As I continue this series of posts on gospelism (aka evangelism), I imagine this post will generate one of two reactions. Some will say “Duh! I’ve known that forever!” while others will say “Uhhhhh…I don’t like where you’re going with this as it could lead to compromising the simple message of faith alone in Christ alone.”
Anyway, here are four premise statements that this post is based on:
- The gospel contains truths for all aspects of life, both temporal and eternal.
- These gospel truths are centered around the person and work of Jesus Christ.
- Evangelism comes from the same word for “gospel” and so might better be termed “gospelism.”
- Gospelism is a way of living life under the truths of the gospel.
Based on these, I came to a startling conclusion (startling for me, anyway).
Since the gospel contains truths for BOTH temporal and eternal life, then a summary statement of the gospel must be related to BOTH the temporal and eternal truths of the gospel, and which focuses on Jesus. In Scripture, it appears that this summary statement of the gospel is this:
JESUS IS LORD.
I know that for many of you, this is a “Duh” statement, but for me, it was staggering. I have spent most of my adult life arguing that the summary statement of the gospel was “Believe in Jesus for eternal life” and that believing in the Lordship of Jesus was not part of the Gospel.
But now I am seeing that the statement “Jesus is Lord” is actually central to the gospel!
To clarify, while I still believe that the only way to receive eternal life is to believe in Jesus for it, I do not believe that this is the summary of the gospel.
The gospel is good news for all aspects of life, not just good news about how to receive eternal life.
Therefore, the statement “Jesus is Lord” is the central claim of the gospel, because that claim alone touches all aspects of temporal and eternal life.
Jesus not only wants us to believe in Him for eternal life, but also to recognize His Lordship in all the other aspects of eternal and temporal life as well.
Only in this way can the gospel be fully believed and practiced.
The good news about Jesus is that He has come to set up His universal kingdom, by ruling and reigning in our lives and in this world. While this will never fully happen until He returns, He does want us to be moving in these kingdom directions now. And we do so by confessing and living under the central gospel claim that “Jesus is Lord.”
Interestingly, this week I was reading the new book by Frost and Hirsch called reJesus (#AmazonLink), and they wrote about this idea as well. Here is what they said:
The church’s elemental confession that ‘Jesus is Lord’ captures all the meaning significance of the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God. …Our view of God is that Jesus is Lord, and the kingdom of God is the arena in which we respond to God’s sovereign rule over this world. All is included (and nothing is excluded) in this claim (p. 120).
The lordship of Jesus extends to our sexuality, our political life, our economic existence, our family, our play, and everything in between. There must be no limitation to the claim that Jesus makes over all of life. When we get this right, Jesus’ lordship takes on a missional edge. “Jesus is Lord” is more like a rallying war cry than a mere theological statement (p. 123).
I remember when I was a little ashamed to talk about the Lordship of Jesus because I didn’t want to be confused with people who taught “Lordship Salvation.”
I am now ashamed that I was ashamed. Who can be ashamed of the Lordship of Jesus?!?!
I now see that, ironically, it is only because of my belief that Jesus is Lord that I can trust His claim that anyone who believes in Him will have eternal life.
So why do I believe that eternal life is through faith alone in Christ alone? Because Jesus is Lord.
Why do I study, pray, and worship? Because Jesus is Lord.
Why do I seek to love and serve others? Because Jesus is Lord.
Why do I try to live honestly and with integrity? Because Jesus is Lord.
Why do I seek to see others come to faith in Jesus? Because Jesus is Lord.
Why do I attempt to learn and live the gospel? Because Jesus is Lord.
The gospel is that Jesus has something to do with all of reality, both temporal and eternal. There is no sacred-secular divide. It is all under Jesus, and we ignore Him at our own peril.
See more on this gospelism series:
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 1)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 2)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 3)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 4)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 5)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 6)
Want to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."
The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!
Duh! I’ve known that forever! But it is good to get a reminder.
Are you aware that this is a major part of the teaching of NT Wright and other contemporary scholars? See for example this summary. They argue that the New Testament church proclaimed Jesus as Lord as a deliberate contradiction to the Roman claim that Caesar was lord. This tends to take the whole argument in a more political direction than you have, but I see no contradiction.
Peter,
No, I wasn’t aware that Wright and others were saying the same things.
That looks like a fantastic article.
Do you have any suggestions of books to read on this subject?
thanks!
Jeremy, I wish I had suggestions, that I had actually read Wright and the others. But all I know about this is from various blogs and linked posts. It is quite a hot issue on some biblioblogs, but I can’t find exactly where now.
Surprised By Hope, NT Wright. But as Peter said, many others are saying the same things (including those old heretics, Rob Bell and Brian McLaren). This is very powerful framing, and very biblically consistent (especially as seen in Acts).
Jesus is LORD. This was indeed an “in your face” assertion that mimicked the phrase, “Ceasar is LORD” heard throughout the land. What would a corresponding phrase be in our culture today? How would we say “Jesus is LORD” in a culturally relevant way today?
Randy,
WOW. What a question. I am going to have to do some thinking on that! If you have ideas, I would love to hear them!
Not trying to be sacreligious, but:
Jesus for President? Nah.
Jesus for American Idol? Nope.
Snoop Jesus? Uh. No.
What person, group, or thing makes a claim to supreme power and authority today? TV? Media? Science? Politics? Rick Warren? (ha ha). Experience? Reason?
I think actually, it is probobly “me.” No, not me, Jeremy Myers, but each person’s “me.”
So can we say, “Jesus is me”? It doesn’t quite work.
Anyway, I would love to hear your thinking on this…
I have no idea, really. I just think we can’t use archaic language in our present culture without explaining what it means (which Christians are, largely, guilty of…including using the word “Christian” as if everyone knows what THAT means). Insider language comes across arrogant and off-putting to those we so desperately want to reach. I look forward to hearing what others might suggest as a cultural equivalent to Jesus is LORD. That phrase simply lacks the power it had originally, and does injustice to the agenda of the Kingdom of God (a related archaic phrase that could use some translation).
People say things like “The market rules”, or they used to until it started to fall apart. Perhaps we can say “Jesus rules” in the same kind of contexts.
Jeremy,
While I agree with your post, I want to make a point that when the early church (which had deep Jewish roots) said or thought, “Jesus is LORD” they were probably thinking of the I AM of Exodus 3:14. They were also probably thinking about what John and the other gospel writers wrote (and certainly taught) in terms of Jesus’ “I am” statements.
Fundamentally I still have a problem with lordship salvation because they confuse this point.
When someone beleives in Christ for eternal life (per John’s gospel) they have to beleive two things:
1. That Jesus is the Christ (the Davidic King/Messiah – Jewish in origin and theology and demonstrated many times in the Gospels), …
2. … the Son of the Living God/Son of God (carries an implicit claim to Deity that is demonstrated many times in the Gospels).
So if your using LORD in the sense of the Old Testament use, I can partially agree, and if your using it in relation to the Lord’s self revelation of Himself then I can fully agree.
And of course, “Duh! is my response. But you have added a dimension that is probably correct. I say probably correct since we can’t take one persons view of the Gospel without being Berean about it. We need to go back to the Scirptures and see the support for such a view.
But if your saying LORD as the western church has developed the meaning of it (I am thinking of Protestants here which is just as skewed and the Catholic version) then I have to say I disagree – based on what I read in the scriptures – both OT and NT.
There is also another dimension missing in your post, the Work of the Holy Spirit. I would offer that the reason why I do all those things you speak of in the section of “Why do I…” statements (the first one is the troubling one for me) is because I am walking in the Spirit not in the flesh. Paul clearly taught this principle. The only capacity a Christian has to recognize and worship and serve the Lord Jesus of the bible is due to God the Holy Spirit enabling him or her.
As for ignoring Him at the risk of being in peril, I wholeheartedly agree. But the fact remains that the only requirement to obtain eternal life is to “believe” Jesus Christ is who He said He was.
Think of it as entering a house, that belief above is the door by which we enter into “the Gospel” and all its fullness. Someone who doesn’t believe has never walked through that door as we have. They can never expereince either the temporal or eternal blessings of the Gospel.
I hope I have not been too harsh here or seemingly too academic. Forgive me if I have.
Right on: we can’t let our opposition to Lordship Salvation keep us from talking about Lordship.
I would echo Jim’s thoughts.
The radical claim “Jesus is LORD,” is radical not because it suggests that Jesus is sovereign or supreme ruler of the universe (and yes, that is staggering!). It’s the claim of *deity*, which stuck in the throats of Jews, and angered Romans. Why? Because their assertions were:
-Yahweh is God, not Jesus.
-Caesar is God, not Jesus.
Of course, the claim of deity *includes* sovereignty and supreme authority, that’s part of why it offends, and is staggering in it’s implications. It also challenges every other claim of “__________ is Lord.”
I love the question, how we can state that in a modern and relevant way. My suggestion:
Jesus is God
or to place Him in better relief against our current cultural backdrop (and at the same time ensure that He is as objectionable as He was in the 1st century):
Jesus is the only God.
Jesus is the only true, or real God.
(I tried, “Jesus alone is God,” but that is not true to the Trinity!)
No matter how you state it, though, there is the potential problem of our culture’s understanding of any acceptable, accurate terms. I think people think of a lot incorrect things when they hear the word God, but Creator, Supreme Being, Master and Ruler of the universe – these concepts are generally intact, don’t you think?
I also believe that the more clearly people understand what we are saying about Jesus, the more offensive it will be. Clarity is a killer. But in my estimation, it’s the only way to be faithful to the truth.
Steve, the problem with your argument is that it relies on your claim that the Romans asserted “Caesar is God”. But in general they didn’t, at least of the currently reigning emperor in the first century. I think only Caligula claimed to be a god during his lifetime. Claudius was proclaimed a god in around 44 in Colchester, just down the road from my home, but probably not thousands of miles away in Judea or even Greece.
This is really fun and important conversation. I appreciate the respect and humility that is being communicated here as we talk about some very sacred “cows” in the evangelical world. This is very rare, especially on blogs, these days. Thank you, everyone. You’ve given everyone here the freedom to think and evaluate and explore without fear of being attacked or condemned. Well done.
Peter…I like “Jesus rules” It’s got a couple of cultural meanings, but none that would undermine what we mean, i don’t think. It even poses the same question that “Jesus is Lord” posed: “Lord of what?” (“Rules what?”). It’s less of a political or theological affront than Jesus is Lord was to the Roman culture, but it might work.
Jim…while it’s possible that the Jews would have heard “I AM” in the phrase “Jesus is LORD”, it’ fairly unlikely that the rest of the Roman culture heard it that way. Most of them would have heard the more “in your face” denial of the ultimate authority (and yes, even deity) or Ceasar. And as Steve has suggested, it probably also irritated most other Jews who would hear this as blasphemy. This little phrase literally could get you executed by the government and banished by the mother religion. Not so much in our day, of course. In our day it is simply another religious slogan that only those who are insiders pretend to understand or care about.
Steve…nice thought process. I don’t think saying Jesus is GOD (or any version of that) necessarily works in the same way, since our culture doesn’t seem to unilaterally agree that there is a god or gods. We are living in a post-modern, post-Christian world where religion and deity are increasingly irrelevant. Many young people would hear “Jesus is GOD” and not even respond, perhaps thinking, “Whatever.”
Also, this statement of yours got me thinking a little:
“I also believe that the more clearly people understand what we are saying about Jesus, the more offensive it will be.”
Maybe so. But not necessarily. I constantly hear well meaning Christians explain away their ineffectiveness at evangelism, for example, by saying that “The Gospel is an offense.” That is a horrible misunderstanding of the passage they are misquoting, at best. The reality is that the Gospel is really GOOD NEWS to most people, and Jesus is really quite compelling and attractive to most people…in my experience ESPECIALLY when they see Him as He really is. People are more often offended by US and how we present the Gospel than by either the Gospel or Jesus. Being clear will, for some, present a Jesus they can’t live with…but they will not necessarily find him offensive unless we ourselves are disrespectful and offensive. This has been my experience, anyway.
Randy, All,
In terms of people knowing who the God of the bible, I agree that the Romans probably didn’t understand the exact phrases, but the Jews of the pre dispersion and the dispersion had a influence on the Romans. I think Paul’s speech at the Areopagus is one example we have that speaks to being culturally relevant among the Greeks and Romans. Even before that section for instance, in the streets of Athens; Paul proclaimed “the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.” (Acts 17:18 NET).
Later in the Areopagus, Paul gave a culturally relevant presentation of Jesus without even using His name. I have no doubt that if they had let him continue he would have identified the person who was resurrected. He had already identified the “unknown God” and he used the word “Lord” to give attributes to the unknown God. (Act 17:22 ff NET)
When we start dressing up the truth so people will like the Gospel, I believe we have strayed from the path. The bible was given to us to study and use in the evangelization of the lost. Israel had the same mission, but failed.
I am struggling with the idea of being culturally relevant at the expense of the truth. If we strain to be culturally relevant and don’t really introduce people to the Lord as He is, then its a problem, I agree. But what is wrong with using a the language of an accurate/relevant translation of the scripture to communicate truth? God’s word is an entity unto its own and has a life of its own, there are many verses that depict it that way in both the OT and NT.
Help me out here since I sincerely want to understand…
Hi all,
I really enjoyed reading all your posts, and am learning along with you all.
I read a Wright article today, and all I can say is “Wow.” He had a statement in that article which floored me. I don’t have it here in front of me now or I would quote it. Oh well.
I am going to have to get that “Surprised by Hope” book which Randy and Peter referred to.
Jeremy,
I step out for a few days and you drop *this* bomb!
Good for you. I heartily agree.
Let me add my voice to the others urging you to read N. T. Wright. Given where you’re coming from, and where you’re headed, Wright is going to be an essential read, and a great help as well. He’s a little weird in spots, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, and his work is deeply devotional and pastoral from one end to the other. The man writes faster than either of us can read, so there’s lots of places to start. From what I know about you, I suspect you will ultimately wind up biting the bullet and reading the _Christian Origins and the Question of God_ series (Wright’s magnum opus, planned for 5 big volumes with 3 of them presently in print). But that’s probably not the place to start. From what I’ve read/heard, _The Last Word_, _The Challenge of Jesus_, or _Paul in Fresh Perspective_ would be useful starting points, but for you, the best entree into Wright’s work is probably three lectures he delivered at Regent in 1999. You can find them available for download here:
http://www.regentaudio.com/christian_hope_in_a_postmodern_world
They’re a little spendy for mp3 lectures, but trust me, you’ll get your money’s worth.
As to how to articulate “Jesus is Lord” in culturally relevant ways, let me (with fear and trembling) offer one example of what I’m trying to do. Feel free to kibitz.
I preached a sermon the Wed. after the last election on the idolatry of American political rhetoric on both sides, and how salvation — even the political variety — does not come from Washington. This country, including most of the Christian right, deeply believes in political power as the means for salvation. In the conservative version…
Creation = the American founding, especially ratification of the Constitution
Fall = drift away from the Constitution and strict constructionism
Redemption = a conservative President and Congress, but especially a conservative Court
Consummation = the undoing of all the liberalizing nonsense that’s been heaped on the Constitution, and an inexorable return to truly following the document as written, following in the footsteps of our Christian founders
To put it mildly, this is wrong. “We the People” do not establish justice; Jesus does. We cannot ensure domestic tranquility; only Jesus can. We cannot adequately provide for the common defense; the battle is Yahweh’s. We cannot adequately promote the general welfare; salvation belongs to the Lord. The blessings of liberty are far from secure for us, let alone for our posterity, for unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.
The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin, and the skin of sheep, the quills of geese, and good india ink cannot save our nation, even if the words have We the People behind them. The People — Demos if you’re feeling charitable, Ochlos if not — are our idolatrous god, and The People will fail to save us, as idols always do.
(I acknowledge that when Madison penned the Preamble, he may have meant “under God,” but he didn’t say it, and in any case that’s not how Americans mean those words when we read them today.)
I could have added similar comments about how our Hope must be in God, and not in any man, and how if God is not the author of Change, it will neither work nor last. But my audience was made up of rock-ribbed conservatives; no need to speak to them about other people’s temptations.
His,
Tim
Jim,
Re: your last paragraph
“I am struggling with the idea of being culturally relevant at the expense of the truth. If we strain to be culturally relevant and don’t really introduce people to the Lord as He is, then its a problem, I agree. But what is wrong with using a the language of an accurate/relevant translation of the scripture to communicate truth? God’s word is an entity unto its own and has a life of its own, there are many verses that depict it that way in both the OT and NT.
Help me out here since I sincerely want to understand…”
I don’t think we need to sacrifice truth to be culturally relevant. The Gospel means nothing if not proclaimed in the context of culture. Might as well be jibberish. What I am suggesting is that we can use whatever language we want, as long as we don’t assume those we are communicating with understand what we mean (again, I would submit the word, “Christian” as a classic case here…as did C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity”). Truth is not limited to a singular set of words or phrases. I once did a sermon on substitutionary atonement in a very seeker sensitive church. I didn’t have another set of words to use, so I used the ones I had and then simply and respectfully explained what they meant in a way that my audience (comprised of both seekers and believers) could fully understand. We do this all the time in cross cultural missionary work (often called “contextualization of the Gospel”). We just need to admit that the church culture is a foreign culture to the world we are trying to reach. We should be student of the culture we are reaching out to (like Paul was, in the passages you cited from Acts), and then proclaim the Good News in that context, in words and phrases they are familiar with. Paul actually quoted one of their own poets to make his point. Obviously he was a good student of the Greek culture, and did his homework.
Does this address your question at all?
Randy,
Re. this sentence (and its surrounding context): “Being clear will, for some, present a Jesus they can’t live with…but they will not necessarily find him offensive unless we ourselves are disrespectful and offensive. This has been my experience, anyway.”
I am loath to argue with you about your own experience, but with all respect, the experiences of Jesus, Stephen, and Paul tell a bit of a different story, and that makes me a little suspicious. We don’t run the same physical risks in North America — different political situation — but sinners are sinners, and the good news is really good news, but it is also really an offense. (“Good news” and “offense” are not mutually exclusive categories.)
If God is pleased to use you in the lives of unbelievers who are relatively positive toward the gospel, more power to you, and may their tribe increase. But there are many who are not. Jesus Himself lost a bunch of disciples because they were offended at His teaching (see John 6, for example).
I recognize that it’s also possible to put people off by being an offensive whacko, and then put it all down to “the offense of the cross.” I share your concern about this kind of person. But across the board, I just don’t think it’s true that the gospel does not offend sinners. I think it’s more that we don’t really present the scary bits.
A friend of mine was sharing the gospel with someone a few months back, and everything was going swimmingly; the guy was very receptive. Then the guy said something that made my friend realize that in his mind, it was just a collegial exchange of religious ideas (as opposed to talking about concrete reality). So my friend says, “This means that one day Jesus will come back and set up a real, physical worldwide kingdom on this earth, and you will have to appear before Him as your king and answer for everything you’ve ever done.” The guy hit the ceiling. He was offended that he would have to answer to anyone, and offended that my friend would say such a thing.
But that is the good news.
His,
Tim
Jim,
No…I don’t think you are off base or confused at all. I didn’t think you were before, either. I think we’re seeing things pretty much the same way, actually. Language presents problems even with those who speak the same words, so dialogue and respectful listening are critical…especially these days when it comes to proclamation. Like you, I don’t think we need to change wording just to be cool or edgy or for fun. I just think we need to be mindful and respectful of our audience.
I just listened to a preacher spend 10 minutes telling a room full of homeless guys (and me) that the Gospel is offensive, so he would be offending us in his sermon because he was going to preach the true Gospel. He made this point, literally, five times in ten minutes (well, he didn’t actually make the point, but he did say the same thing over and over). Then for 20 minutes he actually preached the Gospel using personal testimony and anecdotes and a few scriptures (which he mostly misquoted, but I was glad to hear him refer to it anyway), and NONE of that last 20 minutes was offensive to me or anyone else at all. It was truthful, honest, a little “in your face” (he is a fellow biker friend of mine who still likes to intimidate people, I think), but he was anything but offensive in his message or presentation. I was mystified about why he thought he needed to set us up for a whipping before he got to the real message. He sure didn’t need to.
Tim,
I hear you. And of course you are right. Jesus himself said things that chased people off (the time you referred to he sort of intentionally talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which is even creepy to us today but was particularlly offensive to Jews at the time). I think you’ll agree though that this particular offensive moment was about culling the herd, so to speak. The fact was that people found Jesus extremely attractive and wonderful and amazing and literally thousands of people followed him wherever he went just to get near him. This was the overwhelming response of people to Jesus then, and I find that if we can get the biblical Jesus in front of people who either don’t know about him or have some bad information about him, they tend to respond in a similar way. This was my experience for 20 years in Young Life as we told the stories about Jesus to hundreds of teenagers each week who were mostly disinterested…at least at first. Jesus still has a huge impact on people once they get to see the real deal. This is still my experience with people, and I spend a fair amount of time with unchurched, dechurched, agnostic, athiest and simply disinterested adults these days. Of course there will be those who react to the real Jesus when they find out that a real relationship with him means following his leadership day to day. I had that response from several teenagers in my 20 years with Young Life…but I can literally count those on ONE hand.
I’m not trying to be argumentitive here. If what you are doing helps bring people to genuine faith in Christ, meaning they actually start following Jesus and get interested in the Kingdom agenda over their own, then keep doing that. If that isn’t happening, well…I’m just suggesting that there may be a better way, and that I would hate to find out that it was ME who was the problem, not the Good News. Not sharing the true Gospel and sharing the true Gospel like an ass are opposite sides of the same bad coin. At least that’s how I see it.
This has been a great conversation. I thank you all for making me think and process these very important issues again.
Randy,
Thank you for trying to help me understand, but I still don’t see the point. Let me give an example. 1 Corinthians presents a church where the culture had penetrated and not the way it should have been, i.e. the church penetrating the culture. This is a serious issue – the Gospel proclaimed faithfully in what ever form has power that doesn’t come from us. The power of the Gospel is the shed blood of Christ for our sins. There are many other aspects to the gospel, but that has to be the starting point. To me its like a college course, you have to have the prerequisite courses before you can learn anything else on the subject.
Even in preaching they teach to use the language of the day but to keep the scripture intact. This seems to be like your sermon on the Substitutionary Atonement. Explaining the words used when someone doesn’t understand. Even the Greeks in Athens at first thought Paul was speaking gibberish (Acts 17:18). And he didn’t say let me explain the resurrection; because I am sure his hearers understood what he said. Too bad they blew him off as they could have heard the complete gospel. But all he was able to do is preach (Like Tim points out) the offensive parts – the coming judgement and the need to repent.
An example in your direction, the word “repent” is a word that needs explaining for sure. So we do need to explain some terms but others should be able to stand unless we perceive through the Holy Spirit that someone is just being entertained. Then we have to make it concrete for them or loose any chance of them hearing the truth.
By the way, I used repent as an example also where the church itself is confused on its meaning. Just as we should not use theologically laden words in our communications without clear teaching preceding to explain the term.
So I am at a loss on being culturally relevant by trying to say that “Jesus is Lord” in some other context. In fact, lets back up a minute and think that before we can explain that phrase, you need to set the stage with Jewish history so they even know who Jesus is. Even when preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, Peter had to give history to his countrymen and Jewish foreigners who were there during the time. This gave them the historical context. So it is not sufficient to just say , “Jesus is God,” or “Jesus is Ruler”, etc. If your talking about a culture in south america in the jungle then I would agree the words you use are critically important, they may not understand “Lord” but will understand “Ruler” or “Chief.”
So am I still off base or confused here?
In His grip,
Jim
Randy,
“Not sharing the true Gospel and sharing the true Gospel like an ass are opposite sides of the same bad coin.”
Awesome. That’s one for the record books right there.
As you said to Jim, I think we agree way more than not. Deficits in the medium are a problem here — a week ministering together would probably make us easy friends and render the whole discussion superfluous.
I agree that John 6 was about “culling the herd” in a certain sense. But I hear you saying on one hand that Jesus is so attractive that culling the herd was necessary, and on the other hand, saying that in your own experience, you’ve only met a handful of kids that needed culling.
I don’t doubt you — God uses different people different ways. All of us are meant to be harvesters, but some of us have the gift, and others don’t. I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but I feel a need to say something like “Don’t assume that God will give the same experiences you’ve had to anyone who is similarly faithful.”
In my field of ministry, I find that even when I’m completely nonconfrontational, the unbeliever coming to grips with the real Jesus often enters into a ‘dark night of the soul’, and I can’t predict how people will come out of that. It’s very little to do with me at that point, and when I look at Scripture, I see something very similar. Peter’s audience in Acts 2 was cut to the heart, and therefore desperate to make it right. Stephen’s audience in Acts 7 was also cut to the heart by the same message — good preaching will do that — but they responded by becoming desperate to silence the messenger. Peter wasn’t noticeably gentler about it than Stephen; there’s not much difference between them other than occasion and style.
God yields the increase, and the Spirit works in diverse ways, through some in this manner, and through others in that.
His,
Tim
Great points, all. I was not clear on one point that is important: The culling of the herd was, well…the herd (ie, those who were already “following” Jesus). I am all for speaking strongly and even prophetically to the herd (and again, I mean by this those who are sitting in our churches, claiming to be followers of Jesus, etc.). I am only concerned about those who are not part of the herd yet, who perhaps look at the herd and think, “What a strange herd of people…like sheep being led to the slaughter.” You know what I mean? Perhaps this distinction will relieve some of the confusion I have unwittingly created.
Preach on.
Ok…one last thing and then I’m done. Just so you don’t think I’m overlooking your last points about Peter and Stephen, etc. (great points, again). It all has to do with context and relationship. I can (and sometimes do) speak very confrontationally to”religious” people who are arrogant and condemning of those who aren’t like them. This is what Jesus did on several occasions, right? These would be included in my herd analogy…those who (like the pharisees) think they speak for God and who indict others in the name of God. I just never see Jesus speaking this way to ANYONE who is hurting, shameful, morally bankrupt or poor. He is very kind, gracious and generous with them all…even in telling them the truth and even in giving them direction (go and sin no more). Very kind, respectful of their humanity (imago dei).
Peter’s audience and Stephen’s audience were some of the same people, probably (mostly Jews, but not all). And as you point out, both groups were cut to the heart (by the Holy Spirit, not by Peter or Stephen’s preaching), but responded differently. Peter was very confrontational in his first sermon and 3000 responded. But his clear target was the religious Jew who thought they had done service to God by killing Jesus. And I think we’d both agree that God directed his thoughts and words that day to hit that particular target.
I’m not totally opposed to confrontational proclamation, by the way (forgive me for being so one sided). It is most effective with outlaw bikers, it seems, but they are confrontational people by nature and respect that kind of approach. Context and relationship are the key. Unless you have a relationship with those guys (ie, they respect you), it would be suicide to go all confrontational with them.
Ok. I’m done. Thanks again for this string. I feel like I went to school with you guys.
Here’s the problem with just “believing” in Jesus for salvation the way we have interpreted it. The Greek word “believe” does NOT mean “acknowlege agreement that something is true.” Nope. Never did. Sorry.
If that were so then people with faith like demons would be saved as even demons “believe” in God and know who Jesus is without doubt.
Faith, however, in the Greek usage of the term would be better translated “trust.” Those who trust Jesus are saved, or those who entrust themselves to Jesus are saved.
So, what is the difference between “trust” and “believe”? Trusting requires submission. This implies lordship.
Koffijah, I think it would be more accurate to say that the Greek phrase “believe in” does NOT mean “acknowledge agreement that something is true.” It was the same Greek verb, but without eis meaning “in” or “into”, that James used when he wrote that the demons believe, and that some people who are not true Christians believe the fact that there is one God (2:19). But true Christian faith is almost always described with that word eis, and the Greek verb with this preposition does indeed not mean “acknowledge agreement that something is true”, but something much more like “trust”.
Koffijah,
Demons don’t believe in Jesus for everlasting life, and everlasting life has not been offered to them if they believe in Jesus for it. Furthermore, you have slightly misquoted James 2. In the context, James is saying that the demons believe God is One. No person in the history of the world has been given eternal life because they believed God is One. This is not a condition of eternal life. Furthermore, knowing who Jesus is doesn’t give eternal life to anyone either. Someone can know everything about Jesus identity and actions, and still not believe in Him for everlasting life.
I didn’t quote James. I didn’t even directly refer to it, but you are correct that the point of what I was saying does in fact come from James. But since I didn’t quote it, how did I take it out of context? You’re missing my main point. My main point, and I believe James’ point is the same, is that saving faith is not belief in truths.
What God wants is faith (trust–submission to someone else’s care).
You crack me up with this believing certain truths for certain things. If I believe in Jesus and submit to him as Lord simply because I believe it is the truth, do I not get everlasting life because I didn’t believe in these truths with the express purpose of obtaining everlasting life? Jesus never says, “You have to believe in me FOR eternal life, or you won’t get it even if you believe in me for real.” Are you serious?
I am done. I have wasted too much time in this life arguing with people that think you have to believe certain things about what you believe otherwise what you believe doesn’t count.
As for context… pick up on the whole gist of the NT and you’ll be doing better. Stick to God’s Word… and let some things be a mystery… and don’t stick to any systematic theology. Because if you do, you will interpret the Bible from your own interpretations.
I have given up systematic theology… at least being dogmatic about it…. The Bible is clear about so many things. We won’t go wrong sticking to it and not just sticking to the boxes we put it in.
Peter Kirk… thanks for breaking out your Greek knowlege on us all and getting into the word ‘eis’ for us. In the end, I think you just said the same thing I was saying. Thanks.