Newsletter #140
On Doctrine and Practice, and the Role of Language in Evangelism
In my last newsletter I reflected on some of the memorable papers I’ve heard delivered at an annual theological symposium which I’ve participated in for years. I also listed the papers I’ve been able to present at that same event.
As I glanced back over some of these papers, I thought some readers might be interested in reading excerpts from a few of those papers. Who knows? Maybe they’ll scratch an itch or two.
Below I offer an excerpt from “‘In One Accord’: Bridging the Divine Between Doctrine and Practice,” and “Hearing the Gospel Today: Reflections on the Hermeneutics of Evangelism.”
Doctrine and Practice as a Biblical Issue
The apostle Luke offers his readers many insights into the patterns and practices that characterized the early Christians, as well the context out of which they arose. However, determining what is intended to be descriptive in the Scriptures, especially in the book of Acts, and deciding what is meant to be prescriptive (or normative) continues to be a conversation among Christians today, especially of the younger Reformed brand.[1] However, one thing that is beyond dispute is the portrait of unity in thought and practice in the early church. Most English translations render these images of the church as being “together,” or in “one accord.” The church was united in both its beliefs about the risen Christ as well as the practices that accompanied and evidenced those convictions. Luke’s description is certainly not only intended to describe religious phenomena, but to chart a course for the church in a dark world.
The apostle Paul exhorted the Philippians to be of “one mind” and “one spirit” (Phil. 1:27). Additionally, he uses the language of “accordance” to exemplify the proper character suitable to followers of the crucified Christ (Phil. 2:2). The general theme of unity will be emphasized in other passages as well, but never at the expense of a) sound doctrine or b) sound practice. For the apostles, these two were non-negotiable even amid all of the early conflict concerning Jewish-Gentiles relations that had to be resolved in the new “Christian” environment. Of course, learning how the Gospel of Christ (doctrine) informs each particular step of life (practice) isn’t always obvious to see. One might think that it would have been better for the New Covenant to entail some elaborate system like the Old so as to offer Christians a “practical guide” for the decisions and situations they would encounter. And yet the apostles argued that grace and the Spirit are better teachers (Gal. 3:24).
Our reading of such texts, however, occurs within a particular religious landscape. For many readers, that landscape is Protestant evangelicalism. In the wake of the debates over inerrancy, evolution, and definitions of marriage, right-thinking has often been emphasized more frequently than right-practices.[2] When we consider contemporary forces such as skepticism and agnosticism, it seems more urgent to focus on beliefs since the challenges we frequently face seem rational or intellectual in nature.[3] Yet Paul’s exhortation to Titus is a helpful reminder of how we must find the “accord” between doctrine and practice: “But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1)[4].
In other words, there is a manner of life consistent with the beliefs of the church. Together they form an indissoluble unity that, though distinct, is intended to be embodied in holiness. The general structure of Pauline thought, James’ discussion of faith and works, and Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount further demonstrate this important dialectic.
__________
[1] Justin Taylor’s well-known blog at the Gospel Coalition is one representative of this ongoing dialogue. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/?s=normative+in+acts Accessed on 3 October 2012. Brett McCracken’s Gray Matters (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013) is somewhat of an attempt, though in a much less explicit way, at having this same type of discussion.
[2] When one surveys the evangelical literature, books on basic Christian doctrine or beliefs outweigh books that survey “basic Christian practices.” Books on topics such as prayer or Bible study are framed as “topical studies” more often than not. Perhaps more significantly, evangelicalism has witnessed a tremendous emphasis on “worldview thinking” in the last 15-25 years.
[3] Kenneth A. Myers, “Waiting for Epimenedes,” Touchstone Magazine (July/August 2009): 9-11. The notion of ‘symbiosis’ adopted in this paper is to be credited to Myers’ use of it in his article.
[4] All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version.
Language: Cultural Logic
It has long been thought by Christian missionaries that language training is an indispensable part of being faithful to the proclamation of the Gospel. In modern times, at least as early as William Carey’s famed Enquiry (1791), he takes up this subject:
The missionaries must have patience, and mingle with the people, till they have learned so much of their language as to be able to communicate their ideas to them in it. It is well known to require no very extraordinary talents to learn, in the space of a year, or two at most, the language of any people upon earth, so much of it at least, as to be able to convey any sentiments we wish to their understandings.[5]
Though perspectives among Christians have varied about the specific linguistic strategy that missionaries should employ in cross-cultural settings, the basic conviction that believing the gospel requires understanding has driven believers to give some consideration to the significant role of language in evangelism.
There are, however, deeper reasons why language is important to evangelism. Cultural anthropologists have long understood that the language spoken by a people is more than just a tool for imparting information. Language is a “vital part of culture and the means by which society maximally expresses itself in detail.”[6] There is a complex relationship between thought, belief, and verbal forms of expression. The future tense, for example, entails some assumption about the power of human intentions, potential, and even hope. The subjunctive mood, though flexible, typically expresses conditionality, possibilities, and even desires about potential states of affairs. How people utilize language—not just their selection of words, but the structure of their speech—can say a great deal about the place where the gospel confronts them.
Several of the apostle Paul’s speeches in the book of Acts help illuminate how the gospel is not just information, but a summons to repent. In Acts 22, Paul finds himself standing before a raucous crowd of Jews in Jerusalem. Luke carefully notes that Paul specifically gave this address in the Hebrew language, which had the effect of quieting the crowd despite the violent uproar which had preceded this moment (21:40; 22:2). Instead of using the more cosmopolitan language of Greek, Paul spoke to the crowd in the language of their heart: Hebrew. Moreover, Acts 26:14 later explains that Paul himself had been initially confronted on the Damascus Road by the risen Christ in Hebrew as well. While Paul’s speech in Acts 22 didn’t lead to the type of conversion that he had experienced (referred to in both Acts 22 and 26), these scenes demonstrate how human sinfulness is bound up in a way of understanding—a way of understanding bound up in language.
Paul’s own encounter with the Lord provides a window into the way human sinfulness, language, and the Gospel might relate. Lesslie Newbigin comments on Paul’s experience in this way:
Paul is a citizen of that cosmopolitan Greek-speaking world. But the word that changed the course of his life was spoken in Hebrew, the language of his own native culture. But—and this is equally important—the word spoken to his heart, while it accepts that language is its vehicle, uses it not to affirm and approve the life that Saul is living but to call it radically into question: ‘Why do you persecute me?’[7]
This then illustrates the confrontational nature of the gospel. That is, the gospel is itself a message which unsettles and undoes the prevailing assumptions as they are embodied in a given language, which is a person’s mode of understanding. Newbigin further explains,
1) The communication [of the Gospel] has to be in the language of the receptor culture. It has to be such that it accepts, at least provisionally, the way of understanding things that is embodied in that language; if it does not do so, it will simply be an unmeaning sound that cannot change anything. 2) However, if it is truly the communication of the gospel, it will call radically into question that way of understanding embodied in the language it uses. If it is truly revelation, it will involve contradiction, a call for conversion, for a radical metanoia.[8]
While the capacity for understanding (rationality) and capacity for communication (language) come to us as gifts in creation, they too bear the marks of depravity. Therefore, evangelists must give careful attention to the ways in which they employ language in sharing the gospel.
__________
[5] The full-title is An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians, to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens accessible at http://www.wmcarey.edu/carey/enquiry/anenquiry.pdf; pp. 74-75.
[6] Stephen A. Grunlan & Marvin K. Mayers, Cultural Anthropology: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), 55.
[7] Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 5.
[8] Newbigin, 5-6
Follow Up:
In Newsletters 131, 132, and 133 I explored the theme of ministry partnership. A recent CT article by Josh Irby raises the issue again in the context of global missions. In “Mind the Power Gap in Missions,” he considers the asymmetrical partnerships between the Western church and other parts of the globe. While some of the concerns strike me as overly cautious, I do agree that too often American missionaries haven’t done right by their partners. Some of this is due to arrogance, and some is due to ignorance or naivete.
The brief paragraph that resonated with me was as follows:
Money is sent, but no one shares how to raise money. Books are translated, but no one shares how to write a book. One partner maintains control, and the other becomes dependent.
Read Irby’s entire reflection here in Christianity Today.
Quotes of the Week:
I never noticed airplanes overhead or silly decorations in windows until I took walks with my children. I never paid attention to the dozen different shapes of leaves on our block until my three-year-old began asking why the leaves on our sidewalk all looked different from one another. My kids made our street more alive. Kids fertilize our world. Childhood is expansive, and not just for the children.
Timothy Carney, Family Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Than it Needs to Be.
If we obey Jesus only when the culture is neutral enough to allow us to do so and still win on our own terms, then Jesus is not Lord and we are not his disciples—his is our disciple and we are his lord. And if we must adopt anti-Christlike character to win Christian victories over a secular culture, then perhaps we should wonder what’s gone wrong. When the centurions start to look more valiant than the crucified, then maybe our culture wars have taken us away from the Cross and toward something else.
If the American church thinks “Turn the other cheek” is surrender and weakness, wait until they hear “Take up your cross and follow me.”
Russell Moore, “What’s Wrong with Winsomeness?”
Books I’m Reading Now/Still/Again:
Joshua Chatraw and Mark Allen, Apologetics at the Cross: An Introduction for Christian Witness.
Ronald Nash, Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith.
Luke Burgis, Wanting: The Power of Mimetic Desire in Everyday Life.
Enjoy the fall—we sure will!
