Jesus, a cross and some good news
Laurie managed to get me going the other day when she posted about whether or not people are watering down the good news in an attempt to be relevant. I have absolutely no doubt that she’s right. Some people will always water down the gospel. But others aren’t, and what I thought in my immediate reaction is that there is a real range of views on what we actually believe. I think it was Chuck Colson who said at Q that Christians don’t know what they believe. So if we don’t know what we believe, then how can we communicate that, through action or word?
Can I just say, in case you get the wrong impression, that I deeply respect, and regularly learn from, Laurie. She’s a person of great faith and has a great knowledge and supports Hearts! A good friend to have.
So what is it that we believe? What is the gospel? I’ll invite you, if you’re a blogger, to articulate the gospel in a post on your blog, leave a message here and I will link to the post. All I ask is that you use a non-excessive number of words! Tell us what the gospel is, in all its fullness. I believe a lot of the language used today is not an attempt to water down the gospel, but actually a genuine desire to rediscover the gospel that has been reduced and watered down from the amazing good news that it is. To rediscover creation and restoration, rather than just personal brokenness and personal redemption.
How would I articulate it?
We were created in the image of God. God was in the beginning and before time. God exists outside of time. Man and woman were created by God and lived in a garden, all was perfect. Man and woman were both made in the image of God interestingly. There was relationship, and creation (naming) and cultivation (caring for the garden) and harmony and peace. There was God. God loves the earth, we should share the passion. God made man in his image, so we should recognise that in all people, in being open and loving and welcoming. We have a call to be creators, to be cultivators of good, and to be in relationship with God. And that is a universal call to all. And there is a dream and a promise of a renewed Garden one day. Then man rebelled.
Interestingly from the story in Genesis 3, man got the message from God, but woman got it from man. It seems as if God was angry at man for disobeying Him but almost less angry at woman for disobeying man. Anyway, the consequence of that action, and to be honest many actions since, is a messed up world, a world of rebellion, a world of broken relationship, of death, of sickness, of systemic sin, a world of empires that abuse, of countries that terrorise in order to defeat terrorism, an economic system of steal from the poor and shut them out of the system of the rich, a world of disagreement and division, a world of uncertainty and fear, a world where even the most amazing perfect things (usually found in mankind or nature in my experience) are slightly flawed, a world of decay and a world of suffering and earthquakes and tsuamnis and cyclones. We’ve taken this world down one road - to brokenness personally and in organisations and systems. We’ve said to God we don’t need you. And the empire rules the universe. The empire of excessive consumerism, the empire of violence and selfish power and personal possessions, the empire of haves and have nots and injustice.
And Jesus. A different way. A challenge to the empires. He actually lived. As a king. But incarnational, not from a distance in a palace or a Kremlin or a White House. He lived the WAY by being TRUTH and showed LIFE. He focused on helping the marginalised because that is part of the way - the way of love, the way of God’s heart. He spoke truth against the empire and called for blind to see. He valued unity above much else, and commended peacemakers and the meek and the humble. He didn’t choose the path of brokenness, but the path of repair. He lived a pure life by being simply devoted to God and to people. And then he died. Without a simple blemish on his character, a true embodiment of righteousness (remember that what God considers to be righteous is caring for widows and orphans and keeping from the pollution of the brokeness). He embodied characteristics such as justice, mercy, grace and yet He ended up dead. Through the cross, the brokenness of the world became repaired. All of it - past, present, future. And that death allowed His Father, a part of the Trinity, to look at mankind through that death and see perfection, to see the life of Jesus. Punished by the Father for the brokenness of the world, it’s encouraging that Jesus then rose, having defeated death, showing a new body and a new life. By sending His Spirit at Pentecost, the power of Him came too. And the church exploded, in sharing, in praying, in loving and telling.
And so we get to now. And also to now but not now. Because one day there will be a new Garden. And it will be a city. But a city of relationship. A city of no tears. A city where that tree of life will be again. And it will be a new heaven and a new earth. And heaven will be on earth, and Jesus will walk with the people. This is all pre-determined. It has been achieved by the cross, but decided since before time begam. It will be completed in future. God is going to restore ALL things and there will be no brokenness. Our role is to live Jesus (to be his hands and eyes and feet and mouth) in the now by working for this restoration, by living Jesus to all people, by restoring personally and systemically and globally. We’re transformed that we might be transformation for others, by bringing Jesus to their neighbourhood and showing the WAY. People have a choice and we respect that, a choice to say no to God, and yes to a continuation of a current way of life. A choice to way I don’t want more than this, or I just don’t believe there is more than this. And people can choose life. To choose Jesus is to choose a life of restoration,a life of community, a life for others, a life of death for others, a life of restoring. To be broken and poured out for others, to be their communion wine. Because Jesus was for us.
So what is the gospel? There are many words I’ve learned to explain the good news. But sometimes we just need to state it in plain language. The bible is the source of our understanding, the place of truth. I’m not interested in watering down the gospel, the good news. I’m interested in discovering what it says in all its fullness. And I think that rocks our faith, and challenges us because we have to move from a worldview of personal salvation being central, and a personal relationship with Jesus being the purpose of our life. We were born to live for others.
I look forward to you articulating the gospel, and learning from you.
And ps, I believe all I have said above can be sourced from the bible, and so is not post modern mumbo jumbo if you have a thing against that. Just saving you the burden of commenting or thinking that. Planks in eyes and all that.
Filed under: bible | Tagged: bible, Body, Broken, Creation, Culture, Gospel, Jesus, Restore, Transform, Unity
Your second to last paragraph is powerful, Duncan. I’ve read it several times over, and am choosing to dwell on it for the next day or two. Thanks.
Restoration…what a great word. What an amazing concept.
duncanmcf
Did you articulate the Gospel in this post or were you waiting for other to do it their reply? I never did hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ anywhere in your post. Did I miss something?
Russ, thanks for the comment. I think if you are saying that the gospel wasn’t there, then I think I’d disagree. I’m guessing you’d say (forgive me if I’m wrong) God created, man sinned and we all fall into that, Jesus died and rose again and through that we are forgiven if we ask for personal forgiveness and we repent and turn from our sin, and if so we will go to heaven, and if not we will go to hell. Fair? If so, do I disagree with any of that? No, although I’m a bit confused on hell right now but that would be my position (people not in relationship with Jesus end up eternally separated from God). But I think that the gospel is that AND more, hence the post above.
If you believe that you will restore the world though social activism and usher in the kingdom of God, I disagree.
…when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth? [Luke 18:8]
And so we start the debate…
The gospel is more than John 3:16 but never less.
We do need to saved from the punishment we rightfully deserve.
God loves the world and God must judge according to his perfect standard.
And so God justifies us, and himself, by dying on the cross.
And so by trusting in the sacrifice of Christ we are rescued from an eternal death/separation(from God)/hell…
But though this is amazing, awesome, and almost unbelievable, it isn’t the full story. The question is “saved for what?”
Russ: Why not post your understanding of the gospel? Then we can read it and comment.
I think many would take issue with post based on the fact you referred to the sin “out there” but not “in here”. You do talk about personal restoration but didn’t really talk about sin being part of our very nature. I’m guessing this was a desire to communicate the scope of the gospel and not limit it to the sin in our hearts.
… just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned — for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgement followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Imagine writing a post about the gospel without using the following words:
Salvation, Justification, Penal, Propitiation, Atonement, Substitution…
Shame on you!
Lincoln, thanks and it was entirely intentional.
I think the personal sin I tried to reflect in the brokenness comments and maybe that doesn’t come across strongly enough, in the “we’re saying to God we don’t need you”. But if you want it more clearly, every single person is not perfect and the consequence of that is death and eternal separation from God.
Russ, I don’t believe that we are saved through good works or social justice. But I wonder if you would have encouraged the priest to cross the road from the injured man in the story of the good samaritan because to help would have been social justice. And maybe the moral of the story should have then been that the priest was right? I believe we need to show the gospel rather than just tell it, and that these actions are showing the love of God for people. I believe that part of God’s restoration is being worked out through his people now. I also believe that the restoration was won at the cross, not by us. So that’s why it is pre-determined.
As Lincoln says, why not write what th gospel is?
Lincoln, on your point on words, it can be easy to use the right words, and to be communicating concepts well understood, but if we fail to actually communicate to people what it means, have we missed the point?
I was once asked to sum up the Gospel in a single sentence. The challenge is that the Gospel is the culmination of a story that cannot be reduced too much without leaving out important details. With that in mind, this is what I came up with:
“The Gospel is the glory of the Triune God made manifest in His work to reconcile every person to union with Himself, communion with others, to fullness of life, and to harmony with Creation, in the context of community for the good of all.”
If I were to unpack this in detail, I would explore the work of God in each Person of the Trinity. For example, I unequivocally believe that Jesus made the atoning sacrifice for sin and is the only way to salvation, which many assumed I was leaving out for not mentioning Jesus explicitly in the sentence.
Further, I do believe that there is a personal dynamic at play here. My individual sins need forgiving which can happen only through Christ. I do have a personal relationship with God. However, our individualism has taken this to an almost blasphemous degree. Christ died out of love and for the restoration of all (though all will not accept His gift). We are called as individuals, but drawn together into His Body, so that “I” might decrease and He might increase.
Lots to unpack here. Great question!
Peace,
Jamie
Hey Jamie!
That’s a good sentence.
Oh my goodness, what have I started?!?!
Ok, I take it back. I didn’t start anything, God challenged me, I blogged about it (as I tend to do) and now Duncan has challenged us to sum up the gospel…
What a challenge!!
Russ, I’m with Lincoln & Duncan - please would you share with us your take? It’d be cool to hear it!!
Jamie, you’ve taught me a new word…TRIUNE - need to remember that for Scrabble!!
I’m a woman who believes in simplicity - so a very short gospel for me is.
God created us, we messed up his creation, we kept messing up so he sent his son to earth so that we could live life to the full once again and he’s entrusted us with a task to begin a restoration process to make earth like heaven until the day he comes back to finish the job.
Feel free to rip apart and add detail as you wish!!
I am afraid that my Gospel would use the same worn out phrases that you all are so familiar with. It would include those (despised?) words and phrases like “blood” and “sin” and “the cross” and “death” and “eternal life”. It might even read word for word like John 3:16.
The glory of this simple Gospel is how the entrance of this simple message into the heart of the unbeliever transforms that individual into a new creation, “old things have passed away, behold all things are new.”
The problem with the social gospel, IMO, is that it looks at the church and determines what the church should be doing. Instead of instructing the believer to be led of the Spirit, the social gospel looks at the problems in the word and attempts to usurp the authority of Holy Spirit in the life of each individual believer. Basically it says, “look at the mess in this world. Look at all of the problems in this world. We need to fix all of these problems that mankind is in.”
Wouldn’t God be a better judge of what the problems are and how to fix them then we are? And this is exactly what the simple Gospel is about. It is about God transforming a life – one at a time - and then directing that life Himself – as He sees fit – by the leading and the power of the Holy Spirit.
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.
…not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ Says the LORD of hosts.
But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity* that is in Christ.
Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.
God is leading His Church – individual by individual – as He sees fit. The gates of hell will not prevail against His church.
Russ, thanks for the response. Can you expand what you mean by social gospel? I absolutely 100% believe that people are saved through a personal relationship with Jesus through repentance and faith in Him (as you say, John 3:16) and believe in His saving death on the cross. In no way was I saying that we can earn our way to heaven, or that social justice will convert the world to perfection. I’m not so sure we’re so far apart, I think that the issue here is language.
I’m not so sure it’s helpful to assume that just because I didn’t say blood, cross or sin that the words are despised. I equally didn’t say thee or thou. Or speak in Hebrew or Aramaic for that matter. I think it would be helpful to communicate rather than jump to assumptions as to what the other is believing.
I think where we might disagree is around, as Lincoln said, what we are saved for. I believe that the bible teaches us that Jesus acted in love as well as spoke it, and thus we should do likewise as His church and His people. I believe that by doing that we are demonstrating the values and principles in the gospel as you defined it. Not that this saves people but that it’s actually a command and a response to God’s love for us.
Russ, thanks for the time you’ve taken to comment. Please take time to read what we are saying, and hopefully you’ll notice we’re not saying some of the things you think we’re saying.
Thanks, Duncan
Duncan,
I agree that we are saved TO something, not just FROM something. But I also am wary when the Gospel is couched in language that is not clear. I am not accusing you of that – except perhaps in this post. I did not feel that the Gospel according to Duncan was vividly clear – and I believe that it should be. We owe it to a lost world that is condemned to an eternity in hell, to speak (clearly) the truth in love.
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
I believe that we are saved TO a relationship with Jesus Christ. This is foremost for all believers. We are not to be socially minded, we are to be Christ minded. When we are receiving our directions from the head of the church, we will be as socially minded as our commander in chief leads us to be.
Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
…that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head–Christ– from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
A body is not a body unless every member, every joint – every part, receives its instructions from the head of that same body. The head of the body of Christ - is Christ.
The church is most effective when each member individually is abiding in Christ – learning of Him – walking in the truth and simplicity of the gospel.
Yes, perhaps we are very close to saying the same things. I am not trying to be contentious, just clear.
Russ, you are cetainly clear, here and around the web.
I’m not sure where you live, I think Missouri, but I guess it’s hard for you to comment on the culture in which I live and thus the language I choose to communicate in. You see language is important. Using the phrase “the gospel according to Duncan” may be sarcasm where you come from, and deeply offensive to me as a Scot. Or it may not. But we need to be careful in how we talk to one another, and to make sure that we remember that love part of the truth in love.
I’ll continue to use slightly different or massively different language from you I suspect. I speak to a different group of people and to a different conversational dynamic. I think I’m communicating truth, maybe you think I’m not.
I do take issue with your assertion that the gospel is not social. You’re running into the traditional assumption that people have two separate beings - physical and spiritual. Also, Jesus clearly cared for people’s physical needs. James tells us that righteousness is keeping oneself from being polluted by the world AND caring for widows and orphans. Doing good, freeing prisoners, giving sight to the blind, collecting for the poor, sharing their possessions, Isiaih 61, psalm 72 etc etc - God hates injustice, oppression, poverty - we can’t honestly hold to an assertion that God has no care for the poor? And if so, isn’t it His church that is his way of working out in this world His purposes? And isn’t that us?
Russ, I love Jesus dearly, I love the bible and I know my brokenness and shame more than many. I also know salvation in Him. But I deeply see that He has a heart for the people of this world, yes for eternity but also for right now. And I don’t think that’s a social gospel. I think that is THE gospel. I think to argue otherwise is actually a reductionist version of the gospel, and has actually led, as Jamie says, to a massive rise in individualism in the church.
Perhaps you could comment on what Christians should be doing in Burma right now? And China, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Israel and maybe even in Samaria?
Hi Russ,
Sorry to cut in on the conversation, and hope you don’t mind me putting in my tuppence worth (or for the N.Americans out there, my two cents worth)…
I agree with all you say about Christ being the head, and God being the person who has the best plan to sort out this messy world we live in.
But I also believe that we’ve come from a generation that’s come after the generation where the ‘hell, fire and brimstone’ message has done a lot of damage, and to try and rectify that we’ve now raised up a generation where we go to far the other way.
I think that God wrote out a lot of pretty good and highly challenging instructions for how best to live in this world, so that we could start fixing it. Not that WE can fix it…but He’s given us some instructions so that we can begin the work He’s both started, shown us how to do it (through Jesus coming to earth to live as a human, showing us how to do it, then dying for us etc), and we’re to carry it on…
The new testament is FULL of commands and guidance on how people will come to faith seeing God’s love in how we love one another. And God’s Spirit does something to help people understand the truth we’re trying to live and speak out.
It’s a response to what Jesus showed us…Jesus coming down to earth should be like a chain reaction of sacrificial love - He showed it to us, so we show it to other people, they don’t understand it, God’s Spirit helps them to understand it, and they realise who started it, who created them, who saved them (not us, but Jesus - the beginning and the end).
Does that make sense?
duncanmcf,
Certainly, if we are walking the Spirit, God will lead us to touch many lives through our own lives. That is a tremendous blessing - to be living a life that touches that lives of others. Not only a blessing for them, but also for us.
But the gospel is not what we do, it is what God has done - and it is the message of what God has done that brings life to those whom our lives have touched.
I have a friend who is a missionary in China. He sent an update from the region hard hit by the quake. It is quite long so I will only post a few of his thoughts. Keep in mind that the Chinese Government monitors emails and so he does not use certain words in his emails (like God, Jesus, prayer, etc) so as not to draw attention to himself. He says,
“I would imagine that if you drew a circle with radius of 60km, a circle 75 miles in diameter, that you would enclose the worst hit areas of the nation. Inside that circle, town centers start at a shambles and escalate in damage to complete destruction. The mountains are full of villages where homes, the oldest made of brick and timber and the newest of concrete and brick, are either completely destroyed so badly damaged that even without the threat of aftershocks they are uninhabitable. The areas I’ve seen are at the edge of the most severe damage. I don’t know exactly what to say at this point but the thought begins this way: buildings can be rebuilt, eventually the power will come back on and water will be restored. New businesses will replace the old ones that have been lost. What about the people? Perhaps the new structures will be better than the old but people can not be replaced. Those lost are lost forever, perhaps eternally.”
So, in the midst of this devastation, what is his main concern? Here is another excerpt,
“I didn’t sleep well that night. I kept thinking about the people we had touched in the villages we had visited. One village in particular where I had a chance to talk to a young girl, I kept thinking how I would feel if I heard that she had been killed and though we brought food and water I had not taken the time to tell her and the others the good news. I decided that if certain things didn’t work out for the following day that I would ride to the village and take them the good news.”
The Gospel is the power of God for salvation. There is no situation where that message is more needed than in the most dire of situations.
We both love Jesus. We both want to live lives that bring glory to Him. If we abide in Him, we will bear fruit that glorifies Him. Abiding in Him is the only way to bring forth fruit that will last, not only in this life, but also in eternity.
Russ,
My concern with your perspective on what the Gospel is (and isn’t) is that it fails to be a very Biblical one. Don’t get me wrong. If I were to expand on my simple summation of the Gospel, you can be sure that I would use words like “sin”, “blood”, “the cross”, and the other words you mention. It is only through the death and resurrection of Christ that salvation is possible. And I also affirm that we come to Christ as individuals, being filled and led by the Holy Spirit.
However, you embrace a starkly secular individualism by saying that God works through guiding each individual to His will alone. In fact, Scripture is clear that He calls us away from this- dying to self and reborn into the Body of Christ (the Church). We must individually decrease that Christ might increase. From the Old Testament through to the New Testament, He calls us as a community, collectively seeking and obeying His will.
Further, we are called as a people to be a blessing to the nations, not simply as individuals filled with the Spirit, but individual united as a community in the Spirit through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. You use a lot of selective Scriptures to affirm the legitimate personal aspects of the Gospel while rejecting the very Biblical aspects of justice that are central to our faith since Genesis.
I believe there is one true Gospel, therefore reject a “social gospel” insofar as it stand separate from the whole message of Good News. To be a Biblically faithful Christian is to affirm the whole Gospel for the whole of Creation. Like yourself, I reject any so-called gospel that tried to direct the Body of Christ apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in keeping with the Scriptures.
I also agree that the Gospel that we preach AND live, must be clear. However, Duncan’s post was not an exercise in evangelism, but an exercise in challenge us to explore what the core of the Gospel is. In that respect, I find your presentation lacking the broader Biblical foundation.
As for the Gospel in the context of “dire situations”, I agree that forgiveness from sin and eternal salvation are essential, but our words preached lack any authority when we preach love and do not address their suffering. Jesus’ only description of the judgment of our faithfulness before God is on the merits of how we demonstrated our love and devotion to Christ through our love and treatment of the “least of these”. I could continue to list hundreds of Scriptures that demonstrate all the aspects of the Gospel you fail to include, but I trust you are familiar enough with the Word to know it as well as I.
By the nature of your words, I cannot help but see that you are deeply concerned about the integrity of the truth of the Gospel. However, as much as you seek to correct and instruct us, be open and willing to see that, perhaps, you have not fairly assessed both the presentations listed in this blog and the full nature of the Biblical Gospel of God.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie,
If you are involved in a practical ministry were you can be a blessing to others and God is using you in mighty ways for His kingdom – God bless you! God bless all of you! I am in no way saying that there God does not have pratical ministries for us to serve Him in or that such ministries are not part of the body of Christ.
My only concern is that if, while we are ministering in practical ways, we never communicate the good news – or when we do communicate the good news are not able to communicate it clearly, our practical efforts are for not – if our ministry only ministers to a person’s physical needs and does not effect them in eternity, it is a disservice to our lost brothers and sister who are still under the condemnation of sin.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. [1 Cor 15:19]
May God bless all of your efforts to bring the good news to a lost world.
Russ
Thanks Russ, though your earlier comments seem to take it further. I guess my concern is that you seem to separate “practical” concerns with spiritual ones. I do not accept the division. We must both live and preach the Gospel clearly. Sadly, the world has seen us “preach it” and not live it, thus we use Christ’s name in vain. Thanks again.
Peace,
Jamie
We have no choice but to live persuasively and preach persuasively.
Not sure I’d use persuasive in that description (see 1 Corinthians 2 for reason why I say that). But yes…we must live out and preach out!
Then you’d be wrong.
That passage is most definitely not about preaching persuasively.
Confused?! That’s what I was trying to say…
Persuasion is crucial. 1 Cor 2 is not an argument against persuasive communication at all. If you want to know more check out this lecture by Jerram Barrs here. If you take 1 Cor 2 to mean that Paul rejects reason, logic and argument you are really on your way to pietistic anti-intellectualism.
But to quote:
In 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” That verse is understood by those who take this view to mean that the preacher must renounce any attempt to seek to persuade one’s hearers and simply let the cross of Christ have its power. They say our calling is simply to proclaim rather than to persuade; that is the heart of the argument
You are getting a contrast built between declaration and persuasion. In 1 Corinthians 2:1 Paul is talking about when he came to Corinth: “When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.” The argument is that Paul is saying, “When I came to Corinth, I no longer made any effort to speak eloquently.”
Proponents of this view therefore claim that we declare and we wait for the Spirit’s power to work so that people’s faith may be simply in the power of God rather than in any careful reasoning or presentation of the Gospel made by the preacher.
In 1 Corinthians 1:20-21 he talks about the wise man, the scholar, the philosopher of this age, and then he talks about the wisdom of this world. He says, “Since in the wisdom of God the world through its [worldly] wisdom did not know him…” In verse 22 Paul says, “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom.” He continues in 1 Corinthians 1:25, “For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom.” Man’s wisdom is the wisdom of the world, the philosopher of this age. First Corinthians 2:1 says, “When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom.” Verses 6-8 say, “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. [...] None of the rulers of this age understood it…” Paul is speaking about the wisdom of this world and the rulers of this world.
What Paul is doing here is not renouncing reason; he is simply drawing attention to the fundamental problem of the Greek mind in his day. Every culture has its idols that stand between it and God. The Jews were skeptical about Jesus because they were proud of their heritage as God’s people. They thought, we are Abraham’s children, we belong to God, we have the Law, God did His signs among us. Jews seek signs. The Jews were proud of being God’s special people, and that stopped them from hearing the message of Christ. The Greeks were proud of their heritage of great wisdom. All of philosophy since Plato is basically a series of footnotes to Plato. God’s gift of wisdom to them had become a snare to them. They considered themselves the superior race. They worshipped their own brilliance of mind and their philosophical heritage rather than God, the giver of wisdom. They trusted in their own wisdom rather than in God. That is what Paul is talking about here. He is contrasting the wisdom of God with the wisdom of the Greeks, which has no room for the Gospel of Christ. They did not believe that God intervenes in history or that God could become flesh. They rejected that absolutely. That is why these people in Athens sneer and regard Paul as a babbler for talking about Jesus and His incarnation and resurrection. They think this is nonsense. They think it is foolishness because it does not fit with their wisdom. That is the point that Paul is making. In every age, in every culture, the prevailing wisdom rejects Christianity as folly. Paul is not renouncing reason. He is contrasting the wisdom of this world, the wisdom of this age, with the true wisdom that comes from God. That is the fundamental point that Paul is making here.
If you read Romans 1:18-32, you will find Paul making exactly the same point there. The people reject the knowledge of God and become foolish in their thinking. They think they are wise, but they become fools. That is exactly what he is saying in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2. He is contrasting the wisdom of the Gospel with the folly of the wisdom of this age.
Less biblically, I always remember that saying that your life might be the only bible that some people ever read.
I agree with Jamie’s point that we cannot make the distinction between being a spiritual being and a physical being - we are both, and one affects the other profoundly.
Is it possible to live a Christ-like life without reaching out to those around us? Is it possible to live a Spirit-filled life without the fruit of the Spirit overflowing into the world we inhabit?
I am not good at ‘preaching’. Thank goodness for 1 Corin 2! I don’t need to be an oratical genius or a theological prodigy. I do need to be faithful and unafraid, I guess, but that’s easier to type here than do. But on a personal level that’s where the temptation of reducing the gospel to a ’social gospel’ becomes very appealing . There is a fine distinction between practising this so-called ’social gospel’ and using the gifts, abilities and passions that God has laid on me which would tend to lead me towards social activism etc. How do I know if I’ve crossed the line?!
Vicky,
In my opinion, the best protection against this is to be Christian in community. Read the commands and callings of Christ as collective ones, not merely individual commands we obey together. It means that, while you are being what God best created you for, your sister/brother are the strength to your weakness (and vice versa).
Peace,
Jamie
Vicky,
Please re my response to the Koala. That isn’t at all what 1 Cor 2 is saying! In fact 1 Cor 2 is itself very persuasive preaching. It’s having a go at “the wisdom of this world” and not at all saying anything about preaching not being necessary.
But maybe here people are using the words “persuasive”, “preaching” and “communicating” for something other than their meaning. St Paul himself says 1 Cor 13 that “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” This does not mean that we shouldn’t live, and preach, persuasively.
Vicky
In response to your question..
What line?
Why not throw yourself fully into working as one who is designed by God to reflect the character of your Creator?
In everything we do, people are to see the likeness of God. People should look at us as we work and see God’s character of love, of justice, of faithfulness and of integrity displayed in our lives. We find fulfilment as we develop body, mind, heart and will in our daily tasks. God designed us to serve one another, working to bring blessing to the human community. As we work we bring this earth increasingly under our dominion as God’s stewards and ultimately fulfil our calling to set back the boundaries of sin and its impact on the world and on human life.
It’s “both and” NOT “either or”.
Jamie, thanks - this is why the body of Christ is such a wonderful thing, isn’t it?!
Lincoln - sorry if I’m frustrating you by not ‘getting’ what you were saying. What I meant, and part of what I take from Paul in Corin, is that skillful speaking or superior understanding is not necessarily going to help me to communicate the gospel well. I suppose I was just trying to get across that I am not born to be an evangelistic speaker - sorry if I abused the meaning of 1 Corin 2 (didn’t think I did, but didn’t plan on a full exposition of the passage!).
The ‘line’ I was referring to is the one that exists when you (or perhaps more accurately I!) forget the centrality of Christ in all of my life and how he underpins everything we do and all we are. Many people who don’t share our faith still do stupendous works of service, and bring enormous blessing to the world. I suppose I just wanted to underpin that as a Christian it’s important to know why we do what we do, and continue to live with that knowledge at the front of our minds and hearts. As a regrettably imperfect human, who works in a fairly ’socially conscious’ and ’socially active’ profession, it’s all too easy to think dichotomically about the ‘work stuff’ I do and think, which I know I ended up in because of the way God has made me to be, and the ‘Christian stuff’ I do and think. I try to mesh them together, but there’s often a massive amount of cognitive dissonance! Well, I guess that’s not such a unique problem. Being in the world but not of it has always been a problem.
As you say, of course it’s both and not either or. But am I really alone in not always REMEMBERING to keep Christ at the centre, as the reason for doing what I do?! I guess that returns to Jamie’s comment about the value of being Christian in community - if I forget, will you remind me?! Please!
Duncan - what a great post! Between you and Laurie you can really stir things up!!!
Vicky & Jamie, absolutely agree - Amen sister and brother! We need to be living out what we are being, and my main point in my original blog post on this topic was wondering if we do actually live out the gospel. It’s easy to forget as I think the values of the society we live in kind of saturate us and seep in without us realising…
Romans 12 talks about a need to be counter cultural. Yet over and over again I hear this phrase ‘being culturally relevant’. I wonder how much we’ve compromised our faith by being so ‘relevant’.
Lincoln - on the whole persuasiveness thing. From reading a lot of Paul’s letters my conclusion is YES we need to be wise, we need to be standing up for our faith, teaching simply and speaking out truth so that people have the opportunity to hear the gospel message and hopefully understand it. But can we actually persuade people on our own? I think what Paul is trying to say in that passage is that he came and spoke the gospel message and lived it out as he was called to do by God. People became Christians not because of his skills, but because of the Holy Spirit’s skills in helping people to understand the gospel message, and by speaking to them, essentially persuading them that it is real.
In other words, we have the job of being obedient to all God has commanded us to do - loving Him, loving our neighbours, making disciples etc… we can show the truth, but it’s essentially our triune God (note the use of the triune Jamie?!) that does the actual persuading…
That’s not to say though we don’t do the loving and preaching half heartedly and not to the best of our ability…which I guess could help persuade? I don’t know.
Does that make sense?
Bk: Can you define what persuade means to you then?
Pondering how to best to articulate….(where’s my dictionary when I need it most, eh?!)
Guys, thanks for the comments on this. I think I’ll tackle Hell next lol…….
Jamie, thanks for your wisdom, delivered with grace as ever.
Laurie, I admire the passion and totally see where you are coming from.
Vicky, will be right with you as we try and work out how to live this out without messing with any lines. I like what Karl said recently about not trying to be exclusive and just focusing on Christ and being closer to Him. If we see it as a hub rather than a box, it changes the lines!
Lincoln, I think something got lost in the translation of the comments and I sense there might have been a wrong track in there somewhere. I think the point that Laurie and Vicky were making was that Paul claims to have not relied on his persuasiveness in that specific example. I’d entirely agree that this passage does not deny the need for persuasive teaching, rather it highlights the foolishness of the world in relying on competence and human ability. We absolutely do need to persuade verbally. But going back to Laurie’s point of earlier, I think we’ve had a decade of one direction and that needs corrected. I’d disagree with Laurie that we have gone too far. Personally I’d love to see us spend more time on the living out than the verbally persuading. Not that we don’t need both, I just think we need to re-emphasise the former so that we don’t abandon our call to a life of integrity where we live what we speak. Thanks for the wisdom in your comments.