« We Interrupt This Regularly Scheduled Blog . . . | Home | Sent to Enact the Good News, Part 2 »
Sent to Enact the Good News, Part 1
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Part 11 of series: The Mission of God and the Missional Church
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Like Jesus, we have been sent to enact the good news. Not only are we to proclaim what Christ has done for us, but also we are to live out that good news in our daily lives. We must speak of God’s reconciliation and live as agents of reconciliation, as peacemakers in our combative world (Matt 5:9; 2 Cor 5:16-21). As we tell people that God loves them so much that He sent His Son to save them, we must also love them with a divinely-inspired love (John 3:16; Eph 5:1-2). We proclaim the new order of God’s kingdom and express that order by loving the unlovely, caring for the poor, and seeking justice for the oppressed (Matt 25:31-47; Luke 6:27; James 1:27; 1 John 3:17). We announce that Jesus has come to make us whole and enact that announcement through works of healing. Remember Jesus’s instructions to his first disciples:
Go and announce . . . that the Kingdom of Heaven is near. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cure those with leprosy, and cast out demons. Give as freely as you have received! (Matt 10:7-8).
The words and the works of the kingdom go together, in the ministry of Jesus, in the ministry of His first disciples, and in the ministry he has sent us to do.
By doing works of power, those who preach the message of the kingdom enact that message and demonstrate its validity. If Jesus proclaimed the presence of God’s kingdom, but showed no evidence for His claim, He would have been rejected as one more religious charlatan. But, by healing the sick, casting out demons, loving the marginalized, and feeding the hungry, Jesus showed that His message was true. Like Jesus, we must practice what we preach so that people around us will listen to what we say and perhaps even believe it.
Our world is filled with cynicism, especially cynicism about religion. We all know too well the stories of hypocritical religious leaders and institutions, those whose works contradicted their words. People today are yearning for something authentic, something that can be trusted, not just more hype or another slick sales pitch. The world will hear our good news about Jesus only if they see that good news enacted in our lives, individually and corporately. (Photo to right: Christopher Hitchens)
A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to debate Christopher Hitchens in response to his bestselling book, god is not Great. Hitchens’ book is filled with bitter hyperbole and, in fact, outright factual errors (see my series on god is not Great). Many of his criticisms of religion are valid. Many are eccentric and unpersuasive. But what impressed me most as I read this book (twice, in fact), was the sad failure of many Christians throughout history to enact the gospel. The track record of the church in living the good news we preach is mixed at best. I don’t think Christopher Hitchens and those of his ilk will ever be persuaded by words and ideas to believe the Christian gospel. But the testimony of faithful, active believers has a way of getting around even people’s strongest defenses. As we see a recent onslaught of books tauting atheism, we need to respond to them, not only with reasonable ideas, but also with persuasive actions.
Notice that we live out the good news in concert with speaking about that good news. I have heard many Christians say something like this: “Oh, I’m not comfortable talking about my faith. I just try to live it out, so that people will see God in me.” These folk are absolutely right about the importance of living their faith. Jesus says we are the light of the world, people whose good deeds should shine out so others will praise God (Matt 5:14-16). But we are called to live our faith as a demonstration of our message, not as a replacement for delivering it. Enactment alone won’t communicate the good news of what God has done in Christ. If, for example, you are exceptionally kind at work, but never mention why, your colleagues will probably think you’re an exceptionally kind human being. Who gets the glory? You do, not God! Only by doing and telling will people be able to praise God for His work in you. It’s not enough simply to live with Christian values but never talk about the source of those values.
Yet, we must also realize that we can talk too much about our faith, thus shutting the ears unbelievers. If, every time you do some act of kindness, you say “It isn’t me, but Christ in me,” after a while people will tune you out. Wisdom and discernment are needed if we are going to speak of the gospel in a way that helps people to listen.
Tomorrow I’ll have more to say about how we can enact the good news.
Topics: Mission |
4 Responses to “Sent to Enact the Good News, Part 1”
Comments
Thanks for your willingness to make a comment. Note: I do not moderate comments before they are posted, though they are automatically screened for profanities, spam, etc., and sometimes the screening program holds comments for moderation even though they're not offensive. I encourage open dialogue and serious disagreement, and am always willing to learn from my mistakes. I will not delete comments unless they are extraordinarily rude or irrelevant to the topic at hand. You do need to login in order to make a comment, because this cuts down on spam. You are free to use a nickname if you wish. Finally, I will eventually read all comments, but I don't have the time to respond to them on a consistent basis because I've got a few other demands on my time, like my "day job," my family, sleep, etc.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Wow, how did the debate go?
September 5th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
It was more like a brawl, and Hitchens is a much more experienced brawler. But I was trying as much to be a Christian with him as to win the debate. On this ground I think I did okay. But it wasn’t very pleasant. He throws everything at you all at once. It’s very hard to have a serious debate with Hitchens.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Hitchens is a better knife-fighter, but I don’t know that being the best knife-fighter is helpful as a pastor, which Dr. Roberts is first and foremost. Hitchens is adept at the practiced sound-bite as well. So as a “debate,” Hitchens was in the position of attack, and Dr. Roberts was in the position of explanation, which is tough to pull off in any event, but doubly so as it went.
The major problem was the format. These sorts of questions often need subtlety and nuance to develop, which is near-impossible with hard commercial breaks. It is easier to toss out accusations about the Crusades than to explain Free Will. Of course when Hitchens buttressed his contention that Jesus was the typical diety of war by asking, “Did He not say, ‘I came to bring a sword?’”, it would have been helpful if Attorney Hewitt did not jump in with a response of “Touche,” rather than showing the context of what Jesus actually said (which was that families would often split over Him.)
Hitchens is a wonderful speaker and has some serious points. But again, the format did not allow for any more than a cursory examination of his contention that the standard of Right and Wrong is simply universal and that an “appeal to conscience” explains where it came from. And it is a fine line to walk to get back to the point (from all the rabbit trails that came up) without seeming strident and combative. It was apparent (at least to me) that Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hewitt were trying to be pleasant and friendly as well, which is proper but further handicaps the “debate” end of things.
But it all comes down to Faith in the end. Hitchens has no dispositive explanation for the existence of the universe that is anything other than Faith in random chance, and is no more provable dispositively than the contention that God created it. You can go either way, but it still boils down to Faith. I like Hitchens a great deal, but there is no “debate” possible much beyond that. In a perfect scenario, that sort of thing could have been explored, but Hitchens kept everyone dancing as he shot at their feet. His skills are great in that area, and very admirable as such. So I would encourage Dr. Roberts to not worry about how well he does at “knife-fighting” but keep his day job at the church, where his skills are so amazingly formidable in their own right.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I thought that Hitchens was definitely on the offensive, Mark on the defensive. It is easier to bring up critiques than to defend all questions. Mark made a good case that Christians need to be honest intellectually. Overall, the problem that I see is that it wasn’t very well organized, there wasn’t enough time and Hewitt tends to yell
I would have liked to hear some questions for Hitchens.