Well, last week we looked at Jesus as the model for our mission endeavor, examining the pattern of his incarnate life and drawing out implications for our missionary practice.
! And this morning, in our companion study, if you will, we turn to the Apostle Paul with the same ambition.
How is the Apostle a model for us in our missionary lives?
Now, in some circles, when one moves from Jesus to Paul, it is often contrasts which are asserted, suggesting that Paul somehow strikes off on his own path, even departing from the patterns laid out by our Lord.
It is therefore worthwhile to commence our consideration of Paul by asking how, if at all, the Apostle took up the pattern established by Jesus, or did he depart from it in any way?
Do we find contrast, as is commonly alleged, or do we, in fact, see correspondence and continuum?
Now, in our study of Jesus last week, we drew our portrait from the Father's sending of the Son incarnationally, drawing out features from that astounding fact.
We observed that this involved a great going out, first of all.
The Son did not remain in heaven, but went out into the far country of humanity, seeking out the lost.
The gospel narratives, again and again, of Jesus are filled with a phrase,
and he went out, and he went out, and he went out.
Well, I ask you, could there be a more faithful and fervent follower of this model than the Apostle Paul going out to the far-flung Gentiles?
As he told the Romans, I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named,
but to those who have never been told of him, Romans 15, 20.
And among his animating ambitions was to herald the gospel in Spain, which geographically would have been the end of the earth from him.
So no divergence from Jesus here.
We also observed of the Son's incarnation that he came in person.
His mission brought him face-to-face with those that he sought, involving a deep personal engagement.
And what of Paul's missionary practice?
Well, the phrase face-to-face is repeated again and again in his correspondence,
and not just as a formulaic expression, but as a principled commitment.
Given his familiarity with the inside of jails, he was at times kept from this desire,
torn away from you, brothers and sisters, for a short time,
in person but not in heart, as he described it to the Thessalonians.
But such separation was to him an anguish.
And he, quote,
endeavored the more eagerly and with great desire, as he told them,
to see you face-to-face.
First Thessalonians 2.
If he did have freedom,
he preferred prolonged stays to passing ones.
For, as he told the young Corinthian believers,
I do not want to see you just in passing.
I hope to spend time with you, if the Lord permits.
First Corinthians 16.
And as with the Master,
his personal engagement was thick, deep, rich, and devoted.
Being so affectionately desirous of you, he tells the Thessalonians,
we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God,
but also our very own lives,
because you had become so very dear to us.
First Thessalonians 2.8.
He likens his relationship, in that same verse,
to them as that of a nursing mother taking care of her own children.
Surely this reflects faithful correspondence to the pattern of the Master.
Paul loses no marks here.
We also noticed in the incarnation of the Son,
a deep identification with those to whom he came,
making himself like them in everything but their sin.
So how was the Apostle on following this particular melody?
To the Corinthians, he explained that
he sought to identify with and adapt to those that he sought to reach
in every possible way.
I have become all things to all people.
Now, since we will shortly comment further on this commitment,
as pretty much the compact articulation of his modus operandi,
we'll say no more at present,
but that Paul here embodies the pattern of Christ in excelsis.
We further noticed that the mission of Christ was marked by a pattern of
consistent and conspicuous self-emptying.
Was the Apostle a stranger to this?
Well, to the young believers in Philippi,
he describes his missional life as one great continued pouring out,
and compared it to a drink offering being poured out on the sacrificial offering of the Philippians' faith.
In other words, his life was a poured out libation to enhance the Philippians' offering of their lives to God.
Philippians 2.17.
And finally, we observed that the son's incarnational mission was marked by a stupendous costliness.
His life was that grain of wheat that fell to the ground and died to bring forth much fruit.
Well, do we catch an echo here in the missionary labors of the Apostle?
Well, as Paul explained to the Corinthians,
without the slightest trace of self-pity,
rather recognizing it as precisely the pattern of Christ and the purpose of God,
he writes,
So death works in me, but life in you.
2 Corinthians 4.12.
The spiritual life that came to the Corinthians came at a cost.
It cost the life of the Apostle,
the slow dying of the missionary.
In this, his missionary life is the perfect correspondence to the pattern of Christ.
So, when Paul described the Thessalonians as having become, quote,
imitators of us and of the Lord,
1 Thess 1.6,
he was not offering two divergent paths or models.
For the Apostle's missionary life was simply a reiteration of our Lord's missionary pattern.
He merely contextualized in its different settings the life of his Lord.
As he told the Corinthians,
imitate me as I imitate Christ, 1 Corinthians 11.1.
So, I think the conclusion, unavertible,
Paul's missionary model does not diverge from Christ's.
Christ was the very inspiration and exemplar for Paul.
Important to start with that because so often in the literature,
you see an emphasis of the contrast between the Apostle and Jesus.
But, far from this correspondence,
making Paul's model of missions merely reiterative,
the Apostle brings a singular theological acumen
in both his articulation and application
of Christ's incarnational-shaped mission.
And that's where we want to go.
Well, I'll just, as an illustration,
let's just take the last considered feature,
the stupendous costliness
of the incarnate mission of the Son.
Okay, how does Paul develop this?
How, in Paul's mind,
are Christ's disciples
to follow in Christ's footsteps
in regard to our Savior's suffering?
So, just an example of how he does theological development here.
There is theologically developed continuity,
but also contrast.
Paul tells the Corinthians,
we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings.
2 Corinthians 1.5.
Now, this phrase,
the sufferings of Christ,
or Messiah,
Christ simply Greek for Messiah,
is part of a broader understanding,
sometimes referred to as the Messianic woes.
Okay, this notion of the Messianic woes
was distilled from Old Testament prophets,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Micah.
I can't develop that now,
but it was developed by Jewish teaching
and held that the triumphal Messianic age
would be preceded by woes.
In the Hebrew word,
it was basically birth pangs,
akin to the birth pangs
that a woman would suffer in labor.
Okay, and here's the interesting thing.
These Messianic woes,
this suffering would be endured
not by the Messiah himself,
but rather would be born
by those associated with him.
It's fascinating.
Now, the New Testament writers,
including Paul,
took this up,
a suffering intense,
but of fixed duration
and even fixed quantity,
which would be the lot
of Messiah's people,
that is,
Christ's disciples.
Christ's death and resurrection
had inaugurated the Messianic age
and his people,
living now in these last days,
were called to endure tribulation
in fulfillment of the scriptures
and in fulfillment of Jesus' own words
until the full measure
of this appointed suffering
was complete
and Christ returned.
Now, it's in this conceptual backdrop
that we have illuminated
Paul's otherwise cryptic statement
to the Colossians.
Do you remember that in Colossians 124
where Paul writes,
I do my share
of filling up
what is lacking
in Christ's afflictions?
There's Colossians 124
if you want to look there.
Now,
he is speaking
of these sufferings
of the Messiah
or these Messianic woes.
Now, notice significantly,
he says,
filling up.
Now, a filling up
implies that there is
a fixed amount.
He's referring
to the fixed measure
of the intense sufferings
that must be endured
by Christ's disciples
before Christ returns.
So, what is the sum
of suffering
that is to be endured?
Well,
it is the sum
of what it will cost
to deliver,
declare,
and display
the gospel
through the ends
of the earth,
both near and far.
As Jesus told his disciples,
the gospel of the kingdom
shall be preached
in the whole world
for a witness
to all the nations
and then
the end shall come.
Matthew 24, 14.
As Paul explains
again to the Colossians,
I fill up
what is lacking
in Christ's sufferings,
verse 24,
by,
he continues,
by filling up
or fully carrying out,
same word in the Greek,
by fully carrying out
the preaching
of the gospel,
verse 25.
Do you see that link?
See that link?
The way we fill up
the afflictions
of the Messiah,
the messianic woes,
is by fully carrying out
the preaching
of the gospel.
This is a wonderful
theological articulation.
You see,
according to Paul,
according to his insight
and understanding,
as disciples,
we enter into
a partnership
in suffering
with the Master.
That is indeed
what fellowship means.
It's partnership
in a cause.
The cause
is redemption.
And the disciple
partners with the Master
in paying the cost
of redemption.
redemption.
Now,
we need to be
really,
really careful here
and nuanced
because I don't want you
to misunderstand.
Both Christ
and his disciples
suffer
to reconcile
the world
to God,
to bring many
sons and daughters
to glory.
We suffer
in the same cause
as the Savior,
but our suffering
is not
of the same
character.
This is really,
really important
or we can kind of
go off the rails here.
The suffering
our Lord
endured
to bring many
to glory
none
but he
could bear.
He must
tread the wine
press alone
as Isaiah says
in Isaiah 63.3.
He alone
took the cup
of the Father's wrath.
So,
his sufferings
were
propitiatory.
The disciples
are
propagatory.
His,
the cost
of atoning.
Ours
is but
the cost
of announcing.
His,
the procuring
of a great salvation.
Ours,
merely
the proclaiming
and parading
that great salvation
to the ends
of the earth.
And yet,
our
part two
bears
a very
real
cost.
And it is
so fundamental
for our
discipleship,
for the disciple
to take up
that call
that Paul
can unpack
it,
what it means
as simply
knowing Christ
is to have
fellowship
in his sufferings.
That I might
know him,
Christ,
he writes
to the
Philippians,
Philippians 3.10,
that is
the fellowship
of his
sufferings.
So,
this then
is the call
of the disciple,
fundamentally.
The call
to partnership
in Christ's
sufferings.
The call
to take up
a share
of the
messianic
woes,
the painful
birth pangs
that are
bringing his
return
through
helping
fully
to carry
out
our gospel
mission.
It is
the mortification
of mission.
Whatever
pain and
suffering
comes to
us
in
faithfully
prosecuting
the gospel
mission.
Is that
not
marvelously
illuminating?
Is that
not
wonderfully
clarifying?
Thank you,
Paul.
These are
so helpful.
So,
even though
there's
perfect
continuity
and continuum
with Paul's
pattern
and Jesus'
pattern,
he articulates
it and
he applies
it so,
so helpfully.
So,
there's an
example.
But,
I want
to focus
on another
element
of model
missions
the apostle
offers us.
Paul is
the master
of what
we might
call
the
creative
contextualization
of the gospel.
That's what
I want us
to focus
on.
So,
let's
first
observe
his
practice
of
contextualization,
then clarify
the principle
behind the
practice,
and then
finally,
note some
of the
perfect
but precarious
balance
it achieves
that plots
a course
between two
perilous pitfalls.
apostles.
So,
that's where
we're going.
Okay.
So,
first,
the apostle's
practice
of creative
contextualization.
The apostle,
his adept
contextualization
could be
illustrated from
any number
of gospel
encounters
that the
narrative of
Acts
supplies.
I mean,
I wish
we had
a whole
month
to do
this.
But,
perhaps
Acts
17
serves
superlatively
to show
how Paul
adapts his
gospel message
to his
audiences.
So,
Acts 17.
You probably
know it
pretty well.
You can
open it
if you'd
like.
Now,
Paul would
be the
first to
insist
that there
is only
one
gospel.
You
recall his
vehement
assertion to
the Galatians
when astounded
that they
had so
quickly
defected
to,
quote,
a different
gospel,
not that
there is
another
one.
Galatians
1,
6,
and 7.
Now,
notice,
contained
in that
statement
is the
insistence
that anything
different
from the
one and
only gospel
is no
gospel
at all.
Okay,
so there's
just one
gospel.
Let that
be our
bedrock
as we
build our
understanding
of contextualization.
There is
but one
gospel,
and yet,
the one
and only
gospel can
be articulated
in different
ways,
and indeed
may well
need to be
articulated in
different ways
if it is to
gain a hearing
across diverse
audiences.
So Acts
17,
the chapter,
opens with
the apostle
declaring the
gospel to
a Jewish
or Jewish
adjacent,
maybe some
God-fearers,
Gentile God-fearers,
Jewish-adjacent
audience.
in the
setting of
a synagogue.
So how
does his
gospel
presentation
unfold there
in that
context?
Well,
Luke recounts,
he reasoned
with them
from the
scriptures,
from the
Jewish
scriptures,
explaining
and proving
that it
was necessary
for the
Christ to
suffer,
the Messiah
to suffer,
and to
rise from
the dead,
and saying,
this Jesus,
whom I
proclaim to
you,
is the
Messiah,
is the
Christ.
verses
one and
two.
In the
synagogue
setting,
the identity
of the
Messiah was
a burning
question.
And if
you wanted
to make
your case
credible and
compelling in
a synagogue,
you would
have to base
it on the
acknowledged
authority,
the scriptures,
the Jewish
scriptures.
And Paul had
become quite
skilled in
this approach,
and it proved
persuasive to
many,
as Luke
tells us.
But,
when he
travels on
to Athens,
he finds
himself in
a very
different
setting.
Not a
Jewish
synagogue,
but a
pagan
temple.
And as
well-versed
as Paul
surely was
in his
synagogue
evangelism,
he couldn't
just show
up and
then press
play.
Men of
Athens,
let us
take up
the burning
question of
the identity
of the
Messiah.
As you
well know,
Psalm 110
states,
no.
No,
this would
have been
utter gibberish
to the
Athenians.
The Greek
word for
Messiah meant
simply smeared
one.
And what is
this writing
he is referring
to?
No,
his audience
is coming
from such
a different
framework that
when he
speaks of
Jesus and
the resurrection,
they think
he's speaking
about two
deities.
Because in
their world,
usually deities
would show
up in
twos.
The major
deity in
his consort.
Jesus and
Anastasia,
resurrection.
Just thought
it was the
name of
his
concert.
Chrysostom
makes this
observation in
his writings.
And the
clue is
given,
he seems
to be a
preacher of
foreign
deities,
plural,
in verse
18.
That's how
garbled,
they're a
completely
different
framework.
Now,
Paul,
if he hopes
to be
comprehended
or even
given a
hearing,
he has
to adapt
to his
audience
and
recontextualize
his gospel
presentation.
He has
to connect
with something
that they
care about,
something native
to their
interests,
something expressed
in their
vernacular.
And this
is precisely
what he
does.
The cultural
portal he
finds for
the gospel
is the
aspiration in
Athenian
culture of
having a
comprehensive
catalog of
all the
deities.
You didn't
want to run
any risk of
leaving anybody
out because
they might
zap you
with ill
fortune.
So they
have to have
a complete
catalog.
Now,
picking,
I mean,
it's remarkable
how deft
a contextualization
he performs.
I mean,
this aspiration
that he latches
onto,
this aspiration
engages
with what
was culturally
pervasive.
It reflected
no eccentric
pocket of
interest.
Rather,
as he says,
as Luke
tells us,
the city
was full
of idols.
So he's
connecting with
something really
pervasive.
Neither was
it for the
Athenians a
matter of
tepid
indifference.
As Paul
observed,
they were
very religious,
verse 22.
Further,
it was a
matter around
which they
had acknowledged
and unresolved
questions.
As the
inscription read,
to the
unknown God.
They had
real questions
about this.
That's a
good way
to connect.
And he
connected with
deep streams
for it
contained
their
objects
of worship.
Anytime we
can figure
out what
the culture
worships,
we are
deeply
connecting.
So this
weaves a
rich fabric
of cultural
recontextualization
to embed
the gospel
in matters.
So when we
try to do
this,
we want
to try
to embed
the gospel
in matters
that are
to our
hearers,
pervasive,
prominent,
passion-laden,
puzzling,
and prized.
Those are the
things that we
want to connect
with.
And if we
fail to
recontextualize
the gospel,
connecting it
to matters
that matter
to our
hearers,
we will
simply,
and fatally,
reinforce a
sense,
perhaps even
a suspicion
or a
prejudice
on their
part,
that our
message is
utterly
irrelevant to
them.
Well,
there's so
much more
contextualizing
skill and
wisdom to
be culled
from Paul's
practice in
Athens.
You know,
you just
go,
there's so
much.
For instance,
he makes
his case
citing their
poets and
their
philosophers,
all kinds
of,
but we
must turn
to consider
to the
principle
behind the
practice.
The principle
behind the
practice.
His
principle
involves
motive,
aim,
and means.
Motive,
aim,
and means.
All
unfolded
in 1 Corinthians
9.
1 Corinthians
9.
Paul's
general
governing
principle
at the
fountainhead
of his
practice
is stated
in verse
23.
I do
all for
the sake
of the
gospel.
There's
the
motive.
That
could
well
serve
as the
apostle's
motto
inscribed
on his
missionary
travel
trunk.
I do
all for
the sake
of the
gospel.
And
for the
sake
of the
gospel,
he has
made
himself,
he says,
the servant
of all.
Verse
19.
And
this
universal
servanthood
is in the
service of
his aim.
verse 19.
To win
more to
Christ.
To win
more to
Christ.
And having
identified his
aim to win as
many as
possible to
Christ,
how does he
hope to
serve them
in order to
win them?
What means
does he
deploy?
Verse 20.
The next
verse.
To the
Jews, I
became as
a Jew
to win
Jews.
To those
outside the
law,
Gentiles,
as one
outside the
law,
like a
Gentile,
that I
might win
more of
them.
To the
weak,
I became
weak,
that I
might win
the weak.
That is,
Paul serves
them by
becoming
like
those he
seeks to
win.
That's how
he serves
them.
He adapts
himself to
them by
showing
sensitivity
and
versatility.
Sensitivity
and versatility.
Sensitivity.
What might
seem
unnecessarily
alien and
off-putting
to those I
seek to
win?
When I'm
with the
Jews, I
don't order
the pork
chop.
I keep
kosher.
That's
sensitivity.
When I'm
with the
Gentiles and
they offer
me a pork
chop, I
receive it
with thanks.
If the
pork chop
has been
offered to
an idol and
I happen to
be with one
who is of
tender conscience,
I turn it
down so as
not to be a
stumbling block.
And
Corinthians
expounds on
this.
Paul wants
to be aware
of any
and all
obstacles that
could be a
barrier to
their hearing
and embracing
the message
of Christ.
He doesn't
want to weigh
the gospel
down,
with a
host of
cultural
trappings.
He doesn't
want it to
appear or
be felt to
be more
alien than
it must
be.
And not
only is he
sensitive,
aware, he's
also versatile,
adaptable.
And not
only in his
person as
messenger,
standing with
his hearers in
solidarity, in
alignment with
kosher or
non-kosher,
Hebrew or
Greek,
the same
way that
Hudson Taylor,
you know,
pigtails and
platform shoes
in China,
just going to
blend in in
everything that
I can.
Not only in
his person,
but even in
the message
itself, not
just the
messenger, but
the message
itself,
adapting it
to the need
of his
hearers so
that it will
connect and
not confuse,
as we saw
demonstrated in
Athens so
marvelously.
Paul sits
loose to the
cultural trappings
as they are
not fundamental,
merely functional
for him.
Not fundamental,
merely functional.
He can present
Jesus as the
expected Messiah
in the synagogue
or as the
unknown God
at the
Necropolis.
Also,
is there not
something strange
about the
phrase,
to the Jews,
I became
a Jew?
Wait a minute,
Paul.
What do you
mean became a
Jew?
You are a Jew
of the tribe
of Benjamin,
a Hebrew of
Hebrews.
Yes,
but that's
not fundamental
to me.
I can
emphasize or
de-emphasize
that,
like a
cosmopolitan
can his
boyhood
accent.
Sometimes it's
useful in my
setting,
sometimes it's
not.
What I am
most fundamentally
is new
creation.
2 Corinthians
5,
17.
That is
my identity.
The Jew
or Gentile
bit is
largely
my
adaptability
for the
sake of
the gospel.
But of
course,
just because
these cultural
accessories are
not fundamental
doesn't mean
that they're
to be
despised.
Paul does
not relegate
to worthless
cultural
matters.
He simply
relativizes
them to
their missional
usefulness.
He asks,
what value
do they
have as
to my
aim for
winning
more to
Christ?
So,
for example,
though he
refused to
circumcise
Titus,
in Galatians
2,
3,
in order
to clarify
the gospel,
he thought
it useful
to circumcise
Timothy
to open
doors for
the gospel,
Acts 16,
1.
He states
his principle
tersely in
verse 22
of 1 Corinthians
9,
I have
become
all things
to all
that by
all means
I might
save some.
All things,
Paul?
That sounds
a rather
boundless
adaptability.
Well,
we notice
that he
feels free
to set
aside the
Jewish
law,
but he
clarifies
that is,
it is
not the
case
that
nothing
governs
me.
I am
not
outside
the
law
of
God,
but I'm
under
the
law
of
Christ,
verse 21.
So,
what bounds
this?
What bounds
this
adaptability?
We,
as
sensitive
and
adaptive
missionaries,
are
under the
standards
of our
Savior.
Paul
does what
he does
and how
he does
it
according
to the
pattern
of
Christ
and
his
gospel.
He
will
not,
nor
can
we,
for the
sake
of
the
gospel,
abandon
the
gospel
pattern
of
constraints.
Can't
do
that.
Like
Christ's
own
incarnational
identification
with us,
it is
in all
things
except
our
sinfulness.
Can't
adapt
to
that.
And
so,
in
seeking
to win
the
lost,
Paul
can
say,
to the
Jew I
became
as a
Jew,
to those
without the
law,
as without
the law,
to the
weak,
but he
cannot
say,
to the
drunk I
became a
drunkard,
to the
philanderer I
became a
philanderer,
to the
idolater I
became an
idolater.
Do you see
the difference
here?
Critical that
we get
that.
In our
zeal to
identify fully
with those
we seek
to win
to the
gospel,
we may
not
betray
the
gospel
itself.
So,
when Paul
declares,
I have
become all
things to
all people
that by
any means
I might
save some,
it's clear
that he
means by
all permissible
means,
any gospel
and cross
conforming
means.
Is that
clear?
Pretty
important.
Okay,
good,
good.
Well,
to further
refine our
grasp and
application of
Paul's
contextualizing
principle,
let's
consider one
final passage
which shows
how its
course is
cross-pressured
and sails
between a
fateful
scylla and
a fatal
charybdis.
So,
let us
finally observe
three,
the vital
balance
in contextualization.
The vital
balance in
contextualization.
1 Corinthians
1.
You might
want to
turn there.
1 Corinthians
1.
It's
Paul's
master
class
in the
subtleties
and sand
traps
of gospel
contextualization.
We find
Paul
having done
the thoughtful
cultural
analysis
required
of a
skilled
missionary.
He has
observed
and reflected
upon the
culture of
those he
seeks to
reach,
and he's
identified
some of
their
principal
values
and governing
concerns.
and these
will direct
and inflect
how he
will preach
the gospel
to them.
Here
is the
differentiating
sensitivity
and adaptability
that we've
observed.
So,
verse 22,
notice,
he's got his
cultural analysis.
Jews
demand
signs
and Greeks
seek
wisdom.
Two
different
things,
different
culture.
Sophia,
wisdom,
and
semion,
sign.
Sophia
and
semion.
The
Greeks
seek
an
explanation
of the
world.
The
Jews,
God's
intervention
in it.
The
Greeks,
they
seek
the
world's
pervading
principle
of
rational
meaning.
The
Jews,
a
mighty
demonstration
of
God's
saving
power
in the
world.
Get
these
nasty
Romans
off
our
back.
Now,
the
apostle
knows,
and I'm
sure you
know,
we know,
that
Jesus
is the
answer
to
both.
He
is
the
logos,
the
very
word
that the
Greeks
use for
the
primal
and
pervading
rational
principle
of the
cosmos.
I mean,
think John
1.
This is
why so
many
Stoics
came to
Christ.
Oh,
my
goodness,
the
logos is
personal.
We
never
thought
of
that.
Jesus
is also,
as Isaiah
wrote,
the arm
of the
Lord.
That
is,
the
acting,
saving
power of
God
come into
the
world.
Jesus
is both.
Oh,
wow,
there we
go.
One
might have
thought,
after that
analysis and
seeing,
oh,
I see
where I
can go,
you would
have thought
the apostle
would dive
right in
and show
Christ as
the fulfillment
of both
of these
longings,
wherever
they were
contextualized.
Clear
skies,
all clear
sailing ahead.
And yet,
if you have the
text in front
of you,
you'll
notice the
next word
in our
text is
but,
all right?
And the
sentence
reads,
but,
we
preach
Christ
crucified,
a
stumbling
block to
the Jews
and a
folly to
the Greeks.
Verse 23,
if you're
following.
Whoa,
whoa,
whoa.
Is the
apostle
backing
away from
his cultural
contextualization
practice?
might appear
that way.
No,
I do
not believe
so.
Notice
that the
very next
word is
a further
but.
Okay?
Verse 24,
and the
sentence
reads,
but,
to those
who are
called,
both Jews
and Greeks,
Christ,
the power
of God,
and the
wisdom of
God.
Aha!
Here again
are those
resonant
categories
of this
cultural
analysis.
Do you
see that?
What's
going on?
The answer
is,
Christ
is
the
fulfillment
of these
cultural
longings,
but,
these
cultural
aspirations
have been
warped by
sin
and twisted
into
flesh-serving
idols.
And Paul
will
lovingly
serve
his fellows.
Remember,
I make
myself
servant
to all.
He will
lovingly
serve his
fellows
by confronting
their idols.
And confront
them
he must.
They must
be confronted
for we
are in
our
idols'
grip.
The reason
why the
idols have
such power
in culture
is that they
are functioning
as cultural
saviors.
gods.
But that's
a role
that they
can't
fulfill.
They are
so
puissive,
so powerful
because these
cultural
godlets,
it's a
great word
of Nietzsche's,
these little
gods,
these seeming
gods,
these godlets,
they are so
powerful because
they're knock-offs
of God's
originals.
They are,
to use a
metaphor,
they are
cracked and
broken
casts
off the
true divine
power and
divine wisdom
for which our
hearts long.
These broken
casts need
to be
subverted
for they
shall never
save us
and must
be seen
within their
culture to
be impotent
imitations
and usurpers.
These godlets
will fail us
and they will
fail the
culture.
Sought as
saviors,
they become
our
undertakers.
To
subvert
these
cultural
idols,
Paul
preaches
Christ
crucified.
Now,
how
does the
cross
subvert
our
cultural
idols?
It
shows
that these
godlets
can never
deliver on
their
promises.
God
these godlets
for all
their worldly
popularity and
acclaim can
never bring
us to God,
can never
reconcile us
to Him
who alone
is the
source,
the substance,
and the
summit
of all of
our confused,
chaotic,
and convulsive
longings.
God has to
come down for
us and
our salvation.
The
logos come
in the
flesh to
die in our
place.
grace.
So the
cross
engenders
both
humility
and hope.
The grace
of the
cross
means that
no flesh
may boast,
for Christ
has paid
the debt.
And the
cross means
that all
humbled
flesh
may hope,
for Christ
has paid
the debt.
here,
in the
cross,
is divine
power and
divine wisdom
displayed.
Our
heart
longings
that we
have
desperately
and mistakenly
enthroned in
our culture,
these usurpers,
these longings
springing up
from the
ineradicable
image of
God within,
are actually
fulfilled
when brought
to Christ,
who became
to us
wisdom,
became to
us power,
and righteousness,
and sanctification,
etc.
And so it
is that
our longings
have,
by the
gospel,
been
subversively
fulfilled.
Subversively
fulfilled.
It's a
useful phrase
to kind of
capture this
idea that
Paul has,
this method
of contextualization.
Subversive
fulfillment.
The gospel
contextualized
is both
the
confrontation
and
contradiction,
but finally
in Christ,
the
consummation
of our
human hopes.
Do you see
those together?
it's so
important.
Subversive
fulfillment.
For you
historians here,
the first
use of
this term,
I'm pretty
sure,
is of
subversive
fulfillment,
is by the
Dutch
missiologist
Hendrik
Kramer
in a
1939
essay
called
Continuity
and
Discontinuity
at a
massive
missions
conference
where he
writes,
only an
attentive
study of
the Bible
can open
the eyes
to the
fact that
Christ,
the power
of God
and the
wisdom of
God,
stands in
contradiction
to the
power and
wisdom of
man.
Perhaps,
in some
respects,
it is
proper to
speak of
contradictive
or subversive
fulfillment.
So,
that's where
it came
from.
That's just
historical
interest.
So,
contextualization
requires
both
connection
and
confrontation.
It must
be
appealing
by cultural
resonance,
must be
appealing to
our hearers
by cultural
resonance,
but also
appeal to
gospel
repentance.
So,
appealing to
resonance,
but appeal
to repentance.
When Jesus
and his
gospel does
not bring
any sign
of contradiction,
Luke 2,
34,
Jesus comes
as a sign
of contradiction,
the culture
is simply
affirmed and
the gospel
is domesticated
or absorbed
into the
cultural
idolatries.
If the
new patch
does not
tear the
old cloth,
nor the
new wine
burst the
old wineskins,
it's not
Christ and
his gospel.
The effect
of the
attempted
fusion
is simply
syncretism.
You see
that?
Just syncretism.
Alternatively,
if the
gospel is
not translated
into the
cultural
vernacular
and the
idioms
of its
aspirations
and anguishes,
it will
make no
connection.
So,
like a
spacecraft
attempting
re-entry
at an
impossible
trajectory,
it will
glance off
the cultural
atmosphere and
make no
penetration at
all.
The gospel
will be
dismissed
as
incomprehensible
and
inapplicable.
So,
the model
the apostle
gives
to us
for our
missionary
gospel
contextualization
is vitally
balanced.
He steers
a subtle,
discerning,
principled
course
between
dual
dangers.
The
scylla
of
syncretism
that fails
to confront
the culture
and the
charybdis
of irrelevancy
that fails
to connect
to culture.
So,
may God
make us
wise and
skilled by
his spirit
in our
contextualization,
carefully
and joyfully
imitating
the apostle
and the
one
whom he
imitates,
our very
Lord.
So,
let me,
yeah,
I'll end
there and
open it up
for any
questions.
I think
we've got
a good
ten minutes.
Yes,
Richard,
I jump
in.
So,
to begin
at the
end,
since the
beginning
is harder
for me
to remember,
no doubt.
Which do
you think
in church
history
has been
the greater
pitfall?
The irrelevance
or the
syncretism?
Right.
Oh,
my.
Well,
you know,
Luther says,
we as
Christians,
it's like
we're a
drunk
trying to
stay on
a horse.
We seem
to just
fall off
on one
side and
think,
oh,
that was
terrible,
I'm going
to lean
the other
way,
and then
we,
he says,
we fall
off on the
other side,
you know,
all the time.
So interestingly,
if you go
through church
history,
that would be
another marvelous
lesson to just go
through and look at
all the ways in
which it's as if
people fall off on
one side and
think,
whoa,
we really burned
our hand on that,
didn't we?
and then we go
over here and
then you go
from the frying
pan to the fire,
frying pan to the
fire.
So we just seem
to careen back
and forth.
Hopefully it's
somewhat,
it's somewhat
instructional and
corrective as we
do,
but it's really
hard to judge.
It's not as one
as if a big
danger,
and this is,
you know,
I use the
metaphor of
Scylla and
Charybdis,
and this in
Greek mythology,
you know,
oh,
you know,
do we,
do we pass
the,
you know,
the rocks that
will sink our
ship for sure,
or do we go
with a maelstrom
and sink down,
you know,
and be sucked
down?
They're both
equally fatal.
Whoa,
let's make sure
we go right
down the middle
on this.
So,
it,
so,
syncretism
happens all
the time in
the history of
the church.
You can come
to the Goths
and you can
tell them,
look,
so Boniface,
I'll take the,
this,
this used to be
St. Boniface.
We have this
wonderful stained
glass window of
Boniface,
the first missionary
to the Goths,
okay,
and,
and he comes in
and he claims,
Jesus is more
powerful than Thor
and Woden
and your gods.
So he goes to
the sacred oak
of Donner,
thunder and lightning,
that represented
their god,
the shrine to
their god.
And he goes up
to one of these
burly Goths
and he wrenches
the axe from his
hand and says,
watch this.
And he raises it
up,
about to strike
the sacred oak
of Donner.
All these Goths
step way back,
sure that their
god is going to
respond by lightning,
his modus.
And Boniface
hacks that thing
and hacks and
hacks and there's
no lightning.
And these Goths
think,
whoa,
maybe Jesus is
more powerful
than Woden.
Wouldn't this
be incredibly
useful to have
on our side?
Then we could
really clobber
our enemies
with this kind
of power.
Now,
if you
communicate
the gospel
like that,
you just
connect
the gospel
to
this
fleshly
distorted
aspiration
that they have
for power.
Is power
a good thing?
Yes,
but as sin
distorts it
and twists it,
if we just
connect the gospel
up to that,
we're never
really challenging
that fleshly
distortion.
And the gospel
is just being
assimilated
and it becomes
syncretism.
See,
because every
culture
is an
amalgam
of the image
of God
and the
twistedness
of sin.
So,
every sort
of cultural
feature
is going
to have
some sort
of positive
imago
Dei
or image
of God
aspect
to it.
These heart
longings.
Augustine says,
the heart
is restless
until we find
a rest in him.
The heart
stretches
for justice,
for beauty,
for intimacy,
all these good
things.
But there are
all these
distortions
of it
through sin.
So,
what we
need to
do is
we want
to connect
the gospel
to some
of those
imago Dei,
these image
of God
stirrings
and not
connect
the gospel
to the
fleshly
distortions.
That's a
historical one,
but more
recently,
there are
those
who would
say,
look,
what do
you really
want?
Ah,
I want
a big
bank account,
I want
two cars
in my
garage,
the white
picket fence,
cute dog,
the American
life,
and lots
of golf.
Well,
you know
what?
Jesus
can do
that for
you.
He can
give you
your best
life now.
Well,
that's
true,
he can
give you
the best
life now,
but if
you don't
clarify
and challenge
the worldly
distorted view
of their best
life now,
and just
connect up,
say,
Christ
can give
you the
best life
now,
what's
your best
life now?
It's the
very thing
you're
thinking.
Two cars
in the
garage,
the bank
out,
the fun
dog.
That never
contradicts
or challenges
and it
becomes
syncretism.
So,
those are
some examples
of how
we have
failed in
making it
just
syncretism.
We have
not
challenged.
but we
can
equally,
okay,
I can,
and here's
the beautiful
thing,
Richard,
God can
use even
our
paltry,
pathetic,
misguided,
misdirected,
mismotivated
attempts.
Paul says
as much in
Philippians,
he says,
hey,
some people
are preaching
Christ just
to bring me
more agony
here.
You know
what?
As long
as Christ
is preached,
I rejoice
and God
can use
these things.
But,
have you
ever seen
gospel
presentations
where
it just
doesn't seem
to connect?
Maybe you
take a
bullhorn
and you
go on
Beinecke
Plaza
and say,
repent for
the end
is near
or have
you been
washed in
the blood
of the
Nazarene
carpenter
or whatever
it might
be.
One time
I saw
on a
New York
subway,
I kid you
not,
someone,
I guess
an evangelist
or someone
who wanted
to do,
had wrote
Jesus saves
and somebody
had scrawled
under it,
what?
Stamps?
Coins?
So,
it doesn't
really
connect
to the
questions
they're
asking.
And in
order,
you look
at gospel
tracts,
the history
of gospel
tracts,
the good
ones
actually
present
Jesus
as an
answer
to a
question
that the
people
are asking.
sometimes
have you
there are
some tracts
that say
something like
how might
you be
just
before the
bar of
God?
Well,
maybe people
aren't asking
that question.
they don't
really have
any sort
of sense
of God
as judge
or as
bar.
No,
that's a
place that
I kind
of like
to get
out.
It just
doesn't
communicate.
So,
we always
need to
translate
into some
sort of
question
that is
being
asked.
Christ.
Yeah,
yeah.
Just real
quick.
Sure.
When you're
talking about
the
messianic
woes,
Christ's
sufferings
were propitious.
Well,
propitiatory.
Yes,
and ours
were
propagatory.
His was
atoning,
ours
merely
announcing.
Yes?
Yes.
Right,
right.
So,
one of the
things that
I think is
so important
is,
it is
not a,
the
gospel,
can make,
can make
its home
in any
and every
culture.
So,
it's not
a matter
of saying,
hey,
you need
to change
all these
cultural
trappings
and become
like this
other
culture.
No,
no,
no.
We want
to see
the gospel
in the
soil of
another
culture
and see
how it
grows out.
Now,
even though
the gospel
and its
glorious
can make
its home
in every
culture,
it is
never
perfectly
at home,
in any
culture.
There is
always going
to be,
there's an
indigenizing
principle,
but there's
always a
pilgrimizing
principle.
It calls
us away
from some
things because
we're ultimately
citizens of
the kingdom
of God.
But,
our,
our gospel
identity will be
inflected in a
glorious,
beautiful way
by our very
culture.
So,
what the
gospel does
is it
comes in
and it
gives the
possibility
of that
culture
being a
more
beautiful,
wonderful,
full expression
of all that
God had
for that
particular
culture
to express
the gospel.
And it
will inflect it
in some way.
This is what
Isaiah talks
about,
the wealth
of the
nations
coming in
and bringing
all,
all of their
glories of
their culture.
Yeah,
the Midianites
bring their
camels and
we might say
the Swiss
bring their
cuckoo clocks
and,
you know,
everybody's got
their own
cultural contribution
that's going to
reflect certain
things.
So,
there's not
going to be
in any way
a monotony.
It's every
tongue,
tribe,
and nation.
So,
there will be
these cultural
expressions,
but,
but every
turning away
from something
in their
culture that
the gospel
calls them to
is actually
a purification
of that
very beauty
of that
culture.
It's taking
away the
things that
are distorting,
that are
disfiguring of
that culture.
So,
no,
we want you
to come
into the
true glorious
self that
only the
gospel and
your right
restored
relationship to
God can
really bring
out and
fuel.
So,
it's not an
utter
repudiation,
it's a
reclamation
of your
culture.
So,
that would
be some
of the
things that
I would
emphasize.
Yes,
yes,
Susan.
Thank you so
much for
interviewing
today.
What are
some ways
in the
current
cultural
context
that you
see the
church
can bring
the gospel
and appeal
the gospel
to it?
Yeah,
well,
I think
we go
and we
try to
figure out
what are
the questions
that they
have?
What are
the things
that consume
them?
And,
you know,
maybe it's
we want
to have
freedom.
Freedom is
such a big
thing.
I never
want to
restrict my
choices.
I only want
to have as
many choices
as I can.
I don't
want to
commit myself
to anything.
And yet,
at the same
time,
I want to
have a sense
of community.
I have a
deep longing
to belong.
So,
I want my
freedom,
but I want
belonging.
Ho,
cross-purpose.
How does
that happen?
So,
we go in
and we
take up
questions
that they
naturally
have.
How's that
going for
you?
Listen to
where they
see,
and then we
can show
how the
gospel is
good news
at the
very point
of their
greatest
concerns.
So,
that's why.
Oh,
I'm realizing
we probably
need to
leave.
But,
thank you,
team.
Next week,
this will
continue.
I think,
I didn't do
a whole lot
of applications
except at the
end.
And,
we're going
to continue
for a few
more weeks.
Matt,
Matt will,
I believe.
Thank you.