I suppose there is an element in religion of telling people how to live, but it isn't men telling people how to live. It is God telling people how to get right with him.
Christianity is not first and foremost a religion. It is first and foremost news. It's news.
It's like we're in a war, in a concentration camp, and suddenly you're hearing on the smuggled-in radio that the troops of deliverance have landed in helicopters five miles away. They're conquering everything in their path and they're just about to get to the gate and open the doors. And having lived all your life in this concentration camp, you're now going to be set free.
That's Christianity. It's news that God sent rescue troops into the world, namely Jesus Christ, and that at great cost to himself he has conquered our enemy the Devil, opened the gates of the concentration camp, and welcomed us home. And then you add the beautiful image of bride and bridegroom and realize that this is not just a soldier who simply frees you go and do what want to do. He's you're husband, as it were, who has been separated from you for years and years, and you're the wife who has been in the camp. And when the gates are opened there he stands on the other side, and the kinds of affections are huge.
I remember watching at the end of the Vietnam war some of those magnificent videos of men who had been away from their wives, some of them I think up to five years. I remember watching them run toward each other and seeing them sweep their wives off their feet. My heart leapt and my tears flowed when I watched that kind of reunion.
So when I think about what is missing from the average person's picture of Christianity, I want to show them that there is such a freedom that is offered us because of what Jesus Christ did to die for our sins, and such a sweet reunion with the one for whom we were made. (Excerpt from Ask Pastor John Piper)
To download audio click here
11 comments:
Today Bill, Sherwin, and I went to see The Incredible Hulk (pretty cool movie) and we briefly discussed this latest entry. Bill said that the imagery is beautiful, and that of course, nothing we say is perfect in the sense that this metaphor John Piper uses is not perfect. Nevertheless, it shows a beautiful aspect of what it means to be a Christian.
Prior to this conversation my initial thoughts were critical, but seeing Bill's reaction I realize that I need to look at it with a loving heart, sharing experientially with what John Piper is relating. However, I disagree with some of his absolute statements that are outside of his metaphor such as, 'Christianity is first and foremost news.' It is that, but it is not that first and foremost. Or perhaps "news" isn't the best word. Maybe the word "revelation" is better. Christianity is God revealing Himself to us, revealing us to Himself in glory, revealing us to each other, revealing Himself in us, and revealing ourselves to ourselves.
Finally, though at this point you might say that I'm nit-picking, I don't know that his statement near the end of the excerpt was appropriate in saying that Jesus Christ died for our sins. From my understanding, and I don't want to sound impudent, but the truth is that Jesus Christ died for us, not for our sins.
The three of us had several conversations before and after the movie. The subject of one in particular (perhaps the underlying theme of half of our conversations) was that more than propitiating for our sins (though certainly it does overwhelmingly), the cross of Christ is God revealing all of Himself to us so that we may be more than forgiven; so that we may be sons. (I John 3:1, John 3:16)
Hey Berny, I'm glad you guys got back okay. The movie was pretty good. From what I understood, it wasn't better than Ironman, but I enjoyed it. I didn't see Ironman. Plus, I didn't have high expectations to begin with.
About the issue that I have with some of John Piper's words I do have to agree with one of your early statements: "I don't think Piper is attempting to present a thesis about Christianity being first and foremost news, as much as he is trying to reject the error that Christianity is about rules and regulations." I tried to express similar sentiments in my comment when I said that no metaphor is "perfect" in every aspect. Nevertheless, I do have issues with the modifying adjectives he uses ("first and foremost"), as well as the fact that scripture does not teach that Jesus died for our sins in the context that he was speaking in.
In dealing with the former I don't think that "news" is synonymous to "revelation" and therefore the terms "first and foremost" are inappropriate in modifying it. "News" carries the connotation of a piece of information being unwittingly discovered, and/or similarly it carries a tone that the news could be discovered at any time irregardless of the object of the news. The word "revelation," on the other hand, carries with it the idea of disclosure. Even more, it carries with it the idea of a voluntary disclosure. This is a more accurate picture of Christianity.
For example: I can drive by your house any time and discover without regard to your desires that you bought a new car (assuming you don't have a garage). That's news. Yet, I can never know what's inside your house unless you personally allow me in. That's revelation. I cannot discover revelation unless it is revealed by a revealer that has the power and authority to reveal it. The word "news" doesn't harbor that meaning. And I don't think that the word "news" accurately portrays the picture of what God has done in Christ, which is more than give us news; He has revealed Himself to us as a father/friend/husband reveals himself to his conjugate.
Now, please don't get me wrong. I am fully aware that John Piper is not speaking before a symposium of professors in theology.
Perhaps his use of vernacular language is a means to better communicate with people. But I think that the same can be achieved and remain more accurate to the presentation of Christianity according to Scripture.
If you have ever listened to a hymn and appreciated it for its beauty and theological depth, then you can understand why I think that it is possible to verbally communicate Christianity in terms that are not only easy to understand, but more accurate as well. When a writer writes, his choice of language is very important. That's why so many of us take the time to look up the Hebrew and Greek words that our English translations have been translated from. It is because we realize that each word is important in that God used that word as opposed to another, similar one.
As to the latter issue I expressed, I'm afraid that I don't agree with you in that it's a false dilemma in terms of what I mentioned above. Yes, as far as communication in the context of a Christian church in the Western part of the world, people understand what he meant when he said that Christ died for our sins. But it is far less accurate than saying, "Christ died for the remission of our sins," which is closer to what the Bible states. In this case the preposition "for" links "Jesus died" with the appropriate noun "us." While you and I may understand what someone means when they say that Jesus died for our sins. It is not grammatically/doctrinally accurate. Hence, I highly doubt (and I've searched), that you could find the phrase "Jesus Christ died for our sins" as translated in English from the Greek. The people that translated the Bible understood that there is a big difference in saying that Jesus Christ died for our sins as opposed to Jesus Christ died for the remission of sin. We should be just as accurate. It doesn't require a degree in English to understand the difference. And yes, perhaps in the Western world, you and I (studiers of the Word) know what he meant, but it certainly doesn't raise theologically aware believers, and I think you can agree that our search for truth in all of it's accuracy has enrichened us spiritually. I desire the same for his listeners.
Touche...
I must say Berny that I Corinthians 15:3 does kind of close the book on that argument. Furthermore, I apologize for the casual use of the word irregardless. It was indeed a word made up last century (at least according to the dictionary), and it does carry a double negative. "Regardless" would have been more appropriate.
Thank you for your compliment by the way. I honestly feel like the young rookie that is quick to put his foot in his mouth when it comes to discussing topics like these with you and Bill and Freddy. But I do want to learn and my intentions are to get to know God more. I really am edified by what you write and respond. I'm not just saying that.
Now, I hate to beat a dead horse, but I think I want to pursue this business about the word 'news' a bit more. It is true that revelation sounds like news to the perceiver. From man's perspective Christianity may be news, as you adequately argued, but from God's perspective it is revelation. That's why I prefer using the words "it is first and foremost revelation," because it exalts God's perspective over ours, but there may be a deeper psychological reason for my preference. In actuality I think it is more accurate to say that it is both news and revelation simultaneously since you can't reveal something unless there is a perceiver and you can't perceive something unless there is a revealer. The revealer reveals and the perceiver(s) receives news simultaneously. In this case the use of the words "first and foremost news" would still be an inaccurate representation. Bottom line, the particular noun that Piper uses in this sermon does not affect eternity greatly in the whole scheme of things, but I'm sure he would be surprised to see that a couple of Christians in South Florida have carried it out this far. At the very least it is good exercise. At least for me it is. Thank you for humoring me. This seems now like such a silly thing to be caught up on. But I have learned a lot from it, so it's not silly in reality.
Hey guys, this is Joel. I was glad to have met you all during that dinner a couple weeks ago. I have been meaning to join the discussion here, but have been getting side tracked with other things until now. I figured since this a relatively new post I would just jump in on this one.
While it seems it's pretty much been resolved already, two things caught me attention in Berny's second to last post that I was hoping to have explained more fully.
The first has to do with the following quote: "God isn't looking for you to keep his law but to have faith in his Son." It's a small point, but I wanted to clarify; did you intend to state positively that God doesn't desire His creatures to keep His Law? Please note that this is not a "faith and works" question so much as simply a question about what is and is not pleasing to God or what He desires for us.
The second has to do with this quote: "I assume that our goal is to strip our message to the barest of essentials and tell them of Christianity with a view to their most existential need." I'm afraid that this runs the risk of judging some parts of revelation (in whatever form you accept it, which is another discussion) as irrelevant or unimportant. I understand and agree with the notion that there is a heirarchy to the truths of revelation, but witnessing to those truths is more than just preaching with words (which is, no doubt, necessary, and an element of evangelization which I love), but it's also witnessing through lives lived entirely for Christ, and this takes more than just the bare essentials, even though it is built upon them. Perhaps you were just refering to preaching with words, but even then I'm not sure that stripping the message to essentials is the best way. I see pros and cons to it, so it will require me to think and pray about that a little more.
I look forward to some good conversation and fellowship with you all. You are all in my prayers, God bless.
your brother in Christ,
joel
Hello Joel, it is nice to see you here on the blog. Thank you so much for commenting. We want to know what people are thinking in regards to these posts and even comments.
It was a pleasure for me and I'm sure for everyone else to have met you. It is always a blessing to be able to fellowship in our Lord Jesus and I hope that we can do that again in the near future. God bless and we look forward to hearing from you.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Freddy
Hi guys,
Thanks for the warm welcome.
Freddy, I agree that we should do that again some time. I'm leaving for Boston and then Australia starting a week from this Sunday, but provided we wanted to get together again sometime before then, I would regard it as no small blessing. We could do food like last time, or, if any of you like to play board games or card games, I've got a decent collection of them as well. I've also been getting some movies this month on a free netflix trial and there's some really good movies on the lives of saints that I've been watching, very inspiring to live a truly Christian life. If anyone is interested in doing any of those, let's start making plans.
Berny, thank you also for your speedy reply to my questions. Aside from the traditional "faith and works" question (which in the way you explained it doesn't seem so terribly far off from the Catholic view, although we would have to be more thorough do really get to the meat of the issue), the question about God's desire for us to follow His law seems to me to have been answered well. I'm assuming the distinctions you made about God's will as "decretive" and "preceptive" refer to those things which God wills that cannot be frustrated and those that can respectively?
It seems then that we were thinking about different things in regards to the second quote and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Have you ever done street evangelization before? If so, have you seen any lasting good fruits come from it?
Post a Comment