The Gospel of Signs, Sageness, and Success

Tim Keller shows us that Paul preached one gospel but it was distributed in two different forms to two different audiences. This helps us think through what form of the gospel America needs to hear the gospel in.

“So yes, there must be one gospel, yet there are clearly different forms in which that one gospel can be expressed... After [Paul] insisted there is only one gospel (Gal. 1:8), he then speaks of being entrusted with "the gospel of the uncircumcised [Greeks]" as opposed to the "gospel of the circumcised [Jews]" (Gal. 2:7). When Paul spoke to Greeks, he confronted their culture's idol of speculation and philosophy with the "foolishness" of the cross, and then presented Christ's salvation as true wisdom. When he spoke to Jews, he confronted their culture's idol of power and accomplishment with the "weakness" of the cross, and then presented the gospel as true power (1 Cor. 1:22-25).”

Paul appealed with the “gospel of signs” (my phrase) to his fellow Jews. They desired to experience God's power through miraculous signs. But they totally missed the biggest sign of all when Jesus showed up on the scene and accomplished the biggest miracle the world had ever seen.

Paul appealed with the “gospel of sageness” (my phrase) to the Greeks. They desired to be wise through reflection and experience. But they totally rejected Jesus, the wisest person to ever walk the planet.

The gospel confronted both audiences while... rebuking their earthly desires to have power and wisdom while at the same time offering them the opportunity to have heavenly power and wisdom by clinging to the person and work of Jesus.

I think that today we as Americans desire success more than anything. We desire high-paying jobs, big ministries, mega-churches, super-athlete kids, big retirement packages, and anything else that sets us apart as being important or on top.

But the gospel of success confronts these idols because true biblical success does not always match up with earthly success. What if God calls you to give up your high-paying job to raise your own salary and work with a non-profit instead? What if God doesn't give you a super-athlete kid but rather gives you a kid with a birth defect? What if he calls you to give away your retirement savings before you get to retirement for the sake of advancing His Kingdom on earth?

When we think of success as preaching watered-down messages to get more people into our churches, skipping church to take our kids to ball games so that they'll become heroes in high school, creating Christian business directories to increase the success of only those inside the church, I think we start missing godly success altogether.

Yes, the gospel of success confronts our culture's idols but it also gives us the opportunity to cling to Jesus and have true success – that which isn't always measured in dollars, numbers, or prestige. It gives us the chance to leave a real legacy here on the earth – one that glorifies God and helps us to be set free from our bondages to sin so that we can enjoy God more and experience Him more deeply.

The gospel of [true] success needs to be distributed to all Americans.

Are you an Epicurean or Stoic?

St. Paul, in his great Acts 17 address, walked the fine line speaking to two different audiences. Even though this address was a few thousand years ago, I think that many people in our culture fall into these two categories.

EPICUREANS

“The Epicureans, we recall, believed that the gods, if they existed, were very far away, and had more or less nothing to do with human beings. As a result, they were supremely happy… to live as quietly as possible with just the right amount of everything. The ideal life is independent, untroubled, unworried about larger questions, including that of one’s own destiny.” – N.T Wright (Acts for Everyone)

You might be an epicurean if your view of God is one who stands far off in the clouds, watching us from afar, occasionally pulling some levers to make sure that the world keeps going. If you lean this way, you might find yourself thinking a lot about comfort – staying away from messy relationships, thinking about the next apartment or house that you want to live in, or looking at magazines to find out what the next upcoming style is going to be. The goal, since God is far off and will probably send everyone to heaven someday, is too live a quiet life and be comfortable in material things.

STOICS

“The Stoic, by contrast, would be happy to hear that there is indeed a divine life which is in all human beings.” – N.T. Wright (Acts for Everyone)

You might be a stoic if you consider yourself spiritual. Stoics, as they looked at the beauty of the human race or of creation, did not ignore the impulse in their hearts that something divine exists. The problem is that because of their uncertainty, they worshiped lots of different idols – clinging onto whatever the latest spiritual fad was.

RESPONDING TO THE TWO GROUPS

To the Epicureans, Paul proclaimed that the God that they thought to be far away was right here, right now. In fact, God came down out of human history to be with them! No longer could they live a quiet life, minimizing God as a distant, isolated, unknowable Being.

To the Stoics, Paul proclaimed that their divine inclinations were true, but that there was one way, one truth – which God proved through the death and resurrection of Jesus. No longer did they have to go from spiritual idol to spiritual idol – from fad to fad. They could be clear on who to worship and who to follow. They could turn around, repent, and follow someone who could actually change their lives and equip them to change the world. They could remove their fuzzy spiritual life that sounded good on the outside but was hollow on the inside.

Which side do you lean on?

How Should Christians Approach Culture?

House-flippers are kind of like gospel-centered Christians.

A normal citizen may pass by a banged-up house on the street or tour the home from the inside, reject it, and then move on.

But the house-flippers take a more gospel-centered approach. With every house that catches their eye, they view it as redeemable.

They search for the good in a house and then identify its areas of brokenness. They affirm that the house was once a brand new house designed by a good creator. But over time, as we know, every house begins to decay. Decay is the default. So then, the house-flipper goes about the process of redeeming the house (purchasing it for themselves) and then restoring it (reversing its decaying condition).

Paul, in Acts, walks up to a spiritually decaying people, affirms their God-given desire by saying, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious”, but then goes on to tell them about the Person (Jesus) who can redeem and restore them from their broken condition.

I think most fundamentalists would order that each banged-up house be torn down immediately and I think the liberals would chain themselves to the yard trees to promote tolerance (of the house in its current condition). One group tears down the house and the other group leaves the house the way it is. Neither of these approaches is love.

Which way do you usually approach culture?