This past Sunday I was privileged to fill in for our pastor at The Heights Church, St. Paul. The rapid cultural change and uncertain social/political climate formed the backdrop for my sermon.
The text is Hebrews 13:1-16, with special focus on verses 12-14, and the parallel passage of chapter 11:10-16.
I’m sharing the sermon here, and you can find all my recent sermons from The Heights Church, St. Paul, here.
If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (60 minutes), please do look over my notes. May God bless this sermon to all who hear it, for His glory and by His grace.
Tim Keller is one of leading voices in church planting today. He has thought long and hard about how to do gospel ministry in today’s urban contexts, and is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, a thriving ministry in the heart of New York City. Redeemer has helped mentor other church planters in New York and beyond through Redeemer City to City, a ministry which has helped launch over 200 churches in 35 global cities so far.
Keller’s latest book is Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Zondervan, 2012) which is a manual for how to think about doing church. His aim is to explain how “theological vision,” as distinct from doctrine or methodology, should drive how we bring the message of the gospel to the communities we are called to serve. Just from reading through the introductory chapter, I know I am going to want to read through this manual in depth—highlighter in hand. Keller uses diagrams and sidebars, and yes, even some footnotes, to present his information in an understandable format. And what he has to say is definitely worth hearing. He talks about the inevitability of contextualizing and chides preachers who don’t intentionally think through how their church must speak to the culture around them.
This post is not going to be a full review. I’ll save that for after I’ve had time to examine this work at length. Instead I want to focus in on an excerpt from the introduction on how the Church should adapt to culture. As a former independent fundamental Baptist (IFB), I read these words with great interest:
We will show [in this book] that to reach people we must appreciate and adapt to their culture, but we must also challenge and confront it. This is based on the biblical teaching that all cultures have God’s grace and natural revelation in them, yet they are also in rebellious idolatry. If we overadapt to a culture, we have accepted the culture’s idols. If, however, we underadapt to a culture, we may have turned our own culture into an idol, an absolute. If we underadapt to a culture, no one will be changed because no one will listen to us; we will be confusing, offensive, or simply unpersuasive. To the degree a ministry is overadapted or underadapted to a culture, it loses life-changing power. (pg. 24, emphasis added)
I think there is a wealth of wisdom in this brief except. I particularly appreciated the section that I bolded. This seems to be the case with most conservative IFB churches I know. By and large, the wider culture looks at them with bewilderment. Their version of Christianity—complete with Stoic worship, an archaic Bible and outdated fashion—is totally foreign to the average citizen in the community. And the churchly phrases and Christian lingo confuse the message even more.
In a later section in the book, Keller talks of Anglo Christians who are “often culturally clueless”:
They don’t see any part of how they express or live the gospel to be “Anglo”—it is just the way things are. They feel that any change in how they preach, worship, or minister is somehow a compromise of the gospel. In this they may be doing what Jesus warns against—elevating the “traditions of men” to the same level as biblical truth (Mark 7:8). This happens when one’s cultural approach to time or emotional expressiveness or way to communicate becomes enshrined as the Christian way to act and live. (pg. 96)
Keller goes on to discuss how our culture shapes our view of individualism and community. He also decries how church planters or missionaries tend to reproduce the cultural methodology of ministries that have impacted them.
If they have been moved by a ministry that has forty-five-minute verse-by-verse expository sermons, a particular kind of singing, or a specific order and length to the services, they reproduce it down to the smallest detail. Without realizing it, they become method driven and program driven rather than theologically driven. They are contextualizing their ministry expression to themselves, not to the people they want to reach. (pg. 97, emphasis added)
Keller’s point should not be ignored. While we must not overadapt to culture and compromise the gospel, we nevertheless have a responsibility to analyze the culture we find ourselves in and seek to communicate in such a way, that the offense that arises in response to our teaching, is an offense directed at the gospel itself, and not our own idiosyncrasies and cultural traditions.
I recommend that pastors and church leaders everywhere pick up a copy of this important book from Tim Keller. The book is carefully written and the principles are clearly explained. Even if you disagree with some of what he has to say, his book will provide an opportunity to systematically walk through all of the issues related to doing ministry in a given culture. If we recognize that some sort of “theological vision” exists and undergirds what we do, then focusing on what that vision is and how it is developed will have lasting impact in how we do church in the twenty-first century.
In the comments on a recent article I came across, someone made the following statement:
…Then move to something controversial: Zech. 12:10-14 and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In guiding our people responsibly through that passage, we need to wrestle with similar “outpouring” language in the NT, but also with the limited object of the outpouring in Zech. 12:10, “the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”
If we leave behind the matter of literalness, who is to say our application isn’t heresy (to quote Haddon Robinson)? Am I, a new covenant believer, in the house of David? Am I an inhabitant of Jerusalem? (I wish)… [emphasis added]
As I was typing up a response to the idea that we are not “new covenant believers”, I thought my answer might make for a good blog post. So I’m sharing my response for your benefit. Do I hit the mark? Does this make sense? I’d love your input after reading my reply below.
I want to challenge this a bit. And I’m just using Ted’s words here it isn’t about him it’s a bigger issue. What John is doing is trying to do justice to the NT teaching which is quite clear on how much continuity there is between God’s people before Christ and afterward. The comments here by the opposing view center only on Zecharaiah mostly.
If we just had Jer. 31, then yes, we aren’t “new covenant believers”, to use Ted’s terms. But the New Testament tells us the new covenant has begun. Jesus said as much in his inauguration of the Lord’s Supper ceremony for the church. “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ ” (Luke 22:20 ESV) Paul tells us that he is a minister of the new covenant:
“Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:5-6 ESV)
In context, the ministry of the new covenant is Paul’s ministry of spreading the gospel among the gentiles (4:1 “this ministry”… and 4:3-6 “our gospel”).
Furthermore, Hebrews says the old covenant is passing away and insufficient because the new covenant is here, see chapters 8 and 10 of Hebrews where Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted and applied as a current reality.
Not only are we “new covenant believers”, we are inhabitants of “Jerusalem” who is our true mother (see Gal. 4:26, Heb. 12:22) and seek a heavenly city in the same sense that OT believers sought a heavenly (not earthly) city (Heb. 13:14, cf. Heb. 11:13-16).
This NT language means something. The NT description of God’s people being a living temple is something that goes beyond OT realities. Something is happening in the NT and it will affect how we understand the OT. 1 Peter tells us that the OT authors often didn’t know what they were writing of, but were writing for our benefit (1 Pt. 1:10-12). And what happened to the OT saints is a lesson and instruction for us and was written for our encouragement (1 Cor. 10:11, Rom. 15:4).
I believe that following the lead of the NT apostles and Jesus, in how they used OT Scripture and saw that it culminated in Jesus Christ and the gospel of grace, is how best to interpret Scripture. Scripture doesn’t leave us without a hermeneutic. A redemptive-historical hermeneutic aims to follow the teaching of the Bible about itself and to understand how Christ truly sums up all things in His own ministry. He fulfills the Law.
I think John Davis’ last paragraph captures the NT age experience well. The new covenant is here but we aren’t experiencing it in all its fullness quite yet. That may mean a millennium, but it certainly means more than a millennium. Christ will reign and we will live on a restored earth for all eternity.
This post follows on the heels of my recent entry on Gal. 6:16 which I’d encourage you to read, if the thought of the NT depiction of the church in OT terms is new to you. Again, I’m interested in any input you might have regarding this question. Are we, or aren’t we, “new covenant believers”?
Justin Taylor posted an interview of T. Desmond Alexander by Andrew Naselli on the topic of biblical theology. Biblical theology has revolutionized my understanding and appreciation of the Bible, and I thought this brief interview was a good introduction to biblical theology. I’m sharing the first part of this interview but encourage you to read the whole thing.
1. What is biblical theology? How does it compare to systematic theology?
For me biblical theology is about understanding how the Bible as a whole should be read so that we can appreciate its message as the Word of God. I’m still a learner as far as this is concerned. What I’ve found to be helpful is discovering themes that tie together the big picture of Scripture. I’ve tried to convey something of this, hopefully in an accessible way, in my book, From Eden to the New Jerusalem. For me, it’s important that Christians grasp the grand story of what God is doing. Through the story, which I take to be historically true, we begin to understand something of ourselves and the world we live in.
It is this story dimension that sets biblical theology apart from systematic theology. While I think that there is an important place for a systematic understanding of what we believe, it is through Scripture that God speaks to people as they grasp the biblical metanarrative. Hopefully, good biblical theology sheds valuable light on how we should read the Bible. For this reason, I think biblical theology is exceptionally important.
2. Briefly sketch out an example of addressing a theme with a biblical theological approach (e.g., temple, throne of God, evil, lamb, tree of life, people of God, rest).
I’ve said something about most of the examples you list in my most recent book. So let me pick something that might not seem so obvious: the great city.
Fundamental to my understanding of biblical theology is the idea that God created this world with the intention that it should become his dwelling-place, a temple-city filled with people who love and serve him (as reflected in Rev. 20-21). This was the original creation plan. Adam and Eve’s betrayal of God threw the grand design into chaos. Created with the skills to be city-builders, humanity set about building god-less cities. Exhibit number one is obviously Babel. However, in Hebrew Babel is also the name for Babylon. Interestingly, the building of Babel/Babylon is associated with Nimrod in Genesis 10, who is also responsible for the building of Nineveh in Assyria. As a mighty hunter “˜against God’ (not “˜before God’) Nimrod is the founder of a city/kingdom that opposes God’s city/kingdom. Remarkably, the story in Genesis to Kings ends with what appears to be a victory for Nimrod’s descendants (the Assyrians and the Babylonians). The city of God, Jerusalem, is sacked, God’s house is destroyed, and the royal line through which the nations are to be saved is exiled.
Yet all is not lost, for the story does not end here. This big picture is important because it reveals how deep-seated aspirations to create human empires oppose what God desires. Obviously, the OT has lots to say about this (e.g., Habakkuk, Daniel). However, the NT picks up the same contrast. For example, the author of Hebrews has something important to say about the city of God, starting with Abraham. Likewise, the book of Revelation draws an important contrast between the here-and-now Babylon and the future New Jerusalem.
I hope that this very brief biblical-theological sketch of the city makes sense. We’re only scratching the surface. Yet it is a theme that pervades the whole of Scripture….
This past Sunday I was privileged to fill in for our pastor at The Heights Church, St. Paul. The rapid cultural change and uncertain social/political climate formed the backdrop for my sermon.