LayGuy

With all the talk these days about Emergent/Missional and Seeker Sensitive Churches plus the discussion around liberal or fundamental Churches and whatever else, I ground myself in Scripture as to what to expect as a reaction to the Gospel being taught.

As Christians, lets not kid ourselves about the message we deliver. We preach Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and the reasons for it. This is the Gospel and this is the message we are asked to spread across the whole earth.

All the different streams of Christianity mentioned above attempt to get this message across in a meaningful way in the hope that people respond to it. But what gets in the way is when we deliver it in a way to maximize acceptance rather then focus on the substance of what we teach.

More and more I am shifting my opinion to focusing on the message instead of focusing on the acceptance of it. And in doing so, scripture says that we will always encounter 3 responses to what we believe:

1. Disbelief and mockery
2. Interest and further discussion
3. Belief and commitment

As anyone following this blog would know, I am a fan of Mark Driscoll and the Church he pastors - Mars Hill Church. Mars Hill gets its name from an interesting passage of scriptures found in Acts 17 when Paul visits Athens. The entire story can be read here.

In a nutshell, Paul visits Athens and is moved by the idolatry found there. Being the center of civilised society, Athens is alive with culture, education and arts. But because of the idols found in the town, Paul is moved to reason with the Jews, devout people, anyone in the market place and philosophers about the Gospel.

Read the passage this way: Paul speaks to everybody and anybody about the Gospel. And in doing so, he comes across Epicurean & Stoic philosophers. The “epics” taught that the pursuit of pleasure, not knowledge, is the meaning of life. The “stoics” taught that wisdom is found in being free from intense emotion, unmoved by joy or grief and a belief that everything in nature is God - aka pantheism.

In many ways, what the “epics” and “stoics” stood for is what we in modern society also hold dear to our hearts.  So perceived as a “babbler,” Paul is asked to address Mars Hill - where all these goonies get together and try to “out-philosophise” each other. There, Paul tells the Gospel in a relevant and missional way - a way their mindset is able to digest.

The result of this?

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst.  But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. Acts 17:32-34

Here are our 3 responses:

1. Some mocked
2. Some wanted to know more
3. Some believed

What Paul did was address Mars Hill in a relevant, and yet confrontational way - not shying away from controversial issues and then he hit the topic of resurrection. And this is when “the *@!# hit the fan” at Mars Hill.  Anything in regards to resurrection was a major issue at Mars Hill given their philosophical beliefs - and this is probably why Paul didn’t get to finish his spiel and get to his favorite topic - the resurrection of his Messiah.  And Paul simply left Athens leaving a few members of Mars Hill as believers, some wanted to know more and probably most chasing him out of Athens in mockery.

Fast forward 2000 years and we find ourselves in the ridiculous cycle of which “conversation” or approach is better in getting people to accept the Gospel of Jesus.  I hear and get every perspective:

• To the fundamentals, I get your desire to hold onto truth and prevent the twisting of scripture in order to make the Gospel more “palatable” to the masses.
• To the emergents, I get your desire to present the Gospel in a relevant, new and fresh way - to keep up with the times.