by Frank Viola
Jack finds Steve’s stylistic conventions to be shallow and unconvincing at best. He regards them to be strident, combative, and demeaning at worst. Jack’s complaint is that Steve is utilizing naive hermeneutics, isolated proof-texting, and is ignoring the “whole” of Scripture. To Jack, the aggressive penchant to simply quote the Bible as if that in itself settles the questions of the universe is silly. In addition, Jack feels that Steve is essentially hiding behind his quotes, fearing rigorous dialogue that may shatter his rigid theological framework.
In short, the Quoter SCS feels safe and secure under the arsenal of isolated proof texts that he’s managed to string together to defend his position. Any dialogue about what those texts actually mean by appealing to their historical setting and original rendering is shrugged off as irrelevant.
To the practitioners of the Quoter SCS, nothing can be argued after the simple and direct appeal to a biblical reference has been made, even if that reference is isolated from the rest of the Bible. Too often, the Quoter SCS finds himself caught in a parenthesis of disagreement, when the root problem beyond the controversy is subtly masquerading beneath the pious rhetoric of “faithfully defending the Word.”
The Pragmatic SCS
Unlike the Charismatic SCS and the Quoter SCS, the Pragmatic SCS is chiefly interested in what works. Those who use this style have a nuts-and-bolts approach to life. Appeals to personal revelation do not impress them. Neither do quotes from the Bible. They want to see what is working and what has proved to be successful in the lives of the people with whom they converse. This, they believe, is where truth lies.
Those who hold to the Pragmatic SCS believe that there are no easy answers to the countless theological questions that have raged in the church for the last seventeen centuries. Rather than quibbling about “correct doctrine,” the Pragmatic SCS focuses his or her sights on what is working in the real world. With this in mind, the Pragmatic SCS is concerned less with academic differences and centers more on actual practice. Pragmatics are also willing to “agree to disagree” over theological matters.
Of course, this approach does not sit well with those who are less charitable and more militant in spirit, insisting upon resolving their differences “for the sake of the truth.” While this sounds noble, it often tends toward division and harsh feelings. Nevertheless, the Pragmatic SCS is always pressing the question “How has this truth worked in your life, in your church, etc.?”
Those who do not use the Pragmatic SCS feel uncomfortable with this approach. They believe that such a rearrangement of the conversational furniture betrays the authority of Scripture. Since the Pragmatic style is more concerned with outward effects, it pays less attention to doctrinal precision. Hence, when a Quoter cites a text from Matthew, the Pragmatic isn’t satisfied. He or she wants to know “How does this work out in real life?” Their conviction is that evaluating the practical outworking of a given belief is much richer than merely quoting a biblical text and less likely to short out the conversation.
Those who use different stylistic conventions argue that the Pragmatic approach rests upon shaky ground as a basis for one’s beliefs. They feel that just because a belief may appear to have practical utility, that doesn’t mean it’s valid or divinely approved. Thus when Quoters and Pragmatics have conversations, both seek to cajole each other into rearranging the boundaries of the conversation so that the other person is conversing according to their playbook. This is largely true with the Charismatic style as well, for if God hasn’t spoken something directly to his or her conversational partner, the Charismatic is apt to reject it, regardless of its practical utility or biblical merit.
It must be stressed at this point that not all who hold to the Pragmatic SCS work with the same premise. For some Pragmatics, the notion of success is a self-evident idea that’s measured by outward metrics like numbers, size, budget, attendance, conversions, etc. For others, the concept of success lies in following Christ and being conformed to His image. However, because of the strong appeal to success and workability, these two versions of the Pragmatic SCS are often indistinguishable by other SCSs.
Conclusion
Ironically, all three spiritual conversational styles honestly affirm biblical authority. But each is too unwilling to hear this affirmation in terms other than its own. For this reason, misunderstandings abound when Christians discuss spiritual and theological matters.
When going into such discussions, advocates of each style are often overconfident that they’ll persuade the other with their own viewpoint. But not long after, they discover that they have found themselves dashed headlong into an unbridled, frustrated tension that frequently leads to virtual insanity on the one hand or division on the other.
Understanding SCSs can help us to have more profitable discussions with our fellow sisters and brothers in Christ. The challenge is to swallow our initial reactions to someone else’s SCS and seek to grasp what is behind their less-than-perfect speech style. In this way, Charismatics, Quoters, and Pragmatics alike will no longer shanghai each other into pointless and unprofitable discussions. Instead, they will learn to listen to what each is seeking to communicate.2
In addition, each of the three SCSs would do well to learn from the other two. For example, the Quoter should learn the importance of the practical things of life. The Pragmatic should take the Bible more seriously, etc.
Understanding an SCS, either your own or that of another, is not a cure-all for resolving a disagreement over a spiritual matter. Not every theological battle finds its roots in a conflicting SCS. Yet, if we are revising ourselves to better understand the way in which we communicate, we’ll be brought further along in our attempt to learn Jesus Christ from one another.
Notes
1This chapter owes a great deal to my friend Hal Miller and Deborah Tannen, author of That’s Not What I Meant!
2There’s a close connection between a person’s SCS and the three modes in which God communicates His mind (see chapter 1). Typically, the Charismatic recognizes God speaking only through the prophetic, the Quoter recognizes God speaking only through Torah, and the Pragmatic recognizes God speaking only through wisdom.
CHAPTER 5
WHAT’S WRONG WITH OUR GOSPEL?
REVISING OUR MESSAGE
Paul of Tarsus used the phrase “my gospel” numerous times in his letters. He was referring to the message that he preached.
While there’s nothing wrong with Paul’s gospel, I do have concerns about what’s missing from our gospel—that is, the gospel that many Christians are hearing today.
I’ve written an entire book on this subject.1 But in this chapter, I’d like to focus on five elements that seem to be missing from our gospel that were a large part of the gospel presented by Jesus and the apostles.
Of course, your mileage may vary. And if it does, that’s great. But a large portion of the Christian world today has neglected a number of vital elements of the gospel. Here are five of them:
1. The Reality of an Indwelling Lord
There’s a great deal of emphasis today on being like Christ. This is commonly tied into and even defined as “discipleship.” The way to be like Christ, it is taught, is by imitating His behavior.
I believe that this emphasis is correct. But it’s not complete.
Christian leaders have been telling God’s people that they must “be like Christ” for the last six hundred years (at least). The well-known book by Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, was published around 1418.
Some 480 years later, Charles M. Sheldon’s book In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do? was published. Ever since then, Christians have been trying to “do what Jesus did.”
But this “gospel” hasn’t worked. The reason? It’s an instance of asking the wrong question. The question is not “What would Jesus do?” I believe it’s “What is Jesus
Christ doing through me … and through us?”
Jesus made pretty clear that we cannot live the Christian life. Instead, He must live it through us.
I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)
Notice that Jesus Himself couldn’t live the Christian life without His Father:2
Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing.” (John 5:19)
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. (John 5:30)
Unlike all other religions, the founder of our faith is still alive.
But that’s not all.
He lives inside of all who have repented and believed upon Him.
But that’s not all.
As Christians, we have been called to live by His indwelling life. And we can.
Note Jesus’ own words:
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57 KJV)
A large part of the gospel is to be awakened to an indwelling Christ—not as a doctrine or theology, but as a living, breathing Person whose life we can live by.
Paul’s central message was “Not I, but Christ” and “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” (See Rom. 8; Col. 1; Gal. 2; and John 14—17, where Jesus Himself spoke about His indwelling just before His death.) Paul said, “To live is Christ,” which means that Jesus, being in the Spirit, can now serve with our hands, walk with our feet, see with our eyes, and speak with our lips.
Jesus Christ lived His life by an indwelling Father. In the same way, we as believers can live the Christian life only by an indwelling Christ.
This is not a peripheral issue; it’s a central part of the gospel.
Imitating Jesus, therefore, is not a matter of trying to mimic the outward things He did (as if we can actually do that in our own energy).
It’s rather a matter of imitating the way He lived His life. It’s to get in touch with the engine of His outward activities and to “do likewise.”
This puts us on a collision course with the issue of living by an indwelling Lord.
In short, the goal of the gospel is not to get you out of hell and into heaven, but to get God out of heaven and into you so that He may be displayed visibly and glorified in His creation.
2. The Greatness of Christ
Some Christian groups present the Christ of Romans and Galatians. He’s come to save the lost.
Others present the Christ of the Gospels. His earthly life must be imitated.
Some groups present the Christ of the cross. His death is emphasized above everything else.
Others groups present the Christ of Easter. His resurrection is primary.
All of the above emphasize the Christ of earthly history.
But there is the Christ who exists before time.
And there is the Christ of the present and the future.
And all are the same Christ.
Creation was created in the Son of God before time and when He was made the First Born of all creation (Col. 1). Further, God the Father chose all of His people in Christ before time (Eph. 1).
After His resurrection, the Lord Jesus Christ sat at the right hand of God as Lord of heaven and earth. Today, He intercedes for us, acts as our High Priest, loves us as our Shepherd, and lives out His indwelling life in and through us.
As the Alpha and Omega, time is within Christ. Jesus knows no beginning and no end. All of creation is moving toward Christ being Head over all, in all, through all, and to all, “that He might fill all things” (Eph. 4:10 NASB).
In the end, all things will be summed up in this incredible Christ (Eph. 1:10; 4:10).
And this is the Christ who has taken up residence within you and me (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 8:10; Col. 1:27).
3. The Eternal Purpose of God
With few exceptions, our gospel begins with Genesis 3 rather than Genesis 1. Our starting point is the fall of humanity.
The result: Everything is framed around God’s redemptive mission. It’s all about saving a lost world.
Part of the reason for this, I believe, is that evangelical Christians have built their theology mostly on Romans and Galatians. And many nonevangelical Christians have built it on the Gospels (particularly the Synoptics—Matthew, Mark, and Luke). And for both groups, Ephesians and Colossians have been put in the footnotes.
But what if we began not with the needs of humans but with the intent and purpose of God? What if we took as our point of departure not the earth after the fall but the eternal activity within God Himself before the constraints of physical time?
In other words, what if we built our theology on Ephesians and Colossians and allowed the other New Testament books to follow suit?
Why Ephesians and Colossians? Because these two letters give us the clearest look at Paul’s gospel with which Christ commissioned him. These two letters begin not with the needs of postfall humans but with God’s timeless purpose before creation. They also introduce us to Christ in His preincarnate state.
I assert that if we did this, the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament (let alone the entire Old Testament) would fall into a very different place for us.
The Gospels are not the beginning point of the Christian faith. Neither is the Old Testament. Both give us the middle of the story. Ephesians, Colossians, and the gospel of John are the introduction and the opening chapters of that story. Those writings give us a glimpse into Christ before time and what His original intention is all about.
In this regard, we can liken the gospel that many of us have heard to watching Star Wars Episodes IV, V, and VI first (which is the way they came out in the theaters).
But for us to really understand what’s going on in that drama, we must begin at the right place with Episodes I, II, and III.
Consider this fact. Human beings didn’t come into this world in need of salvation. There was a purpose in God that came before the fall, and He has never let go of it.3
Without an understanding of God’s ageless purpose, our good deeds can be likened to playing an instrument on our own as opposed to playing with others as part of an orchestra that is performing one breathtaking song.
4. It Takes God to Be Human
We all were born into Adam. We were all born into an old, fallen, corrupt humanity. Strikingly, God has chosen not to renovate, improve, or correct the old humanity. Instead, He has chosen to do one thing with it.
Crucify it.
We got into Adam by birth. The only way to get out of him and his race is by death. And the only way to get into Christ is by birth. New birth.
Note Paul’s words: “Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him” (Rom. 6:6 NKJV), and “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20).
You aren’t really human until you’ve died and risen again. The good news is that this has already happened (Rom. 6—8).
The old Adam cannot be cosmetically adjusted, repaired, or improved.
He must be put to death.
Jesus Christ was a living portrait of God’s thought for humanity. He was the true human.
In His resurrection, Jesus became the Head of a new humanity that transcends the old distinctions of race and gender (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:10–11; 2 Cor. 5:17). The Man, Jesus, is what God intended humanity to be. He was a Person who lived by God’s life. In the same way, every person today who lives by the life of God is revealing their true humanity.
So it takes God to be human.
Adam and Eve were offered the Tree of Life in the garden. But they never pa
rtook of it. God’s intention from the beginning was for humans to live by divine life.
And here’s the good news: Jesus Christ is the reality of the Tree of Life. He has been offered to us today to partake of (John 6:57). We can partake of Him now and thus be fully human and part of a new humanity—a new creation—a new kind of human.
What a beautiful way to present the gospel to those who don’t know Jesus: Here is a way to become fully human. Receive Jesus Christ, the Head of the new humanity.
No other religion offers such a glorious prospect.
5. Everything Wears Out Except for Christ
Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I often feel that way about contemporary Christianity. As an observer of the passing parade, I’ve noted the following: Most of what’s put on the table with respect to reforming and renewing the church are the same ideas repackaged from decade to decade.
There’s very little new in any of them.
But more critical, these “renewing” and “reforming” ideas and solutions lack one critical element. That element is best illustrated by what Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple, once said during an interview:
Lots of companies have tons of great engineers and smart people. But ultimately, there needs to be some gravitational force that pulls it all together. Otherwise, you can get great pieces of technology all floating around the universe. But it doesn’t add up to much.… There were bits and pieces of interesting things floating around, but not that gravitational pull.4
Jobs’s metaphor is an apt description of the great need in the church today. Christians have made the gospel about so many “interesting things floating around” but without the gravitational pull that brings them all together.