Sometimes the seemingly unrelated strands of my life seem to come together and make a little sense. I am pastor of a traditional church and (mostly) love it. Yet I am sympathetic to some of the yearnings of younger evangelicals who feel like we've settled for a truncated gospel. I'm also in the very last stages of a D.Min. and chose a topic that's essentially about shaping our lives around a God-centered message rather than a human-centered one.
And sometimes that all comes together and makes sense.
I felt that way as I read the last chapter of Ron Martoia's book Static. Having known Ron for some years now, and having compared him at one time to Jordon Cooper on steroids, I enjoy interacting with Ron and what he's been thinking about. Especially when it's about something as important as the gospel.
Ron writes:
I realize that when we remove the abbreviated and skewed version of God's story from our minds, we all feel like we're floundering a bit. But what we have in its place is a much fuller and richer story, a far more beautiful, elegant, and powerful story we can invite people into. For so long we have communicated things with such static...We have made unclear what should be crystal clear.
This story can't be reduced to a few bullet points or a quick soundbite, at least not without losing a lot:
What we have...is the wild and woolly complete story of God, as recorded in the Bible. The story tells us about who God is and how he relates to real, often complex, people in a variety of different circumstances. It's a complex story because it's a real story about a real God. It can't be stripped down, reprocessed, repackaged, and served to us with fries on the side. It's a multicourse dinner at Outback that we spend time to enjoy--not a McDonald's Value Meal we gulp down in minutes.
Ron says that people generally know deep down that the "complexities of life can't fit on a single crumpled-up napkin. Believe me, I've tried that approach."
It's about much more than a formula.
The hardest part about moving to the fuller and richer version of the story is that it involves questioning some of our cherished assumptions that we've read into the story, but aren't really there. It involves refusing to "add material to the text so that it will say what [we] want it to say." Ron writes:
It's time we let the New Testament stand on its own. The writers don't need our help, and God certainly doesn't. When we let go of our fetish for control and certainty, we will be able to say that the biblical story is multilayered, ambiguous at times, and even sometimes paradoxical, but it must be allowed to speak.
You likely won't agree with everything in Static, but that's okay. It will push you to wrestle with the biblical text and understand the story of God in new and more accurate ways. It's actually good if you wrestle with what he's writing rather than just accepting it.
For those of us who are longing for more than the abbreviated and skewed version of God's story, Static is an important book. I'm glad that Ron wrote it.
Does that make Ron Martoia the Barry Bonds of the church? Or Jose Canseco? Or Mark McGwire. Sure he writes all of these great books and puts on great conferences but I am not "juiced". No Andro or "miracle cream" in my blogging! Not at all.
Yeah everyone loves the "long ball" but wait until drug testing hits the emerging church and we will see how Ron does then... :-)
Can you be specific about the cherished assumptions that we have that may get jetisoned if we take the whole story into account?
Letting the Scriptures' writers speak for themselves doesn't mean that we can never comment on a portion of Scripture. It does mean that we cannot say anything about any part that disagrees with the whole. You know, like the tendency to separate Jesus from Paul (and no, I am not accusing Martoia of that).
Hi Ken,
We've touched on a few already. Most of them have to do with a truncated version of the story, so that our definitions of kingdom, repentance, salvation, eternal life, etc. are smaller than the biblical definitions.
For instance, we read a term like "born again" in John 3 and read modern definitions of what it means to be a "born again Christian" into the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus. Or we hear a term like gospel and think it's about making a decision (signing the deal) so that we go to heaven when we die. Or we think that repentance is about feeling bad.
"It does mean that we cannot say anything about any part that disagrees with the whole." I agree that Scripture interprets Scripture. Ron warns of a real danger though:
"I was always inserting stuff to make it neater and tidier for God. I believed that the Gospel writers had omitted important details that, if they had just included, would make everything a lot clearer. In the absence of written clarity, I was happy to help out and clear things up. I have since learned that I am not the only person who does this. Lots of people do. And it seems the more people claim to be 'Bible-believing Christians,' the more apt they are to add material to the text so that it will say what they want it to say."
I think that is a very real danger at times.
Thanks Darryl
I agree with your take on this (Oh No!!)In fact, I am involved in a debate (I know, that's really hard to believe) at another blog and I think some in the debate are putting into the text their version of how they think things ought to be. We are all prone to it. But isn't that the problem with Scripture? It keeps interfering with my take on things.
But there is danger from the other side of this same coin. We can be so certain that our understanding is skewed or so doubtful of everyone's interpretation of things that we are constantly reinventing the wheel. Not everything our spiritual predecessors did and believed was wrong and we will make no progress at all if we think that we can only come to the Scriptures with nothing of what they passed on to us, holding on to us. We cannot keep coming with nothing and we cannot just trust our own take on things. It is why we have teachers and history. I was taught, and I believe it is true, that if we come up with anything new after 2000 years of Christian history, that no one ever found before, it is likely worthless.
What thinkest thou?
Ken,
I absolutely agree. It would be arrogant to think that we are the first to get things right or to think that everyone before us got it all wrong. We all see through a glass darkly now.
It's funny that a couple of Baptists are talking about the value of tradition... ;)
P.S. Ken, I don't know if you've read The Drama of Doctrine by Vanhoozer. It's one of the books I enjoyed most last year. Vanhoozer says that theology has two parts: understanding the overall drama, and improvising faithfully in our context. It's a great metaphor.
We're never done in our quest to stay faithful to the drama of doctrine, nor is it enough to repeat what others have done in other contexts. We are called to perform our part faithfully in our own context. So we can honor those who have gone before, increase our understanding, and at the same time learn what it means to perform the gospel faithfully ourselves without slighting those who have gone before us.
Darryl, all this talk about what the gospel is and how we need to change the language and all that, I don't really understand that.
Maybe what you could do is give us some practical help with how we ought to do that. Jesus gave us the commandment to go out into all the world and make disciples.
If I am in Christ and He is in me I need to go out into this world and let my light shine. When I have opportunity I need to share the Good News of the Gospel to those who are lost, who are living in darkness.
I'm reading so much about how the language needs to be changed and really what is the gospel and all that.
If you could clarify exactly what it is you are talking about when it comes to a truncated gospel, I think that would be very beneficial.
Practically speaking how should we share the gospel with someone. Let's say I wanted to share the gospel with someone who is an alcoholic and has spent a total of 12 years in prison. All of his drinking led to his stupid criminal behaviour. But there is something going on in his life and he is thinking a lot about the things of God, he is reflecting on his life and he wants to get to a better place. Keeping in mind all this talk about changing the language and such, can you give me some practical advice on how I should communicate the gospel to this guy? I think that would help me out in understanding what it is that you are saying about the gospel and how we need to change what it is we are saying.
George:
You're absolutely right. It's not just a matter of changing a few words here and there. That doesn't change a thing. We're no further ahead.
Speaking of the little illustrations and formulas we write on napkins, Ron says, "I don't think anyone falls in love with a formula written on a napkin." We don't need a new truncated formula.
By truncated versions, I'm talking about the short gospel presentations we've learned that present part of God's story, but only capture a part. They're not the Gospel, at least in its fullness; they are our packaged versions of the Gospel.
I'm also talking about our understanding of the Gospel. I think you'd agree that if it's true we're only getting part of the Gospel. it's important for us to correct that and to explore as much of it as we can.
So it's not about learning a few new words. It's to really learn the story of God in all its fullness.
So how to talk to our friends? Ron gives the example of Marty:
"I believe that Marty, like just about everyone, has some fundamental core yearning, something he's on a quest for. I think we have to listen for hints to what he's looking for. That's one way to connect Marty to the story of God. Find out where Marty has felt those Garden longings--those glimpses of God in his life."
There's so much more. Ron's next book is about how to talk about this story with those who don't know it.
Sorry Darryl, I don't see anything practical there. What did he tell Marty? Ok, so he's listening, great start, but what is he telling him? If Ron is in Christ and Christ is in him he should have so much to say to encourage Marty to seek God. What does he say?
What do I say to my new friend who has spent all this time in jail and is thinking about the things of God. I want to communicate the gospel to him, what do I tell him?
Sorry again Darryl, I guess I missed that last line about how he's going to write another book to tell us how to talk about this story to those who don't know it. I guess I'll have to wait. In the mean time what do you think? What do I tell my new friend, how do I share the gospel with him? There's a sense of urgency here, I don't want to wait for the next book, what do I tell him?
George:
You say it's not practical. If you mean that it's not a program or method, you're right.
It is actually very practical, though. It's always practical to get to know the God story better, to listen to other people's yearnings for God, and to connect their yearning to the God story.
It really blends good theology and really caring for people. I think that's much more powerful than some of the practical methods we're used to.
No offense Darryl but you're talking mumbo jumbo. :) I think you're over complicating and artistifying things and as a result people like George's friend and get to hear goop.
George, you share with him the old Gospel message. The one about sin, redemption, conversion, being made a new creation, salvation, growing, holiness and glorifcation. Remember that one?
Jacob:
I wish I could believe you!
I used to wonder why God gave us such a long Bible. Really, if it can all be summed up in a one-page or shorter statement, why all the other stuff? Why not give us bullet points? Could it be because the story is bigger and more expansive than we're used to?
Why do we skip over so many parts? For instance, how many parts of the Hebrew Scriptures don't we preach because they don't fit in with our version of the gospel?
What's more, why doesn't our version of the gospel match what Jesus said and did when he gave the gospel? When someone asked Jesus what to do to inherit eternal life, why doesn't his answer match ours?
Just read an article yesterday in which David Gushee says, "Mediocrity and hypocrisy characterize the lives of many avowed Christians, at least in part because of our default answer to the salvation question" (Christianity Today March 2007, page 72). I agree.
What's more, we're not living or communicating the gospel well to those who are yearning for God and don't know it.
I just got a book by John Stott in which he takes 350 pages to talk about one area of the cross. It's a profound book but it only scratches the surface. A kid can get the basics of the gospel but none of us can say we know it all.
Ravi Zacharias says, "The depths of mystery and love found in the cross can never fully be plumbed, but it must be the lifelong pursuit of the Christian to marvel at its costliness and to celebrate its meaning."
I wish I could say that we've already mastered the gospel and that we're communicating it well. I really wish I could. I'm just not sure it's true.
Darryl,
"I used to wonder why God gave us such a long Bible. Really, if it can all be summed up in a one-page or shorter statement, why all the other stuff?"
Darryl, there's plenty more to learn after conversion. It never stops for the Christian and George's friend will learn and live that if he receives Christ. The Bible is a big book threaded with the message of Salvation from beginning to end. I believe we need to start with that and continue the discipling process after conversion.
I guess I'm suggesting:
1) We may overestimate our knowledge of what we think we know - the "sin, redemption, conversion, being made a new creation, salvation, growing, holiness and glorification" part
2) We may be leaving out other key parts
3) The other parts of the massive story aren't just extras to learn later. They may help us communicate the gospel
This isn't "goop". I agree that God can use even a very basic or even an inadequate knowledge of the gospel, but I don't know why we should be satisfied with that.
Darryl, you still didn't tell me what it is I should tell my new friend. I can't go throguh the whole Bible with him, I just have a few minutes. He wants to get right with God and is yearning for that peace. What do I tell him?
George:
Near the end of the book, the couple that Ron talks to say almost the same thing as you're saying. Ron reminds them, "I don't think there are any easy answers, pat formulas, or quick clichés. That's the 'Christian noise' we have to work so hard to cut through."
Giving a canned speech isn't the answer.
However, I think you know the God story well enough to connect it to his life in a way that makes sense to him. You can pray that God will help you do this. God says that those who seek him will find him. God is in the process.
In the book, the couple isn't happy with Ron's answer. They still want to have what they're going to say all planned out. Ron suggests they say nothing. Instead:
---
"How about listening for the 'hints' in the conversation? How about a commitment not to tell Marty anything for a while? What if we decided to learn how to ask good questions first? And what if we decided to listen carefully? What might happen?"
...Jess let out a sigh. "Isn't that really just giving up, Ron?"
"Or is it really learning to love Marty?" I countered. "Learning to appreciate him? Learning to discover who Marty is? Is it learning to look for God, who is already at work in Marty's life? Is it really the more difficult work of connecting a real person--with his own issues and problems, emotions and pet peeves, challenges and potential--to God? Okay, I admit it, Jess. It's not easy and quick. It doesn't fit on a napkin. It's not a sound bite. But it may be what's required. If we don't do that, then we may miss what God is doing long-term in Marty's life. We may miss the variety of ways in which God wants to connect to all the different 'Martys' he has placed on Main Street, in Jackson, or wherever."
I paused to switch on my turn signal. "Isn't that really what God did anyway? Why do you think God hasn't beamed down a formula to us from heaven? Why did he send his Son instead?"
---
This isn't easy for those of us who aren't used to it. You can disagree if you'd like; that's fine. I think it's worth thinking about. Maybe even worth trying.
I am all for learning and understanding the Gospel as a whole. "Study to show yourself approved." says Paul to Timothy.
I am all for meditating on God's Word. "And in My Word you shall meditate day and night," says God.
And I definitely believe that with something as important as the Gospel, it behooves us to get it right; not to leave stuff out and not to add anything that wasn't meant to be there in the first place.
But you know what? For once, I agree with Paul. If we have to wait until we understand the Gospel in its entirety we will never say anything to anyone else about Jesus. If we have to wait for another book to learn how to talk to others about Christ, there are going to be a lot of people dying in their sinful state for lack of anyone with a complete understanding of the Gospel reaching out to them.
Listen, all I know is that when Philip met the eunuch in the desert, he "preached Jesus to him."
Yes, we need to be sensitive to the needs of those we are dealing with. Yes, we need to know and understand more than just a sound bite. But I really do not believe we need to make this any more complicated.
The danger is that we of lesser education and understanding will just leave it all up to the "church" and its leaders to lead anyone to Christ, or to disseminate the Gospel. That was tried at least once before in the history of the church with disaterous results.
My Bible tells me that I need not be overly concerned with trying to find the "right words."
I am not accusing Ron of having any ulterior motives, but the guy IS an author who would dearly love us all to buy his books and so has a vested interest in suggesting we wait for his next one to learn how to talk to others about the Gospel. But what if, Heaven forbid, he was run over tomorrow by a drunk driver and never got to write that book? Who do we wait for then?
Are all the evangelists wrong in giving an altar call at the end of a hour of preaching? They haven't taken the time to "love Marty." Billy Graham doesn't have the time to preach the entire Gospel at one of his crusades, and neither does anyone else.
Jacob, I'm with you:
"No offense Darryl but you're talking mumbo jumbo. :) I think you're over complicating and artistifying things and as a result people like George's friend and get to hear goop.
George, you share with him the old Gospel message. The one about sin, redemption, conversion, being made a new creation, salvation, growing, holiness and glorifcation. Remember that one?" The rest can wait until later.
Arthur:
I agree in one sense. The woman Jesus met at the well was able to share Christ without any study. Actually, your argument goes in my favor in a way. You don't have to know a particular gospel presentation to share about Jesus. You just need to know about Jesus.
But don't forget that Billy Graham said that one of his regrets is that he didn't study more. And that Peter, a simple fisherman, wrote books like 1 Peter which are steeped full of deeper stuff than most of us are used to. He's no Paul, but every verse is packed with unbelievable theology.
There's a real movement today to be practical and that theology is boring and it's for the professionals, but it's a mistake. You can learn Romans 3:23 and 6:23 and claim to know the gospel in its fullness - but please don't tell others that's all there is, there ain't no more!
It reminds me in a way of the handyman whose one tool is a hammer. He can do amazing things with that hammer, but he still can't turn a screw. If the only know one way to tell people about Jesus, I'm going to be pretty limited in doing so. I think you'd agree that overall we have been pretty limited in how well we share the Gospel, and this could be one of the reasons why.
Let me give some examples. You're talking to someone whose just lost a child. He obviously has a sin problem - that's a given. He comes to you in tears. Do you say, "Your sins have separated you from God?" Or is there another part of the Gospel that might connect with him at this point?
Or someone at work tells you about crystals and channeling energy. Do you look for an opportunity to tell her how sinful she is, or do you think you could relate some other part of the Gospel to her?
Or, you're out at a friend's cottage one night looking up at the stars. He comments on how stunning it is. Do you say, "That reminds me, I've been meaning to tell you that you're a sinner and that your sins have separated you from God"? Or is there another part of the God story you could connect to?
You always end up at Jesus and who he is and what he's done, but you don't always start there. And Jesus did more at the cross than forgiving personal sins, as great as that is.
I've given the scripted versions. The problem is that people don't always cooperate with the script.
If we think that the rest of the Bible is "goop" or best left to advanced Christians or seminary professors than let's just settle for a tract. Or, if we think that we can impose our own meanings on biblical terms, then let's not study to see what they really mean - but then we'll be making the same mistakes that cults do.
But if we understand that the Bible was written for common people, that it's important, and that we can't afford to settle for a four-point summary of the gospel that can be read in two minutes, then let's get to know the real thing.
I'm not saying that we should hold off until we're Bible experts before we talk to anyone about Jesus. But let's not make the other mistake of settling for a weak knowledge of the Gospel either and thinking that's enough.
Arthur:
It struck me this morning that we might be talking about two different things.
If we're talking about what we need to know in order to follow Jesus and receive eternal life, the answer is very little.
If we're talking about what we need to know to really live the Gospel and to communicate it as effectively as possible, the answer changes quite a bit.
I don't think anyone could say that our real problem is that we know too much about the Gospel!
Darryl,
Listen my Brother, you make very valid points, and I agree with all of them. If the Gospel could be reduced to a simple tract, there would be no need to study, would there?
It goes without saying that the Gospel story is far deeper than "You are a sinner and need Christ because your sins have separated you from God." It goes without saying that there are is more than one way to present the Gospel. There are so many people out there, all with different needs and in different places in their lives.
The old saying "All roads lead to Rome" is very applicable however, and obviously all we need to do is find out which particular path for any particular person will get him/her there from here. Which road is most appropriate will depend very much on from which direction we are approaching the city, and by what means we are travelling.
If we follow a map and take the most direct route to Rome, we will miss an awful lot of the sights and may not be able to experience the culture and flavour of the countryside, but isn't the important thing to first get to Rome and then worry about the richness and fullness of the surrounding areas?
Some people will want only to see the typical "tourist traps," - the architecture, the Colliseum, the museums, the Art Galleries. Others will want to delve more deeply into the language, the culture, what it means to really live in Rome.
As the "travel agent," our job is not to judge their reasons for going there. Our job is simply to get them to their destination and encourage them to experience as much of what the place has to offer as we can. That we need to be aware of all the other attractions and all the other benefits that Rome has to offer also goes without saying. That we need to speak the language of the people we are serving and understand what it is they are looking for is essential, of course.
So, in short, I agree with you whole-heartedly. Maybe the whole problem is that we are stating the obvious, and becoming wrapped up in what the city has to offer rather than concentrating on just getting there to begin with.
It also struck me later as I thought about this some more, that we may need to sell the idea of "going to Rome" as a preferred destination as well. In which case we definitely DO need to know something about what the city offers that the alternatives do not.
But I still say we do not need to overcomplicate the issue and confuse the traveller (or the agent)with so many options we lose sight of the main attraction: The Golden City itself.
Very good, Arthur.
And ultimately, the Golden City is not heaven but God Himself. Without Him heaven would be nothing.
Hey Arthur good to hear from you, are you still blogging and if so where are you at?
Ok Darryl, God is the goal, how do people get right with him so they know they will be with him in the Golden City forever?
Have a great day, check with you later.
George,
I'll answer your question later, but I think you owe me an answer first.
How do you account for the fact that Jesus and the apostles gave the gospel differently than you've been talking about?
Ok enlighten me Darryl, how did they do it so differently? I read that they loved them and told them the truth. Is that not what Jesus and the apsotles did?
Ill check with you later.
Don't pass the question back to me too quickly! Yes, they always told the truth, but they didn't have a stock speech.
From what I can see they related different parts of the truth or the gospel as appropriate. Just to give you a couple of examples, Peter and Stephen gave a sweep of redemptive history from the start to Jesus. Paul in Acts 17 began with the Athenian search for God.
Is it fair enough to say that there are different ways to connect to the gospel message?
I may be wrong, - it may be one of those things I was taught that isn't really what the Word says :) - but I believe God made mankind to have fellowship with Him and Him with us.
Mankind's sinful nature has disrupted that fellowship. The goal therefore, is not "Heaven," wherever that may be, but a restoration of that fellowship.... a renewal of the relationship with God that was lost.
This is what sets true believers apart from all others. We have a RELATIONSHIP rather than a RELIGION. When we enter that relationship with God, all other considerations become secondary.
Yes, we have needs, whether they be financial, physical, emotional or whatever, but the most needy person in fellowship with God is the richest person ever.