Last week I ran across this article, an interview with Tim Keller, in Christianity Today. This week in my blog I decided to look at the questions he was asked, pull a quote from his answers, and share some thoughts.

Q: The recent Pew study talked about changing patterns of belief in America. Has that affected your apologetics ministry?

A: Evangelicalism has been so identified with conservative Republican values that a lot of people who might be more moderate have decided they are not religious. I've seen that happen in New York. They're moderate or liberal politically, and they feel like orthodox Christianity is so identified with conservative Republican politics that they have actually distanced themselves from the faith.

For me, the corrective to this problem becomes the church focusing on a broader set of issues. Over the past number of years, Christianity has essentially become, at least in the public sphere, about a select few moral issues. Since those few issues match up with the agenda of the Republican party, Christians have in turn adopted other values held by Republicans and made them Christian issues. In other words, something that should have remained non-reciprocal, became reciprocal (yes, for all you Sem educated folks, that language is intention and I am thinking of the second genus).

But what if churches, rather than holding onto just a few select issues pulled out everything Scripture offers ... social justice, creation stewardship, just war, etc. Suddenly you have issues that, at least at some level, gel with both parties and, if nothing else, people who are more concerned about those oft ignored issues can at least feel as if they aren't excluded from the church on the basis of their political party.

It also allows you to have a whole lot more fun with election day, aka, national sin boldly day.

Since my upcoming thoughts are rooted entirely in my theology of worship, I should start by providing some background on what I believe is going on in worship. Trying to keep it brief, when we gather as a community, we gather so God can act graciously and we can respond.

So, God acts by showing up, we respond. God acts by announcing forgiveness, we respond. God acts by speaking to us in his Word, we respond. God acts by giving us the body and blood, we respond. God acts by blessing us in the benediction (and hopefully we respond in our lives when we leave the church building).

Now, as I've planned various alternative worship of services with this general understanding of worship, I've always leaned towards having a single narrative that was aimed at telling this story of God's action and our response ... although, most of the time, that also demands a pre-story to point out why God has to act. So, when I plan, the music, the Scripture readings, the preaching, and everything else all weave together into a single story, so, when I saw this approach, I freaked a bit, because there is no way for the music to faithfully point into our out of the preaching portion of the worship narrative because they've been divided and the story is now broken up.

However, then I began to think about the traditional Lutheran liturgical setting where this pattern of acting and responding happens repeatedly, or, in the case of this unconventional idea, it could happen twice, once in preaching and once in music. What do you think, given my theology of worship, could that be a functional approach to something like this?

Last week I ran across this article, an interview with Tim Keller, in Christianity Today. This week in my blog I decided to look at the questions he was asked, pull a quote from his answers, and share some thoughts.

Q: Why have you avoided using arguments from intelligent design in your apologetics?

A: Two people said [last night at a Veritas forum]: "I can't believe in Christianity, because look at the fossils." And I was trying to say, "Because you believe in evolution does this mean that Jesus Christ couldn't be raised from the dead?" One said, "No, that has nothing to do with it." If he was raised from the dead, then you have to take seriously the Scripture and you have to work on all this.

This is one of the things I wrestle with, especially given some of the ways that Old Earth stuff is argued. At a basic level, I have no issues with what Keller says, and if somebody could present me a great Old Earth model that addresses my issues with it, I wouldn't have any. So, what are my "issues" (well, the issues that matter for this conversation at least)?

The biggest one is death. The quick rundown of the Biblical narrative has death invading the human condition with the Fall (and becoming our final enemy ... see 1 Corinthians 15:24-26). Then Christ, through his life, death, and resurrection, overcomes death and prepares the way for the New Heavens and the New Earth. In other words, death not being natural is key to the whole resurrection narrative.

So, anybody have an Old Earth model where death isn't natural?

Last week I ran across this article, an interview with Tim Keller, in Christianity Today. This week in my blog I decided to look at the questions he was asked, pull a quote from his answers, and share some thoughts.

Q: You reject marketing apologetics like, "Christianity is better than the alternatives, so choose Christianity." Why?

A: Marketing is about felt needs. You find the need and then you say Christianity will meet that need. You have to adapt to people's questions. And if people are asking a question, you want to show how Jesus is the answer.

What strikes me as odd about this, is that Keller really is working with a, "Christianity is better than the alternatives" apologetic here, it's just being done from a position of service rather than one of authority.

After all, what he's arguing is coming alongside somebody who is feeling the effects of the law in their life, and offering them a Gospel solution to that felt-law experience. However, in addressing that need with the Gospel, he's also saying, "What you're doing, the alternatives, don't meet that need like the Gospel does." In other words, there's the other stuff, and then there's the Gospel.

Last week I ran across this article, an interview with Tim Keller, in Christianity Today. This week in my blog I decided to look at the questions he was asked, pull a quote from his answers, and share some thoughts.

Q: Are the doubts that believers face the same as the doubts that unbelievers face?

A: I do think a lot of Christians — because they don't understand the grace narrative — get out into the world and find it very tough to navigate. I think it's because they don't understand the gospel, not because they can't answer all the theological questions.

This comment really summarizes two of my posts last week on the first and second levels of religions, and how at a certain level, all religions are the same (which is what most Americans see according to the recent Pew study), but, at a second level, Christianity is radically different. That second level is the gospel and if people don't get they Gospel, then the uniqueness of Christianity is lost and, honestly, we're no different than anyone else.

Of course, the real challenge with this is that the Gospel is completely contrary to our sinful human nature, because our natural desire is to contribute something to the faith equation, be it good works, choosing God, or whatever else. In the end, because we add these pieces on to what God does, we end up with an understanding of the Gospel that is lacking and, as a result, we regularly find ourselves in places of doubt.

For the Christian then, the key to overcoming doubt and finding ourselves capable of navigating the world, is to come to understand the fullness of the Gospel. For me, the book that really helped in this struggle was Martin Luther's, "Bondage of the Will" (you can read it for free here).

So, how much Gospel is in your understanding of the Gospel?