The sure hope of the glory of heaven is made use of ordinarily by God, since the fall of Adam, as an encouragement to the practice of holiness, as the Scripture abundantly shows. Christ, the great pattern of holiness, ‘for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame’ (Heb. 12:2). And, though I cannot say that the first Adam had such a sure hope, to preserve him in innocency, yet he had, instead of it, the present possession of an earthly paradise and a happy estate in it, which he knew would last, if he continued in holiness, or be changed into a better happiness.

The apostles did not faint under affliction, because they knew that it brought for them ‘a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory’ (2Cor. 4:16, 17). The believing Hebrews ‘took joyfully the plundering of your goods – knowing in yourselves that you have better and more enduring riches in Heaven’ (Heb. 10:34). The apostle Paul accounts all his sufferings unprofitable, were it not for a glorious resurrection, and that Christians would be of all men most miserable, and that the doctrine of the Epicures were rather to be chosen: ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’ And he exhorts the Corinthians to be ‘abundant in the work of the Lord, knowing that their labor shall not be in vain in the Lord’ (1Cor. 15:58).

As worldly hope keeps the world at work in their various employments, so God gives His people the hope of His glory to keep them close to His service (Heb. 6:11, 12; 1John 3:3). And it is such a sure hope as shall never make them ashamed (Rom. 5:5). Those that think it below the excellency of their love to work from a hope of the heavenly reward do in this way advance their love beyond the love of the apostles and primitive saints, and even of Christ Himself.

In the past few decades there has been an emphasis in Bible College’s and seminaries on teaching Pastors and ministry leaders the “how” of ministry. I am not reacting against the “how” of this kind of training as I believe it is helpful, but it is even better when this training is not just theoretical but also practical. What I’m getting at is this that rather than Bible College and seminary students learning only the theories and model of ministries, students should learn why they need to continually grow in godliness in order to prepare for vocational or bi-vocational ministry.

The Puritans rightly understood spiritual leadership. These were men after all who sought to implement all they believed about the Word of God and the Gospel of the Lord Jesus into their daily lives and ministries. Sadly instead of this kind of minister and ministry, many Bible College and seminarians are focusing more on the “how” of ministry in their curriculum and not enough on the Bible and theology. This disjoined approach to Christian education is breeding Pastors and ministry leaders who are burning out at an alarming rate because they haven’t grappled with and been freshly affected by the depth and breadth of God’s Word and the beauty of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Please hear me when I state that I don’t believe that its’ just the seminarians fault for emphasizing the “how” of ministry. As I already indicated future ministry leaders do need to know the theories and models for ministry, but they primarily must know how to grow in godliness if they ever want the people they will lead and influence in the present and in the future to grow in the grace of God.

Ministry leaders in my opinion are leaving the ministry at a rapid pace not only because they aren’t instructed in how they are to grow in ministry but because they have failed to take responsibility for their own growth in godliness. The Christian who understands what Jesus has done on their behalf will not only die to self but delight in the glory and beauty of Jesus. The Christian who is satisfied with just enough godliness has failed to grapple with of all that God has promised to the Beloved in Christ.

The Jews emphasized orthopraxy (right living before God) over and against orthodoxy (sound doctrine). In the same way that the Jews emphasized orthopraxy, many Christian leaders today are pitting orthopraxy over and against being fueled and empowered by Gospel.

The more we understand this the more we can rightly see the issues before us and understand that burning out and abandoning our ministry posts is not God’s design for those who have accepted His summons to come and count the cost of following Him. Part of counting the cost is doing just that counting the cost of what it means to follow Jesus in the way of the Cross. Sadly, and I say this with tears welling up in my eyes many men have not counted the cost of what it means to follow Jesus and this is revealed when such men disobey Jesus by abandoning their ministry posts thus leaving the people God sent for them to shepherd. This tragedy can and must be averted but it will only change when ministry leaders are first Christians growing in ongoing repentance and sanctification, and second get their priorities in line with the truth of the Gospel. One example of the fruit of putting the Gospel first in one’s life results in men loving their wives and children by caring for and investing in them emotionally, mentally and spiritually.

Ministry is hard work, but it is Gospel work and requires that we be Gospel-drenched, Spirit-empowered and Word-driven. Ministry burnout can be avoided but it requires a course correction and an honest assessment of where we are. The Puritans called the summons to discipleship “dividing the audience”. By dividing the audience they meant that one would either accept the call of Jesus to abandon all, and follow Him in the way of death to self and take up His Cross or abandon Him entirely. In the same way ministry leaders today have to make that choice will we take up the call of discipleship for ourselves and grow in godliness and discipleship towards Jesus, or will we walk away from Jesus?

The summons of Jesus to discipleship is not to a life of comfort and ease, but rather toward a life of suffering and persecution. Being a ministry leader is hard because we have a front row seat to the depths of man’s sinfulness. As ministry leaders we have access through the blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God to the throne of God which means we have an invitation to commune with Jesus who invites us to come and bring our burdens because His burden is light (Matt. 11:28-30).

Ministry leaders I urge you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to take seriously this charge of our Savior! In order to grow in godliness look to Jesus, mediate upon Jesus, and run to Jesus. Find godly men who model growth in godliness and can mentor you in being Gospel-drenched, Spirit-empowered and Word-driven man of God. Finally, I exhort you as Paul did in 1^st Corinthians 15:58 to always abound in the work of the Lord Jesus. May the grace and love of Jesus be with you and draw you closer to Himself.

The second reason I review books is tied to why book reviews are important. While reading many books can be a good thing I’ve learned over the years of reading as much as I have that not thinking through what the author is saying is a bad practice and even harmful to my walk with God. J.C. Ryle once said, “Whatever you read, read the Bible first. Beware of bad books: there are plenty in this day. Take heed what you read.” We should read our Bible’s first and then other good books second. Reading others books and not reading your Bible is dangerous because it elevates the place of books over the Book- the Bible. This is a real danger for anyone who does much reading and one I guard against by first opening my Bible and spending time in the Word of God in the mornings before I get to other books I have to read for seminary or publishers.

The reason why reviewing books is important to me is because I’ve been called by the Lord to serve God as a teacher of His Word. To this end, I’ve spent the last four and a half years in Bible and seminary studying the Word, and theology. Book reviews are important because a good review will go beyond just explaining what the book is about to provide a model of discernment for believers.

Many people may disagree with me that book reviews can provide a model for discernment for believers. When I write a book review for publishers I am trying to not summarize the book so much as I am trying to give reasons why I read the book in the first place, and why others should also. As I do this I highlight some parts of the book that are helpful. If I disagree with the author on a point I will state my concern in a nice way that promotes discussion rather than division, and emphasize the strengths of the book rather than the weakness of the book depending on how serious I feel the concern is biblically or theologically.

Book reviews provide a model for discernment when not only the question, “Why should I read this book?” is answered for others readers, but also when reasons are given that explain how the book personally ministered to the reader. A model book review will not only do these things but also address the most fundamental questions of all for the Christian reader, which is, “Is this book biblical?” and “Will this book bring me (the reader) to Gospel and help me grow deeper into the Gospel?”

To be discerning one needs to open up their Bible; read it, study it, know it, and meditate upon it. To be a discerning reader one needs to think through the author’s arguments and be able to explain whether the arguments are biblical or not, and elaborate on where they fall short. On this point if the reviewer feels that the author is wrong biblically or theologically he/she should charitably state the reasons why they feel the author is wrong rather than make accusations against the author. My point here is that a book review is not just a summary of the book itself, but ought to be written in such a way as to advance the discussion on the topic the book addresses.

Books are written to advance ideas and book reviews are written to further the discussion the author has started. A good book review doesn’t just answer questions related to why the book was written but rather asks questions of the book in order to advance the discussion. A good review written in this way can be of great help to other readers not only to further the topic but also to help the readers of the review learn to model charitable dialogue between brothers and sisters in Christ. In other words a book review written well will serve the Church and strengthen the church in its task to advance the kingdom of God.

The use of apologetics in preaching and teaching the Gospel

Dr. Mohler President of The Southern Baptist Theology defines apologetics as the task of setting forth the truth claims of Christianity and arguing for the unique truthfulness of the Christian faith- must inform every preacher’s understanding of his task in a postmodern age.[i]

Acts 17:16-34 serves as a model of Great Commission proclamation matched to an apologetic argument-an argument in defense of Christian truth. In that passage Paul is standing at the center of apologetic ministry in the first century- Athens. Athens was the most intellectually sophisticated culture in the ancient world, but its glory was retreating. Even though Rome held political and military preeminence, Athens stood supreme in terms of cultural and intellectual influence. The centerpiece of Paul’s visit to Athens is his message to the court of philosophers at the Areopagus, also known as Mars Hill. Several principles as it relates to preaching and apologetics become evident in considering Acts 17:16-34.

First, Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture begins in a provoked spirit (Acts 17:16). Paul observed the spiritual confusion of the Athenians and was overcome with concern. The sight of a city full of idols seized him with grief, and that grief turned to gospel proclamation. Paul records that Paul experienced paroxysmos, a paroxysm, at the sight of such spiritual confusion. Athens was intellectually sophisticated- the arena where the ancient world’s most famous philosophers had debated. This was the city of Pericles, Plato, and Socrates, but Paul was not impressed with the faded glory of this city. He saw men and women in need of a Savior.

This text reminds us that the proper view of Christian apologetics begins in spiritual concern, not in intellectual snobbery of scorn. Christians preach Christ not because Christianity is merely a superior philosophy or worldview, nor because we have been smart enough to embrace the gospel, but because we have met the Savior, we have been claimed by the gospel, and we have been transformed by the renewing of our minds. The Christians preaching is not a matter of intellectual pride but of spiritual concern. A dying world languishes in spiritual confusion.

America is a nation filled with idols of self-realization, material comfort, psychological salvation, sexual ecstasy, ambition, power and success. New Age spiritualties in a quest for personal fulfillment and self-transcendence. The ancient paganisms of nature worship have emerged once again, along with esoteric and occult practices. Journalist Walter Truett Anderson observes, Never before has any civilization made available to its populace such a smorgasbord of realities. Never before has a communications system like the contemporary mass media made information about religion-all religions-available to so many people. Never has a society allowed its people to become consumers of belief, and allowed belief-all beliefs- to become merchandise.[ii]

America has become too acculturated, too blind, and too unimpressed with the paganism and idolatries all around us. As Christians, we betray a comfort level that Paul would see as scandalous. Instead of this, Christians should be gripped by the realization that millions of men and women are slaves to the idols of our age, and learn to have the courage to confront the idols all around them.

Second, Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture is focused on gospel proclamation (Acts 17:17). Moved by the city full of idols, Paul went to the synagogue and to the marketplace each day, presenting the claims of Christ and reasoning with both Jews and Gentiles. The goal of apologetic preaching is not to win an argument but to win souls to Christ. Apologetics separated from evangelism is unknown in the New Testament, and is foreign to the model offered by the apostle Paul. The great missionary Paul was about the business of preaching the gospel, presenting the claims of Christ, and calling for men and women to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

For many evangelicals the study of apologetics is reduced to philosophical structures and rational arguments. This is not Paul’s method. Paul is not merely concerned with the justification of truth claims, but for the justification of sinners. Every true theologian is an evangelist, and every true evangelist is a theologian. The Gospel possesses content and presents truth claims that demand the preachers keenest arguments and boldest proclamation. The Gospel is to be received. Paul moved by the sight of idols preached Christ and called for belief.

Third, Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture assumes a context of spiritual confusion (Acts 17:18-21). Paul’s gospel proclamation brought confusion to the Athenian intellectuals. The Epicureans, the forerunners of modern secularists, and the Stoics, committed to pantheistic rationalism accused Paul of teaching nonsense.

To the Athenians- and to the modern secular America- the preaching of the authentic gospel sounds strange. The Athenians said, “You are bringing some strange thing to our ears.” The Christian preacher hears the same thing today. In postmodern American, the Christian gospel is strange in its whole and in its parts. Most Americans assume themselves to be good and decent persons, and are amused at the notions that they are sinners against God. Grace is alien concept in American culture. Sin is almost outlawed as a category, substitutionary atonement sounds unfair, and God in human flesh is too much to take. Yet that is what Christians preach.

The Athenians and their tourists loved to spend their time telling or hearing something new- but what Paul preached was too much. Americans today are just like the Athenians. Consumers of meaning just as much as they are of cars and clothing, Americans will test-drive new spiritualties and try on a whole series of lifestyles. To many, the gospel is just too strange, too countercultural, too propositional, and too exclusive. To contend for the gospel and biblical morality in this culture is to run the risk of being cited for “hate speech.” The Christian must assume a context of spiritual confusion, and this is often now a hostile confusion. The Gospel sounds not only strange but threatening to the local deities.

Fourth, Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture is directed to a spiritual hunger (Acts 17:22-23). Paul’s observation convinced him that the Athenians were a religious people. A deficit of religiosity was not the problem. Judging from the statue Paul noticed, the Athenians seemed to be fearful lest they miss any new philosophy or neglect any unknown deity.

American culture is increasingly secularist. The past century has seen the agenda of secularism accomplished in the courts, in the schools, in the marketplace, and in the media. Yet Americas are among the most religious people in the world. The emptiness of the secular wasteland haunts most postmodern persons. They long for something more. Many people declare themselves to live by scientific rationality, and yet they read the astrology charts, believe in alien abductions, line up to see bleeding statues, and talk about past lives. In America, even some atheists say they believe in miracles. Sociologist Robert Wunthnow suggests that Americans are particularly fascinated with miraculous manifestations of the sacred because they are uncertain whether the sacred has really gone away.[iii]

Paul had taken account of the plentiful idols and houses of worship found in Athens. He even noted they were hedging their bets, lest they offend some deity who had not made themselves known. Paul seized the opportunity. Brought before the court at the Areopagus, he referred to the altar he had seen that was dedicated to an unknown god.

The example of Paul here ought to establish a pattern for Christian preaching in a postmodern age. Christians must seek constantly to turn spiritual hunger toward the true food of the gospel of Christ. God had placed that hunger within lost persons they might desire Christ. Christians bear the stewardship of proclaiming the gospel, and therefore we must muster the courage to confront confused postmodernists with the reality of their spiritual ignorance. Paul never allowed this ignorance to become an excuse, but there can be no doubt that it is a reality. Americans, too, are feeding on a false diet of superstition and myths. The hunger is a place to start. Our challenge is to preach Christ as the only answer to that hunger.

Fifth, Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture begins with the fundamental issue of God’s nature, character, power and authority (Acts 17:24-28). Interestingly, Paul does not begin with Christ and the cross but with the knowledge of God in creation. The do who created the world is not looking for Corinthian columns and the Parthenon, Paul argued. The Lord does not dwell in temples made with human hands. The Lord is the author of life itself, and He needs nothing from us. Furthermore, The Lord had made humanity and is Lord over all nations. The Lord sovereignly determines their times and boundaries. The Athenians were partly right, said Paul, quoting their poets. All human beings are God’s children, but not in the sense the Athenians believed. In proclaiming God as the Creator, Ruler, and Sustainer of all things and all peoples, Paul was making a claim that far surpassed the claims of the Hellenistic deities.

Paul established his preaching of Christ upon the larger foundation of the knowledge of the God of the Bible, Maker of heaven and earth. Every preacher of the Gospel must structure their proclamation of the gospel in this postmodern culture just as Paul did. People must first understand God the Creator before they will understand God the Redeemer.

John Calvin organized his systematic theology around what he called the duplex cognito Domini, the twofold knowledge of God. The preacher must start with the knowledge of God as Creator, but this is not sufficient to save.  John Calvin notes that it is one thing to feel that God our Maker supports us by his power, governs us by his providence, nourishes us by his goodness, and attends us with all sorts of blessings, and another thing to embrace the reconciliation offered us in Christ. Seeing people come to faith in Christ the Redeemer begins with seeing them come to grips with the fact that God is their Maker.[iv]

Sixth, Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture confronts error (Acts 17:29). Preaching, apologetics, and polemics are all related. Error must be confronted, heresy must be opposed, and false teachings must be corrected. Paul was bold to correct the Athenians with a firm injunction: Preachers ought never to not think false thoughts about God. The Athenians made idols out of marble and precious metals. Paul rebuked this practice and proclaimed that the Divine Nature is not like gold or silver or stone. Furthermore, God is not “an image formed by the art and thought of man.”

False theologies abound no less in the postmodern marketplace of ideas. Americans have revived old heresies and invented new ones. Mormons believe that God is a celestial being with a sex partner. The ecological mystics believe that the world is God- the so called Gai Hypothesis. New Age devotees believe that God is infinite empowerment. Our culture is filled with images of gods formed by art and the thought of man. Our confrontation must be bold and biblical. We have no right to make God in our image.

Seventh, Christian proclamation in a postmodern culture affirms the totality of God’s saving purpose (Acts 17:30-31). Paul brought his presentation of the gospel to a climatic conclusion by calling for repentance and warning of the judgment that is to come. He proclaimed Christ as the appointed Savior who will judge the world and whose identity has been clearly revealed by the fact that God has raised him from the dead.

It is not enough to preach Christ without calling for belief and repentance. It is not enough to promise the blessings of heaven without warning of the threat of hell. It is not enough to preach salvation without pointing to judgment.

Conclusion

Authentic Christian preaching both declares and defends the whole gospel. The center of the Christians proclamation is Jesus Christ the Savior, who was crucified for sinners, was raised by the power of God, is coming again in glory and in judgment, and is even now sitting and ruling at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Christians must defend the truths of Christ’s deity, the virgin birth, the historicity of the miracles, the truth of the incarnation, the reality of His substitutionary death, and the assurance of His bodily resurrection. Yet Christians dare not stop at these affirmations, for we must place the person and work of Christ within the context of God’s eternal purpose to save a people for His own glory and to exalt himself among the nations. The task of preaching in this postmodern context is comprehensive, even as it is driven by the desire to see sinners turn to Christ in faith.

The postmodern world has no need of half evangelists preaching a half gospel to the half converted, and leading a halfhearted church. What is needed is a generation of bold and courageous preacher-apologists for the twenty-first century- men who will be witnesses to the whole world of the power of the gospel and who will proclaim the whole counsel of God.

Paul’s use and method of apologetics

The methodology that Paul used in the sharing his faith with the Athenians was the Presuppositional method that assumed the Triune God of Scripture and developed from the Biblical narrative to the knowledge of the individuals being addressed. Dr. Greg Bahnsen proclaims the following on this subject; “Paul laid the presuppositional groundwork for accepting the authoritative word from God, which was the source and context of the good news about Christ’s resurrection.”[i]

Paul at no time appeals to neutrality in his proclamation of the Christian faith. Almost everything that Paul proclaims in this address is offensive to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of his day.[ii]  Paul, using the Scriptures as his source of epistemology, reasons in such a way; 1) Yahweh is the only God (Acts 17:23), 2) Biblical Creation (Acts 17:24, 3) Yahweh is transcendent (Acts 17:25), 4) All mankind comes from one blood (Acts 17:26), 5) Yahweh controls the creation via His perfect sovereignty (Acts 17:26), 6) Yahweh is the source of life (Acts 17:27-28, 7) Yahweh must be worshiped as He has revealed Himself (Acts 17:29), 8) All men are called to repentance (Acts 17:30), 9) Judgment of the world through Christ (Acts 17:31), and 10) The resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 17:32).

Bahnsen goes on to proclaim the following of Paul’s apologia: “Paul was well aware of the philosophical climate of his day. Accordingly he did not attempt to use premises agreed upon with the philosophers, and then pursue a “neutral” method of argumentation to move them from the circle of their beliefs into the circle of his own convictions. When he disputed with the philosophers they did not find any grounds for agreement with Paul at any level of their conversations. Rather, they utterly disdained him as a “seed-picker,” a slang term (originally applied to gutter-sparrows) for a peddler of second-hand bits of pseudo-philosophy—an intellectual scavenger (v. 18). The word of the cross was to them foolish (1 Cor. 1:18), and in their pseudo-wisdom they knew not God (1 Cor. 1:20-21). Hence Paul would not consent to use their verbal “wisdom” in his apologetic, lest the cross of Christ be made void (1 Cor. 1:17).”

A few things are helpful to note on this subject. First, Paul keeps the level of conversation in the culture in which he is speaking. Although Paul’s argument is based off of revealed Scripture, he does not resort to deep, theological words to make his point. Rather, he speaks to the philosophers in manner that they will understand. Next, Paul does not attempt to compromise with the Athenians and at no time does he appeal to neutral facts or evidences. Rather, Paul “assumes” or “presupposes” the Triune God of Scripture in this address. Thirdly, Paul fully understands that salvation is of the Lord and as a result, refuses to shave off the rough edges of his speech. That is, he fully proclaims the Word of God, even the offensive portions, leaving the convincing to the Lord. On this point, it is helpful to note that Paul is respectful yet bold, a point that Bahnsen makes when he states of Paul’s apologetic: “The boldness of his apologetic did not become arrogance…and he began his address formally, with a polite manner of expression: “You men of Athens.”[iii] Bock agrees with this interpretation when he proclaims; “[P]aul manages to share the Gospel with a generous but honest spirit.”[iv]

In summary, the Apostle Paul, in his address to the Areopagus, presupposed the validity of the Biblical witness and at no point relied on neutral facts. The whole world is the Lord’s and to give honor to God, one must argue and assume the truths that He has revealed because in Jesus Christ is; “hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3 ESV).

It is the content of the message that is offensive to the Athenian philosophers; such as the proclamation of one blood or the proclamation of the resurrection. However, the manner in which Paul addressed was respectful and in line with1 Peter 3:15 which states; “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

In this short video Dave discusses the problem of sexual sin and its effects on marriages and individuals.

To enter the giveaway leave a comment on this post. For additional entries “like” Servantsofgrace on Facebook, “like” this post on facebook, share this post on Twitter, subscribe to the RSS feed, via email or blog a link to this post. Be sure to leave a separate comment for each thing that you do. You will have until Monday May 28th at 1pm MST to enter. The winner will be announced at 2pm MST on Monday May 28th.

In Acts 17:17-21 Paul engages the worldview of the Epicureans and Stoic philosophers. Jesus called His disciples to “go forth and make disciples” (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15). In the process of making disciples the Christian inevitably faces the task of dealing with worldviews. Understanding what a worldview is, and what distinguishes the Christian worldview from opposing worldviews, is vital.  At this point, defining which doctrines are essential to Christianity, and what doctrines are not essential to evangelical theology, would be important before we define what a worldview is.  By understanding the essentials of the Christian faith one will be able to distinguish what separates biblical Christianity from the rest of the world’s religions.

All of the following are necessary for salvation in the broad sense, which includes justification, sanctification and glorification.  Other essential issues to evangelical theology are 1) Scripture (2nd Timothy 3:16, 2nd Peter 1:21); 2) Virgin Birth, and Incarnation (Matthew 1:18-23; John 1:14); 3) Sin (Romans 3:23; 6:23); 4) Heaven, eternal life (John 6:47, 14:1-4); 5) Hell, eternal judgment (Daniel 12:2; Matthew 25:41-46); 6) The Trinity, 7) Creation (Genesis 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16); and, 8) 2nd Coming (Acts 1:9-11, Revelation 1:7).

A “worldview” is the framework of beliefs by which a person views the world around them; the grid or filter by which a person views the world they live in.  For the Christian this grid is the Bible.  Scripture is the filter through which believers view existence, truth, sin salvation, ethics and evil.  Therefore the Christian is to have a biblical worldview.

Every worldview is marked by the guiding premise of evaluation.  There must be an evaluation method by which a person measures his or her worldview.  The basis for this, for the Christian is the Word of God.  Scripture, not opinion, is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice.

Understanding a worldviews is important because the Christian lives in a world where everyone around them engages worldviews whether they realize it or not.  It is vital that Christians know what they believe so they can accurately, boldly, and precisely represent Christ as His ambassador in a pluralistic therapeutic culture. Finally, understanding worldviews is vital because it is necessary in order to be an effective witness for Christ in today’s world.

The reason for engaging worldviews comes from the mission of Jesus. Jesus came into the world on a mission to redeem man from sin. By coming in human form- the God-Man Jesus lived a sinless life, performed miracles, taught His disciples, and demonstrated how to engage people. When dealing with the religious leaders of Israel, Jesus often asked questions and went against the grain of theological thought of the day. Jesus was not novel with the Old Testament but He did interpret it through the perspective that He came to fulfill its meaning. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, and the Prophets all looked ahead to the hope they would have in a coming Savior. New Testament believers today look back to what Jesus has done in His Work on the Cross, burial, and resurrection.  The reason then for engaging worldviews is obvious- if Jesus engaged people where they were at and helped them to understand who He is and what He has done then believers have all the more reason today to engage people through a biblical worldview.

The mission of Jesus is to rescue sinners (Luke 19:10) from sin through His death, burial, and resurrection. Much discussion is occurring today on the role of being missional. Jesus called His disciples to mission. During His earthly ministry Christ called His disciples to a small missions trip to prepare them for future service (Luke 9), He called the seventy-two to ministry (Luke 10:1-16), and now He calls believers to a mission to make disciples. While the mission of Jesus is to redeem lost sinners, His mission is also to grow in intimacy with those who follow Him. Often in discussions on missional theology one focuses too much on doing the work of the Gospel rather than being the Gospel. Paul makes it clear that the Gospel is both inward and outward in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. The Gospel is a message that one first must believe personally and then confess outwardly. The Gospel is message one first has to apply to one’s own life and context before one can ever hope to confess it outwardly with any degree of effectiveness.  Preaching the Gospel to oneself is the greatest way to fight against sin and grow in sanctification. One first has to be a disciple before he/she can do the work of a disciple. Jesus taught that a disciple is not greater than his master. So a disciple must first learn from His master before they do the work of the Master.

Why does engaging worldviews matter?

The mission of Jesus is to go out and make disciples (Math. 28:18-20, Luke 24; Acts 1:8). As a result of going out one will engage worldviews which makes the why tied to the reason for engaging and the mission of Jesus. Engaging worldviews is ultimately a Great Commission concern. The Gospel is the timeless message one is to preach but the way one ministers that message may change depending on the context one is in or the background of the person being ministered to. Regardless of context or background the person must preach the Gospel in such a way as to make it clear to the person listening that Christ died, was buried and rose again. If that message is in anyway compromised then the person or preacher presenting the message of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection has failed.

The message of the King demands faithfulness to the means the King has given. King Jesus died on the Cross, was buried, and rose again. Jesus, through the work of the Holy Spirit, indwells believers for the task of growth in Him and also work for Him. When either growth in Him or missions for Him are emphasized above the other- the Gospel is compromised. The Gospel’s call is personal in that it alone justifies the sinner, but then calls for transformation in every area of one’s life. The Gospel is corporate in that it calls people everywhere to repent and believe in who Christ is and what Christ has done in His death, burial and resurrection. When any aspect of the Gospel work is compromised whether personal or corporate the Gospel is diminished not because of Christ, but because of the one giving it or the Church proclaiming it.

Sadly much compromise regarding the Gospel derives from either not believing the Gospel or believing that there is some other message God has given. This applies both personally and corporately as individuals reject the Gospel and many Churches continue to move away from the Gospel. As Christians God has given His Church one message- the Gospel, which from Genesis to Revelation is the message of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection. The message of the Gospel forms the basis for the content of Gospel proclamation but also is the means God uses to effect transformation in every area of life in Christ’s Church and individual believer’s lives.

The why of engaging worldviews is clear- the Gospel forms the basis for its proclamation which in turn provides the reason why the Christian must engage worldviews. The Christian must engage opposing worldviews for the sake of the Great Commission. One should engage worldviews with the Gospel because it alone contains the power of God. People do not need more opinions or options- what today’s culture needs to hear is Christians proclaiming the exclusive not inclusive message that Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection provides the only way to God with one voice in both word and deed.

There are several ages in Christians, some babes, some young men. Faith may be as `a grain of mustard seed’ (Matt. 17:20). Nothing so little as grace at first, and nothing more glorious afterward. Things of greatest perfection are longest in coming to their growth. Man, the most perfect creature, comes to perfection by little and little; worthless things, as mushrooms and the like, like Jonah’s gourd, soon spring up, and soon vanish. A new creature is the most excellent creature in all the world, therefore it grows up by degrees. We see in nature that a mighty oak rises from an acorn. It is with a Christian as it was with Christ, who sprang out of the dead stock of Jesse, out of David’s family (Isa. 53:2), when it was at the lowest, but he grew up higher than the heavens. It is not with the trees of righteousness as it was with the trees of paradise, which were created all perfect at the first. The seeds of all the creatures in the present goodly frame of the world were hid in the chaos, in that confused mass at the first, out of which God commanded all creatures to arise. In the small seeds of plants lie hidden both bulk and branches, bud and fruit. In a few principles lie hidden all comfortable conclusions of holy truth. All these glorious fireworks of zeal and holiness in the saints had their beginning from a few sparks.

However, if there is one concern I have with the movement, I might say that there is a danger of a pendulum swing. As a reactive measure against the idea that you must work really hard to earn God’s love (a frustrating and often false gospel), it seems we are saying that obedience has no connection to your day-to-day walk with God. I’m not sure this is either helpful for biblical. Let me explain.

I was recently listening to a message by J.D. Greear, lead pastor of Summit Church and author of several books including, Gospel. I love J.D.’s preaching, his clarity and his love for God and the gospel and missions. I’ve listened to several of his sermons that have really challenged and convicted me.

I was listening to a sermon he gave to the Southern Seminary Chapel entitled, “How Real Spiritual Growth Happens.” It’s a terrific message that I highly commend. But I left with a few questions. Particularly I wondered if we are not being clear enough about the distinction between God’s love and God’s favor.

J.D. was right in saying that humans are oriented toward works righteousness, that our default thinking is, “I’m messed up my life. God hates me now.” Or “I’ve had a really good week with the Lord. He loves me this week.” And so we guilt ourselves into what we are supposed to do for God rather than grounding our obedience in what God is, the radiance of His glory, and the radical nature of his sacrifice on our behalf. I agree with this.

What puzzled me a bit was J.D. talking about worship experience in church. There are Sundays, he says, when you walk into church and you’ve had a great week–you were faithful in your Bible reading, you were fervent in prayer, you shared Christ with others–and so you feel God’s love and glory wash over you. Then there are Sundays when you walk into church and you’ve had a rough week, you’ve had an argument with your spouse, you’re boss yelled at you for messing up the reports, you kicked the dog, etc. And you, while worshipping, start making promises to God, “I’ll get this right. I’ll do better.” You feel a bit of a disconnect from God. I’ve had these experiences all of my Christian life. J.D. says that this is the result of a faulty view of God’s love. We think he loves us more when we’ve had a great week and He’s mad at us when we’ve had a bad week.

This is often true, but I wonder if we’ve skipped over another reason for a bit of distance in our connection with God. Could it be that we enter worship with unconfessed sin? And the dissonance we experience is the result of a break in our relationship? Psalm 68:18 says, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” The Apostle John urges us in 1 John 1:8-10 to not ignore unconfessed sin, to rush to the Lord, prevail upon His grace, and find renewal in our relationship.

Sin breaks the relationship we have with God. It doesn’t negate God’s love. It doesn’t lessen God’s love. But it does cloud our view of God’s love and make us feel as if God loves us less even though He doesn’t. I think this is the difference between the love of God and the favor of God.

There is nothing you can do to earn the love of God. Obeying God faithfully for your whole life doesn’t earn you one more ounce of His love. He loves you and accepts you because of Christ. He has accepted the perfection and sacrifice of Christ for you and so you have nothing left to prove.

However, God does extend favor, I believe, to those who obey Him. All through the Scriptures you see the reward of God toward those who follow his precepts (Psalm 5:12; Psalm 90:17; Genesis 6:8; Proverbs 18:22). That doesn’t mean obedience helps you avoid trials and suffering–those too are often good gifts of God to shape our character. But you can safely and biblically say that those who obey the Lord will experience more blessing and favor than those who don’t.

I’m guessing J.D. Greear would agree with this and perhaps it was just his emphasis on law in that particular message. But I do think the gospel-centered movement would do well to further explain the purpose of the law, the need for obedience, and the importance of holiness. It doesn’t affect the way God loves us, but it does affect the way we view God’s love. Another way of stating this might be to say that when we sin, we have lost sight of the gospel and God’s glory and have chosen other idols to worship. Therefore we get the sense that God loves us less and we feel disconnected from Him because our view is clouded by the sin of idolatry.