Matt Capps Biblical Theology, Calvary Baptist Church, Christian Theology, Christianity, Religion, The Great Commission Resurgence, The Southern Baptist Convention, Theology, Thoughts

Biblical Theology- Part 2: Creation

Note: This series comes from the notes of a course I am teaching on Biblical Theology at Calvary Baptist Church. This material is organized similar to Graeme Goldsworthy’s book According to Plan.

In the narrative of creation we see God set the stage for the story of redemption. Goldsworthy writes that in the beginning we see “the preamble and theological presupposition of the main aspects of salvation history.”[1] But before we examine the beginning of human history we must look into eternity past to see the purpose of creation;

Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.[2]

God’s Purpose in Creation

God has always been. The scripture attests to the doctrine of God’s eternal nature or God’s timelessness.[3] God has no beginning, He has always been. Not only that, but God has always been absolutely complete, delighting in Himself as the perfect Trinity. Among the persons of the Trinity there has been perfect love and fellowship for all of eternity.[4] This is called the doctrine of God’s independence.

Why then did God freely[5] choose to create? Daniel Fuller makes an interesting observation concerning the purpose of creation when he asks, “why was He (God) not perfectly content to remain simply as the fully happy Trinity?”[6] This question reveals, at the very least, that there must be an underlying purpose for all things God has created. The Apostle Paul addresses this query in the Scripture;

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.[7][8]

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.[9]

First we see that God created to make Himself known. Secondly, we see that Jesus Christ is the agent of creation and also the beneficiary of its existence. We must avoid the arrogant ‘man-centered’ assumption that earth exists solely for our use and enjoyment. The primary reason creation exists for the praise and glory of its creator God.[10]

We know from the creation account that everything was made ‘good’[11] to reflect the glory of God in its own way. “Part of the meaning of the goodness of creation in the Bible is that it testifies[12] to the God who made it, reflecting something of His good character.”[13] In fact, creation is only good by virtue of standing in appropriate relationship to it creator.

Simply put, the end for which God created the world was to glorify Himself.[14] This truth is often hard to swallow because it seems vain, and it removes us from the center of existence. But God is the only being in the universe for whom self glorification is not vain. Think about it, if God is the greatest being in the universe, the most precious gift, then displaying Himself in creation is an act of love, He displays His own glory for our joy. John Piper writes;

In all of redemptive history, from beginning to ending, God has this one ultimate goal: that God be glorified. The aim of God in all that he does is most ultimately the praise of his glory. All of redemptive history is book-ended by this amazing purpose. And in the middle of that redemptive history stands the greatest event in the history of the world, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.[15]

The primary reason God created was to make His glory known, and His glory is known most fully in Jesus Christ. The Scripture testifies that all things were created through Christ and for Christ. So “Christ is not only the origin of the cosmos; He is also its goal. All things were created for Him, i.e., to be subject to and to glorify Him.”[16]

God Created, Orders, Sustains, and Communicates By His Word[17]

“Foundational to Biblical Theology is the conviction that God has spoken.” God has spoken “through His word, and God has revealed Himself and His will…on behalf”[18] of creation. More importantly, we believe that “God reveals Himself and His ways in the created world and in His deeds in history, but His word is essential for a proper understanding of what creation and history reveal.”[19]

a. God Creates by Word

At eight points in Genesis 1 God speaks creatively: “And God said, Let…”[20] God commands and it is so. Why is it significant that God created by His word?[21] At least “the very effortlessness of the fulfillment indicates God’s sovereignty.”[22] It is also notable that God created all things out of nothing.[23] In other words, there was no ‘raw material’ present until God brought all things into existence.

b. God Establishes Order by Word

The word of God established order within creation, and does so with a purpose. So creation is not only a question of beginnings, but also of purpose and relationships. In Genesis we have two creation accounts, the first in chapter 1 and the other in chapter 2. These two accounts provide different perspectives on the structure of the one creation event.

“The Genesis accounts tell that there is a structure to the creation which is described first in terms of the main elements of the universe and their relationships (Genesis 1), and second in terms of human beings and their relationships (Genesis 2).”

Creation is presented in this way by the writer of the Pentateuch to show that there is order in the universe. In other words, everything has a proper function and relationship which impacts everything within creation order.

c. God Sustains by Word

God not only created and established order in the universe but also governs it.[24] “This providence, or continued government of the universe by the Creator becomes a prominent feature of the biblical understanding of the ultimate purpose of God which nothing, not even sin, is allowed to frustrate.”[25] So, by setting structure to all things within creation and designating their functions, God sustains His purposes.[26]

So, on a very general level, the Genesis creation accounts tell us about how things began, and explain the relationships between things. How things relate is closely tied to their purpose. “These relationships, which were later confused by sin, are at the heart of the gospel by which God is restoring all things to their proper relationships.”[27]

d. God Communicates by Word

Since God reveals His character and purposes, it is part of His relationship with His people. God freely chooses to relate to creation by His word. In keeping with this is the fact that when He creates the human pair He blesses them by addressing them with a spoken word. This is unique for humanity that God can address us with words and we can understand them. The word that God speaks establishes and interprets the context within which human beings exist and relate to everything else in creation.

These truths are amazing and reveal some astonishing realities; Goldsworthy points out that;

  1. The greatness of God is shown by His needing only to say, “Let it be…” for things to be brought into existence.
  2. Creation by word also shows us that God has chosen to relate to all things by the means of His word.
  3. The rule of God over His creation through His word shows the real distinction between God and creation.[28]

What does this have to do with Jesus Christ? The writer of Hebrews declares that;

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.[29]

God’s mode of speaking changes in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the word of God in flesh. “In His person and work Jesus becomes the ultimate form of God’s communication.”[30] In fact the gospel of Jesus Christ we receive the message of a new creation and restored order.[31]

Creation and The Kingdom of God

Our creator king loves His creation. In Genesis we see that God has created all things and established them in a fixed order of relationships, to which he declares “they are very good.” These words are significant.

“The free act of creation and God’s approval indicated by the words “very good,” point to a loving and immensely strong commitment on God’s part towards creation” which becomes more fully understood as the drama of history unfolds.[32]

This loving relationship begins with the opening announcement of the Bible narrative: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The God who created also rules over His creation, creation is therefore established as the “Kingdom of God.” Goldsworthy elaborates on God’s Kingdom as follows;

“God’s rule involves the relationships that He has set up between Himself and everything in creation…the focus of the kingdom of God is on the relationship between God and His people. Man is subject to God, while the rest of creation is subject to man.”[33]

So, we may understand the Kingdom of God as following: “there is a King who rules, a people who are ruled, and a sphere where this rule is recognized as taking place.”[34] So we have;

  1. God’s people
  2. In God’s place
  3. Under God’s rule

In the Garden of Eden we are introduced to the Kingdom of God[35], a theme that extends over the whole of the Bible. In the Garden of Eden the pattern for the Kingdom is established. Here we see an innocent people of God living in a perfect environment for them called paradise, where the rule of God is expressed by His word, which provides us with the pattern of the Kingdom of God.

“God establishes a perfect creation that he loves and over which he rules…The kingdom means that everything in creation relates perfectly, that is, as God intends it should, to everything else and to God himself.”

In Jesus the Kingdom comes. Jesus words bear witness to this fact, “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”[36] Goldsworthy argues that “He was at once both creator and creature, king and obedient servant, word of God and listening servant. Thus Jesus…not only brings the kingdom, He is the Kingdom in Himself.”[37] One day, God’s Kingdom will be fully consummated at Christ’s return.

The Creation of Man in the Image of God

In Genesis[38] we are told that man is made in the image of God, yet we are not told exactly what that means. At the very least this shows “the remarkable distinctiveness”[39] of man compared to the rest of creation. Human beings are unique among creation and have been given a distinct relationship to God in being ‘made in His image.’ Here are some observations based on that relationship;

a. Humans Represent God: Being created in the ‘image of God’, as the climax of creation, man has a specific role to fill. The image for “Man mediates between the Creator and the created world which he is part. In man God deals with His creation personally.”[40] Man was created in such a way that he is able to represent God on earth “like an ambassador from a foreign country.”[41]

b. Humans Reflect God: The image of God can be also be understood as being created in ‘the likeness of God.’ As a mirror reflects, so man should reflect God. “Another way of putting this is to say that in man God is to become visible on earth.”[42] In man we should see a reflection of God’s love, justice, grace, etc.

c. Humans Rule Under God: Another aspect of being created in the image of God refers to our dominion over creation. Therefore, the image of God shows that man is set directly under God in the order of creation.[43] Only man is addressed as one who knows God and is created to live purposefully for God. Man’s responsibility as an image bearer is tied to his dominion over creation.

“When man falls because of sin the creation is made to fall with him. In order to restore the whole of creation, God works through His Son who becomes a man to restore man. The whole creation waits eagerly for the redeemed people of God to be finally revealed as God’s perfected children, because at this point the creation will be released from its own bondage. This overview of man as the object of God’s covenant love and redemption confirms the central significance given to man in Genesis 1-2.”[44]

While the Bible does not clearly define (in exact terms) what is meant by being created in the ‘image of God’ at the beginning of creation, we can look to look forward to Jesus Christ as the ‘true image of God.’

What we see in Christ tells us what we should be like, which reveals shame on our part, it shows us that something is not right. In other words, we do not represent, reflect, or rule on earth in the way we were created to do, the way that brings ultimate glory to God. But Christ did. When Christ was on earth He was;

  1. Wholly directed towards God.
  2. Wholly directed towards neighbor
  3. Ruled over nature

So the image of God in humanity was not only brought about by Christ in creation but was also patterned after Christ.[45]

Man a Created Creature Who is Ruled

The creation account shows us that everything we have is a gift from God. This is one of the central truths of creation that destroys modern man’s idea that ‘he/she is in charge of their lives and destiny.’ As God’s creation we are totally dependent on Him for everything;

  1. We are dependent on God for His continual rule over creation.
  2. We are dependent on God for His providential care.
  3. We are dependent on God for the production of food.
  4. We are dependent on God for drawing our next breath.
  5. We are dependent on God for the next beat of our hearts.

The list goes on and on. There is nothing in this universe that is self sustaining except God. Every moment of our existence shows God’s grace in that He sustains the very substance of creation. If Almighty God were to withdraw His powerful word from creation the universe would cease to exist, there would be no order, nothing to sustain the universe;

“This is why man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God[46]. So Christ, as the creative Word of God, sustains ‘all things by His powerful word’[47], and ‘in Him all things hold together’[48].”

We have already argued that man is unique in creation as being created in the image of God. Part of being created in the image of God tells us that “humanity does not truly exist apart from[49] a special relationship with God.”[50] It is in relationship with God that we, as human beings, understand our function within creation. Human beings are uniquely responsible to God in that we must answer to our maker.

Within creation humans were given dominion over the rest of creation.[51] “Human life is defined by its God given freedom and by bounds and sanctions”[52] which makes humanity responsible creatures. But, we only have sanctioned freedom. We are not completely autonomous beings, we do not have ‘free will’ is the absolute sense. God is the only free being in the universe.

“In Genesis 1:28 it is implied that we are created to make real choices between real options, even though this freedom is bound by the prescription to be fruitful and rule the earth. Without freedom to make real choices it would be impossible to rule…[but notice] they have no freedom as to the consequences if they eat of the one forbidden tree.”[53]

Thus with freedom and responsibility comes a test of obedience in the prohibition placed on eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God designated this tree “as off limits as the means of showing the difference between good and evil.”

Conclusion

Remember, Jesus Christ is the center of history, which means He is the center of creation. Jesus was not only involved in the original creative act, but is also intimately associated with God continued providential care of creation. As the ‘true image’ of God, Jesus Christ is the point of contact between the creator and creation.[54]

A Course On Biblical Theology

Continue reading “Biblical Theology- Part 2: Creation” →

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

Jesus and Religious Legalism – A Call for Pastoral Wisdom

“You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

In studying Mark 7:1-23 last week I was reminded of the elusive nature of self righteousness. I am working through Mark while reading a study written by Tim Keller. I have quoted a few sentences from it below.

In this passage the religious leaders charge that Jesus’ followers had defiled themselves by not holding to their religious traditions. In other words, the religious leaders had developed a ‘fence’ of strict rules that moved beyond the Bible in order to guard themselves from breaking the broader principles of Biblical law. Their reasoning was simple, “if you are truly devoted to God and committed to holiness, you will be eager to go the extra mile to be absolutely sure you have not been defiled.”

Jesus refused to have his followers bound by such legalistic extra-biblical traditions.

While the extra rules might, at first, seem to protect the people and honor God’s law, in the end it undercuts the point of the law. Specific rules provide the opportunity to ‘fully comply’ to the law externally without dealing with the real issue of sinfulness.

“By creating a hundred minor procedures, it becomes possible to feel that you have fully complied and to feel righteous in doing so…(plus) all the emphasis shifts to outward conformity and external behaviors.”

I fear that many people in the church today live their lives in the bondage of religious tradition and external conformity to sub-cultural norms. Often we knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate this mentality as pastors. We need to be careful not to destroy our gospel witness.

It is quite possible that by adding to Biblical mandates that we “concentrate on lots of specific rituals” and distract from seeing the depth of our sin and the beauty of the gospel of Jesus Christ. One possible implication is that many church goers look to their ‘religious activity’ or ‘moral uprightness’ instead of Christ for their closeness to God.

I would even go as far as to argue that keeping ‘religious rules’ does not develop wisdom, character, and virtue but a subtle legalism that is ‘anti-gospel.’ When we set up religious rules that move beyond what the Bible teaches, those rules become an end in themselves. Then we can simply prove to others that we are good and moral, which “strangles us and those around us.” We need to use wisdom in our leadership not control. Remember the words of our Lord Jesus;

“There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

Read the passage here.

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

Biblical Theology- Part 1: Introduction

“It is possible to know Bible stories, yet miss the Bible story.”[2]

Edmund Clowney

An Introduction to Biblical Theology

Imagine that you are standing at the edge of a very large and very thick forest. You are adamant about reaching a specific destination on the other side. You have no map. Obviously, once you enter the forest it would be very hard to gather your bearings, to see exactly where you are in relation to the destination, and so forth.

In this situation it would be crucial to have a ‘birds-eye view,’ a map to direct you. See, a good map reduces any area that is too vast for us to understand from a limited perspective. Seeing the whole keeps us from ‘missing the forest for the trees’, which often happens when we read our Bibles. The point, the Bible as a whole is a ‘unity.’ It is one great story, with a story line that traces an unfolding drama.

J.I. Packer masterfully illustrates why this truth is so astonishing;

“The Bible consists of sixty six separate units, written over more than a thousand years against a wide variety of cultural backgrounds, by people who for the most part worked independently of each other and show no awareness that their books would become canonical Scripture…Books written centuries apart seem to have been designed for the express purpose of supplementing each other and illuminating each other.”[3]

In other words, Biblical theology explores the rich and multi-sided presentation of the Bibles unified message. What Biblical Theology allows us to do is “follow the line of the plot and offer a guide to the underlying story of all stories”[4], namely the story of Jesus Christ.

Biblical Theology will not only strengthen your understanding of the Bible, but will also strengthen your faith in the sovereignty of God. It quickly becomes apparent that only God’s sovereign hand in history could maintain a unified drama that stretches over thousands of years.

What is the Discipline of ‘Biblical Theology’?

The word ‘Theology’ can simply be defined as “teaching or discourse about God.”[5] God can only be known through God. He has chosen to reveal himself in His Word.[6] Although “Scripture is our theology”[7] it is not necessarily evident that Christian theology is presented in an organized way in the Bible. In one sense, all true Christian Theology must be Biblical Theology. But Biblical Theology as a discipline has a specific function. Traditionally “Theological Disciplines” are divided into three camps[8] that refer to a particular way of doing theology.

  1. Systematic Theology: This is the most popular of organizational theological systems.[9] Systematic Theology is primarily concerned with “organizing and synthesizing theological doctrines”[10] under headings and topics. Systematic Theology asks the question ‘what should we believe about an aspect of Christianity?’ with the aim of formulating doctrine.
  2. Historical Theology: This approach seeks to organize theology under its historical development. Simply put, Historical Theology is the “study of the changing face of theology across time.”[11] Historical Theology asks the question ‘what have Christians believed about their faith at any given time?’ with the aim of providing a record of the development of Christian doctrine.
  3. Biblical Theology: “This approach is principally concerned with the overall theological message of the Bible.”[12] Biblical Theology asks ‘by what process has God revealed himself to mankind?’ with an aim at properly relating the whole of the Bible to our Christian life now.

Biblical Theology occupies an important position in the study of theology. What makes Biblical Theology unique among other theological disciplines is that stands extremely close to the Biblical text by allowing the scripture to dictate its organization[13] by the guidelines of historic progression.

Biblical Theology provides a map to helps us understand the overall unity of the Bible and helps us see that there is a central message to the Bible rather than a number of ‘unrelated stories and themes.’ Biblical Theology operates under the premise that the Bible is a unified history of God’s progressive revelation to mankind.

How can Biblical Theology be Helpful?

1. Proper Interpretation

First, Biblical Theology helps us correctly interpret the text within the context of the whole Biblical cannon. We often hear people argue that ‘we must understand the text within its context.’ But this comment is often made in reference to the immediate context of the passage (i.e. – the book which we find the passage in). But the “context must include the whole Biblical revelation, as well as the book in which the text occurs.”[14]

“Biblical theology focuses on the storyline of scripture—the unfolding of God’s plan in redemptive history, so that in every passage we consider the place of that text in relationship to the whole storyline of the Bible.”[15]

One of the most important questions Biblical Theology helps us ask is “by what process has God revealed himself?” The answer to this question will help us properly apply the Scripture. Only Biblical Theology will guard us from misusing the Bible, as we read each text in the context of the progressive revelation of God’s redemptive work.[16]

God has chosen to reveal Himself in a “long series of successive acts,”[17] therefore we should seek to understand all things in the Bible within the ‘History of Redemption.’[18] So, Biblical Theology is concerned with how the revelation of God was understood in its time, and what the total picture is that what was built up over the whole historical process.”[19] What we begin to see is that “there is something growing before our eyes; there is a plan, purpose, and progress.”[20]

Second, Biblical Theology helps us understand and resolve many difficulties we might have in hard to understand passages. Some parts of the Bible are difficult to understand. Some parts of the Bible seem to lack a sense of consistency when compared to what the Bible teaches elsewhere. Some of them are just strange because we, as modern people, do not live in the world of the Biblical writers. For example;

  1. Some passages use figures of speech or images that are hard to grasp without understanding their background.
  2. Some passages are capable of having different ranges of meaning, and the context often helps us understand what it actually means.
  3. Some passages seem to present moral difficulties and are simply hard to believe.

Christians with very similar convictions about the Bible can disagree over what the Bible teaches on certain subjects. I am not going to suggest that studying Biblical Theology will solve all of our interpretive problems. But, I agree with Graeme Goldsworthy when he argues that;

“Any Christian who wants to develop a sound method of approaching the text of the Bible in order to find out what it really says and means, needs an understanding of Biblical theology.”[21]

2. Proper Application

First, understanding and applying the Old and New Testament can be difficult and is often applied in inappropriate ways. Biblical Theology helps guard us from making this mistake. To illustrate this point lets consider a few ‘problems’ in interpretation that Biblical Theology will provide the proper framework to think through these issues;

  1. The Old Testament is pre-Christian and never mentions the distinctives of the Christian faith. The people of Israel are not Christians and cannot be said to live “Christian” lives. How then do we properly view the relationship between Israel and us?
  2. The Old Testament contains many distinctives that we do not observe. Consider that some Christians attempt to distinguish OT laws as either “ritual” or “moral.” By what means do we understand how these passages apply to us?
  3. Every part of the Old Testament (prophecy, law, narrative, wisdom sayings, and psalms) needs to be understood as Christian scripture. If the Old Testament is a preparation of the New Testament, then why is the religion of one so different than the other?
  4. Jesus is does not simply function as our moral example. How then do we understand the unique person and work of Jesus Christ in relation to us?
  5. There are events in the New Testament that do not seem to be the normative pattern for us today. How then do we discern these events in light of our current context?

Biblical Theology examines the development of the Bible story from the Old Testament to the New, and seeks to understand the interrelationships between the two parts. Biblical Theology argues that there is coherence to the Bible as a whole.

Second, there is another difficulty which is more elusive and often becomes the most problematic in interpreting the Bible. This is the art of discerning ‘personal application.’

“Paying attention to Biblical Theology is an effective means of turning people away from the destructive postmodern question ‘what does this text mean to me?’ to the more fruitful question ‘what does this text mean?’”[22]

One of the hard truths that we are confronted with in Biblical Theology is that “the Bible is not about you and I.” Yet this is often how the Bible is read, understood, and applied. Biblical Theology equips us to properly approach the Old and New Testaments through the lens of Jesus Christ.

Only when the primary question of the text’s meaning is answered can the other, secondary question of the application of the text to our lives be addressed properly. This prevents our application of the text from becoming a “formality or springboard for…moralizing exhortations.”[23]

Jesus Christ Interprets the Whole Bible

If every part of the Bible needs to be understood as Christian scripture as a coherent unit, where do we start?

“And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”[24]

Jesus – “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me.”[25]

One of the central problems we have in interpreting the Bible comes from a failure to interpret the texts by the definitive event of Jesus Christ’s gospel. In dealing with what happened before Christ and what happened after Christ, we need to interpret those events through Christ. Jesus Christ provides meaning for all the events in history before and after him.[26]

Jesus is God’s Final and Fullest Revelation

If Jesus is the central subject of the Old Testament we cannot correctly understand it without Him. In fact, Goldsworthy writes;

“The Old Testament does not stand on its own, because it is incomplete without its conclusion and fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. No part can be rightly understood without him. In this sense it is about Christ. God’s revelation is progressive, moving in stages from the original promises given to Israel, until the fullest meaning of these promises is revealed in Christ…Thus Christ, interprets the New and Old Testaments.”[27]

Simply put, the gospel of Jesus Christ is needed to interpret all texts by showing us their goal and meaning.[28]

Therefore, the relationship of Jesus Christ to Scripture is that he sums it up, brings it to fulfillment, and interprets it. So the Bible is God’s inspired testimony to the living Word, Jesus Christ.[29] This is important for our understanding; “No one[30] is able to understand Christ without God’s Word and the Holy Spirit.”[31]

There is the Philosophical argument that ‘historical facts do not always interpret themselves’, I believe that this applies to correctly interpreting the whole of the Bible. The facts of the Bible make up the larger story of God’s progressive revelation of himself and his kingdom. God revealed himself in stages.

Goldsworthy (the ‘grandfather’ of Biblical Theology) rightly admits; “I know it will not always be a simple matter to show how every text in the Bible speaks of Christ.” But that does not alter the fact that it does. In fact Biblical Theology is based off the premise that ‘Jesus is the final and fullest revelation of what the Bible is actually about.’ Tim Keller provides some excellent examples of ‘how’ we can look at certain events in the Biblical narrative in relation to Christ;

  1. Jesus is the true and greater Adam who passed the test in the garden and whose obedience is accredited to us.
  2. Jesus is the true and greater Abraham who answered the call of God to leave all the comfortable and familiar and go out into the void not knowing wither he went to create a new people of God.
  3. Jesus is the true and greater Isaac who was not just offered up by his father on the mount but was truly sacrificed for us. And when God said to Abraham, “Now I know you love me because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love from me,” now we can look at God taking his son up the mountain and sacrificing him and say, “Now we know that you love us because you did not withhold your son, your only son, whom you love from us.”
  4. Jesus is the true and greater Jacob who wrestled and took the blow of justice we deserved, so we, like Jacob, only receive the wounds of grace to wake us up and discipline us.
  5. Jesus is the true and greater Joseph who, at the right hand of the king, forgives those who betrayed and sold him and uses his new power to save them.
  6. Jesus is the true and greater Moses who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a new covenant.
  7. Jesus is the true and greater Job, the truly innocent sufferer, who then intercedes for and saves his ignorant friends.
  8. Jesus is the true and greater David whose victory becomes his people’s victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.
  9. Jesus is the true and greater Jonah who was cast out into the storm of God’s wrath so that we could be brought in to safety.[32]

Jesus is the Link between every part of the Bible and Ourselves

Remember, “the Bible is not about you and I.” As believers we should be concerned with the proper interpretation of the Bible so we can understand what God is saying to us through His word. Without some understanding of the overall structure of the Bible it is very difficult to correctly apply the Bible to our own lives. When reading any Biblical passage it is critical that we ask two questions before attempting to apply the text to ourselves;

  1. How does this text relate to Christ?
  2. How do we relate to Christ?

The Bible is very clear that Jesus is the one and only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore God’s word must be mediated to us through Jesus Christ. “Even the words of the Old Testament are mediated through Christ in that we only know what God is saying to us through them when we see them fulfilled in Jesus Christ.”[33] Jesus Christ is the link between every part of the Bible and us.

With this in mind we examine the Word of God for the content of Christ’s gospel and for clues to its relationship with all other parts of the Bible. The gospel is the word about Jesus Christ and what he did for us in order to restore us to a right relationship with God. The historic event of Jesus Christ is God’s fullest self-discloser to mankind. Christ brings to full clarity the promises and shadows of the Old Testament. Christ is the starting point and the goal towards which we will move.

Appendix to Session One

The Bible is the Divine-Human Word of God

All of Biblical history finds its goal and meaning in Jesus Christ. The Bible is God’s testimony to Christ. The Bible is a divine-human Word. It is a word given through human beings within their own history and culture. Goldsworthy writes;

“The Bible bears all the marks of its authors. Their language, thought forms, literary styles and forms. Their culture shapes the actual way the messages were given. So, God acted by his Sprit to inspire the biblical authors so that the humanity of the Bible would be exactly what was needed to convey the truth of God without error. When we speak of the Bibles infallibility we mean that it conveys exactly what God intended it to. God does not allow human sinfulness to interfere with his communication of the truth.”[34]

Jesus is the Divine-Human Word of God

Jesus was fully God and fully man. He is the Word incarnate, which means ‘Word in human flesh.’ In Christ we have God who has always been (John 1:1) taking upon himself complete human flesh (John 1:14). This has specific implications on the discipline of Biblical Theology.

a. Jesus is fully God

He comes from the Father with whom he is one. To have seen him is to have seen the Father. God who established every fact there is, and who can interpret all things, has become man. In Jesus we have the absolute truth of God. Everything revealed to us in Jesus is truth, and he is our ultimate source of truth.

b. Jesus is fully man

God communicates to us through his humanity. He lived in history. This means that he spoke, acted, and thought as a first century Jew of Palestine. Being fully human he experienced the full range of human emotions, suffering, and temptation. “The significant exception was that he was untouched by original sin, and committed no sin.”[35] Therefore he lived in perfect harmony with the Father.[36]

Our aim in Biblical Theology is to “see the Lord of the Word in the Word of the Lord”[37] so that we “take account of the full drama of redemption, and its realization in Christ”[38] as the final and definitive installment.

Note: This series comes from the notes of a course I am teaching on Biblical Theology at Calvary Baptist Church. This material is organized similar to Graeme Goldsworthy’s book According to Plan.

Continue reading “Biblical Theology- Part 1: Introduction” →

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

Thoughts on the role of Apologetics in Evangelism

Throughout church history ‘Apologetics’ has been practiced by Christians in order to provide a reason for their faith. There are many occasions where we can trace this activity to the apostles. In Acts Paul defends himself before the mob in Jerusalem (22:1ff), before the Jewish Council (23:1ff), before Felix (24:1ff), and before Festus and Agrippa (Acts 25:1ff). There are also several instances where Paul is recorded ‘reasoning’ with the Jewish leaders. While each of these scenarios provide plenty of material for discussion, I would like to focus on the proper place of apologetic reasoning in evangelism.

Apologetics (‘to give an answer’) finds its meaning from the ancient legal system of the Greeks where a person would attempt to defend themselves against a charge by making a strong apology (apologia), ‘a reasoned case for claiming innocence’. The apology was an attempt to ‘speak off’ the charge given. Furthermore, in classical and Hellenistic-Greek literature the word dialegesthai (translated ‘reason’) mostly means “converse, discussion, and that for Socrates, Plato and Aristotle it means the art of persuasion and demonstration…in the form of question and answer.”[1] This seems to follow the method of Paul in Acts. Longnecker writes;

These accounts “emphasize that Paul’s preaching consisted of both proclamation and persuasion. It was their custom to visit the local synagogue where Paul found a prepared audience to speak of the things of God…It is interesting to note that Paul ‘reasoned’ with them over a span of three days. More than that, Paul “reasoned with them from the scriptures.”[2]

Those around Paul were most likely in search of truth. For the “synagogue was not so much a preaching-house as a school, in which education was carried on by discussion.”[3] This is a good start.

It might help to make a distinction between two words. L. Russ Bush once wrote, “An apology refers to a specific defense whereas apologetics refers to the science of making an apology.”[4] A Christian apologist is simply one who actively seeks to give an answer for the Christian faith. In today’s church there are very few people who are able to make a reasonable defense for their faith. It might be that the church has a whole has failed to adequately train parishioners, or that parishioners have seen the role of providing an ‘apology’ to those labeled ‘apologists’.

Also many Christians are unable “to answer their modern critics”, but find comfort in that fact that they have been “touched in their hearts by the Holy Spirit”[5] and fall back on anti-intellectual faith as their hope. This ‘subjective’ anti-intellectualism stresses the experience of a personal faith rather than a reasoned defense of the content of Christian faith. Is this a Biblical stance?

The Apostle Peter urges the church in his first letter to “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” In this case it seems that Peter was talking to a group of believers who had been delivered from a pagan background. This being the case- much training would have been needed, and Peter was making this need apparent in his exhortation.

In order to ‘make a defense’ one must understand what it is he/she believes. Also, one must (at the very least) be aware of the basic assumptions of other worldviews. Rosas is correct in stating that there is a positive and negative aspect of the apologetic task, “theological interpretation must take place before any defense can be given. The basic affirmations to be defended must be set forth. Negatively, an apologist must seek to encounter false charges and misconceptions raised by the detractors of the Christian faith, as well as expose weaknesses of their worldviews.”[6] This being said we can turn to the question at hand.

What is the role of apologetics in evangelism? I would agree with Bush here, that while apologetic reasoning is an important aid to evangelism, it is not essential. It might help to clarify why. When we speak of ‘reason’ it is in reference to a mental process. By reasoning we mean, “the ability of the mind to question, challenge, and analyze ideas. We also mean the capacity of the mind to distinguish between viewpoints, and the seemingly inherent assumption of the mind that considers truth to be that which it in fact the case, and the further persuasion that truth is better than non-truth.”[7] In most cases[8] human beings communicate using rational processes.

Now, in the case of Christian evangelism we would argue that a reasonable defense of the faith would be a “set of knowable facts corresponding to biblical claims about nature an about history.”[9] While it is true that the rational mind is capable of being persuaded by truth claims, it is not always the case. Furthermore, we need to be careful is assuming that someone is saved when they make a mental assent to the Gospel facts. “People are not saved merely because they verbalize the truth. They must also believe in their heart (Romans 10:9-10); that is, they must truly find an internal conviction in their soul regarding these matters.”[10] “Not everyone comes to Christ at the end of a logical argument.”[11]

Therefore we need to understand the proper role in Apologetics in evangelism. “The persuader who manipulates is not an evangelist who is making Disciples of Christ”, some are making disciples of themselves.[12] In some cases, those who manipulate only accomplish getting others to confirm their own conclusions. When reasoning with someone you must acknowledge that you “do not perform the spiritual transaction,”[13] it is God who saves. Yet, even if the truth spoken does not succeed in the goal of persuasion, the evangelist should not be disappointed. We are expected to proclaim the gospel, the Apostle Paul argues that “no one can believe if he or she has not heard” (Romans 10:14).

Are their cases where someone has believed and not heard a full apology? Are there cases where someone has heard a full apology of the Gospel message and not received it as that which ‘converts’ the soul? Obviously the answer is yes. “Apologetic arguments cannot generate faith, but the Christian can answer the false charges of the unbeliever so that obstacles to hearing the gospel are removed.”[14] Derek Radney rightly pointed out in a conversation a while back that “human reason is not neutral.” What he means is that our minds, ‘the ability to reason’, have been affected by sin. Not to the extent that it is totally destroyed, which is obvious when we observe the progress made by humanity in the Sciences. But on a spiritual level we are blinded to the truth. This helps us understand the role of apologetics in evangelism. Apologetic reasoning is a battle to tear down the barriers of the natural mind, but it alone cannot generate faith. It is also our defense, as Christians, against allowing ourselves to be influenced by false doctrine. It is thus an important part of spiritual growth and evangelistic persuasion.

Only the regenerate mind and a tender heart can proper conviction of sin, and recognition of the consequences of sin be brought to light. This comes from God’s spirit, and is the true essential for evangelistic persuasion. Therefore, have confidence in God as the sovereign evangelist. Be encouraged while at the same time labor to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.

  1. Dieter Werner Kemmler, Faith and Human Reason, 20.
  2. Richard Longenecker, Acts, 468.
  3. Kemmler, 21-22.
  4. Joseph Rosas, Evangelism and Apologetics, 114.
  5. L. Russ Bush, Christian Apologetics and Intentional Evangelism, 255.
  6. Rosas, 114.
  7. Bush, 256.
  8. I am not implying, for example, that those who are mentally handicapped or unable to communicate for one reason or another are any less human than others. Bush rightly notes that it is the “genetic structure of cells rather than mental performance that is properly used to define” the human species. (256)
  9. Bush, 257.
  10. Bush, 258.
  11. Bush, 259.
  12. Bush, 258.
  13. Bush, 258.
  14. Rosas, 115.
Matt Capps Christianity, Faith, Religion, The Great Commission Resurgence, The Southern Baptist Convention

The ‘Gospel Growth = People Growth’ Conference

Recently Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Matthias Media teamed up for a conference titled “Gospel Growth = People Growth.” The idea is simple, “Gospel growth happens in people and through people.” While the idea is simple, the implications are profound for how you do ministry. Here is a paragraph from the conferences website:

“It happens in people. You can have growth in numbers, in budgets, in programs, in activities, in staff, in baptisms, in buildings, in reputation, and even growth in the quality of preaching, but unless individual people are growing in knowledge, in faith, in godliness, and in love as disciples of Christ, it’s all a noisy clanging gong. Are your people really growing? How would you know whether they are or not? Who is discipling each person in your congregation?

Gospel growth also happens through people. Jesus commissioned every disciple for disciple-making, and a pastor-teacher’s job is not only to Proclaim and to Pray but also also to equip, train and mobilize People for the task. Gospel growth multiplies as Christians get involved in the three P’s: in prayerfully speaking God’s word to other people, in whatever way they can, large or small, at home or at work, in small groups or one-to-one. Is this happening where you are? Or is the ministry basically done by the staff? How many people in your congregation, for example, would be willing and able to do the foundational personal discipling work of following up a new believer and establishing them in the basics of the faith?”

I first saw an advertisement for this conference a while back in a magazine and thought, “I hope they publish the audio files online.” Well, they have, so here are links to the audio files from each of the sessions (from their web site);

I encourage you to listen to each of these, as will I. The topics look well worth the investment.

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.