Yarr! – The Weblog of Bob Heffernan

A brief thought experiment, if you will indulge me.

Suppose Paul had been accompanied by a modern evangelical protestant Christian when Paul gave his speech to the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:22-31). Do you think he would have taken Paul aside afterwards and chastened him for not giving a clear cross-centred message? Paul talks about the one true God, the maker of heaven and earth and relates it to an “unknown god” worshipped in Athens. He even quotes two Greek poets to make his point. He mentions “the Man whom He has ordained” (ie. Jesus Christ) and says that he has been raised from the dead but there is no talk of how he died, or why he died, or what he accomplished with his death, etc.

I’m not saying that Paul did not talk of these things while in Athens, of course he did. In fact, it says in verse 18 that “he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.” In fact, I think the speech for the Areopagus was to whet the appetites of those who had ears to hear. This idea is supported by verse 32:

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” (Acts 17:32, NKJV)

So, I’m not saying Paul preached a cut-down version of the gospel in Athens. My thought experiment is this: would our hypothetical modern evangelical have given out to him for not using the opportunity before the Areopagus to expound a ‘fuller’ gospel? Would he have felt that an opportunity to talk of Christ’s work on the cross had been wasted? Would he have felt that every time you preach a sermon you should mention the cross in a clear and unambiguous way? Would he have felt you are not preaching the gospel at all if you are not doing so? I imagine that many modern evangelicals would have been very annoyed with Paul and with his wasting of a golden opportunity to proclaim the gospel. They might have felt he kowtowed to Greek cultural pressure and watered down his message accordingly.

I think it is the case that Paul had a quite nuanced way of evangelising, taking into account the culture of those who were listening (cf. the fact that these people were Greeks, not Jews, and the fact that he quoted Greek poetry and reference Greek monuments in Athens) and taking into account the extent of their current understanding. He began by telling them of the one true God, and throwing the contentious bone of a resurrection. Only later would he have talked in greater detail about our relationship with this one true God, the problem of sin, the nature of “the Man whom He has ordained”, His death on the cross, the possibility of renewed relationship with the one true God, etc.

Paul interacted with the Greeks at the level of their own culture and understanding, working to bring them to a place where they could understand and accept the gospel of Christ in its fullness.

Just a thought, again to be expanded over the coming time (possibly).

If you were to ask your average conservative ‘Bible-believing’ Christian what the overall big-picture message of the Bible is you would probably get something similar to this:

1. In the beginning God created the universe, mankind included.
2. Not long afterward man sinned.
3. Sin is bad but God is good – therefore sin separates man from God. Moreover, the wages of is death.
4. Jesus Christ died and in so doing took the sin of the world upon himself so that whosoever believes in him shall not die, which is what is rightfully coming to them due to their sin, but they can have eternal life.

Or, to be briefer:

1. Man sinned. Sin has consequences, ie death.
2. Man can be freed from the consequences of his sin through Christ.

This second version is very much representative of the way the gospel is often preached. With good reason of course, the above is all absolutely true and this is they way in which the gospel was often preached in the New Testament, and since.

Still, I feel that we sometimes miss what might be a slightly more accurate big-picture idea of the message of the Bible. It might run something like this:

1. We were created by God to live in a relationship of love and communion with him.
2. Through sin we severed this relationship.
3. Christ died so that this relationship could be renewed.
4. Through Christ we can now live our lives in relationship with the living God.

This second version does not, of course, invalidate the first. In fact, it complements it. I feel it represents a deeper understanding of the message. Sin is not the problem – sin is a consequence of the problem. The problem is the severing of our relationship with God. Sin is only the means through which this occurs. Sin is the wilful severing of ones relationship with God. The forgiveness of sins is not the “good news”, it is the means through which the good news is made possible. The good news is that we can live in true relationship with God once again.

Perhaps sometimes this second version should be the one we preach, centred not on negative aspects such as sin and death, but the positive aspects of love and relationship.

I’m not sure that I’m being entirely coherent about all this. I will post more in the future. But, as an example, consider the parable of the prodigal son. This is often given a simplified explanation as a ‘sin and forgiveness’ story, like so:

1. The son sinned by taking his father’s inheritance and not honouring his father.
2. Later the father forgave him, even though the son didn’t deserve it.

that is

1. Sin.
2. Forgiveness/Grace.

Now, the parable certainly is about sin and grace, it serves to exemplify the idea of undeserved grace in particular. But consider the terms in which the parable is given. Jesus chose to tell a story about a father and his son – this is a very relational story. Because it is couched in such a relational framework it typifies for me the message of the Bible as a whole. Consider this more detailed outline:

1. The father loves the son. They live in relationship together, in the same house.
2. The son sins against his father and purposefully severs this relationship.
3. Later the son returns asking for forgiveness. It is given, even though undeserved. Because of the Father’s forgiveness the relationship is restored.
4. There is great joy and a big party because the Father and son live together in the same house once again, their relationship restored.

I think this way of looking at things has particular relevance for those of us who are Christians. The gospel does not cease being gospel when we choose to believe in Christ. The good news of Christ continues to transform our lives because now we are living in relationship with Him as new men and as we walk with His Spirit we become more like Him. For the Christian the gospel cannot be purely about sin and the forgiveness of sins. It is about this relationship which is daily transforming our lives. It is not even about the overcoming of sin in our daily lives – it is about daily walking with Christ just as we were created to do and offering our lives to him in love.

I will try to refine my ideas on this in order to express myself better in the coming time. Thanks for listening.