Because they've received the LORD Jesus Christ as their Head in bonds of self-abandoning love. There simply could not be a more all-embracing "repentance".
If the preacher makes clear that salvation is belonging to Jesus (and He to us), then many errors are avoided. Our hearers won't be tempted to offer their repentance to Jesus as payment for salvation. Nor should they despair that "they don't have it in them to repent." They don't have it in them to repent. New life does not lie in their resolve. It's in Jesus. And He's offered to them, even in all their helplessness. Yet clearly, to receive Jesus is to receive a new life.
We do not offer repentance to God as a condition of our salvation. We are summoned to repentance in the gospel because this is the very nature of life "in Christ".
.
We have a gospel that applies to Christians as well as non-Christians
Think of the “Get out of hell free” gospel. Imagine that you've been evangelised by this and coughed up the requisite response (walking down an aisle and resolving to believe in substitutionary atonement, or whatever). That gospel is not particularly helpful to me day to day, is it? At one point, it helped me to get off the judgement hook, but now, I’m basically left to myself until heaven. Which means "the gospel" and day-to-day living have no real relationship.
I need the gospel to get saved, but I need wisdom and hard work to get by, day to day.
Maybe a little "gospel-law" preacher will come and remind me not to take the mick and to try and be godly. But their exhortations don't really arise from the gospel, do they?
Once I've trusted such a gospel, it has served its purpose. It's not for me any more. It's for unbelievers.
But if "union with Christ" is in view, that's like saying "the wedding ceremony" was everything, I don't need marriage day-to-day. Bonkers.
The real gospel is Christ graciously given to me in the nitty gritty of my life, for better and for worse. Which means it bears on everything.
Which is good because the world rarely asks the question “What must I do to be saved?” But our friends and family are constantly asking “How do I raise my kids? How do I handle my anger? What do I do about these panic attacks? How could I possibly forgive that person? Why is marriage so difficult? What’s the way forward in this family breakdown? How do I handle this bullying boss? How can I cope when my dreams are shattered? Why does food enslave me? How can I be free of these addiction? What’s wrong with me?”
The world is asking all of these questions all of the time. These are the problems of a world that’s condemned already (see previous post). This is part of the hell on earth that Jesus spoke about. But Jesus also has a salvation for here and now. The gospel also brings light and freedom into these pastoral situations.
Which means we can gospel people through pastoral problems and we can bring pastoral healing through the gospel. The more we grasp this, the more effective we’ll be in gospelling. Which brings us finally to...
.
Ordinary Christians might just realise that they too can evangelise.
If the gospel is a package deal, then it needs sales people. And, to be honest, the package that most evangelistic presentations offer is so unappealing it really would take a special class of Christian communicator to make it attractive. You’ve got to have a very good patter in order to sell a package of heavenly blessings. (Especially if that package is basically: Bow to the Big Guy or burn forever).
But what if, what if, what if.... we offer a Person. Jesus.
This is what’s helped me most in my own evangelism: realising I’m not selling some gospel benefits, I’m offering a Person. Jesus sells Himself. I don’t need a hundred illustrations and some cracking mother-in-law gags and the gift of the gab. I just have to talk about Jesus and let His magnetism do the job.
We’re offering a Person, not a mechanism of salvation. We’re saying – “This is Jesus, let me paint Him in biblical colours for you, let me tell you that I love Him and why, let me tell you what He has done for me, let me tell you my favourite things about Him. This is Jesus – do you want Him? He’s yours, have Him. Receive Him, He’s offered Himself to you, take Him now.’ That’s evangelism. In a deep sense, that all of what evangelism is. Just. Talk. About. Jesus.
And if the words don't come then guess what, it's not because "you're not a professional evangelist". Words often fail me too. You know why? Cos I'm weak. Cos nothing good lives in my flesh. Cos I'm a sinner. And if I haven't been receiving from Jesus, the Fountain of Living Waters, then of course the words will dry up. Because I'm dry.
So then, return to the Source. Get filled. Receive again from Jesus, our Heavenly Husband, who loves us in spite of ourselves. And then the words will come. Feebly and falteringly. But genuinely. Because from the overflow of the heart the mouth will speak. (Matthew 12:34).
And as everyday people lift Him up in everyday circumstances, He will draw all people to Himself. But it begins by realising this: the gospel's not a package, He's a Person.
.
Those are some reasons why "union with Christ" is a vital component of our gospel explanations...
So there you have it. Three blind-spots in modern evangelism: the trinity, original sin and union with Christ. If only we had a gospel explanation that gave them proper attention... perhaps one that was easy to memorise and share with friends... And maybe there could be a snazzy video presentation. And a website with further explanations. Maybe some tracts. Heck, why not a book? A cheap and cheery paperback - a give-away for friends. One that laid it all out simply... that'd be nice.
i f o n l y . . . i f o n l y . . .
#StayTuned
I've been thinking about blind-spots in typical evangelistic presentations.
First I considered the dangers of overlooking Trinity in evangelism. Then I discussed the evangelistic importance of original sin (the doctrine, not the term).
Finally, let's explore "union with Christ" (again, the doctrine, not necessarily the phrase). Here's why it's crucial for union with Christ to be a major category of thinking as we evangelise...
.
We offer a Person not a Package
The Gospel is God's offer of Christ. Whatever blessings God might have for the world, they are all to be had "in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3ff). Fundamentally God's gift is not a thing but a Him. And what He desires from us is not stuff (we have no stuff worth offering anyway). For some strange reason, God wants us.
So the point of the gospel is not a transaction. It's not like getting a mobile phone contract... you know the deal... God offers a decent package, some nice extras and an easy payment plan. We reach into our pocket and dredge up what's required.... no it's not that.
Yet so often I hear the gospel offered in terms of its fringe benefits - eternal fire-insurance, freedom from guilt feelings, a sense of Purpose in life... all for the low, low price of "repentance and faith."
In such presentations God's love is portrayed in contractual not covenant terms. Which means God's love is not really portrayed.
.
We can avoid licence and legalism
People are always saying “If you offer salvation freely it’s too dangerous, because people will just take salvation and then go off and sin all the time!” I want to say, Wait, which salvation are you talking about?
So often people think of salvation a little bit like those old films set in the middle ages. Imagine some Lord snootily throwing his bag of silver to a servant girl as payment for a job. The servant grabs the money and runs off out of the palace to enjoy life with the silver – and without the Lord.
Now if that’s what salvation is, then of course its free offer will mean licence. They'll take the heavenly blessings and run away from Jesus to enjoy themselves.
But what's the response? Well the legalist feels they must rein in their gospel offers. They refuse to offer a "blank cheque" willy nilly. No, no, they only offer salvation to those who really, really are committed to turning their lives around and submitting everything to God. And probably they should mean it too. Like, really mean it.
You can understand this approach. It doesn't sound very much like Jesus' whole approach to gospelling, but you can understand it. If you think that the gospel offer is stuff, then putting a price on it seems the natural thing to do. But salvation is not a stuff!
Salvation is far more like the Lord who loves his miserable servant and marries her. He gives her himself. And now they are one forever. That is a very free salvation isn’t it? It’s a much more gracious salvation than the licentious have dreamt of! Immeasurably more is offered in this salvation. And it’s offered completely freely. The girl isn’t expected to pay a penny for the privilege. But she’s not given some blessings which she can go and enjoy elsewhere. She is given the Lord himself.
Does such an offer make the hearer more likely to sin? Rubbish. It’s the only power to save someone from sin. Give them Jesus. And offer Him freely, because that’s the only kind of salvation He offers.
When we do, we'll avoid both legalism and licence. Because the offer is not a package but a person. Therefore the response is, unmistakably, the receiving of a Lord and Saviour.
.
"Repentance and faith" are considered properly
As believers in "faith alone", do we have a place for "repentance"?
Is it some kind of pre-requisite for faith? Or is it an obedience that we add to faith?? Do we call non-Christians to jump two hurdles, one called "repentance" and another called "faith"? That would be an odd position to adopt if we're "faith alone" people.
We've already said that "repentance and faith" are not our payment for gospel stuff. Well then, what is "repentance and faith."
Well think of union with Christ. He offers Himself to us like a Bridegroom to a bride. He says "Be one with me." If anyone receives Him, what have they done? They've repented and believed. Because they've received the LORD Jesus Christ as their Head in bonds of self-abandoning love. There simply could not be a more all-embracing "repentance".
If the preacher makes clear that salvation is belonging to Jesus (and He to us), then many errors are avoided. Our hearers won't be tempted to offer their repentance to Jesus as payment for salvation. Nor should they despair that "they don't have it in them to repent." They don't have it in them to repent. New life does not lie in their resolve. It's in Jesus. And He's offered to them, even in all their helplessness. Yet clearly, to receive Jesus is to receive a new life.
We do not offer repentance to God as a condition of our salvation. We are summoned to repentance in the gospel because this is the very nature of life "in Christ".
.
We have a gospel that applies to Christians as well as non-Christians
Think of the “Get out of hell free” gospel. Imagine that you've been evangelised by this and coughed up the requisite response (walking down an aisle and resolving to believe in substitutionary atonement, or whatever). That gospel is not particularly helpful to me day to day, is it? At one point, it helped me to get off the judgement hook, but now, I’m basically left to myself until heaven. Which means "the gospel" and day-to-day living have no real relationship.
I need the gospel to get saved, but I need wisdom and hard work to get by, day to day.
Maybe a little "gospel-law" preacher will come and remind me not to take the mick and to try and be godly. But their exhortations don't really arise from the gospel, do they?
Once I've trusted such a gospel, it has served its purpose. It's not for me any more. It's for unbelievers.
But if "union with Christ" is in view, that's like saying "the wedding ceremony" was everything, I don't need marriage day-to-day. Bonkers.
The real gospel is Christ graciously given to me in the nitty gritty of my life, for better and for worse. Which means it bears on everything.
Which is good because the world rarely asks the question “What must I do to be saved?” But our friends and family are constantly asking “How do I raise my kids? How do I handle my anger? What do I do about these panic attacks? How could I possibly forgive that person? Why is marriage so difficult? What’s the way forward in this family breakdown? How do I handle this bullying boss? How can I cope when my dreams are shattered? Why does food enslave me? How can I be free of these addiction? What’s wrong with me?”
The world is asking all of these questions all of the time. These are the problems of a world that’s condemned already (see previous post). This is part of the hell on earth that Jesus spoke about. But Jesus also has a salvation for here and now. The gospel also brings light and freedom into these pastoral situations.
Which means we can gospel people through pastoral problems and we can bring pastoral healing through the gospel. The more we grasp this, the more effective we’ll be in gospelling. Which brings us finally to...
.
Ordinary Christians might just realise that they too can evangelise.
If the gospel is a package deal, then it needs sales people. And, to be honest, the package that most evangelistic presentations offer is so unappealing it really would take a special class of Christian communicator to make it attractive. You’ve got to have a very good patter in order to sell a package of heavenly blessings. (Especially if that package is basically: Bow to the Big Guy or burn forever).
But what if, what if, what if.... we offer a Person. Jesus.
This is what’s helped me most in my own evangelism: realising I’m not selling some gospel benefits, I’m offering a Person. Jesus sells Himself. I don’t need a hundred illustrations and some cracking mother-in-law gags and the gift of the gab. I just have to talk about Jesus and let His magnetism do the job.
We’re offering a Person, not a mechanism of salvation. We’re saying – “This is Jesus, let me paint Him in biblical colours for you, let me tell you that I love Him and why, let me tell you what He has done for me, let me tell you my favourite things about Him. This is Jesus – do you want Him? He’s yours, have Him. Receive Him, He’s offered Himself to you, take Him now.’ That’s evangelism. In a deep sense, that all of what evangelism is. Just. Talk. About. Jesus.
And if the words don't come then guess what, it's not because "you're not a professional evangelist". Words often fail me too. You know why? Cos I'm weak. Cos nothing good lives in my flesh. Cos I'm a sinner. And if I haven't been receiving from Jesus, the Fountain of Living Waters, then of course the words will dry up. Because I'm dry.
So then, return to the Source. Get filled. Receive again from Jesus, our Heavenly Husband, who loves us in spite of ourselves. And then the words will come. Feebly and falteringly. But genuinely. Because from the overflow of the heart the mouth will speak. (Matthew 12:34).
And as everyday people lift Him up in everyday circumstances, He will draw all people to Himself. But it begins by realising this: the gospel's not a package, He's a Person.
.
Those are some reasons why "union with Christ" is a vital component of our gospel explanations...
So there you have it. Three blind-spots in modern evangelism: the trinity, original sin and union with Christ. If only we had a gospel explanation that gave them proper attention... perhaps one that was easy to memorise and share with friends... And maybe there could be a snazzy video presentation. And a website with further explanations. Maybe some tracts. Heck, why not a book? A cheap and cheery paperback - a give-away for friends. One that laid it all out simply... that'd be nice.
i f o n l y . . . i f o n l y . . .
#StayTuned
Last time we thought about the dangers of overlooking Trinity in our evangelism. Here we'll examine three consequences of neglecting original sin in our gospel presentations...
.
You will place your hearers at the centre
So much of evangelism assumes that the non-Christian is like Hercules at the cross-roads (painting above). There is Virtue pointing us away (from herself!) in one direction and Vice tempting us in the other - and everything is to play for. Hercules needs to choose virtue and eternity hangs in the balance.
The gospel is very different. According to the Bible, humanity is lost. And it has been lost, dead, perishing, cursed and guilty since Adam. We are born into a broken humanity that has no life in it and no ability to save itself.
Perhaps we don't like preaching this because we assume that, once we've acknowledged man's helplessness, the preacher will have nothing left to say. Garbage! It gives our hearers nothing to do, but it gives preachers everything to say! Because now we can spotlight the true Hero - Jesus.
The unbeliever is not at the centre while we entice their (supposedly free) wills, minds and hearts. Jesus is at the centre, stepping into a lost situation and turning it around - all by Himself. Gospel events can take their place at the centre - and not simply as motivational fuel for the business end of proceedings: Decision-Time!
I wonder whether one of the reasons we dislike preaching original sin is because we typically frame our evangelism around the Philippian Jailer's question in Acts 16. He asked “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” But if we begin our evangelism by trying to answer this question, all the emphasis falls on the hearer. Suddenly evangelism is about what the hearer must do, not “what Jesus has done”. We'll only mention His work to the degree that such teaching informs their response. All emphasis falls on the response.
We don't like original sin because it takes man off the stage and forces us to sit in the audience. But the good news is that someone far more captivating can now take centre-stage.
.
You will radically diminish the nature of sin and judgement
According to Jesus and Paul, judgement is not a future possibility for mankind. It's a present reality (John 3:18,36; Romans 1:18ff). In fact, condemnation is in the past tense. It’s already happened.
Just as eternal life is not merely a future blessing but is a present state (cf. all of John!), so also wrath is not merely a future reality, but a current condition. Judgement day is a confirmation of what’s already true in life. Throughout life we have wanted the darkness instead of the light and final judgement involves God saying “Have it your way - Go.”
The world is perishing now. Hell is on the non-Christian now. And, to a degree, they know it. To a degree, we all know it - children of Adam that we are. We’ve all felt hell. We all know something of the darkness. We know about disconnection. We know about weeping and wailing and the angry gnashing of teeth. We’ve all felt hell, here and now. Hell in miniature. Hell in our hearts. Hell in our circumstances.
That continuity is important when we preach judgement. You see, if our problem is merely "committed sin", then hell readily appears as a rash over-reaction on God's part. A non-Christian might feel that their broken relationships, abortion, gossip, etc, deserves some kind of judgement. But an eternal wrath for temporal sins? If behaviour X has warranted punishment Y, then why is hell forever? Asking questions like that (over and over) was the stock in trade of "Love Wins" - but it's founded on the assumption that behaviour (not being) is central.
Yet, if wrath is a state of disconnection from God, then getting confirmed in that state - while being a fearful thought - is not absurd. It's our being now that matters. And it's our being in eternity that matters. Behaviour flows from being - it doesn't lead to being.
.
You will (inadvertently) preach behaviour, not being
Martin Lloyd-Jones once said of Romans 5: Think of yourself in Adam, though you had done nothing, you were condemned. Think of yourself in Christ, though you had done nothing, you were saved.
You know what that means? It means it’s not about your behaviour, it’s about your being.
Have you ever come across evangelistic presentations that try to convict you of sin by focusing on your behaviour. A particularly blunt attempt goes something like this:
“Have you ever stolen paperclips from work? Yes? Then you've broken the law at one point. And if you've broken the law at one point you've broken the law at every point. Should law-breakers go to heaven or hell?
Hell! But... Jesus paid on the cross and made a way so that you can escape the flames for stealing paperclips...”
Do you hear how petty the evangelist has made God out to be? How irrational His judgement? How miniscule is Christ's cross? (And how Christ merely clears the way for you to make the epic journey to heaven?)
Now perhaps your way of convicting people goes a little deeper. You manage to uncover some more serious sins than tiny thefts, white lies and lustful fantasies. But nonetheless, if your approach aims at sins committed you will pervert the gospel.
Our condemnation goes much deeper than behaviour. It's about our being. We don’t have life in ourselves. It’s not about convicting people of this crime or that. It’s saying “You have no life in yourself (your bad behaviour is the fruit of that disconnection), but now get connected to the only life-source.”
I will often confess to bad behaviours in my preaching but only so as to say "You know what's scary? That sin comes from somewhere deep in me. Somewhere bigger than me. There's a power that's over me and in me and it comes out in this way and that. But I can't just choose to do better. It's not merely what I do, there's something desperately wrong with who I am."
And as the Spirit works on people they realise they have no life in themselves. They realize that they don’t know God. They're cut off, estranged, alienated, disconnected. It's not so much that their sins separate them, it's that their separation leads to sin.
If our sinful acts were the problem then surely righteous acts would be the solution. But no, our problem was not caused by us, and neither will our solution be. We didn't have the power to make ourselves sinners, and we don't have the power to make ourselves saved. Our problem was out of our hands and so is our solution. Adam has made us perish, only Christ can rescue.
.
In all this we see that the way we pose the problem powerfully shapes the solution we offer. If we shy away from original sin and focus instead on committed sin - we shift the focus from Christ to us, from being to behaviour and we misconstrue our plight before God.
.
Much more could be said (perhaps you can add your own thoughts in comments). But I think these reasons alone mean we should put original sin back into our gospel explanations...
If only we had such a gospel explanation... perhaps one that was easy to memorise and share with friends...
i f o n l y . . . i f o n l y . . .
#StayTuned
.
If you don't make clear the Trinity in your gospel presentations, here are three consequences...
They won't understand Jesus
Jesus simply is the Christ, the Son of God. That's how all the Gospels identify Him. By definition He is anointed with the Spirit and He is Son of the Father. Jesus is intimately related to the Father and Spirit and cannot be understood without that Trinitarian context.
If God is introduced in single-Person terms, Jesus will appear on the scene - almost by definition - simply as Prophet. Once God has been defined without Jesus, His entrance into the explanation can only ever suggest that He's a lesser being.
If He comes late to the presentation, he is coming to solve a problem that is not really his. Athanasius made much of the Word who made us in the beginning, remaking us in salvation. But modern presentations have a maker on the one hand and a different saviour. This feeds into...
.
They won't understand the cross
Who is the One on the cross? Is Jesus a third party punished by God? Is God hell-bent on judgement and destruction but this other force with this other will placates Him - almost in spite of Himself? That's precisely how it looks when we begin our presentations unitarianly.
People need to know that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). This is not to deny penal substitution. On the contrary, it's to uphold penal substitution (2 Cor 5:21). As John Stott says in his famous chapter "The Self-Substitution of God", we mustn't make Christ "a third party thrust in between God and us."
At the root of every caricature of the cross there lies a distorted Christology... In particular, it is essential to affirm that the love, the holiness and the will of the Father are identical to the love, the holiness and the will of the Son. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. (The Cross of Christ)
The One on the cross is the One who made us. And He is perfectly expressing the love of His Father (John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10).
So many gospel presentations look like (or even explicitly say that) Christ buys off a reluctant and angry Judge, rather than Christ demonstrating the very love of God in substituting Himself for sinners.
.
You'll define God as Creator and Judge
What's wrong with that? you might ask. Well God is Creator and Judge, but the creeds speak first of "Father." Before there was anything made, before there was anyone to judge, there was a Father. And He was pouring life and love into His Son by the Spirit.
Foundationally God is life-giving. Yet, functionally unitarian presentations make God out to be, foundationally, Creator and Judge. And His status as Maker is instantly framed in terms of His demands on us. There's a logic that says "God made us, therefore we owe Him." Do you hear what happened there? Creation ought to first make us consider the life-giving, out-going, gracious character of God. But if its spun unitarianly we have a self-focused God who makes in order to get. And what he wants is regularly unpacked in terms of moral effort.
In other words, it begins to sound very much like Islam. God, by definition, lords it over us - that is what it means to be this kind of God. And what does it mean to relate to this kind of God? It can only mean one thing: submission. So the gospel can only be unpacked as "bowing the knee to our Creator and Judge" and salvation is essentially avoiding being crushed by the higher power. In such presentations they might eventually speak of knowing God as Father or of "having a relationship with God", but the whole set-up leaves the listener extremely dubious.
There's bags more I could say, but I'll leave it there. You can add more in the comments if you like. But even if these were the only reasons to do so, they really should move us to present a trinitarian gospel...
Now if only someone would write such a thing...
i f o n l y . . . i f o n l y . . .
#StayTuned
Ok, so Christians and evangelism. Is everyone supposed to look like this guy?
Or do we send those few nut-jobs out on the street so that we can get on with the the kumbaya's, the marshmallows, and "building the kingdom" (insert meaning here).
Well let's see if Trinitarian theology can help. Worth a shot eh?
The Ultimate community-on-mission is God who is a multi-Personal union moving outwards. Two things are important here. First, mission is not just one of the things God does. His ek-centric (outgoing) life is His very way of being. Second, the Three do not take on identical roles but Each depends on the Others in order to corporately perform the work.
So now, we are swept up into mission as the Spirit unites us to the One Sent from the Father. "As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." (John 20:21) We will also share these two characteristics.
First, mission is not just one of the things the church does. We are sent ones commissioned by the Sent One. We are created by mission and for mission.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light. (1 Pet 2:9)
It's not that church, from time to time, decides to act in a missionary way. It is missionary, that is its nature. So when we became Christians we joined an evangelistic organisation. If we're in the body we need to know that the body is heading somewhere. It's always going to the nations to disciple them. You cannot 'buy into' Christ without 'buying into' evangelism. The Christian's life and being is now oriented towards this mission. There is not 'love' or 'unity' as well as 'mission.' But rather there is love and unity in mission.
You can put this truth two ways - and they both need emphasis: The church is missionary when it's being itself. And the church is being itself when it's being missionary. There are acts to be embarked upon, that's true. But first we need to understand our being. Being comes first.
But as we contemplate our missionary being we need to consider the importance of roles.
Later in Peter's letter he speaks about two broad categories of gifting - speakers and servers (1 Pet 4:10ff). And he implores them to get on with their particular giftings.
And that's great. It's so unfortunate when people think of 'evangelism' simply in terms of the guy in the picture! And it's tragic when giftings aren't recognized and encouraged. We want diversity and we certainly don't want to cram people into the same moulds. So Peter speaks of different giftings - 'speakers' and 'servers'. But let's not imagine that he has thereby set forth completely different spheres of operation! That wouldn't be a very good model of the Trinity.
No, think of the diakonos kind of serving spoken of here (which most basically means table-serving, ie hospitality gifts). And think of combining this with the speaking gifts? What if the differently gifted church members collaborated in the missionary task - good food and hospitality and those good with words are liberally sprinkled around the place - what a powerful gospel work!
At such evangelistic dinner parties it is very true that some are performing quite different functions to others. But they are all being thoroughly missionary. It's a unified diversity and it's going somewhere - to the nations!
If we get our trinitarian styled mission communities wrong...
The Tritheist church will have the speakers heading off by themselves and the servers serving a quite different agenda. Some churches will be missionary, others not. Some parachurch organisations will do evangelism for the church, some will do social outreach for the church, etc, etc, but there'll be no unity on mission.
The Arian church will laud the noble few who do the real missionary work (i.e. street preaching etc...) Everyone will feel inferior to the gifted few. (But perhaps also grateful that it's not them).
The Modalist church will forget giftings altogether and fit everyone into the same mould. Mostly, servers will feel inferior to speakers and bring them up to speed will involve making everyone stand on a soap-box.
How do you get a healthily Athanasian church? I dunno. Keep teaching 1 Peter? But what will happen when we speak and believe the gospel is that the properly trinitarian church will allow particular giftings to flourish in the service of our one missionary being.
This is an edited re-post from two years ago. It was prompted by this and this. And I wrote some more about this back here.
.
.
Beginnings
Charles Darwin published the Origin of the Species in 1859. Up until then, said Richard Dawkins, atheism was "logically tenable" but from Darwin onwards you could be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (The Blind Watchmaker). Notice that philosophy might give you tenable arguments, but biology is the place for true intellectual fulfillment... according to this biologist anyway...
With the discovery of natural selection, biologists had a naturalistic explanation for the existence of brilliantly adapted (and therefore apparently designed) species, populating an intricate and flourishing bio-sphere.
Well, for the sake of argument, let's say that the whole thing is explained according to this process (I mean it's a bit like the old saying "If all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", but let's go with the argument). Let's imagine it explains the whole variation and adaptation of life on the planet. What we have here is a mechanism explaining the origin of species.
Notice first that mechanism says nothing about agency - a point John Lennox makes well in places like here.
But notice, second, that we're talking merely of the origin of species. There are other origins questions to ask. Like - the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life (natural selection assumes the existence of life) and the origin of consciousness. These are not at all suited to explanations via natural selection and yet they pose even more fundamental questions for us. So if an atheist claims to have origins questions sewn up, tell them they have, at best, a mechanism to explain one of the least interesting of the origins questions.
Before Beginnings
It's not just beginnings that are fascinating. What about before the beginnings? What are we assuming pre-existed these origins questions?
As we've just noted, natural selection assumes the pre-existence of 'life.' But when it comes to the even bigger origins questions, what about the pre-existence of things like laws of physics, logic and mathematics. Every attempted naturalistic explanation for 'beginnings' assumes plenty about 'before beginnings.' Take, for example, Hawking's book from 2 years ago which said:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"
Besides the logical incoherence of the universe self-creating, we have here pre-existing 'laws'. We have an ordered, self-consistent reality calling the tune for all the cosmos. Gravity is chief among the gods as he bosses around lesser deities like time, matter and energy, which in turn war to create the cosmos as we know it.
Now Christians also have beliefs about before the beginning. We believe in the pre-existence of Persons, of love, of minds, of purpose. And these Persons have brought forth laws, time, matter and energy. It was not matter that made minds, but minds that made matter.
When you consider that every minute of our waking life we're confronted in technicolour by the reality of persons, love, minds and purpose. In fact, everything we hold dear consists of persons, love, minds and purpose. What should we believe about ultimate reality - about before beginnings? Gravity reigning as supreme being? Or love?
We shouldn't fear questions of beginnings. And we should positively pursue questions about before beginnings.
Notes of talk...
Born in a shed... ruling the world… How do you account for Jesus?
In the beginning… Christ was there. John 1:1-3
God and His Son Christ decided to set a man – ADAM – as king over the world.
But the Eternal King was promised to be born – Genesis 3:15
Offspring – Abraham… David
David – Made King, Crushes Oppressor
Solomon – Psalm 72
This King sounds a bit like Solomon – v8, 10
This King sounds much bigger than Solomon – v11, 5, 4, 6, 17
JUST (v1-3) and GENTLE (v4, 12-14)
Romans 10:9 - Who do you say Jesus is?
.
Audio for a 6 minute talk given at a BBQ today
.
For the next two weeks billions of people will roar advice to the world’s greatest athletes.
Helpful tips like, “Run faster, swim harder, he’s gaining on you, and Not like that!!”
Why do we do it? Because we are involved – they are our Champions, they are competing for us.
For me the biggest moment of connection was the 2000 Games, 4 x 100m swimming relay.
The American, Gary Hall Jr said the USA would “smash Australia like guitars.” But our champions did it for us. And after smashing the world record, they played air guitars to the Americans! The roof nearly came off!
We feel an immense connection to our champions - they do it for us and we celebrate.
That’s how Christians feel about Jesus. John 1:14
We don’t do life right. We're like the couch potato, full of bluster but no follow-through.
But lives the life we should live. As our Champion. Then dies death we should die
Cross = Jesus representing us. Taking on our much and enduring what it deserves
He rose up to defeat our biggest enemy – Death. And He did it as Champion.
Enjoy the Olympics. Enjoy the victories of others. Don’t miss the ultimate Champion. You don’t want to represent yourself before God. Allow Jesus and share in His victory.