Dan Olinger

"If the Bible is true, then none of our fears are legitimate, none of our frustrations are permanent, and none of our opposition is significant."

Dan Olinger

 

Retired Bible Professor,

Bob Jones University

home / about / archive 

Subscribe via Email

On a New Year

January 2, 2025 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

Another new year. My 70th. After a while they all sort of blend together, don’t they? 

Since I started this blog back in July 2017, this is my seventh New Year’s post. (I know the math doesn’t work; I didn’t post about New Year’s Day in 2018, because apparently I took a break between 12/18/17 and 1/8/18. I was young and relatively inexperienced in those days.) 

Seven being the number of completeness, maybe I should quit after this one. But I don’t expect to. 

It’s usually fun to reach a turning point like this—a new year, a new baby, a new job, a new house—and to anticipate the ways that it will change what lies ahead. I’m one of those optimists you hear about, and I tend to over-expect what good things might happen. That puts a spring in your step, but it also sets you up for disappointment. 

Others, perhaps less optimistic, or just under realistic threat of coming or continuing hardship, have expectations that are less sanguine. If the optimist’s weak spot is disappointment, the pessimist’s is fear. 

The Scripture speaks to both of those. 

To the disappointed it speaks of God’s sovereign goodness, the rightness and propriety of the expected thing’s not happening. The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord (Ps 37.23). Further, it speaks of the importance of not finding our ultimate satisfaction in what happens to us here (Ec 1.2-3). 

To the fearful it speaks abundantly; the expression “fear not” or something similar appears 75 times in the Scripture, and while many of those are referring to specific situations, the general application is clear. We fear God (Ec 12.13) but don’t fear anything else. 

But it has more to say to both groups than that. Three interrelated thoughts. 

First, this year, this life, this entire history of life on earth, are all temporary. Old coots are more sensitive to that than young ones (and yes, there can be young coots; look it up). The difficult things won’t last, and neither will the good things. While it’s impossible to be completely passive—stoic or Buddhist—about the trials and joys of life, we do find comfort in the knowledge that the trials will end, and we find warning in the knowledge that the earthly things we find joy in will not be permanent either. 

Second, as I’ve noted, life is providential; there is a wise and loving God directing our path through, and including, the trials and joys. They make sense—though not always to us at the time—and they serve a good and profitable purpose. Paul tells us that 

we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us (Ro 5.3-5). 

The hard things—as well as the enjoyable things, I would add—give us the opportunity to endure, which makes us stronger, which enables us to overcome, which gives us confidence the next time. In our joys and in our sorrows, we’re getting useful things done, and we’re becoming the improved version of ourselves that will live forever. Life is temporary, but it’s an important investment. 

And that leads to the third thought: there’s more and better coming, and it will not be broken, and it will not be temporary. And no, this is not pie in the sky (though, given that the tree of life bears fruit every month [Re 22.2]), maybe there will be pie; who knows?). This is the promise of God: 

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. 5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever (Re 22.3-5). 

In this New Year, live with the end in mind. 

Happy New Year. 

Photo by Jeremy Perkins on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture, Theology Tagged With: holidays, New Year, providence

After Christmas 

December 26, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

They say that it’s not the fall that kills you; it’s the sudden stop at the end. 

Christmas is a loooooong season, and then a sudden stop. 

It’s a long season, of course, because that’s when the retailers make pretty much all their money for the year, so the hype is insistent, intrusive, and extended. 

Everybody knows that. 

And then comes the 25th, when there’s an explosion of gift-opening, a feast, and then maybe a football game or two while the children play with the boxes that their toys came in. 

And then. 

It’s over. 

The Sudden Stop. 

If you buy into the commercialism and consumerism and Clausism, then that can be a pretty depressing time. 

But it shouldn’t be. 

It shouldn’t be, you see, because you shouldn’t buy into the 3 C’s—because as we know, Christmas is not about the 3 C’s. And it isn’t even about the stuff that TV movies have in mind when they talk about “the true meaning of Christmas”—by which they mean family, and giving, and snow. 

Which kinda leaves out the Southern Hemisphere, doesn’t it? 

Seems like “the true meaning of Christmas” should include everybody. 

I’d suggest that the most important element of “the true meaning of Christmas” is that it’s not an end, but a beginning. 

It was an end to Mary’s pregnancy, of course, and that was undoubtedly a great relief to her. But all mothers, and most dads, know that a birth is a beginning to a far greater commitment to the raising of the child and preparation for his life mission. 

And in the case of this child, the Son of God, the life mission is the most important one in all of history. 

I’ve meditated before on the many mysteries surrounding the development of this unique child, the God-man. The questions are beyond our understanding, and speculation doesn’t really get us anywhere except to increase our wonder and awe at this person. We are mystified by our Elder Brother (Ro 8.29). 

We assume Mary and Joseph pursued his education in pretty much the normal way, but at least by age 12 he was aware that he had a mission far beyond that of his brothers or his parent(s). As an adult, even in the middle of the greatest crisis of his earthly life, he commented, 

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour (Jn 12.27). 

That “cause,” or mission, as we know, was to die, and to die no ordinary death, but one that embraces the wrath of God upon all sinners for all the sins of all time. 

And more than that—if “more” is the right word—to live in perfect obedience to the Law, thereby accomplishing the righteousness that will be available as a gift to all who come to him in faith and repentance. 

And even more than that. 

He came to save us, yes (Mt 20.28). But even that salvation comes in stages. Justification, conversion, is just the beginning of a lifelong path of sanctification and eventual glorification. 

And even more. 

As we noted in a recent series, the final goal—the real goal, if I can put it that way—is union and fellowship. This baby, this Immanuel, is God becoming one of us, to be united with the human race forever, to be our spouse in an eternal, intimate marriage. 

And so yesterday we celebrated the birth of this unique infant, but today is the first day of All the Rest of It. 

Lots to treasure now, and lots to look forward to. 

Note: I wrote this post before I read this.

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture Tagged With: Christmas, holidays

On Christmas

December 23, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

This is my last blog post before Christmas. Feels like I should write about that. I suppose I could consider my just-concluded series on “Immanuel” an extended Christmas post, especially considering the photo I chose for it, but I feel like writing more directly about the holiday. So here goes. 

Aging changes your perspective on things, and Christmas is no exception. 

When I was a kid, Christmas was all about the anticipation: What am I gonna get for Christmas? In those days my family was relatively poor. That’s not quite the right word; we had a place to live, and food to eat, and clothes to wear. But we didn’t have what you might call high liquidity, so not much discretionary income. At Christmas each of us kids would get one present. (I remember one Christmas—I guess I was about 8—when I got a football and a helmet, and I could scarcely contain myself.) 

Eventually I realized that I should give gifts as well as receive them. I picked a book off our bookshelf and wrapped it up for my Mom. She was highly amused, especially since it was a book she had owned since the 1940s. 

And yes, eventually I decided to buy gifts rather than just scrounge them from around the house. 

But now I think differently, in ways that most people my age do. 

When loved ones ask me what I want for Christmas, I usually can’t think of anything. I have all I need, and a lot of things I don’t need. These days I’m trying to get rid of stuff. I’ve even tried offering my books to my students, and I find that hardly anybody uses books anymore; they use electronic, and so do I. (I love the fact that when I teach overseas, I can take my entire electronic library—thousands of titles—on my laptop, which fits comfortably under the seat in front of me. And I also love the fact that I can make the type bigger. And that I can search my ebooks electronically. And I like lots of other stuff about them.) 

Anybody want some books? I’m serious. 

Um, back to Christmas gifts. 

If something I have breaks—most recently, my espresso maker—I can just get a new one; no need to wait for Christmas. And just for the record, I don’t wear ties anymore, so don’t even. 

I find it’s not about the presents anymore, and it hasn’t been for a long time. 

What is it for me? 

It’s family. All of us together, enjoying the experience. Feasting together. Telling stories. Reminiscing. Opening presents, sure, but the joy I get is more from watching them open theirs.  

Recently I’ve noticed that I’m also enjoying the season more. Christmas music—the sacred kind—is meaning more to me than it used to. I find the secular stuff mostly just irritating; I have no desire to rock around the Christmas tree, and I wouldn’t recognize Mariah Carey’s voice if I heard it. Though, come to think of it, I can still dream about a white Christmas, though of course it’ll never happen here in the upstate of South Carolina. And the occasional silver bell is okay too. 

Another nice feature of the season is the lights and decorations. The neighborhoods look good, and I especially like the decorations along the main street in the small southern towns—you know, with the single row of brick storefronts and the railroad tracks just across the street. Banners from the light posts and strings of lights crisscrossing the street, just high enough for the trucks to get under. 

Calm. Contentment. Joy. Peace. 

Merry Christmas. 

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture, Personal Tagged With: Christmas, holidays

On Thanksgiving

November 29, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Here’s my annual Thanksgiving post.

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Filed Under: Culture, Personal, Worship Tagged With: gratitude, holidays, Thanksgiving

On Veterans’ Day

November 11, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

This year Veterans’ Day falls on a Monday, which is a regular posting day for me. 

Here in the US we’re often reminded that Armed Forces Day (May 18 this year) is when we honor those who are currently serving in the military, while Memorial Day (May 27 this year) is when we honor those who have died while serving—those who have given “the last full measure of devotion,” in President Lincoln’s memorable words at Gettysburg. Veterans’ Day, though, is when we honor any who have served. It always falls on November 11, the date of the signing of the Armistice that ended World War I in 1918. Originally called Armistice Day, it received its new name in 1954, due, I assume, to the fact that we now had veterans of two World Wars to honor. 

I tried to serve in the military but was turned down for an Air Force ROTC scholarship because I failed the flight physical due to a bum ear. That was a great disappointment, but I’ve noted that in God’s plan it was for the best. 

My Dad served in the Army, and my brother in the Navy; his two boys both graduated from Service Academies and served in the Army and Navy respectively. 

I have always appreciated those who were able to serve, in any capacity. I’m posting here today a slight revision of something I posted on Facebook several years ago. 

_______________ 

Atop a bookcase in my office sits a plain triangular wooden case with a glass front. Behind the glass is a triangle of blue covered with white stars. I’ve had visitors to my office remark somberly that they know what it is.  

And you probably know too. It’s an American flag, folded to the required triangular shape, field out, and given to the family of a veteran, usually at his graveside.  

This one was given by the USA—officially by President Obama at the time—to my family in appreciation for my father’s service in the US  Army near the end of World War II. My older sisters kindly decided that I should have it.  

I’m first a citizen of a higher country, an eternal one (Php 3.20), but I am grateful for the providence of God that has allowed me to be a citizen of this one. With all its flaws, and they are many because its people are many, the nation has been overwhelmingly good to me and to millions of others.  

I’ve been privileged to travel to many other countries, all of which I love and appreciate, and I have rejoiced for people I know and love while standing respectfully during their national anthems and Independence Day celebrations. God has been good to them, too, because that’s who He is.  

But I like mine the best. And I’m moved that some of my fellow citizens have freely given themselves— “the last full measure of devotion”—so I could experience all the reasons that enable me to say that. I will never fail to remember and treasure their priceless gift.  

And perhaps someday I’ll be able to tell many of them in person. Forever.  

Photo by chris robert on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture, Personal Tagged With: holidays, Veterans' Day

On Faith and Culture, Part 6: The Big Idea 

November 7, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Introduction | Part 2: Flexible Evangelism | Part 3: Drawing the Line 1 | Part 4: Drawing the Line 2 | Part 5: Choosing Wisely 

When we’re making these difficult decisions about our relationship to a new culture—or even to the one we know best—it’s wise to keep the Big Idea in mind. That Big Idea, of course, is the biblical metanarrative—the story of God’s working out his plan for the world and all who are in it. 

To begin with, God creates mankind in his image and gives him dominion over a creation that is “very good” (Ge 1.31). But due to Adam’s sin, creation is marred, and the image is distorted. 

As he had always planned, the Creator sets out to restore his image and the beauty of his creation. He chooses a line of humans to eventuate in a Deliverer, whom he anoints as prophet, priest, and king. And that Deliverer restores the image by living a life that provides positive righteousness to all who believe, and then by dying a death that pays sin’s penalty for all who will come. 

And then he begins to gather a people who will praise his name. He invites “the Jew first,” but he inaugurates a new body, the church, to erase national and ethnic boundaries. These diverse peoples will gather weekly to look one another in the face and exercise their gifts for the betterment of them all. 

In his epistle most closely associated with this concept, Ephesians, Paul begins by announcing the elements of God’s work of salvation (Ep 1) and then the radical effects of salvation: loving unity between former enemies—first, God and man (Ep 2.1-13) and then Jews and Gentiles (Ep 2.14-22). And then, the aim and purpose of it all: the glory of God (Ep 3.10). 

And here we slow down dramatically in our storytelling. Paul says he has a “dispensation”—a commission, a stewardship, a trust—from God, who has entrusted him with the message of the gospel to the Gentiles. He has been faithful to that trust; after multiple missionary journeys across the Roman Empire, he returns to Jerusalem, where he is arrested as a troublemaker at the very mention of the Gentiles (Ac 22.21). And he was in Jerusalem specifically to bring a monetary gift from the Gentile church to the predominantly Jewish church in Jerusalem—to act out the very unity that he has been preaching. 

This “dispensation” is to “gather together in one all things in Christ” (Ep 1.10). It was no surprise that Gentiles would eventually worship the God of Israel; God’s covenant with Abraham had noted that in him “all nations of the earth would be blessed” (Ge 12.3), and the prophets had detailed the coming of all nations to the Temple in Jerusalem (Is 2.1-4; 27.12-13). 

But that Gentiles would enter the kingdom not by converting to Judaism, but with equal standing—that was new revelation (Ep 3.6). 

In all of this, God would be glorified 

  • Through his unsearchable riches (Ep 3.7-8) 
  • Through his eternal plan (Ep 3.9) 
  • Through his manifold wisdom 
    • Exhibited to the angels (Ep 3.10) 
    • And experienced by the church (Ep 3.11-12) 

This new body, the church, is united across all cultural boundaries because it is rooted and grounded in love (Ep 3.14-17) and unified in their apprehension (Ep 3.18)—because they are all united perfectly with the Father (Ep 3.19). 

This will most surely come to pass, despite all the things that fragment our fellowship today. God’s plan is that this be revealed in, through, and by the church. May we all be part of that fulfillment. 

Photo by Joseph Grazone on Unsplash

Filed Under: Bible, Culture Tagged With: Ephesians, New Testament

On Faith and Culture, Part 5: Choosing Wisely 

November 4, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Introduction | Part 2: Flexible Evangelism | Part 3: Drawing the Line 1 | Part 4: Drawing the Line 2  

When we’re considering how to adapt to a different culture in our gospel outreach, it’s helpful to consider how the early church approached the same question. In an earlier post we noted that the church did indeed wrestle with cultural differences, but for many of those conflicts we don’t have much information about how they resolved them. 

An exception is the question of meat offered to idols, discussed in 1Corinthians 8-10 particularly, and perhaps, to a lesser extent, in Romans 14. When asked the simple question, “Is it permitted to eat such meat?” (1Co 8.1), Paul gives a fairly complex answer—and in the process he reminds us of the basis on which we make these decisions. I‘ve written on this passage elsewhere, but it’s worth summarizing some of the salient points here. 

First, Paul begins by answering a question that they didn’t ask. He says that the goal is not knowledge, but love (1Co 8.1-2). I don’t think I’m reading too much into his observation when I say that in our approach to different cultures, we should not assume that we have all the answers; rather, we should act in the best interests of those we’re approaching. 

Then Paul turns to how to apply that general principle to this specific question. Even if your view is demonstrably correct (1Co 8.4-6), the best interests of the other person are served when you consider his cultural background and adapt to it (1Co 8.7). 

Now, I hasten to add that this adaptation cannot violate the principles of truth and of loyalty to God and his Word. If the matter does not violate such things, then the believer is free to adapt, even to give up his own rights—or culturally based sensibilities—for the sake of the other’s eventual spiritual well-being (1Co 9). But he may not adapt to the new culture in ways that constitute false worship (1Co 10.1-22). And, perhaps surprisingly, he ought to prefer acting rudely in a given cultural situation than undercutting the spiritual health of fellow believers (1Co 10.23-30). 

The overarching principle, he says, is the glory of God (1Co 10.31). 

Now for some application of these principles. Suppose you’re working in a culture with a dominant religious tradition that is false. You may not know whether a given cultural element—say, a common funeral tradition or holiday custom—is meaningfully tied to that false religion. You’re going to have to ask for wisdom from believers in that culture and to respect their judgment; you’re going to have to place more value on their opinions than on your own. 

Some years ago, while I was teaching in Mexico, my host took me to lunch at a fancier-than-usual taco restaurant. As we entered, the greeter asked if we would like to sit in the mariachi section or non-mariachi. My host, an American, immediately said, “Non-mariachi, please.” As we sat down, I said, “I’d have preferred to sit in the mariachi section.” He replied, “For the believers here, mariachi has cultural connotations that are unhealthy, and they won’t associate with it.” 

I picked up a little wisdom that day. Respect the opinions of those who know about the culture; tourists are notoriously unwise in their interactions, because they’re simply ignorant, even when well-meaning. 

In general, it’s unwise to embrace all of a culture’s elements without doing some research. I would agree, as would pretty much everybody else, that Hudson Taylor was justified in wearing Chinese clothing and growing his hair into the queue typical of the culture. But that decision was considered and informed by his understanding of the culture. Praying to one’s ancestors, however, is quite another matter.  

After Taylor, Gladys Aylward argued that the cultural practice of foot binding had to stop. And with influence from her and other Christian missionaries, the practice came to an end. As far as I’m aware, the practice did not involve devotion to some false religion, but it certainly violated the Christian principle of loving one’s neighbor. 

Sometimes you embrace the culture. But you do not endorse its every practice; the gospel is not enhanced by mere grooviness. And the distinction must be based on careful thought and objective truth. 

Next time: The Big Idea. 

Photo by Joseph Grazone on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture

On Faith and Culture, Part 4: Drawing the Line 2 

October 31, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Introduction | Part 2: Flexible Evangelism | Part 3: Drawing the Line 1 

To continue our survey of biblical limits on cultural adaptation— 

The Lust of the Eyes

This is wanting what you see. We might call it materialism, in the sense of acquisitiveness: the belief that “if I can only have that, I’ll be satisfied.” 

Much of Christendom has been overrun by Prosperity Theology, the idea that God wants you to be rich. In the old days it was Kathryn Kuhlman and Oral Roberts; these days it’s Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, and a raft of others. The movement has spread like wildfire through Africa, and I wonder why, after all this time, it hasn’t occurred to the attendees at these massive rallies that they’re not getting any richer. 

No, the lust of the eyes is not a legitimate vehicle for evangelism, if for no other reason that the “converts” aren’t there for the gospel at all. 

The Pride of Life 

There’s some discussion on what exactly this phenomenon is. Some interpreters focus on the word pride and assume that it has to do with personal recognition, popularity, or fame. Others focus on the word life and take it to refer to experiences or adrenaline rushes. They point to Satan’s third temptation of Jesus, to jump from the high point of the Temple, as an example. 

I’d suggest that in either case a core component is focusing on this life rather than the next—which is also the core component of the other two classes of sin. 

__________ 

In our own culture we see all three of these categories in evidence. As just one obvious example, the LGBTQIA+ movement is an extreme manifestation of lust of the flesh. (For what it’s worth, I expect the “L” and the “T” to part ways at some point, if the Lord tarries, but that won’t be a case of “the good guys” vs “the bad guys.”) 

Rampant consumerism, as illustrated by the three or four months of “Christmas shopping” and the expectation of same-day delivery of everything by exhaustive web retailers with massive warehouses scattered across the country would seem to indicate a certain presence of lust of the eyes. 

And the self-promotion typical in social media, with its obsession with likes and shares, certainly smacks of the pride of life. 

So back to our driving question: what kinds of cultural adaptation are appropriate for the evangelist, and what kinds are not? 

Well, audience adaptation of the sort that Paul demonstrated in his preaching is certainly appropriate, in the interest of making the gospel comprehensible by varying cultures. Similarly, engaging in work that demonstrates love for neighbor—such as mission hospitals, famine and other disaster relief, orphanages and schools, drilling wells—are effectively commanded by Jesus in Mark 12.31, and there’s nothing dishonest about doing those things in order to open the door for evangelism. 

But catering to lust—the uncontrolled or extreme desire for earthly things—or to self-obsession in order to present the gospel is a very different thing. We are called to enter a foreign culture, to live out grace, and mercy, and peace in ways that represent our King well, and make disciples of all nations. We must do that with honesty and integrity. 

Next time, I’d like to look at an example or two of cultural practices over which believers have had to make decisions—do I adopt the practice, or not? And why or why not? 

Photo by Joseph Grazone on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture Tagged With: the world

On Faith and Culture, Part 3: Drawing the Line 1 

October 28, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Introduction | Part 2: Flexible Evangelism 

In what ways can we accommodate a culture in evangelistic efforts, and in what ways can we not? How do we know? Where do we draw the line? 

This is not just a matter of personal taste: “I don’t like that” or “That makes me uncomfortable” or “That offends me.” And it’s not just a matter of whether a cultural practice seems strange to us. It’s the very nature of cross-cultural work that practices will seem strange until you know why those practices exist—and perhaps after you know as well. 

As always, we Christians take our directions from the Scripture, because it is the Word of God, inerrant and authoritative. Does the Bible have anything to say about how we interact with our culture? 

You bet it does. While it begins with a clear affirmation that all humans are created in the image of God (Ge 1.26-27), it also affirms that all humans have sinned (Ro 3.23). As a result, when sinners form cultures, those cultures reflect the brokenness that sin invariably brings. 

Some cultures may seem more “broken” to us than others, but I suspect that much of that sense springs from our bias toward our own culture. Some cultures require very little clothing; some are in constant warfare with neighboring tribes; some are tyrannical and abusive. But our culture is broken too, given over to the pursuit of wealth and power, worshiping at the false altar of entertainment, and in constant warfare with neighboring political tribes. 

The Bible doesn’t use the word “culture” except in the more paraphrastic versions such as The Message and the Passion Translation. (The King James uses it in the Apocrypha, in 2 Esdras 8.6, but in a different sense.) But there is a word in the Bible that closely parallels the concept. The Bible speaks often of “the world,” and some of those uses mean something pretty close to “culture.” But the biblical sense is uniformly evil, whereas today “culture” includes many things that are not evil at all. But the Scripture does identify some things to avoid in “the world” (1J 2.15-17): 

  • The lust of the flesh 
  • The lust of the eyes 
  • The pride of life 

When a culture embodies or embraces these things, we evangelists cannot adopt them as a vehicle for spreading the gospel. 

The Lust of the Flesh 

When we hear this expression, we tend to think of sexual lust—probably because our own culture is pervasively pornographic. And yes, the incitation of sexual desire outside of marriage is evil, not something we can endorse or accommodate. 

But “the flesh” includes more than just sexual matters. “Lust of the flesh” includes anything that caters to sinful physical desires. 

  • Gluttony is such a lust—and I’ve been in other cultures where their single observation about us Americans is that we all eat too much. 
  • Laziness—the desire for an unjustified amount of rest—is also catering to an inappropriate physical desire. I suppose that would include not just lying in bed all day, but overdosing on entertainment or scrolling on social media for hours. 

A clue, I think, is that if you can’t stop it, then it’s out of control. 

Next time, we’ll finish the list and attempt to draw out some governing principles. 

Photo by Joseph Grazone on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture

On Faith and Culture, Part 2: Flexible Evangelism 

October 24, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Introduction 

I ended the previous post with the observation that the world and everything in it is broken by sin. Because of that brokenness, Jesus left his disciples a command to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Mt 28.19-20). Even in Paul’s day, and even with the relative cultural unity brought by the Greeks and then the Romans across the Mediterranean Basin, there were cultural issues to address: 

  • Just within Judaism there was division between those who spoke Hebrew/Aramaic and kept closely to Hebrew customs, and those (“Hellenists”) who admired the Greek culture and tried to adopt as much of it as they could (e.g. Ac 6.1). 
  • The division between Jews and “Gentile dogs” was as deep and wide as it could be (e.g. Ac 10.28; 11.2-3). 
  • As Paul traveled the Roman Empire, he faced occasions where he didn’t understand the local religious practices, or even the language (Ac 14.8-18). 
  • Even within the church there were disputes about whether one should keep kosher or celebrate the Mosaic feast days (Ro 14.2, 5), or whether one should eat meat that had been offered to an idol in a pagan ritual (1Co 8.4-13). 

These were real concerns, real disagreements, that caused real divisions. Answering these questions was hard. 

Throughout this process of early evangelism, the apostles made it clear that there were some things, both doctrinal and practical, on which Christians must agree. They evidenced this primarily in their sermons, all of which tended to focus on the same set of core doctrines, the hub around which the wheel of Christianity turned. (That link is important; take a minute to read the post, and ideally the whole series, since it’s foundational to the current discussion.) They began with the well-founded assumption that the Hebrew Scriptures—what Christians call the Old Testament—are God’s inspired Word and thus to be trusted—and obeyed—implicitly. 

But beyond that core, they demonstrated some flexibility on how they approached various groups. For example, Paul addressed a synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, with a discourse on how Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew Scripture, since these educated, observant Jews had a cultural context for that argument (Ac 13.15-41). But at the Areopagus in Athens, facing a pagan audience, Paul quoted none of the Hebrew Scriptures, focusing instead on the writings of various Greek poets and philosophers (Ac 17.18-31)—specifically, 

  • Epimenides, Cretica (Acts 17.28a) 
  • Aratus, Phaenomena l. 5 (Acts 17.28b) 

By the end of this sermon, however, Paul demonstrated the importance of the doctrinal core by emphasizing unapologetically the resurrection of Christ, an assertion that brought mocking from this culture (Ac 17.32). 

It’s interesting to compare the two sermons more closely: 

  • Opening Hook: national pride (Ac 13.17) vs. “unknown god” (Ac 17.22-23) 
  • Storyline: national covenant (Ac 13.18-22) vs. creation (Ac 17.24-29) 
  • Consequence: Messiah as fulfillment of promise (Ac 13.23-41) vs. certainty of coming judgment (Ac 17.30-31) 

These two commissions—to preach the undiluted and undistorted gospel, and to preach to every culture on the planet—give rise to disagreements. Believers are priests, illuminated by the Spirit, but they’re imperfect, and so they differ as to how to go about this central task. 

  • We are tasked with taking the gospel to every culture on the planet—cultures that exist because we are created in the image of God. 
  • Good stewards will represent Christ, in word and deed, in the most effective way to reach the culture. 
  • But the message must not be compromised by that accommodation to the culture. 
  • While contextualization means doing what’s necessary to make the gospel  understandable in the target culture, it is not a blank check to be as groovy as possible. 

This raises—it does not “beg,” but that’s for a different post—a question. Which ways of making the gospel message more easily accessible by a different culture are appropriate, and which are not? How do we tell the difference? Where do we draw the line? 

More on that next time. 

Photo by Joseph Grazone on Unsplash

Filed Under: Culture Tagged With: evangelism

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 17
  • Next Page »