Matt Capps Biblical Theology, Books, Calvary Baptist Church, Christian Theology, Christianity, Culture, Faith, Philosophy, Religion, The Great Commission Resurgence, The Southern Baptist Convention, Theology

The Gospel in Life – A Study by Tim Keller

The Gospel in Life is an intensive 8 week course on the gospel and how it is lived out in all of life – First in your heart, then in your community, and then out into the world.

I am excited about going through this material on Wednesday nights at our West Campus starting May 12th, we will be meeting in room 3207 from 6:30-8:00pm. I encourage you to participate in this study. Each week we will read scripture together, watch a 10 minute DVD teaching by Dr. Tim Keller, and have discussion. Here is the calendar with a list of the topics:

May 12 – City: The World That Is
May 19 – Heart: Three Ways To Live
May 26 – Idolatry: The Sin Beneath The Sin
June 2 – Community: The Context For Change
June 9 – Witness: An Alternative City
June 16 – Work: Cultivating The Garden
June 23 – Justice: A People For Others
June 30 – Eternity: The World That Is To Come

For more information on the material see gospelinlife.com. I hope you will join us as we seek to further our understanding of how the gospel applies to all areas of life, personally and in the community.

Matt Capps Christian Theology, Christianity, Culture, Faith, Religion, The Great Commission Resurgence, The Southern Baptist Convention, Theology

Jared Wilson on “10 Reasons to Under-Program Your Church”

Jared Wilson, pastor and author of Your Jesus Is Too Safe, recently posted a thoughtful and challenging blog titled “10 Reasons to Under-Program Your Church.” I have re-posted them (with permission from Jared) below:

1. You can do a lot of things in a mediocre (or poor) way, or you can do a few things extremely well. Craig Groeschel has some great things to say about this subject. Also check out Thom Rainer and Eric Geiger’s Simple Church.

2. Over-programming creates an illusion of fruitfulness that may just be busy-ness. A bustling crowd may not be spiritually changed or engaged in mission at all. And as our flesh cries out for works, many times filling our programs with eager, even servant-minded people is a way to appeal to self-righteousness.

3. Over-programming is a detriment to single-mindedness in a community. If we’re all busy engaging our interests in and pursuits of different things, we will have a harder time enjoying the “one accord” prescribed by the New Testament.

4. Over-programming runs the risk of turning a church into a host of extracurricular activities, mirroring the “Type-A family” mode of suburban achievers. The church can become a grocery store or more spiritual YMCA, then, perfect for people who want religious activities on their calendar.

5. Over-programming dilutes actual ministry effectiveness. Because it can overextend leaders, increase administration, tax the time of church members, and sap financial and material resources from churches.

6. Over-programming leads to segmentation among ages, life stages, and affinities, which can create divisions in a church body. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for gathering according to “likenesses,” but many times increasing the number of programs means increasing the ways and frequencies of these separations. Pervasive segmentation is not good for church unity or spiritual growth.

7. Over-programming creates satisfaction in an illusion of success; meanwhile mission suffers. If a church looks like it’s doing lots of things, we tend to think it’s doing great things for God. When really it may just be providing lots of religious goods and services. This is an unacceptable substitute for a community on mission, but it’s one we accept all the time. And the more we are engaged within the four walls of the church, whether those walls are literal or metaphorical, the less we are engaged in being salt and light. Over-programming reduces the access to and opportunities with my neighbors.

8. Over-programming reduces margin in the lives of church members. It’s a fast track to burnout for both volunteers and attendees, and it implicitly stifles sabbath.

9. Over-programming gets a church further away from the New Testament vision of the local church. Here’s a good test, I think: take a look at a typical over-programmed church’s calendar and see how many of the activities resemble things seen in the New Testament.

10. Over-programming is usually the result of un-self-reflective reflex reactions to perceived needs and and an inability to kill sacred cows that are actually already dead. Always ask “Should we?” before you ask “Can we?” Always ask “Will this please God?” before you ask “Will this please our people?” Always ask “Will this meet a need?” before you ask “Will this meet a demand?”

These are some tough observations that need some thought as the ‘local church’ seeks to minister the unchanging gospel in a changing culture. Pastors and ministry leaders – think about all the things you are doing in the context of your ministry and ask yourself a few questions when planning activities:

  1. Are these things absolutely necessary for the people?
  2. Are these things distracting the people from the most important things?
  3. In the end, will these programs deepen the people’s understanding of the gospel and cultivate true discipleship?

We need to use wisdom when planning and promoting things within the church. Think about the message ‘underneath’ the program you lead or support.

Matt Capps Christianity, Culture, Faith, Philosophy, Religion, The Great Commission Resurgence, The Southern Baptist Convention

“The New Year, The New Man, and Men Made New” (Luke 3:21-4:13)

“Christ, the true and greater Adam.”

Introduction

Now that Christmas has passed we look ahead to the New Year. The New Year, as a celebration has always been so odd to me. I have yet to see why we, as a people, make such a big deal over it. I was reading Charles Spurgeon recently and he expressed well what I mean;

“There is no real difference between New Years and any other day, yet in our mind and thought it is a marked period, which we regard as one of the milestones set up on the highway of our life.”[2]

New Year’s is celebrated internationally, by people all around the world. It’s a celebration not connected to any specific faith, sub-cultural tradition, or specific people group. Although ‘New years’ may be celebrated on different days in different cultures. It is a shared human experience. One of the reasons a New Year is such significant event, a milestone for us, is because we as humans (corporately) share in this moment together.

It’s almost as if we celebrate the coming of a new year in the same way we would our own birthday. In that sense, the New Year represents another ‘birthday’ in the life of humanity. – It’s a marker in our history as a people.

The coming of each New Year comes not only with a sense of anticipation, but also of reflection on the events that will be added to our history as a people. As you read the paper, listen to the radio, watch tv, and browse the internet over the next few days you will undoubtedly see and hear “year end reviews”, “the top stories of this past year”, and other reflections on the past years events. These reports always have a mixture of the good and the bad. As we reflect on the past year, and what has happened in the human family there are stories that give us a sense of honor, and there are the stories that give us a sense of shame.

  1. We are reminded of evil actions that cause us to mourn when human life has been abused or taken maliciously.
  2. We have stories that give us a sense of honor when we are reminded of the heroic efforts of our fellow man to bring about good to this neighbor.
  3. We reflect on stories that make us cringe at the thought that another person, just like you and I, could do such horrible things- have such evil motives.
  4. We also have joyful stories that serve as positive examples of human ingenuity to overcome obstacles and do what was thought to be impossible.
  5. We have also seen many those we uphold in our culture as heroes fail morally over this past year.

This if anything, causes us to ask one simple yet profound question about us, as human beings. How is it that mankind can in one moment exhibit such qualities of goodness towards others, and in another perform completely unjust acts of cruelty? We are faced with the awful reality that human history is marked by both good and evil, I believe this exposes the great “human paradox.”[3] The human race, as a whole, is very inconsistent – This tells us that something is not right. Things don’t seem to be as they should. The reality of such inconsistency at the very least reveals a great underlying problem.

Now, as Christians we understand that this underlying problem, this inconsistency with the whole of the human race finds its origins in the fall of man in Genesis.

The Christian Explanation of Such Origins

We understand from the beginning that Adam, the first son of God, was the first man created by God’s caring hand. Logically, from Adam and Eve, all of the human race would descend – so, in a larger sense we are all brothers and sisters in the human family. Therefore our history is a shared history- it’s our story. Adam was the first head of the human race, the first son, this was a pivotal role. Adam, the son of God, was tested in his obedience too his Father and Creator in the garden, and he turned his back on God, and sinned. What we cannot miss is that Adam represented all of those who would come from him.[4] He held the destiny of all his descendants in his hands. So, when Adam sinned, he ushered in sin, which cut all of humanity off from our relationship to God which brought condemnation to all. Sin also brought devastating effects on our relationships to one another, and had catastrophic effects on all of creation.

From this, we understand why the world is as it is. But we cannot forget that God, in his sovereign plan for human history, had greater plans for the redemption of mankind. There would be a new man, who would be one of us, “a greater son than Adam”, but who would also be one with God. While human history is marked with sin, inconstancy, and destruction – there is one man who can redeem us, and creation, from all that has gone wrong. This is where we pick up in Luke. Over the past few weeks during the Christmas season, many have studied the Birth of Christ, the beauty of this story is that it is only the beginning of the significance of Christ.

The Genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38)

One of the things that’s often overlooked when reading through a Gospel is that there is a close connection between the audience and how the author structures the account. Remember that “the Bible bears all the marks of its authors. Their language, thought forms, literary styles and forms, and their culture shape the actual way the messages were given.”[5] In other words, when reading these accounts we must acknowledge that there is meaning in how these accounts are presented.

In our day, genealogies do not play such a pivotal role in our understanding ‘who we are’ as individuals. But, ancient societies were organized around family; therefore it was important for every one to know their ancestral lineage, their pedigree. For ancient people ones heritage was very important to their identity. Lineage was important for several reasons;

  1. Such “family trees” determined a person’s role social relationships. In other words, a genealogy shows who a particular person identifies with. This serves a crucial function in determining membership to a specific kinship group.
  2. Also, Kings and rulers used genealogies to justify their power, rank, and status. Another way of saying this is that one’s lineage was proof of one’s inheritance. Lineage indicates the rights of an inherited status.

You will notice that if you turn to Matthew, he places the genealogy at the beginning of his gospel account. Yet Luke places it right here in the middle of the gospel narrative – which seems a bit odd. What’s going on here? Well, notice where Luke places Jesus’ genealogy, it is ‘right in the middle of two very significant events in Jesus life’. He does this for a specific purpose. (Click Here for a brief treatment on the differences in Matthew and Luke’s genealogy.)

What comes before the genealogy? – Jesus baptism. In the account of Jesus baptism (3:21-22), “a voice from heaven”, being God, says “you are my beloved Son.” – The point, “Jesus stands alone as the designated son of God.” After pointed out this divine affirmation, that Jesus is the Son of God; Luke interrupts the progression of the story. In 3:38, Luke breaks into the narrative with Jesus’ genealogy.

I want you to take notice of something very important in this genealogy. Notice who the Luke traces Jesus lineage back to, he goes back to the beginning with Adam. In 3:38 Jesus is shown to come from “the son of Adam, the son of God.” Now, one of the overarching themes in Luke’s gospel account is to demonstrate that the gospel message is “for all people.” What is Luke saying here in the genealogy?

Luke was showing us that while Jesus stands alone as the designated Son of God (baptism), ‘Jesus also stands with us, the entire human race, as being truly human family.’ Now, why does this matter? Well, we know from the account of the fall that Adam and Eve were tempted. Behind these efforts stood the devil, enticing Adam and Eve to turn from God. This is the same devil “who now steps out from behind the curtain for a direct confrontation”[6] with Jesus. Moving from the genealogy to the temptation is intentional. Jesus stands not only as human with us, but for us. Where Adam was counted as the head of humanity, Christ now stands as the head of a ‘new humanity.’

Luke’s primary focus is on Jesus as the “Son” who will be obedient in a way that all others, starting with Adam- have not been. With that knowledge there is a sense of victory as we move into the temptation accounts and watch this cosmic drama unfold. As our commander and chief straps on a helmet, comes down from the high office and jumps in the trenches of war.[7]

The Temptation of Christ – Luke 4:1-13

a. The Temptation to Doubt God’s Provision (4:3-4)

And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. (The verb tense ‘being tempted’ indicates that Jesus was tempted during the whole forty day fast. What we see here is the culmination of the whole drama!) And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry. (Notice here, the forty day fast is up. So its not that the devil is attempting to make Jesus break his fast, he is going after him at his ‘weakest’ human physical point.[8]) The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone”

The ingredients of the setting are important. Jesus’ fasting has most likely resulted in near starvation, so his immediate need is obvious, food. Notice the Devils words; “if you are the Son of God” provide food for yourself. The devil is not denying that Jesus is the son of God, but is exploiting this status by urging Jesus to use his power in a way that is against the will of the Father. But remember, it was God’s Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness, and it is God who will sustain him. Satan’s proposal was simple, “Jesus, provide food for yourself by miraculously turning this stone into bread.” In order for Jesus to have done this, he would have to turn from God’s provision and protection. Jesus reply is simple, human livelihood consists of more than the mere meeting of daily needs.

Jesus quotation of Deuteronomy is very instructive here. This passage was a call to Israel to have faith that God will remain faithful to his promises. In Exodus 4:23 Israel is also called “God’s Son.” (The designation given to Adam, and Christ) After Pharaoh had let the Israelites go, God led them in the wilderness for 40 years. “In this context God reminds the Israelites that, through feeding them supernaturally on manna, [He was showing them His] ability to supply nourishment”[9] in His own ways. The parallels are here are striking as we reflect back to Adam the first son. Adam, the first son, “like Christ, was our representative; what he did affected all of us.”[10] So, Adam’s failure in the test of the garden points us towards the hope of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness. Let me explain the contrast;

  • In the garden we have Adam who had not fasted at all and had plenty at his disposal, while Jesus had suffered a lack for forty days.
  • Adam could eat from any tree in the garden but one, Jesus was denying himself all food – and had none in this wilderness setting.
  • Adam was in paradise with an abundance of food and resources, Jesus in the barren wilderness.

If environment was the determining factor in overcoming temptation, Jesus was seemingly at a great disadvantage from our perspective. But Jesus is the true and greater son, and this temptation was endured because he fully trusted in God’s  provision and care. What God’s son Adam had failed to do, what God’s son Israel had failed to do, Christ accomplished.

Jesus is the true and greater son of God, the ‘new man.’ Through his obedience where Adam failed, Jesus conquered.

b. The Temptation to Rule Apart from God’s Plan (4:5-8)

The second temptation begins with a glimpse of all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus is given a perspective from above- which allows him to see a great expanse of territory. In this territory Jesus was able to view all the inhabited earth, and all earthly power was presented to Jesus.

And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” And Jesus answered him, “It is written,

“You shall worship the Lord your God,
and him only shall you serve.”

Remember that Jesus is fasting, this is a time when he has nothing to his disposal, and Satan shows up and offers him everything. Satan’s words are emphatic; “Look, Jesus, at what can be yours! All earthly kingdoms under my authority can be yours!’ – just bow down and worship me! – It’s that simple!” In this temptation, Satan was calling Christ to seize all power apart from God’s plan. But, Jesus knew that there was only one source that could make this offer, and it was not Satan. See, whatever the devil exercises is that which is allowed him by God; he can only delegate to Jesus what has already been delegated to him. This attempt was in many ways, an exaggerated offer, an oversell.

Jesus responds by quoting Deuteronomy, these words refer back to Israel’s failure in the wilderness when they began worshiping idols. Where ‘God’s son’ Israel failed, the greater Son Jesus will succeed. The parallel to the temptation in the garden is also striking. “Adam had been given dominion over the world by God…Yet Satan suggested that greater dominion was possible.” They could become like God! Now, if Adam and Eve had not been blinded by their own desires, they would have questioned the authority of the serpent to make such promises. But by obeying the evil one our parents aligned themselves with Satan, and against God. But Jesus’ desires were one in the same with His Father’s. And Jesus replies that God alone is worthy of allegiance. While Satan’s temptation was an attempt to break the Son’s relationship to the Father, Christ shows us that they are perfectly aligned. It’s beautiful to consider the cost here.

  • Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world by simply bowing down to him, so simple.
  • But Jesus knew that the only way to gain the power and authority of all kingdoms was to endure the lashes of death, to endure the torture of the cross.
  • Jesus knew that he would be exalted in the highest once he consumed the wrath of God for all of us who are now in God’s family. Thank God that Jesus remained faithful, where Adam failed.

Jesus is the true and greater son of God, the ‘new man.’ Through his obedience where Adam failed, Jesus conquered.

c. The Temptation to Test God’s Protection (4:9-12)

This third temptation involves another vision-like experience. Satan takes Jesus to the temples pinnacle in Jerusalem, which is a place that, if he were to jump over the edge, it would take miraculous protection for him to emerge from the fall alive.

And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written,

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
to guard you,’

and

“‘On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.

Notice the devils request, again, “if you, Jesus, are truly the Son, cast yourself down.” The devil is attempting to convince Jesus to make a “flashy display of his power to prove that he is truly the Son of God.” In this attempt Satan is quoting 91, and asking Jesus to fulfill it right there, on the spot. What’s interesting is that Psalm 91 is addressed to those “who live in the shelter of the most high.” The temple is a significant place for this test. For the Semitic Jews, the temple was a location that embodied God’s shelter. It is a place of refuge and protection.

Simply put, Satan is asking Jesus to step out from under God’s shelter and jump to see if God will actually protect him. This would be a move to confirm his position as God’s son. Citing Deuteronomy Jesus refuses to jump. This passage in Deuteronomy was a reminder to Gods son Israel, as it entered into the promise land. In Exodus we read that Israel complained that they never should have left Egypt to wander in the wilderness for 40 years- in the wilderness they began to doubt God. While in doubt the Israelites began asking God to “prove himself,’ to show that he could be relied upon.

Satan was proposing that Jesus say to God, “In order to prove that I am your beloved Son I will place you in a situation where you must prove it.” Jesus refused; God had already proclaimed that Jesus was his son in his baptism, and Jesus was fully confident in that promise. Rest on that promise he did, it was what empowered Him to endure the torture of the cross. Once again, notice the contrast to that of Adam in the garden. In the temptation account Satan calls Adam and Eve to doubt God’s word. Satan tells them that if they eat of the fruit, they will “surely not die.” In a way, Adam and Eve tested God’s faithfulness by eating of the tree. “Satan wanted Christ to challenge God’s faithfulness in a much less direct way…[Think about it] There would be no other reason to leap from the temple roof except to determine once and for all, whether God would keep his promise.”

“To Adam and Eve, Satan said eat, you will surly not die- for God has lied to you. To Christ he said, jump, you will surely not die- unless God has lied to you.”[11]

Yet again, where Adam failed Christ conquered.

Jesus is the true and greater son of God, the ‘new man.’ Through his obedience where Adam failed, Jesus has overcome. Furthermore, He is the only one who is able to bring us back into fellowship with God, and sustain us as ‘men made new.’

Application

These are glorious truths about Christ, but some of you are probably asking – how does this affect me? What I am I to do with such truths? Well, you and I are part of the human family- born into Adam’s lineage. While the events in our lives may never make the national stage as events that marked this past year, our faults and battles are very real. When we examine our lives – our failure, our faults, the inappropriate way we have responded in certain situations;

We know deep down inside that something is not right, that we are not right. Things don’t seem to be as they should, and we often fail to respond as we should. – See being born in the line of Adam we are “spring-loaded for evil.”[12]

  • Let me assure you that there will be times in the coming year when you doubt God’s provision.
  • There will be hard situations when you seek to assert your own control over circumstances, and fail to trust in God, and his plans.
  • There will be times when you are also tempted to doubt that God actually cares about you, and you find it hard to hold on to hope.

But your failure, our failure, is not the end of the story. See, Christ not only conquered where Adam failed. He conquered where all of Adams descendants have failed and will fail. When you place your faith in Christ you are adopted in to his family, you are adopted into the family of God.

  • As a Christian your family tree becomes a cross, where your sin and shame were paid in full.
  • As a Christian, you can have the hope that your family grave is empty. That’s a promise from your Father.
  • As a Christian you know that one day things will be as they should. Christ brings us back into fellowship with our Father, where Adam locked us out. – A place free of sin, death, disease, disaster, failure, and ten thousand other things that make this life the hard battle it is.

So I call you to wage war against the doubt of God. Fight to trust in the promises of God. And know that Jesus, cares for you deeply, as Hebrews 2:18 tells us;

“Because He himself has suffered when tempted, and is able to help those when they are tempted.”

And even when you fail, know that Christ has succeeded, and will stand as your representative before the Father. Let me remind you of two promises concerning this matter from Scripture;

Romans 5;

“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”

1 Corinthians 15

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Oh church, Believe and continue to believe that Christ is the ‘New Man’, and in Him, ‘Men are Made New.’

Closing Prayer

Father, we thank you for your perfect Son, who conquered sin and death knowing that He held the destiny of all your children in his hands.

  • Father, there may be some in this room who are still under the curse of Adam. I pray that you would move in their hearts right now and adopt them into your family.
  • Father, there are also many of your children in here right now who have had a horrible year, and worry about what this next year brings. I pray that you would lovingly comfort them right now with your Spirit to know that despite the reality of our sufferings, you love and care for us.
  • Father, there are also many of your children here that are surrounded in comfort and have lost the blazing heart of worship that you alone deserve. I pray that you would begin to show them where they have placed their hope and trust, how those things will fail, and how you alone are worthy of our allegiance.

We know that the book of Luke was written long ago to sustain our brother in Christ Theophilus, that he “may have certainty concerning the things he had been taught.” I pray that you would grant us with that same certainty here today, as we rest in the promise of salvation through Jesus Christ, the new man. And let us live now, ‘as men made new.’

Amen.

  1. Isaiah 40:8
  2. Charles Spurgeon, A Sermon for New Year’s Day, 1885.
  3. Will Metzger, Tell the Truth.
  4. Edmund Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery.
  5. Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan.
  6. Darrell Bock, Luke.
  7. John Piper used this analogy in his sermon “Christ in Combat: Defense by the Spirit” on Luke 4:1-14.
  8. Timothy Keller points this out in his sermon “The First Temptation of Christ” on Luke 2:34-35; 4:1-13.
  9. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology.
  10. Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image.
  11. Edmund Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery.
  12. Thomas Schreiner, New Testament Theology.

I also benefited greatly from the following commentaries on Luke’s gospel;

  • Joel Green, Luke
  • Leon Morris, Luke
  • Walter L. Liefeld, Luke

Note: This is the edited manuscript of a sermon I preached at Calvary Baptist Church on December 27th.

Matt Capps Books, Christianity, Culture, Faith, Religion, The Great Commission Resurgence, The Southern Baptist Convention

Review of Jim Belcher’s ‘Deep Church’ – Part 3

Note: In this three part series I have devoted two posts to summarizing Part 1 and Part 2 of Jim Belcher’s book Deep Church. In this post I offer some concluding thoughts.

Whenever a book review was assigned in seminary I would search for previously written book reviews to help me process the ideas presented in the book. Conversing with other thinkers on theological works has always been a high priority in my study habits, whether in conversation or in reading others thoughts. In preparation for presenting my thoughts on Deep Church I read reviews by Kevin DeYoung, Greg Gilbert, Steve McCoy, Scott Armstrong. I have posted some of their comments in the footnotes.

Let me start off by saying that the main desire that prompted Belcher to write this book is obvious, to see a ecumenical movement develop between those in the emerging church and those in the traditional camps, the vision is for “Christian unity, civility, and the desire for the church to move beyond the in-fighting to powerful mission in the world.”[1] I appreciate Belcher’s honesty and thoughtfulness in considering the possibility of such unity. I am glad that Belcher makes it clear that he rejects the most tragic theological flaws of some of the leaders in the emerging movement. This is where I doubt whether or not such unity is possible. When it comes to the ‘emergent’ camp I cannot see unity as a possibility when some of them are abandoning the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Sure, some of these are hard doctrines but the implications of rejecting such biblical truths not only cross the line into heresy, but also have massive implications on these churches as a whole. Belcher’s account of the meeting between Piper, Jones, and Pagitt serves to illustrate the point.[2]

With that said, I do think that Belcher offers some very helpful thoughts on ‘points of dialogue’ between the emerging and traditional camps. I agree with Belcher when he writes that we can learn from others even when we disagree with them. It’s funny, as I read blogs and reviews of the book I think Belcher has accomplished what he set out to do, which is provide conversation points for discussion.

Let me stick to the issues that have brought ‘controversy’ to discussions on this book. Belcher has caught some criticism on his definition of the ‘gospel.’ Here is his definition;

“The “gospel” is the good news that through Jesus, the Messiah, the power of God’s kingdom has entered history to renew the whole world. Through the Savior God has established his reign. When we believe and rely on Jesus’ work and record (rather than ours) for our relationship to God, that kingdom power comes upon us and begins to work through us. We witness the radical new way of living by our renewed lives, beautiful community, social justice, and cultural transformation. This good news brings new life. The gospel motivates, guides, and empowers every aspect of our living and worship (121).[3]“

What I believe Belcher has done in his definition is attempt to ‘bridge the gap’ between the individual and corporate aspects of the gospel. In order to fully understand why Belcher expands his definition of the gospel beyond its individual aspects read Tim Keller’s article “The Gospel in All its Forms.”[4] In this article Keller writes that many have focused too much on the “simple gospel.” (The ABC’s of salvation)

“There are today at least two criticisms of this simple formulation. Many say that it is too individualistic, that Christ’s salvation is not so much to bring individual happiness as to bring peace, justice, and a new creation. A second criticism is that there is no one “simple gospel” because “everything is contextual” and the Bible itself contains many gospel presentations that exist in tension with each other.”

This not only helps one understand why Belcher expands his definition of the gospel, that the Good News is not only the forgiveness of sins but the promise and hope for new-creation, but also why he writes of “contextualizing the gospel for his community.” I think Belcher is saying here that Christians are to live as ‘Kingdom people’ in their communities. Therefore, the community that one seeks to penetrate with the gospel often shapes how the gospel is presented in ‘word and deed’. It’s not that the gospel message is changed, but the message is contextualized for that specific place, time, and people. There are different nuances to how people communicate physically and verbally in different cultures; these factors must be considered when one wants to share the good news of Jesus Christ. Belcher recently wrote in an interview;

“When you study Paul’s missionary journeys in Acts you see that he preached the gospel very differently to the Jews than he did to Gentiles. He presented the message differently in the cities than the small towns. He was contextualizing the Gospel…my former professor John Frame says, “Should we, then, preach in Hebrew, or Greek, or Serbo-Croatian? Should we make the gospel as obscure as possible so as to avoid catering to fallen pride? Should we present it as something irrational, in order to maintain the offense of the cross? Perhaps we should not preach at all, in order to let God do the work.” Of course Frame is using some rhetorical hyperbole but the point is that Paul thought we needed to “translate” the message to each unique audience. I think that it is what we are called to do.”

Belcher is exactly right when he says that the deepest division between the emergent church and evangelicalism is about the gospel itself. The gospel is where we find unity as believers, but if different groups cannot agree on the essentials on that message – unity is not possible in the greater sense.

I am on the same page with Steve McCoy, he says that Deep Church resonated with him in a personal way. I encourage all pastors and church leaders to read this book. While you may not agree with every single detail or thought, its wonderful to ‘walk alongside’ Belcher as he wrestles with these issues himself.

Belcher provides an excellent analysis of the main issues being considered by the next generation of church leaders. While I doubt that the ideal ‘deep church’ Belcher longs for is possible theologically for the Church. I will say that this book could serve as a catalyst to help us as Christians have deeper dialogue among the Church as a whole. Also, many of these principles will challenge you to think different about ‘how’ you are doing ministry in your own context.

Click here for Part 1 and Part 2 of my review.

  1. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2009/11/30/a-conversation-about-deep-church/
  2. I agree with Gilbert when he writes, “Piper is right: To reject the idea of Jesus dying in the place of sinners, taking their punishment on himself for their sins, is to reject the gospel” totally.
  3. DeYoung notes that Belcher leaves out sin, the cross, and the resurrection. These “three items give no specific mention in Belcher’s definition of the gospel. This is a problem.” I think he is right to point this out.
  4. In this article Tim Keller defines the gospel as follows; “Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever.”
Matt Capps Books, Christianity, Culture, Religion, The Great Commission Resurgence, The Southern Baptist Convention

Review of Jim Belcher’s ‘Deep Church’ – Part 2

Note: In this three part series I have devoted two posts to summarizing Part 1 and Part 2 of Jim Belcher’s book Deep Church. In post 3 I will offer some concluding thoughts – highlights and critical reflection.

Summary of Part 2 – ‘Protest, Reaction, and The Deep Church’

Deep Truth

The emerging church argues that the traditional church has gone too far in using the tools of Enlightenment reason and science to prove that the Bible is true. On the other hand, the traditional church has argued that the emerging church has denied the great metanarrative that makes sense of reality by rejecting any notion of transcendent truth. Belcher argues that we need to move beyond foundationalism[1] and hard postmodernism to a deeper understanding of truth.

“If its true that the traditional church’s realism is correct but not its foundationalism, and that the emerging church’s postfoundational critique is on target but not its metaphysics, what is the alternative?”

For Belcher, this third way rejects classical foundationalism and hard postmodernism. What does this mean? While no philosophical system can uphold our way of knowing, this does not leave us with an “everything goes” mentality. Belcher explains that Deep Church believes in foundations, but the foundations are built on belief, not reason. He explains that “this does not make us timid”, but gives us proper confidence. “We realize that we are sinners, prone to see reality through our selfishness and conceit.” The point is to pull away from confidence in ourselves, but trust in Christ.

Deep Evangelism

Simply put, people need to be “drawn to the well.” The emerging culture often places belonging before believing. ‘Belonging’ to a group means that you feel welcome, are able to be honest and open, you can simply come as you are. Belcher reflects on a conversation he had with friend Steven Cooper to explain how this works. Cooper argued from a pattern in the Gospel accounts that there are three stages to move from belonging to believing;

“In the first part of Jesus’ ministry, he’s training disciples so they would know exactly who he is. Through his teaching and miracles, his actions, his ministry, Jesus is answering the disciples questions about Jesus’ identity…[but then there is transition 1] Notice that Jesus asks the disciples the ultimate question, ‘who do you say that I am?’…[Finally transition 2] In the final section of the Gospels, Jesus unveils that he will…be rejected, suffer at the hands of men, be crucified, and then be raised again. Directly following this revelation, Jesus calls his disciples then to take up their cross and follow him.”

The point is simple. People are to first enter into the community. Once they have moved deeper into the community, truly belong, they are called to believe in Christ.

Deep Gospel

In the traditional church, Belcher posits, salvation is primarily personal- being saved from our sins and living morally before God. “This consisted mostly in doing stuff for God, saving souls, supporting our foreign missions program and having our quiet times…But Christianity is bigger than just me and my personal life.” He argues that the phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ is rarely talked about or properly explained in traditional churches.

Belcher exposes that there are weakness in the emerging churches as they react to the traditional churches who rarely talk about the ‘Kingdom of God.’ While he appreciates the focus on kingdom living, the descriptions often will leave one “powerless to enter the kingdom and live it out. The emerging leaders tend to react against the traditional church so there is little talk on the key doctrines of salvation. With no focus on the blood of Christ we are left with nothing more than ‘virtue ethics.’ So, what is supposed to be so liberating becomes legalism with a fresh face.

Deep gospel is explained as Belcher describes how their church contextualized the gospel message for Orange County.

“We wanted to stress the atonement as well as the Kingdom of God. We wanted to make it clear that Christ’s cross, which paid for our sins and took away our guilt, is the foundation for Christ’s victory over evil and oppression, and allows us to join God’s family and his kingdom reign.”

Deep Worship

‘Worship wars’ are still being fought in the trenches of many local churches across America. It seems to me, from what I have read (and experienced) that much of the ammo comes from nothing more than ‘proof text’ and musical preference rather than a theologically robust understanding of scripture. On a larger scale corporate worship has taken many forms, most notably when one compares the emerging movement and the traditional church. Again there is the tendency to swing the pendulum too far away from tradition (emerging) or attempt to suspend worship within traditional forms (traditional).

Belcher argues that “in order to be faithful we must draw on not only Scripture but tradition as well. But we also draw on our cultural sensitivities and our desire to ‘worship before the nations,’ making sure that our worship is accessible to an outsider. Keeping all three- Bible, tradition and culture- in mind, we are able to craft a worship gathering that is neither irrelevant nor syncretistic.” Belcher shares that his desire is to see a deeper worship looks like this;

“Worship that embodied a genuine encounter with God, had depth and substance, included more frequent and meaningful Communion, was participatory, read more Scripture in worship, creatively used the senses, provided more time for contemplation, and focused on the transcendence and otherness of God.”

Deep Preaching

Belcher mentions that he grew up hearing sermons that lacked inspiration. He heard the typical ‘three points and a poem’, which often comes across, in my opinion, as “plastic”. Sermons should have unity, clarity, thoughtfulness, and dramatic movement. What was typical in the churches that Belcher grew up in was preaching that exhorted the people to “love Jesus more, live more faithfully, avoid the world, and serve obediently in the church.” I agree with Belcher here, and I am deeply saddened when most of the preaching Christians hear is nothing more than an emotional plea to motivate better living. This is so powerless, and often leads to nothing more than “moralism or legalism.”

What is lacking is a sense of homiletical drama. Belcher argues that we should strive to “preach Christ in every text, laying out and analyzing the human condition through Scriptures and experience, and exposing the radical, shocking grace of God that enters our situation, transforms us and empowers us to live differently. Thus we don’t exhaust our energies preaching against the world- we have enough worldliness inside of us for sermon material. We don’t exhaust our energies preaching the need to try harder, love better and be more holy with our first exposing our inability to do so apart from the transforming power of the cross and the resurrection of our lives. Anything less is legalism- which ends in discouragement.” People need to be drawn to the well.

Deep Ecclesiology

When Belcher analyzed his first experience working on a church staff he realized that “over 60 percent of the week was taken up by meetings, committees, paperwork, and other institutional chores…institutionalism was killing our church.” The rest of his time was spent cramming for sermons and organizing programs and events. He came to the conclusion that many churches that function like institutions become ingrown and care more about survival. When this happens “church members are no longer interested in missional Christianity, that is, being sent out into the world to be salt and light. They want safety, not challenge; security; not risk.”

Is there a better way to form a more organic church, knowing that the more ‘networked organic churches’ cannot survive long without some form of structure? Each side, traditional (more institutionalized) and emerging (more organic) believe that they are biblical? Is there another way? Belcher argues that “tradition and history act as checks on our views of the Bible and the world. If we neglect this vital history of the church and God’s faithful working on it, we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. Instead, we need to learn from the mistakes, be recalibrated by the wisdom of the past, and work out what it means to be in the church today in light of the Bible, mission and tradition.”

Deep Culture

The Christian community is divided over culture, “a unified witness to the world around us does not exist.” The emerging voices often react against the culturally narrow fundamentalist approach of traditional church often being sectarian. While the traditional church pushes back at the emerging church for being succumbed to the worst forms of syncretism. “These standoffs breed distrust.”

Belcher hold’s up Abraham Kuyper’s example of the church being an institution and an organism as the better way. While the church as institution seeks to uphold and refine the traditional elements of the church that are true to the biblical mandate. The church as an organism works to train secret agents who permeate world and create a culture within the city. In one sense, our churches are to present a radical alternative community to the world, but also called to take their new perspective into the surrounding communities as salt and light.

Click here for Part 1 of this series on ‘Deep Church.’

[1] Belcher defines Foundationalism as follows; “the view that knowledge can be based on self-evident truths that don’t need any backing from religion or any other external authority, that is knowledge that has ‘invincible certainty.’”

Matt Capps Books, Christianity, Culture, Faith, Religion, The Great Commission Resurgence, The Southern Baptist Convention

Review of Jim Belcher’s ‘Deep Church’ – Part 1

Summary of Part 1: ‘Mapping the Territory’

Note: In this three part series I will devote two posts to summarizing Part 1 and Part 2 of Jim Belcher‘s book Deep Church. In post three I will offer some concluding thoughts – highlights and critical reflection.

Introduction

I was walking through the used book store the other day and found a copy of Deep Church by Jim Belcher. I have noticed the buzz about this book on Twitter and in the ‘blogosphere.’ It’s one of those books I have been meaning to buy, and I am glad I did. (Not to mention it was only $6.00 used.) The purpose of this blog series is to offer pastoral reflection on a book that many people are picking up and reading right now.

‘They’ tell you not to judge a book by its cover, but you can’t help but do just that with Deep Church. The very first thing I noticed was that the endorsements came from a wide array of leaders from very different Christian traditions – Tim Keller, Rob Bell, and Mark Driscoll among others.

But this helps explain Belcher’s goal. He asks, what does a Deep Church look like? “It is a missional church committed to both tradition and culture, valuing innovation in worship, arts and community but also creeds and confession.” Belcher is proposing that beyond the differences between the Emergent Church movement and the Traditional Evangelical Church, there can be a ‘third way.’

Belcher adds a ‘different type’ of voice to the dialog. Jim Belcher writes with a unique perspective. First, Belcher has ‘insider’ ties to the Emergent movement through friendships with those on the front lines, but he is also an ‘outsider’ in the sense that he has serious misgivings with certain aspects of the movement, most notable their “lack of gospel centeredness.” Secondly, I appreciate the style in which Deep Church is written. As you read this book you almost feel as if you are reading Belcher’s personal journal. The reader will get the sense that Belcher has seriously reflected on, and wrestled with the issues dividing the Emergent Movement from the ‘Traditional Church.’ Third, Belcher is no slouch, he is well educated (Ph.D. in Political Philosophy from Georgetown University) he is also well read.

The Two Tiers of a Deep Church

The title for this book was influenced by a letter that C.S. Lewis wrote where he was exploring the commonalities of the often contrasted ‘high church’ and ‘low church.’ So Lewis suggested a third way. He wrote, “may I suggest ‘Deep Church’ or, if that fails in humility, Baxter’s ‘mere Christians’?” During the same year Lewis published Mere Christianity where he further developed this idea with the following analogy;

“I hope no reader will suppose that “mere” Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of existing communions as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone in to that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals.”

For Lewis the rooms represented separate church traditions. In these rooms the Christians divided over the ‘second tier’ issues, yet in the hallways we can experience deep fellowship on the basis of our commonalities. Lewis is describing what Tom Oden coined as ‘new ecumenism.’ This is what Belcher is exploring in Deep Church. Is there a ‘third way’ other than ‘Emerging’ and ‘Traditional?’ Belcher describes the two tier approach in the following way;

“A two-tiered system has a number of practical benefits. First, it minimizes triumphalism or denominational chauvinism. When the top tier is agreed upon, the various parties mutually trust and respect each other as orthodox. Then the discussions that deal with bottom-tier teachings become opportunities to learn and grow.”

In thinking though this ‘tier’ approach I would also recommend considering Albert Mohlers ‘three tier approach’ when dealing with theological issues.

The Protest of the Emergent Network

Belcher’s description of the “white elephant” in the room of the traditional church is well summarized. He gives seven descriptions of what those in the emergent network are protesting in more traditional churches;

  1. Captivity to Enlightenment Thinking – The church has been captive to the enlightenment ideals, condoning individualism, rationalism, and pragmatism.
  2. A Narrow View of Salvation – The church has been focusing too much on how an individual is saved and not enough on how one lives as a Christian.
  3. Belief before Belonging – People should be able to come and go, ask questions, engage in eternal issues, and get to know God through being part of a community.
  4. Uncontextualized Worship – The church is not effectively communicating the gospel to the culture around though music worship.
  5. Ineffective Preaching – The traditional style of ‘speeching’ is not as effective as challenging people through different modes of spiritual formation.
  6. Weak Ecclesiology – The traditional church is more concerned with from than mission. It cares more about institutional survival than being sent as the people of God.
  7. Tribalism – The traditional church is unwilling to engage the culture and has become a sectarian subculture know more for ‘what its against.’

I believe that the diagnosis offered by those in the emergent camp is in many ways legitimate and Belcher summarizes them well. I must say though, that the ‘cure’ offered by some of the emergent’s on these charges is often over contextualized. This is where Belcher becomes very helpful in explaining the Emergent movement. Belcher’s purpose in writing is clear – for unity in the essentials;

“I hope that both sides would work hard to understand each other, finding agreement on classic orthodoxy and striving to maintain unity even though there are second tier differences.”

Belcher proposes to offer a good model for the quest of unity. He argues that we should be learning from both emerging and traditional voices so that we can move beyond ‘secondary’ issues to a more excellent way. In part two of this series I will explain what Belcher actually proposes.

Matt Capps Christianity, Culture, Faith, Personal, Religion, The Great Commission Resurgence, The Southern Baptist Convention

Thoughts on the Local Church and Evangelism

“Love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” – Jesus

Ed Stetzer recently wrote that “the church does not have a mission– it joins Jesus on His mission. It is better to say that the mission has a church!” I agree, and would argue that the mission is simple, ‘to glorify God by proclaiming the gospel and reflecting the kingdom of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.’ This is why the church exists. Alvin Reid writes that “both as an institution and a movement, the local church has been and will continue to be God’s primary plan of ministry.” I think both of these quotes highlight the importance of evangelism in the context of the local church.

Lesslie Newbigin once described the local church as the “hermeneutic of the gospel.” He meant that the local church, in many ways, “examples” the gospel to those around them. The local church is the fountainhead of gospel proclamation. I think the authors of Total Church are right when they argue that “evangelism is best done out of the context of gospel community whose corporate life demonstrates the reality of the word that gave her life.”

‘The gospel word’ and ‘the gospel community’ (local church) are closely connected. It is through the ‘gospel word’ that the local church is created and nourished. But in the local church the gospel should also be embodied and proclaimed. In many ways, a gospel centered community authenticates the gospel word to the skeptics. In his classic book Evangelism in the Early Church, Michael Green describes the lure of the early church as follows;

“They made the grace of God credible by a society of love and mutual care which astonished the pagans and was recognized as something entirely new. It lent persuasiveness to their claim that the new age had dawned in Christ.”

 

I think we can develop some helpful teaching implications based off of these thoughts.

First, I think we need to train our people to see the church as a ‘network of relationships’ rather than ‘an event one attends’ or ‘building one enters.’ It seems to me that many missiologists are arguing that ‘skeptical people are often attracted to the Christian community before they are attracted to the Christian message.” This seems obvious and inevitable when the gospel message is enshrined in the life of the church, and is it’s source of power for growth. This is where the gospel becomes fascinating for the non-believer. What do I mean?

I think this dynamic is explained well in the book Total Church, “our commitment to one another despite our differences and our grace toward one another’s failures are more eloquent testimony to the gospel than any pretense at perfection.” Simply put, true gospel fellowship within the local body transcends the barriers of race, sex, class, and education, creating a community bound by the gospel alone. With this in mind, ‘introducing people into the community’ becomes an important facet of our evangelism strategy.

Secondly, we need to teach our people that evangelism is more of a lifestyle rather than a ‘specific activity’. We need our churches to be Christian communities who scatter and saturate ‘all of life’ with the gospel. I think we can learn from Green’s study of evangelism in the early church on this point also. When it came to evangelism;

“They went everywhere gossiping the gospel; they did it naturally, enthusiastically, and with the conviction of those who are not paid to say that sort of thing. Consequently, they were taken seriously, and the movement spread, notably among the lower classes…“There was no distinction in the early church between full time ministers and laymen in this responsibility to spread the gospel by every means possible, there was equally no distinction between the sexes in the matter. It was axiomatic that every Christian was called to be a witness to Christ, not only by life but lip.”

We need to instill in our people that evangelism is the prerogative and duty of every church member. Evangelism invades every area of life. Evangelism demands every resource of the church, namely, each member. Lewis Drummond rightly recognizes that “because church members are in the marketplaces of the secular world in their everyday pursuits, they are exactly where they need to be to evangelize effectively.” We need to organize and utilize our people for that very end, to faithfully proclaim the gospel in all contexts of life.

Matt Capps Christianity, Culture, Faith, Philosophy, Religion, The Southern Baptist Convention

Kitsch, Trinkets, and the Commodification of Evangelical Christianity

I recently heard Russell Moore say that evangelical Christianity is “one big conspiracy to sell each other stuff.” To be fair, his comment was not limited to retail, he was speaking more on a philosophical level. But, religious retail is a very large sector in our Christian subculture. I think we can learn something here. Christian retail may be one of the most indicative signs of a theologically anemic American evangelical subculture.

The other day I received a catalog in the mail from a Christian retail chain advertising for Christmas. I found it interesting that “the good news” being proclaimed on the cover was that shoppers can “save on Christ-Centered items for the entire family.” At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, this is simply unacceptable. I think we should take a cue from Neil Postman and apply Marshall McLuhan’s aphorism “the medium is the message” to our sub-cultural situation. Here is a good question, ‘what cultural message are we communicating by the mediums that we use as vehicles to present the Christian message?’ I think this excerpt from the magazine Mere Comments highlights the problem well;

“The Los Angeles Times report from the Christian Retail expo is depressing. The makers of a “new genre” of “Christian perfume” rolled out their product, with the promise that it can be an effective evangelistic tool/ “It should be enticing enough to provoke questions: ‘What’s that you’re wearing?'” the marketer said. “Then you take that opportunity to speak of your faith. They’ve opened the door, and now they’re going to get it.” Going to get what? A migraine headache? An allergic reaction? Or the gospel of salvation?

Mentioned in the Times piece also are Christian golf balls with John 3:16 on them, so that, even if you lose it in a sand trap, well, “lose a golf ball, share the gospel.”  Also for sale are Christian sandals that leave footprints that leave the message “Follow Jesus” in the sand behind them.”

Here is my issue with Christian retail: The commodification of the Christian message not only exploits the faith to consumer capitalism, but it also sentimentalizes and trivializes the gospel. We can’t just slap a Bible verse on something and call it “Christian” because that item itself has a message attached to it within the context of our culture.

What burdens me is that these items often confuse the central message of Christianity. Christianity is not about wearing Christian logos. Often times, that can become nothing more than a new marketing twist on the old veneer of self-righteousness. More than that, these “Christian” trinkets often are corny little attempts to mimic culture in a “Christian way.” The true message is often lost in translation once it leaves the American evangelical Christian subculture.

We really need to think about these kitsch products that we peddle in “Christian” retail. Stephen Nichols nails it on the head, “the threat of losing the gospel message even within the Christian community itself looms large.” I don’t think we have seen Jesus marketed like this in centuries! The last time it was this bad Martin Luther protested the hawking of Christ and changed the face of the world. The sad thing is that today’s evangelical Christians freely embrace and participate in the commodification of Christ with no theological reflection.

The “good news” of Christmas should not be that you can “purchase Christ-centered items for the whole family at discount.” The good news of Christmas is Jesus Christ himself. Jesus, who purchased your pardon and freely offers you eternal life when you place your faith in him. I don’t see why we need a golf ball, tee-shirt, or perfume to proclaim this message. It should come out of our own mouths. It should be written all over our lives!

Matt Capps Books, Christianity, Culture, Faith, Religion, The Great Commission Resurgence, The Southern Baptist Convention

Ten Books for you to read in 2010

One of the greatest things I learned in seminary was “who to read; and who not to read.” In fact, I would argue that my most important spiritual and academic developments while in seminary came from reading good books. For me it’s in the process of wrestling with an idea, trying to prove a point, attempting to validate what I have always believed, that I find my whole world shaken and my roots grasping tighter in the soil.

I have been out of seminary for almost a year now, but the education has not stopped. The Christian book industry has been a perpetual flood of resources. Not all of them are good. Actually, most of them are not very good. See, once you regain your senses after passing through the “potpourri and decoration section” of the “Christian” bookstore you are left to your own devises to find a good book in a sea of ‘good looking books.’ (Hint: good marketing can’t make the book any better).

So, for all its worth, here is my list of books that I would recommend you read in the coming year. These are a few books that I have read (or that I am currently reading) in 2009. If you have not read them check them out;

In no particular order….

  1. The Prodigal God – Tim Keller
  2. Christ and Culture Revisited – D.A. Carson (academic)
  3. Finally Alive– John Piper
  4. How People Change – Timothy Lane & Paul Tripp
  5. Just Do Something– Kevin DeYoung
  6. The Meaning of the Pentateuch– John Sailhamer (academic)
  7. Jesus Made in America – Stephen Nichols
  8. We Become What We Worship – G.K. Beale (academic)
  9. The Courage to Be Protestant – David Wells (academic)
  10. Adopted for Life – Russell Moore

Note: Just because I have labeled a book ‘academic’ do not shy away from it. I often find that the deepest stirring of my Christian affections comes about as I work through a hard read.

Matt Capps Books, Christianity, Culture, Faith, Philosophy, Religion, The Southern Baptist Convention

The Literary Nature of The Gospel Accounts

When reading or teaching through the gospel accounts one must recognize their literary distinctiveness. One important characteristic about the genre ‘gospel’ is that superscriptions to these historical narrative accounts are worded “the gospel according to”, add the authors name. (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John) This implies that there is ‘one gospel’ in four versions.

Also of importance, the gospel accounts are ‘two level documents.’[1] The term gospel is a translation of the Greek word euangelion which means ‘good news.’ In the New Testament the word can either refer to ‘good news proclaimed by Jesus’[2] or the ‘good news of Jesus.’[3] In other words the gospel accounts consist of ‘sayings’ and ‘narratives’, or ‘teachings of Jesus’ and ‘stories about Jesus.’ Fee and Stewart argue;

“Our Gospels do indeed contain a collection of sayings, but these are always woven…into a historical narrative of Jesus life and ministry. Thus they are not books by Jesus but books about Jesus.”[4]

It’s important to note that the authors purposely structured their accounts of the good news. Remember, the gospel accounts are narratives that are not necessarily arranged in chronological order. It’s often helpful to read the gospel accounts while keeping in mind that the theological themes are sometimes the organizational element.[5]

So, these gospel accounts are not biographies in the modern sense of the term, but they are biographical. Modern biographies mainly focus on a persons psychology while ancient forms of biography tend to focus on the persons ‘action and/or teaching.’ As one author writes, “they are technically known as Christological biographies or historical stories about Jesus told for a particular theological purpose.”[6] Perhaps ‘sub-biography’ would be more appropriate? Goldsworthy argues that the gospel accounts presented a “new and distinctive literary genre that came about because of the nature of the gospel event and of the impulse to communicate it.”[7]

Either way, the writers understood that “their churches had special interests that…caused them to arrange and adapt what was selected”[8] by the work of the Holy Spirit. These writers faithfully told the story of Jesus for a theological purpose, and did so while emphasizing certain aspects of Jesus’ life and teaching for the persuasion of their audience.

We should be reminded that the authors could not tell all that there was to tell about Jesus.[9] Therefore, they had to choose what to include, what to omit, as well as how to arrange it in order to most effectively communicate the good news to their audience.

Fee and Stewart propose that there were three principles that guided the composition of each gospel account; selectivity, arrangement, and adaptation. All of these considerations are significant to show the reader that even the “literary structure serves a theological purpose.”[10] So, “the gospel writers are [not only] saying something about Jesus in each episode, they are saying something about Jesus in how they link the smaller stories together to form the larger story.”[11]