Evangelism as Exiles: The Problem with "Sharing" the Gospel

* Some good thoughts from Elliot Clark's book Evangelism as Exiles: Life on Mission as Strangers in Our Own Land (2019).

Problem with Merely 'Sharing the Gospel'

"For some time now, American Christians have conceived of their witness in terms of 'sharing the gospel.'  Read any book or listen to any talk on personal evangelism and you'll inevitably encounter the phrase.  On one level, the terminology is positive, conveying the gracious act of giving others a treasure we possess.  However, if by 'sharing' we imply a kind of charity where we only give the gospel to willing recipients, then our Christian vernacular has become a problem.  Especially since the Bible rarely uses such language to describe the act of evangelism.

"I first awakened to this reality while doing language study in Central Asia.  As I took a course in spiritual terminology, a missionary teacher bemoaned the fact that many Westerners had imported the idea of sharing the gospel into the vocabulary of the local church.  He asserted that such a concept was completely foreign--to their context and the Bible.  Scripture, instead, spoke primarily of preaching the gospel, declaring and proclaiming a message.

"But what, you might ask, could be wrong with sharing the gospel?  Isn't the greater problem that people aren't sharing it at all?  However, I've come to wonder if these dual realities aren't somehow related, with the way we speak about evangelism imperceptibly affecting the way we do evangelism.

"Throughout the book of Acts we find repeated examples of authoritative witness--even in the face of suffering--from the apostles and early church.  We find them proclaiming the gospel and speaking boldly.  We read of them persuading others.  We see them reasoning from Scripture, both expounding and also applying it.  We observe them testifying before rulers and governors, bearing witness before civil crowds and angry mobs.  What we don't find them doing is 'sharing' the gospel.

"So it's more than a bit curious that the dominant way American Christians describe the act of evangelism is in terms of sharing.  This isn't just one way we talk about it; it's almost the only way we talk about it.  And I believe this lack of clarity is more than an issue of semantics.

"It would be no different from a baseball coach who consistently described the role of pitchers in terms of tossing the ball.  In practice or a game, whenever his pitchers were struggling to get batters out, what if his dominant instruction was simply to toss the ball?  Not throw strikes.  Not work the corners.  Not change speeds.  Not pound it inside.  Just toss the ball.  Would the pitchers have an accurate understanding of their responsibility?

"But that's basically the way we talk about evangelism.  Our description is overly simplistic.  It lacks precision and nuance.  And when  that becomes our default instruction--to simply share the gospel--we fail to convey the attitude, approach, and authority necessary for the act itself.  Thus what started as a subtle change in terminology results in a massive shift in our whole ethos of evangelism.

"That's because 'sharing' typically involves the act of giving something to someone who desires it.  Children share (or don't share) Legos with other kids who want them.  Friends share a great cookie recipe with another friend who asks for it.  Or we might share money with those holding a cardboard sign at the street corner.  In each case, we share with others because they're asking for what we possess.  But the reality is, few people are ever begging us to share the gospel with them.

"We must ask ourselves, then, whether casual Christianese has influenced the way we view the gospel mandate.  We must consider why we're only willing to speak the gospel when we perceive openness on the part of another.  We must ponder whether we even have a category for proclaiming a message that people oppose, one that's innately offensive.  Or do we tiptoe through polite spiritual conversations and timidly share our opinions, then call it evangelism?

"But to evangelize is to preach good news.  According to D. A. Carson, this is the basic definition of the Greek word euangelizo from which we get our English word for evangelism.  As he observes in his comprehensive study of the 'gospel' word-group in the Bible, 'the gospel is primarily displayed in heraldic proclamation: the gospel is announced, proclaimed, preached, precisely because it is God's spectacular news.'  In fact, Carson expresses concern that some of our confusion (what he labels as 'nonsense') about what the gospel is (and how it must be communicated) results from our lack of understanding regarding how the Bible describes the gospel and evangelism in the first place.

"Far more than just sharing, evangelism involves testifying to Christ--warning, persuading, defending, pleading, and calling.  As we saw last chapter, such authoritative witness need not be in opposition to gentleness and respect.  Moreover, the context of healthy, trusting relationships can actually add force to our words.  But sadly we often value those relationships more than a clear statement of the truth.  Rarely do we engage people with a sense of authority or urgency."  (pp. 95-98)

Evangelism as Exiles: Triage Our Agendas

 * Some good thoughts from Elliot Clark on evangelism is our culture.  From his book Evangelism as Exiles: Life on Mission as Strangers in Our Land (2019).

"When we seek to do evangelism as exiles, we already have a really hard sell.  We're trying to convince people that a Jewish carpenter as God's Son, come from heaven to die for our sins.  He was buried, and three days later he rose from the dead and now reigns over all.  Not only that, we're also calling them to join us as social outcasts.  Must we also try  to persuade them about matters of history and geopolitics?  Do we really want to argue for our opinion on the environment or economics?  Or could those hobby-horse topics end up as barriers to Christ's gospel?

"Please don't hear me say that Christians should never address controversial topics.  Or that we shouldn't speak out against evil and injustice.  Of course we should.  But the value of silence still stands.  It's a lesson I'm even trying to learn as a parent: You have to pick your battles.  You can't take offense at every turn.  You can't address every problem or every infraction.  And most of all, the dominant message must not be constant displeasure or disagreement.  Otherwise we'll lose our audience before we get to the most important message of all.

"We must learn to triage our agendas.  We must learn to prioritize our preaching.  Some things are of higher value; others are likely not even worthy of comment.  Because as much as people can be won to Christ through our witness, they can also be lost by our words.  Our endless social commentary and political engagement can be off-putting.  So better to be quiet and respectful than bold and boorish.  Better to sometimes be silent." (pp. 77-78)

1 Peter: Communal Meditations

* The following was designed for our small group for us to read Scripture together and meditate together.

Reading 1 Peter together.  Here is the breakdown for the daily readings.

1.1-9
1.10-16
1.17-21
1.22-2.3
2.4-8
2.9-12
2.13-17
2.18-25
3.1-7
3.8-12
3.13-17
3.18-22
4.1-6
4.7-11
4.12-19
5.1-5
5.6-14

I chose to do smaller sections so we could focus on meditating on the specific pieces of 1 Peter.  If you want to do more, you could read the entire chapter of a given section and then focus your meditation on the specific passage.  If you do this, you will read chapter 1 four times.

I want to keep the sections short so that everyone can participate and if someone gets behind a day or two it is not too hard to catch up.

Here are some meditation questions to consider as you read.  These kinds of questions help us think about what we're reading and not just read lightly with no meaning or application.

Questions:

1.  What do I see about God?
2.  Do I see anything unique about the Father, Son, and/or Holy Spirit? (Always watch for the Trinity!)
3.  Is there anything to praise God for?
4.  Anything I can say "thank you" for?
5.  Any command or example to obey?
6.  Anything to avoid?
7.  How can I apply this to my life--at work, at home, as a husband/wife, father/mother, friend, co-worker, in our RC group?
8.  What encourages me?
9.  What confuses me?
10.  Anything that reminds me of other Scripture passages?

Slavery in the New Testament: A Few Comments

* I'm preaching through 1 Peter so I wrote up the following brief piece for our church bulletin to explain some of the background on the issue of slavery in the New Testament.  It's not meant to be exhaustive but it does give some further resources for study.

The New Testament mentions slavery.  Critics of the Bible have sometimes latched onto these texts as alleged evidence of the inferiority of the Bible ethics.  Why doesn’t the New Testament speak against slavery?  It seems to endorse the status quo.  So goes the challenge.  What can be said in response to such challenges?  Here a few items to consider…

1.     We need to properly contextualize slavery in the New Testament.  Simply mentioning a practice does not mean God condones or endorses the practice.  Paul urges Christians to honor the government but this doesn’t mean he condones everything the government does (Romans 13.1-7).

2.     The culture of the time did not allow for large-scale revolution on the issue of slavery.  Christians had to navigate the times with wisdom and engage in a longer-term project of undercutting slavery.  By some estimates 85-90% of the inhabitants of Rome and the Italian peninsula were slaves or of slave origins.  During the first century Caesar Augustus passed laws governing the number and ages of slaves who legitimately be set free.  It is helpful to remember also that in 73 BC Spartacus led a slaves revolt and this caused the general populace to look with fearful suspicion on any who would potentially foment opposition to slavery. 

3.     It needs to also be remembered that the Christian communities to which Peter wrote were being increasingly seen in a negative light.  Their lifestyles and refusal to fully endorse the gods brought them into conflict with the dominant culture.  This leads Dr. Steven Tracy to write:

What then could Christian slaves (who had no legal rights regarding their masters' abuse) and Christian citizens (who stood on the cusp of legal prosecution for their faith) do when experiencing abuse? Their best response was to let their godly behavior challenge unjust treatment and unjust slander, which is precisely what Peter repeatedly prescribes (2:12,1&-20; 3:16).[1]  

4.     There are ways that the New Testament expresses both direct and subtle opposition to slavery.  In 1 Timothy 1.9-10 and Revelation 18.11-13 kidnapping for the purpose of slavery is spoken against and presented in a negative light and worthy of judgment.  In 1 Corinthians 7.20-22 the apostle Paul encourages slaves to acquire freedom if possible.  In Ephesians chapter six when Paul mentions slaves and masters he does not quote Scripture as he does when discussing the other aspects of the household such as husbands/wives and fathers/children.  The marital and family bonds between men/women and parents/children were created by God so Paul can quote Scriptures about those relationships.  Slavery is an institution not created by God so the lack of a Scriptural citation is subtle but significant.

5.     The equality within the church tended to undercut the nature of slavery.  What is noteworthy is that slaves are addressed by Paul and Peter in their letters.  This dignified them as part of the church of Christ.  This was also different from the moral codes of the time outside the church.  As one biblical scholar writes:

The reason for this difference between 1 Peter and other moral codes of his time is simple.  For society at large slaves were not full persons and thus did not have moral responsibility.  For the church slaves were full and equal persons, and thus quite appropriately addressed as such.[2]

There are seemingly even slave names mentioned by Paul in his conclusion to the book of Romans when he is thanking and commending those who are worthy of mention in the church.  “The names of those mentioned in Romans 16 suggest that many had been slaves.  Andronicus [v. 7] and Urbanus [v.9] were exclusively slave names in the literature and inscriptions of Paul’s day.”[3]

6.     It should also be noted that the symbolic actions of the early church tended to undermine the dominant culture’s ideas of slavery.  The holy kiss and the language of “brothers” and “sisters” reinforced the larger family dynamic of the church.  Masters addressing slaves as “brother” would begin to subtly overturn the overt power structures of the relationship.  The words of biblical scholar F. F. Bruce regarding the letter of Philemon seem to apply more broadly to these kind of relational dynamics as well:

What this letter does [and I would argue these practices—RJK] is to bring us into an atmosphere in which the institution [of slavery] could only wilt and die.[4]

Yes, the New Testament mentions slavery but within the message and actions of the church are the seeds of slavery’s destruction.

Resources for further study:

1.     “Slavery in the Bible: Some Perspectives on a Difficult Topic.”  This is a Bible study I did last year on the topic of slavery.  It covers details of OT and NT slavery.  It also has some more resources listed in the bibliography.  Online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2015/11/slavery-in-bible-some-perspectives-on.html

2.     The Humanization of Slavery in the Old Testament, edited by Thomas Schirrmacher.  This is a collection of three essays that give perspective on slavery in the Bible, history and today.  Very good research and reasoning.  Online: http://www.bucer.de/fileadmin/dateien/Dokumente/Buecher/WoT_8_-_Thomas_Schirrmacher__ed.__-_The_Humanization_of_Slavery_in_the_OT.pdf

---

     [1] Steven Tracy, “Domestic Violence in the Church and Redemptive Suffering” Calvin Theological Journal 41 (2006), 290.  Available online: http://mendingthesoul.org/wp-content/uploads/DV-in-Church-1-Peter.pdf

     [2] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter—The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 105.

     [3] A. A. Rupprecht, “Slave, Slavery” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 882.

     [4] F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), 401.

God and Politics: A Few Reflections

* A piece I wrote for our weekly church bulletin to go along with the sermon on 1 Peter 2.13-17.

The arena of politics can be difficult to navigate.  Now throw theology in the mix and the difficulties seem to multiply.  Yet, God has given us his Word and he speaks to the political realm in a number of different passages.  Today passage—1 Peter 2.13-17—is one such passage that gives us direction on how to reason as Christians.  As will be mentioned in the sermon today, we need to apply God’s unchanging principles to changing circumstances.  Within the history of the church Christians have had to live under varying political realities: monarchies, oligarchies, parliaments, tyrants, and democratic systems.  These differing political realities still require the people of God to heed God’s timeless instructions.

A helpful essay is Attitudes Towards the State in Western Theological Thinking by Torleiv Austad in the October 1990 issue of Themelios.  Here are a few select quotations from Austad’s piece:

From the NT texts which speak of the life of the Christian in the world, we may draw the following conclusions for understanding the mandate and limits of the state: First, the mandate of the state is to deal with and regulate the common social, political, and economic life of society.  Secondly, the state has the right to require taxes from the citizens to be able to take care of some of the common needs, such as food and clothing, work and social welfare, law and justice.  Thirdly, the state has to take care of and reward those who are doing right and to punish those who are doing wrong.  Thus the state is on the way to fulfilling its mandate of administering justice.  If the state pretends to give itself divine attributes and becomes involved in people’s relationship with God, it goes beyond its limits. It is also a transgression of those limits when a state offends elementary civil rights, especially when it restrains freedom of conscience.  In addition, a just state, i.e. a state which functions in accordance with its mandate, may not be totalitarian in terms of claiming sovereignty in all areas of life without crossing the line and entering into injustice and demonic power.

The task of the church over against the state is threefold: First, the church has to remind the state of its mandate and limits.  Secondly, the church should encourage the citizens, Christians included, to co-operate with the actual state as far as it is true to its calling.  Thirdly, because the state is constantly tempted to become totalitarian and degenerate, the church and Christians are called to be critical of every state and evaluate its functions on the basis of ethical premises. (p. 20)

Austad goes on to note that in the New Testament the state is given neither principled renunciation nor uncritical acceptance.  He writes:

The apparently contradictory attitude can be illustrated by comparing Romans 13 and Revelation 13.  In both cases Christians are confronted with the Roman state.  While the governing authorities according to Romans 13 respect elementary civil rights, the same state in Revelation 13—about forty years later—is seen as the beast from the abyss.  Therefore the attitude of Christians has changed from obedience to disobedience.  Within the eschatological horizon of the NT the relationship between Christians and the governing authorities is never fixed; it is complex, sensitive and changing. (p. 22)

The interface between the church and the state can be tricky.  Faithfully navigating through all the twists and turns of both cultural and political analysis as well as critically engaging in rigorous biblical and theological thinking is difficult.  Even when Christians agree on fundament principles from God’s word there may still be disagreements on how to best apply those principles to concrete problems and situations.  May God give us the grace and wisdom to faithfully pursue righteous and justice in all that we do—including in the realm of politics.

The Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter 2.9-10

There are a number of direct quotations from and direct allusions to the Old Testament in 1 Peter.  First Peter 2:9-10 is rich with evocative Old Testament themes and language.[1]  Most prominent in use are Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 43:20-21; and Hosea 2:23.[2]  In selecting these Old Testament passages Peter has drawn upon titles and images pertaining to Israel’s identity in the Old Covenant.  This is significant in light of the fact that the audience intended by this epistle is, in all likelihood, predominantly Gentile.[3]  This has implications for the relationship between “Israel” and the “Church”—an issue that continues to divide theological systems.  Furthermore, as will be seen, the texts from the Old Testament utilized by 1 Peter 2:9-10 have “missional” overtones that also suit Peter’s purposes in writing to his recipients.  A quick discussion of the individual Old Testament texts will be followed by a discussion of the implications of these texts for Peter’s context.

            Exodus 19:6 is an important statement made to Israel by God at a crucial moment in their history.  Three months after the defining moments of the exodus from Egypt Israel is at Mount Sinai and the living God is going to make a covenant with his people.  Yahweh speaks these words to his people:

Now then, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, then you shall be my own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.  Exodus 19:5-6a

Israel is chosen out of the nations for the special privilege of being God’s people.  This sets them apart from the other nations on the face of the earth—the Gentiles.  Furthermore,

there is an implicit call to Israel that she is to be God’s people on behalf of the nations.    Terence Fretheim argues that the phrase in Exodus 19:5—“for all the earth is mine”—is significant:

This suggest that the phrases relate to a mission that encompasses God’s purposes for the entire world.  Israel is commissioned to be God’s people on behalf of the earth which is God’s.[4]

This election by God is a calling to be God’s people on behalf of the nations, thus election and mission are intertwined. 

             Isaiah 43:20-21 is set within a context of God’s promises of deliverance for Israel from Bablylon.[5]  Israel is called God’s “chosen people” and a people formed for God himself so that they may “declare my praise.”  It is also of importance to note that this section of Isaiah is set within the larger context of the “servant” of Yahweh.  Israel as the Lord’s servant has a mission to be a light to the Gentiles (Isa 42:6; 49:6).  As with the Exodus 19 there is the dual emphasis on election and mission.

            Hosea is an eighth century prophet who is called to minister to the Northern Kingdom.  The children born to Hosea through his wife Gomer are symbolic of God’s judgment.  Their second child is called “Lo-ruhamah” which the Lord states to mean that he “will no longer have compassion on the house of the Israel, that I would ever forgive them” (Hosea 1:6).  Their third child is called “Lo-ammi” which means “for you are not my people and I am not your God” (Hosea 1:9).  This judgment is not the last word for Israel.  For in Hosea 2:23 the Lord states:

I will sow her for myself in the land.  I will have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, and I will say to those people who were not my people, “You are my people!”  And they will say, “You are my God!”

Thus, Israel is judged to be of the status of the Gentiles as “not his people” but the day is coming when they shall again be called “my people.”  This will entail them coming to acknowledge the Davidic dynasty as indicated by Hosea 3:5.

The Lord had tolerated their secession from the David dynasty (931 B.C.).  But people may not enter into the era of restoration unless they completely abandon their former ways, submit to Yahweh, and express loyalty to Yahweh’s Messiah.[6]

Israel’s promised return will be their reception by God from the status of a Gentile-like people and unto the blessings of the promises of God.

            In utilizing these texts from the Old Testament Peter is evoking  glorious names and associations of the people of God and applying them to believers in Jesus Christ—both Jew and Gentile.  In that the primary audience in these scattered churches was Gentile in nature it is amazing to see the covenantal names, associations, and mission of Israel spoken of and applied to Gentiles in the church.  Peter is not simply speaking about Gentile inclusion among the people of God.  Had that been his desire he could have quoted any number of other Old Testament texts to demonstrate this reality.[7]  Rather, Peter is stressing the reality that those who have come to the “living stone” (1 Peter 2:4) and believe in him are those who are the people of God.  Peter is able to take these Old Testament statements and apply them to believers in Jesus (Jew and Gentile) since in his conception it was the “Spirit of Christ” that was at work in the Old Testament writers (1 Peter 1:11).  For Peter all those—and only those—who are found believing in Jesus Christ are the true people of God.  Peter can refer to believing Gentiles with the language of Old Covenant Israel.  These Gentiles have been incorporated into the people of God by virtue of faith in Messiah Jesus.  Conversely, Jewish people who reject Jesus are “disobedient to the word” and appointed unto doom (1 Peter 2:7-8). 

            The subtle missional overtones in the Old Testament passages cited also serve Peter’s purposes.  In 1 Peter 2:9 God’s people are to “proclaim the excellencies of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”  Although there is debate about the exact nature of this “proclaiming” Torrey Seland argues that it refers to some manner of proclamation to the outside unbelieving world.  Seland writes:

According to our reading of this text then, it most probably reveals that the author of 1 Peter envisioned and even encouraged his readers to proclaim the gospel to their neighbors and family.[8]

Peter is utilizing Old Testament texts with a focus on election with a corresponding call to God’s mission.  These emphases fit the needs of Peter’s recipients as well.  They are to be a people with “excellent behavior among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:12).[9]  The communities to whom Peter is writing this epistle are called to holy lives which serve as notice as a counter-culture people who attract the unbelieving world.  For Peter election serves the cause of mission or, as I. H. Marshall puts it, “Thus, to be a chosen nation is not only an indication of privilege but also a summons to service.”[10]

            Peter’s use of Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 43:20-21; and Hosea 2:23 is full of profound meaning.  The use of covenantal language which is used in the Old Testament to designate Israel is taken up by Peter and applied to all those who believe in Jesus—Jew and Gentile.  The people of God is now centered around those respond to the word of Christ and believe in him.  Furthermore the Old Testament texts utilized by Peter also had elements of a missional context; Israel was called as God’s people to serve the nations.  This missional theme also is evident in 1 Peter and Peter’s use of these texts furthers his agenda to set the churches on a correct course in this regard.

---

     [1] D. A. Carson notes that, “Scholars disagree on how much is quotation and how much is allusion, but even those who insist on some direct quotations cannot find more than two words at a time that apparently spring from specific texts.” G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 1030.

     [2] The combination of Exodus 19:6 and Hosea 2:23 may be an instance of gezerah shava with the connecting word being “people.”

     [3] Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter (TNTC 17; Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1988), 38; Thomas Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC 37; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 2003), 38-39.

     [4] Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1991), 212 (emphasis in original).

     [5] As Alec Moyter states regarding this section: “it is explained that the fall of Babylon is an Egypt-exodus event, followed by a homeward journey full of divine provision.”  J. Alec Moyter, The Promise of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1993), 335.  There may be a faint echo to this text in 1 Peter 5:13 in which Peter references “Babylon.”  Many scholars argue that this a reference to Rome.

     [6] Willem Van Gemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1990), 114.

     [7] This is what Paul does in Romans 15:9-12 with his catena of passages which speak of the “Gentiles/nations.”

     [8] Torrey Seland, “Resident Aliens in Mission: Missional Practices in the Emerging Church of 1 Peter,” BBR 19.4 (2009): 585.

     [9] Both Grudem, 1 Peter, 117 and Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 124 argue that this “glorifying of God in the day of visitation” refers to those who have been converted through the words and works of Christians with excellent behavior.

     [10] I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter (IVPNTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1991), 74.

Joy and Fear: Peter’s View of God the Father

The New Testament everywhere presents a multi-faceted view of God in all his perfections.  What we are prone to separate the writers of the New Testament hold together.  God is both loving and wrathful.  He is both full of mercy and ready to judge.  He is both incomparably kind and manifestly severe.  In Peter’s first epistle he also demonstrates this robust view of God as he recognizes him as the Father whose mercy brings joy and the Father who is a judge to be feared.  Reflecting on these attributes can bring balance and perspective to our approach in prayer in worship.  Failure to honor this balance as found in 1 Peter can lead to truncated and distorted views of God that adversely affect our Christian walk.

Peter begins his first epistle with thoughts of God the Father.  The phrase “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” is loaded with covenantal significance.[1]  It speaks of God’s covenantal affection upon the believers.  In verse three Peter praises “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  This praise focuses upon the Father’s mercy displayed in the guarantee of future salvation which we have hope of now.[2]  In light of this the recognized response on the part of believers is that they “greatly rejoice.”[3]  The Father’s mercy has provided salvation in Jesus Christ and Peter acknowledges that even though the recipients of his letter have never physically seen the Lord Jesus they nevertheless love him and “greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory.”[4]  Wayne Grudem speaks of this joy as “so profound as to be beyond the power of words to express” and then adds:

It thus reminds us of the value of singing and other kinds of music in worship, for music often provides a vehicle for expressing the fullness of joy in a Christian’s heart in a way that is much more effective than spoken words alone.[5]

Thus, the flow of thought is the Father giving mercy that produces joy in his people. 

            Later in this first chapter Peter again brings up the notion of God as Father.  In verses 17-19 Peter writes:

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

Here the call for believers is to recognize that their Father is the one who will judge their works in an impartial manner.  In light of this reality believers are to live their lives “in fear” while they are on earth.   Schreiner helpfully comments in regards to the nature of this fear:

Abject terror certainly does not fit with the joy and boldness of the Christian life.  Reverence, however, can be watered down so that it becomes rather insipid.  Peter contemplated the final judgment, where believers will be assessed by their works and heaven and hell will be at stake…There is a kind of fear that does not contradict confidence.  A confident driver also possesses a healthy fear of an accident that prevents him from doing anything foolish.  A genuine fear of judgment hinders believers from giving in to libertinism.[6]

  The flow of thought here is that our Father is also the judge so the appropriate response is a proper fear.

            What is noteworthy is that God is portrayed as both Father and judge with corresponding responses of joy and fear.  Schreiner captures this dynamic when he writes:

What is remarkable here is that God’s tenderness and love as Father is mingled with his judgment and the fear that should mark Christians in this world.  Apparently Peter did not think that the two themes negated each other but are complementary.  The relationship we have with God is both tender and awesome.[7]

Holding these aspects of God’s revelation in balance can be difficult.  There are some who so stress the father aspects of God and its corresponding joys of intimacy that all notions of God as judge are subverted.  There is also the corresponding error in which some believers can so stress the judgment of God and his awe-inspiring holiness that all that is left emotionally to experience is fear.   The evangelical church, at times, suffers from both of these limiting perspectives and is, therefore, adversely affected in its worship and life.

            An over-emphasis on the kindness of God to the exclusion of any idea of God as judge is documented in Tanya Luhrmann’s book When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God.[8]  As a trained psychological anthropologist Luhrmann spent four years in and among two different Vineyard churches in an attempt to understand their notions of spirituality.  Luhrmann sees a view of God reflected in the Vineyard churches (which she takes to be representative of evangelical churches as a whole) that is distinctive and is indicative of a shift in American Christian spirituality stemming from the counterculture movements of the 1960’s.

The remarkable shift in the understanding of God and of Jesus in the new paradigm churches of modern American Christianity is the shift that the counterculture made: toward a deeply human, even vulnerable God who loves us unconditionally and wants nothing more than to be our friend, our best friend, as loving and personal and responsive as a best friend in America should be; and toward a God who is so supernaturally present, it is as if he does magic and as if our friendship with him gives us magic, too.  God retains his holy majesty, but he has become a companion, even a buddy to play with, and the most ordinary man can go to the corner church and learn how to hear him speak.  What we have seen in the last four or five decades is the democratization of God—I and thou into you and me—and the democratization of intense spiritual experience, arguably more deeply than ever before in our country’s history.[9]

Luhrmann shows how this view of God is reflected in the Vineyard churches of which she was a part.  She documents how the pastor urged people to set out a cup of coffee for God so they could talk to God.  This pastor encouraged his people to “hang out” with God, ask God for advice on small details, and to take God to task when the people thought God was out of line.[10]  This also led to women having “date night” with God.

The women would set aside the night, and they imagined it romantically: it was a “date.”  They might pick up dinner or set out a plate at the table, and they imagined their way through the evening talking to God, cuddling with God, and basking in God’s attention.[11]

This is a manifestation of a profound overemphasis on the “intimacy” of God.  This vision of God also impacts the evangelical Contemporary Christian music industry.

Rarely do you hear of his judgment; always you are aware of his love; never, ever, does a song suggest you fear his anger.  He is a person: lover, father, of course, but more remarkably, friend.  Best friend.[12]

This quest for intimacy and friendship with God to the exclusion of all strains of God’s judgment also leads to songs that “are almost sexual, with a touch so light that the suggestion could slip past.”[13]  In this vision and version of God that Luhrmann documents something has gone awry.  The perspective of Peter in which God is judge and fear is a proper component of the Christian life is gone—smothered under the quest for intimacy.

            At the other end of the spectrum are those Christians for whom God is nothing more than a judge.  There is no sense of his Fatherly pleasure.  He is a distant God in terms of love but his judgment looms large.  Such conceptions of God engender little joy.  Klaus Issler aptly comments:

Distortions in our God-image can prevent us from receiving God’s gracious love—in effect, rendering various aspects of God’s character as nonexistent.  For it is hard to assign the word love to a relationship with God when God feels like a judgmental parent who criticizes us without any display of affection, or like a legalistic police officer who makes us toe the line whether we like it or not, or like a distant relative who never seems to show up.[14]

Perhaps a good barometer of whether such a distant view of God is taking root is the presence of joy in the believer’s life.  Peter speaks of this “great rejoicing” in reference to salvation found in Christ Jesus.[15]  The sending of the Son by the Father is the supreme demonstration of the Father’s love.[16]  Reflection and meditation on this is what will sustain joy.  Even in the context of 1 Peter in which the fear of God is being urged there is more than just the mention of God as judge.  Verses 18-19 connect the thought of “conduct yourselves in fear” with “knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things…but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.”  As Peter Davids reminds us, “Their reverential awe before God, however, is not based simply on their recognition of judgment, but on deep gratitude and wonder at what God has done for them.”[17]  The work of Christ in shedding his blood for the sins of his people becomes a focal point of rejoicing in the love of God.  Without this cross-centered spirituality the doctrine and experience of the love of God is truncated and, perhaps, even missing.

            Believers are ever prone to extremes.  This manifests itself in our view of God and his relationship to his people.  First Peter gives us a different, more unified perspective on God.  God, according to Peter, is both a loving Father who has had profound mercy upon his people and will save them to the uttermost.  This produces deep joy in the life of his people.  This same Father is also the impartial judge and his blood bought people are exhorted to live with a wholesome fear before the Holy One.  These are not contradictory perspectives but, rather, complementary truths that should inform the worship of God’s people.  Perhaps the Psalmist captured this unified perspective best when he urged the people to, “Worship the Lord with reverence and rejoice with trembling.”[18]

---

     [1] Thomas Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC 37; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 2003), 53.

     [2] Verses 3-5.

     [3] Verse 6.

     [4] Verse 8.

     [5] Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter (TNTC 17; Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1988), 66.

     [6] Thomas Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 81.

     [7] Thomas Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 82-83.

     [8] T. M. Luhrmann, When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God (New York: Vintage, 2012).

     [9] T. M. Luhrmann, When God Talks Back, 35.

     [10] T. M. Luhrmann, When God Talks Back, 74.

     [11] T. M. Luhrmann, When God Talks Back, 80.

     [12] T. M. Luhrmann, When God Talks Back, 4-5.

     [13] T. M. Luhrmann, When God Talks Back, 5.  This erotic turn in Christian worship would not be unprecedented in the history of the church.  Leon Podles in his work The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity (Dallas: Spence, 1999) details how the “bridal mysticism” of the Middle Ages took on nearly explicit erotic tones in terms of its devotional literature—see pages 102-108.

     [14] Klaus Issler, Living Into the Life of Jesus: The Formation of Christian Character (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 2012), 95.

     [15] 1 Peter 1:6, 8.

     [16] 1 John 4:7-8.

     [17] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 71.

     [18] Psalm 2:11.