Luke 7:18-35 A Thought from Tom
Here are a few insights from Tom (N.T.) Wright about this text.
Pull a coin out of your pocket and look at it. What does it tell you?
I don’t mean, how rich does it say you are. Nor am I thinking about the actual words that are engraved on it. I’m referring to the pictures, the symbols.
The last two countries I visited before writing this were Greece and the United States; as usual, some of their coins came home with me. The Greek ones have pictures of ancient heroes: Alexander the Great on a 100-drachma coin, Democritus the philosopher on a 10-drachma one. On the other side they have symbols: the sun with its bright rays on the first, the sun and the solar system on the other. The American coins have heroes, too, though not quite so old: Abraham Lincoln on one, George Washington on another. And the symbols, for those who bother to look at them, are powerful too: Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s home in Virginia, on the back of the 1-cent piece) the great eagle on the quarter, and so on.
Now imagine that you had never seen a book, a newspaper, a photograph or even a stained-glass window. The only pictures you would know would be occasional paintings, carvings, mosaic floors (if you were, or worked for, someone very rich) – and coins. And coins were the only ones you would see regularly. They were the only mass medium in the ancient world. They were the principal way of getting across a symbolic message to ordinary people. For Jews, who (at least in theory) weren’t allowed to make pictures of human beings, the choice of symbols for coins was very important indeed.
When Herod Antipas chose the symbols for his coins, just a few years before the time of Jesus’ public ministry, his favouritc was a typical Galilean reed. You would see whole beds of them swaying in the breeze by the shores of the sea of Galilee. A reed would symbolize the beauty and fertility of that area.
‘What did you go out to see?’asked Jesus to the crowds who had gone to be baptized by John, and were now following him. ‘A reed swaying in the breeze?’ They would have got the message. Were you looking for a new king – another one like old so-and-so up the road? If they missed the point, the next line brought it closer home. Were you looking for someone wearing the latest splendid fashions? If so, you were looking in the wrong place: the royal palace is the place for luxurious clothes. Well then, what were you looking for? A prophet! Yes indeed, but something more than just ‘a’ prophet. This was a special prophet indeed. This was the Advance Guard, the Preparer.
This whole long passage, the discussion between Jesus and John’s messengers, and then Jesus’ cryptic comments to the crowd, highlight one question in particular: who does Jesus think he is? To talk about Herod on the one hand, even by implication, and to talk about John on the other, arc ways of talking about the figure who stands in between them. Is Jesus just a powerful prophet? Is he the new king, God’s anointed, destined to replace Herod? Or what is he?
John, in prison, was clearly puzzled. Jesus wasn’t doing what he had expected. If Jesus really was the Messiah, why wasn’t he establishing the sort of messianic kingdom John wanted – presumably including liberation for prisoners like himself Jesus is far too astute, with listening ears all around, to say openly, ‘Yes, I’m the Messiah’. We hear a few chapters later that Herod wanted to kill him (13:31), and a clear statement would have been an unnecessary risk. Instead, he heals all sorts of people before the eyes of the messengers, and suggests that they draw their conclusions – with a helping shove in the right direction provided by the quotation of various passages of Isaiah. (Some Jews already saw this sort of list as a prediction of what the Messiah would do when he came; one such list occurs in an ancient scroll found in Qumran.) This is the kind of Messiah Jesus intends to be: not a straightforward rival to Herod (though his kingdom will eventually challenge and outlast all the Herods
in the world), but a kingdom operating in a different mode altogether, healing people and the world at every level.
But if Jesus is a different sort of king, John is a different sort of prophet. He isn’t just one prophet among many. He is the one spoken of by Malachi, the one whose task is to prepare the way for the coming Lord. In Malachi 3:1, the messenger clears the path for the Master to come to the Temple and cleanse of all unholiness, to bring God’s judgement and mercy to bear on Israel as a whole. And in this passage the Master in question doesn’t seem to be simply the Messiah; he is YHWH hims( Israel’s God in person. That, we may suppose, is why (thou initially it sounds surprising) the least in God’s kingdom greater than John. The least of those who belong to the new movement initiated by Jesus is greater than the greatest in who was ever born up to that time. This is a strong claim indeed, though still too indirect for anyone to take it back a hostile report to Herod. Those who sat down and chewed it over, though, would realize what was being said. Those who didn’t would still look and look but never see the point.
Many of Jesus’ contemporaries were like that: complain’ that John was too austere, complaining in the next breath that Jesus was too much the life and soul of the party. But wisdom will out, and those who had understood what was going on would see that this was how it had to be.
People today still judge Jesus by their expectations, instead of pausing and probing into the evidence to see what was really going on. They do the same, often enough, with Jesus’ followers – criticizing some for being too strict, others for being too soft, some for being too intellectual, others for being down-to-earth. Yet wisdom can still be glimpsed by those with eyes to see. Following the Messiah who is different to what we imagined is always demanding; but this is the only way to the kingdom of God.
I told you it was good.
-Ethan
Luke 7:18-35 A SideNote
Tom Wright (N.T.) has a wonderful little thing on this text that I plan to scan in and share with everyone. But until then I will comment on one little sub point.
C.S. Lewis uses this text to talk about temperance. (Or at least that part at the end about eating and drinking etc.) He reminds his reader that temperance is not abstinence but moderation. In particular he responds to the “temperance movement” of his day which focused on abstinence from drinking. He acknowledges that wisdom and temperance may often requires abstinence for some specific reason, but it is not itself synonymous with abstinence.
This gets me thinking. I think that God’s people (both Israel and the church today) have trouble with moderation and radicality. There is an old proverb “Moderation in all things.” I analyzed this proverb in a logic class once. There is a name for this kind of sentence. It is a sentence that if true proves itself false. (You identify these kinds of sentences by following the classical deduction strategy “reductio ad absurdum” or proof by contradiction.)
follow me. If it is true that we should practice moderation in all things, then we must in fact practice moderation in moderation, which would mean that we shouldn’t do it all the time for to do it all the time would be immoderate. This contradicts the beginning sentence which we assumed to be true, so we have a contradiction.
So we must have been wrong to assume that “moderation in all things” is a true axiom. Now proof by contradiction is nice because it is logically unassailable. But in this case it might have been easier to just list a few things that we should not be moderate about. We should not be moderate in love for God. We should not be moderate in our love of neighbor. We should not be moderate in our hatred for the Yankees. You get the idea.
So there are some things about which we should be moderate and some about which we should be immoderate (or radical which despite its political overtones, is a rather good antonym for moderate). The problem that we face it seems to be is two fold. One we are usually radical in the areas where we should be moderate and in my experience we are almost always moderate in the areas in which we should be radical.
I think that it probably is a good axiom to suggest that we should be moderate in most things, and so it seems to me that the inquiry that Christians heed to pursue in every area of Christian life, is always, is this an area in which radicality is appropriate. to the temperance movement of the early 20th century, Lewis cautions, no this is not an area for radicality. I would agree with him.
So the first area of caution is to remember that God’s people have usually been wrong about when to be moderate and when to be radical. The second area of caution is that even when we have chosen to be radical, life is usually complex enough that within the arena of radicality, we must exercise moderation. Suppose I were radically committed to disciple making and evangelism. Then I would need to exercise moderation between the demands , preaching, and study, and soul care, and conversion, and deepening, and modeling and sending, etc. Suppose I were committed to radical generosity. Then I would need to practice moderation of lifestyle to consume few resources, and or assets so that I would continue to earn so that I might continue to give etc. Even in radicality moderation is necessary.
So all in all I think that temperance is a virtue that Christians need to recapture and value. For too long we have ignored temperance as the weaker brother to exuberance. I think that perhaps we misjudged.
I know this is only loosely connected to the text, but I will let Wright pull us back as soon as I get to a scanner.
-Ethan
Luke 7:11-17 Locals and Compassion
Okay, so lets notice one thing off the top. There is no mention of faith in this text. In the last text we saw the amazing and confident faith of the centurion and were reminded that Jesus is establishing new criteria for belonging. In this text there is no mention of faith at all. This event seems to be driven purely by the compassion of Jesus.
So what do we learn from this story. I take it as a given that during this time there were other widows who lost sons. So Jesus certainly isn’t working to eliminate such tragedy on a global or even regional scale. So why this healing. His help is not requested, he is not sought out, he does not ask them about their faith.
Let’s start with an easier question. What function does this story serve in the narrative. For starters it clarifies that although Jesus is broadening his interest beyond the Jews, he has not forgotten Jews. If we have this impression it would not be without reason, and this story clarifies that just because Jesus cares about people we expect him to disdain, he has not forgotten to care for people we expect him to care about. (Of course she certainly meets the poor and oppressed category.)
In fact there is an important contrast between the recipients of these two healings. The centurion is a Roman, man, wealthy, powerful, unclean, enemy of Israel (although this one apparently is nicer than most). The widow, is a woman, poor (especially due to ancient property laws that would have taken her property upon her sons death) Jewish, and other such nice things.
Secondly, this story prepares us for the arrival of John’s messengers. We will see that in the next section. As a side note, it also introduces the notion of resurrection, and displays Jesus compassion.
So if it is rather straightforward to see why Luke would include this story in his narrative and how it forms a foil to the healing of the centurion’s servant and a bridge to the encounter with John’s servant, it is perhaps less straightforward to see how this healing fits in Jesus ministry. For the reasons I mentioned above and more, it is hard to see how this ministry fits into Jesus ministry plan. It does not focus on faith, it does not broaden the kingdom, it is not used as a sign.
I find myself forced to include that we find in this story a remarkably simple healing. It seems that Jesus came upon a scene of tragedy and his heart was moved and he acted. I find in this story a wonderful principle. To be purpose driven, missional, and vision oriented, is wonderful, but we cannot become those who are so driven that our heart can no longer break. I suppose there is a balance to be achieved, but this story lines up with the Good Samaritan to reminds me that when I am too busy to respond to the needs I meet, I am too busy.
-Ethan
Luke 7:1-10 Foreigners and Faith
This is a healing story of course. It shows the power of Jesus over the world and how that power is expressed in just just cosmic but also personal ways. So lets assume that we all recognize that.
I notice two other things. This story serves an important narrative function for Luke. We have already seen that Jesus has an agenda that is larger than the nation of Israel. Here the elders come thinking they will need to convince Jesus that he should heal a non-Jew. Of course we know that Jesus is all about this. There is a name for this literary device when the readers know more than the characters. I forget what it is called. But anyway, the ignorance of the elders reminds us as readers of what we know.
Then at the end of he story, we see that Jesus takes this opportunity to re-clarify that the old criteria for inclusion has been abandoned, and we see the growing suggestion that faith is the new criteria for inclusion. In that sense, Jesus is suggesting that the blunt and abrupt faith of this man is a model for people. He is not on the edge of the new kingdom as the elders imagine. He is at the center.
That is a radical new thing.
Some of these implications carry over into the next pericope. So we will talk about them more.
See you soon,
-Ethan
Luke 6:17-49 Sermon on the Plain
We come to the sermon on the plain. This text is in rough parallel to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthews Gospel. However I think there is good reason to assume that these are different events. There are plenty of wise critics who would argue that these accounts are too similar to be different events. At times they seem to be quoting the same thing. These critics would suggest that what we have are instead to different versions (remembrances) of the same pivotal sermon. In fact this opinion about this (and similar near parallels) was the dominant one for most of the last century. I think that the tide is shifting, however, and for good reason.
Luke Timothy Johnson is one of the leading advocates of rethinking the multiple traditions theory. He writes that these similar events (sermons, healing, controversies, personal encounters, etc) make perfect sense for a traveling preacher. I can tell a few stories of traveling preachers who preach basically the same sermon everywhere they go. In every setting they mix-up the details and “locate” the sermon with the audience, but the basic outline and many of the best lines are the same. I think that it reasonable to assume that in Jesus itinerant ministry he found the occasion to repeat a lot of his material. Indeed why wouldn’t he. If he moved to a new town, he would want them to hear the same message. Naturally it would not be identical in every word, but I expect that if two listeners met one another and related the sermon they heard, each could say, “Yes, I heard the same sermon.”
In this situation, I think we can point to one further distinction. The Sermon on the Mount is recorded in Matthew before any controversy arrives. Luke barely records that honeymoon period. (This is not surprising given the radicality of Mary’s song in the firs chapter.) So by the time Luke records a major sermon from Jesus, the controversy is well underway and it is already clear that Jesus’ ministry is polarizing those he encounters.
Notice that in every section of this sermon, two choices are given. [Blessings vs. woes; Love for all vs. Love for just friends; Nonjudgmental vs. judgmental; Figs vs. thorn bushes; Wise builder vs. foolish builder.] Don’t get me wrong, this pattern occurs in the Sermon on the Mount some too, but in this sermon it is in every section. This is a sermon that grows directly out of the controversies of the last couple of chapters. He is telling his disciples (that is 12 + many more) and any in the crowd who will listen, that they need to choose. He offers a radical new way, (certainly it is true that his new way is just a fulfillment of the law as emphasized in the SOTM but that point is explicitly not made here.) for the new community that he is gathering.
I’ll offer only two comments on the content of the sermon.
The Woes:
I was having a conversation recently about a guy who was very wealthy and was living a very foolish life in order to stay wealthy. The person I was talking to said, “He needs to realize that if he keeps living like this, God will take that blessing away from him.” We talked a while after that. I understand where that perspective comes from. Having the means to purchase what we need feels like such a blessing. And there are all these rather straightforward Old Testament texts that talk about the blessing of provision. But I think that this perspective represent a pretty common confusion. Fortunately Jesus is pretty clear in this text. Wealth is not a blessing. For many people, riches are a curse. In fact I would argue that for all but a very few people riches are a curse. {Just as, “power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely”}
[Note: It probably isn’t necessary to say, but just so our labels are clear. Making lots of money is not wealth. That is provision. Accumulating money for yourself or using the money you make on your own pleasure is wealth.]
I don’t know how to preach this text, but I think that it needs to be preached. Have you visited the Global Rich List Yet?
The Builders:
I love this parable. I will offer one little thing. I was taught as a kid that the foundation being described in this text was the teaching of Christ. I can remember this refrain. Build your house on the words of Jesus as the highlight to sermon from my youth. I was once prepare to give the same talk and was using this text. However in the middle of my preparation, I realized that this text does not say that. This text says that hearing and doing the words of Jesus is the foundation. We cannot build that which God wants us to build unless we live Godly lives. It was this revelation that led me to reinvestigate the empowering [in addition to saving] grace of God.
-Ethan
Ps. If you want to chat about anything else in the sermon, try the comments.
Luke 6:12-16 Disciples and Apostles.
Some of you may have heard me talk before about how our imagination is hurt by the language “The Twelve Disciples.” If you read the text you will see that this is an unhelpful picture. There were many more than twelve disciples. Even the language of “The Twelve Apostles” distracts us from the fact that this label is broader than the twelve. I have come to think that we must call this special group something like “The Twelve.” What it lacks in descriptive details it gains in accuracy.
By know you may be wondering why I even care. There are a few reasons. I will list them in the order that they occur to me right now.
1. It reminds us that many are called to the ministry of discipleship and apostleship. Let us not fall into the trap of our high-church brothers and sisters and assume that apostleship (being sent as an ambassador for God) is limited to a small group of twelve. Even worse let us not think that only twelve are disciples.
2. There were women among Jesus original disciples.
3. Jesus taught his disciples. I am excited by the small group movement and the appropriate correction it offered to the dominance of the school model. Nevertheless I resent the way that some in the small group movement assume that small group are a sufficient medium for spiritual growth. (They are necessary I think but not sufficient.) Even more so I resent how the small group movement co-ops the ministry of Jesus and the early church and implies that small groups were the central or the only way that discipleship happened.
On the contrary, we see in Luke 6, that Jesus called the Twelve to be with him but then he immediately turns around and teaches to all the disciples. It is interesting to me that we have a balance in the gospels between things that happened with the Twelve and things that happened before all the disciples. When we confuse the term disciples and assume that it is talking about the twelve we miss this.
I am a huge fan of relational discipleship. It is an essential part of helping other grow in Christlikeness. But let us not pretend that Jesus’s strategy for discipleship was to choose twelve to pour into and then trust that at the right time they would pour into twelve more etc. Jeus sworked with 3, 12, 100’s, and the crowds. This same pattern can be seen in Acts and the letters of Paul. Why would we think that any part of this paterrn would ever be sufficient for us. WE need all.
4. I have more but that is enough for now.
-Ethan
Luke 6:6-10 To save or destroy.
Before we talk about this text in detail, let’s make sure that we haven’t lost sight of the forest for the trees. Since the encounter at his hometown, we can see that Jesus is in a growing controversy with the leaders of the day. He still draws a crowd but there are now definitely two growing camps: Jesus enemies and his disciples. These two sabbath stories highlight the reality that his enemies are not passive in their distaste. They are apparently stalking him. He is being followed and already evidence is being gather for their assault on Jesus and his ministry.
In some sense these Sabbath controversies are trivial but they serve two important functions. First we must remember that Sabbath-breaking was one of the important accusations made against Jesus at his trial. Secondly, these Sabbath controversies symbolize everything that the Pharisees missed about what God intended for them as God’s people. This trajectory of God’s message being different than what anyone expected has been a consistent theme in Luke and it is very evident here.
In this text in particular I find myself fascinated by the choice that Jesus presents. “Which is lawful to seek to save a life or destroy one.” This is not an idle choice. There Pharisees were actually there seeking to destroy Jesus. Jesus was there to save. The irony is that they were not breaking the law and Jesus was. Technically it was okay to act to save a life in immediate danger even on the Sabbath. But this man was not in immediate danger. He could have been saved the next day. So by healing, Jesus was breaking the Pharisaical sabbath rules. But the Pharisees who were there stalking him looking for a way to destroy him were not.
I don’t know if we have any traditions like that. But it is worth asking, Do we have any practices in the church that put us in a position where it is okay to do evil but not good. I’ll take your comments. If i think of any I will post mine later.
-Ethan
Luke 6:1-5 Have you read?
If you have questions about Sabbath and what all is going on there, you can ask. I’ll focus on one little snippet.
Barclay in his classic little companion highlights the question Jesus asked, “have you not read…?” He points out that of course they had read it. They had read it hundreds of times. However they had stopped being shaped by the text and instead tried to shape the text. They had stopped submitting to the text and instead wielded scripture like a weapon serving their own agendas.
I wish that I had a good HP7 spoiler to give as an illustration, but I don’t so that will have to wait.
-Ethan
Luke 5:27-39 New Moonshine and Old Bottles
I love this gospel. I keep waiting for the text that is lame and boring and doesn’t make we want to begin by saying, “This is a great text. There is so much great stuff to talk about.” This week isn’t is it. So let’s get started.
This is a great text. There is so much great stuff to talk about. First of all we have the calling of Levi. [To fully understand this text, you have to understand what tax collectors did (not the same as what they do today.) and just how hated they were by the general population and by devout Jews in particular. If you have any questions about this, then ask. You need to know.] There are lots of beautiful details but for now let’s notice this. Jesus came for sinners. We need to proclaim this truth and demonstrate it with our lives. Jesus is on the side of the sinners. He works to make sinners lives better. He is interested in the well-being of sinners.
If I walked up to you at a sporting event and asked, “Who ya for?” You would understand my question. You would either tell me that you don’t care or you would tell me which team you want to win.
Apparently, when Jesus sees sinners, and see all the horrible things that they do he thinks to himself, “I am for these people.” Liberation theologians talk about the preferential option for the poor, and to a large degree I agree with this principle. But even more than that, Jesus has a preferential option for the degenerate. Jesus is especially concerned about the fate of murderers and liars and cheats. Precisely the traits that make me want to stay away from someone apparently draw Jesus toward them.
Think of the most dramatically evil character on the world scene. [Depending on your political perspective, you might be thinking of Osama Bin Laden, Dick Cheney, Ceasar Chavez, or Hillary Clinton. Don't ask who I picked because I won't say.] Whoever you thought of, you can be sure that Jesus is especially concerned about them. That is right. They are especially why Jesus came. I do not share this trait. I wish I did but I rarely do. I think that I am not alone.
I think that when the forces of evil line up against the forces of truth, justice and the democratic/capitalist way. We are too quick to be for the “good” guys and against others. I think that when someone calls themselves my enemy or acts like my enemy, I am too quick to agree with them. Instead I think that we need to be like Jesus and be radically for them.(Feel free to try to talk some sense into me Alex, but I won’t go down without a fight.) (That was supposed to be humorous irony but somehow it doesn’t work in print.)
[Important note to avoid misinterpretation. To be "for" a sinner is certainly not to be in support of their sinful activity. Rather it is to be particularly committed to their good.]
Apparently Jesus practice of partying with tax collectors was part of a general posture of partying in general as we see in the little discussion of fasting. And then we get to a wonderful parable.
No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’
Jesus is telling the Pharisees that they are still stuck with old wine. And more than that he is is telling them. Don’t try to fit my new teaching into your old worldview. Don’t think that I came just to patch a few holes in your old way of thinking. Notice the old clothes get torn and the old wineskins burst. Jesus new way cannot just be patched on to our default way of life. Jesus is not trying to fix up our current life but to provide us with a whole new life.
I need to confess that I have too often been content to help people tweak their lives and tweak their worldview. I think that is not sufficient. I think that much more is needed. [I am reminded of the argument about how the eye could not have evolved. Too many things have to come together at the same time. In the same way, I don't think that one evolves into loving your enemies.] Concerning the topic discussed above, I know that my attitude needs to be more than tweeked. It needs to be reborn. I want my life patched up because I want to pretend that for the most part my life is just fine.
-Ethan
[Here is possibly unrelated note. As we try to connect with our culture, I find it hard to know when we can try to fix and when we have no choice but to say, "Sorry, there is no way to patch this." We are used to overseas missionaries having to deal with this but I worry that in our own culture we are not as careful as we should be. As I think about the cultural epidemics of narcissism and individualism, hero worship, pleasure seeking, etc. I marvel at the difficulty of designing a culturally coherent worship service that still stands against these habits of our age that seem to me to be beyond patching.]
Luke 5:17-26 So that you may know
This is a great story. There is so much that is wonderful about this story. I will probably bounce a around and touch a on a few things and then settle in on how we prove a spiritual reality.
For starters, notice that this is just one of those days. Luke is showing us that this event is intended to be representative of Jesus ministry. Not that these specific things happened a lot but that Jesus was during this time focusing on a teaching ministry that included both interaction with theological challenges and response to local needs.
Second, take a look at the role of faith in this text. In verse 20 we find Jesus making reference to the collective faith of these men. I have always wondered if we should draw any significant theological conclusions from that. Practically however this story is a reminder to me that the ministry of bringing someone to meet Jesus remains a vital part of the Christian life and may just result in their forgiveness and healing.
Third, Notice what Jesus is claiming. This is big. In our theologically unaware culture we are often too quick to hear things at face value. Jesus’ claim to forgive sins is not merely a claim of a specific spiritual ability. Rather, it is an identity claim as his opponents rightly understand. When he discerns his opponents questions, he does not counter by saying, “You misunderstand. Let me explain to you how I am able to forgive sins apart from being God.” Rather he affirms the connection they have made. This is certainly not the only text in this regard, but this is among th important texts that demonstrate that Jesus thought he was God.
Now finally, notice how he proves it. I find it immensely gratifying that Jesus was willing to prove his dramatic spiritual claim. He could have said, well I really can forgive sins and you will just have to take my word for it. But instead he recognizes that the burden of proof lies with him and not his opponents and so he responds to their appropriate doubt and demonstrates his great power. The point of course is that he cannot independently verify the claim to forgive sins so the only thing he can do is demonstrate by a related and verifiable display of power that something remarkable is happening here. He asks which is harder and this question sis a bit of a paradox. Actual forgiveness is of course harder than healing, but to claim forgiveness is easy (much the faith healers who are able to “cure” diseases which only they have been able to diagnose). To claim to make someone walk however is quite bold because it is easy to verify.
I still think that Christians are making incredible (as in beyond belief) claims. And I think we should expect people to scoff. For instance we Christians occasionally claim things like, “Christ lives in me”, “God speaks to me”, “I have been gifted by the Holy Spirit”, I can talk to God”, “the Bible is God’s word”, “Jesus rose from the dead”, etc. I think that it is acceptable for the world to question this language. And I think that we should be prepared to respond with a “but so that you may know” response. I am impressed with the philosophical integrity and strength of the Christian faith, but am increasingly convinced that the way we will demonstrate this strength is through lives well lived. Likewise I appreciate the spiritual reality of the life of faith, but I don’t think that we can expect to directly appeal to this part of our faith. Rather I think that we need to be prepared with our “but so that you may know.”
I am not sure exactly what this will but it must be something that can be observed and measured by the world. It must be something that is not easily explained in other ways.
At the very least it must include:Service, Sacrifice, Generosity, Joy, Living Free from guilt, Progressive politics (just kidding),
I wonder how you would end the sentence, “But so that you may know that Christ lives in me, ______________________.”
