The cross is the divinely appointed means by which God saves sinners.  It is in this message, and no other, where God’s wisdom and saving power is revealed.  But since the cross was such a scandalous and offensive thing, we can see why it would have confounded any and all who heard the philosophers and wise men of the day and found them both entertaining and helpful, when the gospel preached by the unimpressive Paul was anything but.  Paul could not have proclaimed a more offensive message.  Paul will not preach the wisdom of pagans, instead he preached the crucified Christ through which God confounds all human wisdom.

Note: What follows is an excerpt from episode four of season three of the Blessed Hope Podcast which covers Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
In verse 17 of the first chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul defines his mission as apostle to the Gentiles. “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” 
There are a number of points about the cross of Christ we can draw from his declaration.
First, the great commission includes the command from our Lord to make disciples by baptizing them in the name of the triune God (Matthew 28:18-20).  But as apostle to the Gentiles, Paul understands that his divinely-appointed mission is to preach the gospel and not to become overly involved in the day to day affairs of church life.  The office of apostle was centered in the responsibility of preaching in an evangelistic context (establishing churches), with the day to day responsibility for church life assigned to the successors of the apostles–the ministers of word and sacrament, elders, and deacons.  The calling of the first church officers begins with Jesus’s call of the twelve disciples during Jesus’s Galilean ministry, and moves on to the establishment of the office of deacon (as recounted in Acts 6:1-6), then to those who hold the office of elder identified in the book of Acts, throughout the letters of Paul, and with the qualification and duties of the church offices of elder and deacon defined in 1 Timothy 3:1-13.[1]
Second, Paul’s emphasis upon the centrality of preaching contains loud echoes from Isaiah 40, which speaks of the messianic age as one in which the Messiah would establish the preaching of good news.  Ciampa and Rosner, citing Dickinson, point out that,
Paul’s usage of gospel-terminology [esp. euangelizomai] was heavily influenced by the particular significations contained in the messenger traditions arising from Isa 40:9, 52:7 and 61:1, wherein ‘secular’ messenger language had been transposed to a higher, eschatological level, depicting the end-time herald(s) commissioned by Israel’s God to announce his salvific reign.[2]
What Paul was witnessing was the fulfillment of that age foreseen by Isaiah in which the good news of the gospel was proclaimed throughout the Gentile world.
Third, in light of such echoes taken from Isaiah, Paul does not place his confidence in the power of “eloquent wisdom” as one would expect in a Greco-Roman context, if he were merely attempting to win them over on their terms.  He never uttered challenges like “our God is greater than your philosophers,” but he does make clear that his gospel news (the account of Christ’s doing and dying) confounds his audience because divine wisdom is only so much foolishness to those who are not given ears to ear.
Fourth, Paul is especially concerned that the Corinthians realize that the preaching of the cross does not center in “words of eloquent wisdom” (literally “cleverness in speech”).
Read More
Related Posts:

The most interesting thing about these two alleged 15% segments is that there seems to be virtually no overlap between them. Find a PCA church with evening worship (in addition to morning worship) with two full sermons on the Lord’s Day AND unordained “deacons” serving on a unisex board and—to be frank— you’ve found something like a sasquatch riding a unicorn.

Just as certain ratios recur in the natural world, so does the normal distribution (or bell curve) prove helpful in thinking about things ecclesial. At the beginning of the Presbyterian Church in America’s sixth decade, a couple of roughly 15%-70%-15% distributions seem to stand out…and invite analysis.

Standard disclaimer: If analyzing divisions, trends, percentages, or distributions concerning the church strikes you as offensive or divisive, please stop reading now.

The first approximately 15% segment is churches with second/evening worship services. An informal study suggested by two PCA members found that a bit more than 12% of PCA churches have a second/evening worship service. This data was gleaned from PCA church websites and even the authors would not claim 100% accuracy. My guess is that the number is just a bit low—something nearer 15% is likely. The presence of evening worship services (not identical to morning services) may suggest something about a church and the convictions of her officers (since second services don’t occur by accident), but more about that later.
The second approximately 15% segment is churches that are (usually) egalitarian-leaning and employ ecclesial modifications and attenuations—the innovators. This category is sure to provoke pushback, but let me try to explain. Under this heading, I’d place PCA churches that:

Downplay presbyterian distinctives by, for example, not clearly identifying themselves as PCA on their church websites, listing “staff” but not officers on the web or in bulletins, employing scaled-down, minimalist, or alternative doctrinal statements for public consumption. They are quite intentionally not “presby maxing.”
Have heavy, regular involvement of unordained persons in liturgical roles in worship services. This goes beyond having women or young people in the rotation to read scripture. What I have in mind is much, if not most, of the worship service leadership (besides the sermon and benediction) being conducted by unordained persons.

Read More
Related Posts:

The crisis in the world over father-absence and mother-absence seems to be getting worse – certainly in the West. More and more wounded children simply grow up to become wounded, angry, dysfunctional and embittered adults. They desperately long to know and experience real love and acceptance. While most humans – including too many parents even – will let us down in this regard, God never will fail us. His love is indeed eternal. 

I should begin by stating that I do not have the television on all the time – although some of you might think so. But often an article of mine on this site will be inspired by some recent TV viewing. That is the case with this piece. Because the wheels in my head are always turning, and lateral thinking seems to predominate, I often find things in film or TV that I can write about, and even churn out devotional pieces on.
So let me mention just two things I recently saw – or at least parts of, and then tie them into a biblical message. The first involved seeing part of the 2019 film A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood about the famous American children’s television presenter, TV presenter Fred Rogers (1928-2003).
I had actually seen this movie with my wife five years ago at the cinema when it first came out. I wrote up my impressions of the film back then: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2020/01/29/hollywood-christianity-and-mr-rogers/
In that piece I focussed more on the Christian faith of Rogers, and how the film downplayed that. But seeing it again just days ago, with my wife now gone, I have had a different and more emotional response to the film. In it, Lloyd, a cynical and jaded journalist, is sent to write a story about Rogers. He at first was going to do a hatchet job on him, but as he got to know him, all that changed.
Lloyd was estranged from his dad, who was unfaithful while his mother struggled with and died from cancer. His hatred of his dad consumed him and coloured his life. But in the film Rogers befriends Lloyd, and seeks to have him deal with the past, and offer some forgiveness, and so on.
In the end he does. But the point is, like millions of people worldwide, a bad or non-existent relationship with a father can have a lifelong negative impact on folks. Being unable to deal with that can lead to all sorts of problems, from drug abuse, gang involvement, to suicide. Rogers, the Presbyterian pastor, was able to point Lloyd in the right direction, and to help him deal with the hole in his soul.
The second thing I saw – just last night – was part of the 2018 documentary, “Robin Williams: Come Inside My Mind.” We all know about the American comedian and actor Robin Williams (1951-2014). He was married three times, dealt with drug and alcohol issues, and was quite depressed later in life. He took his own life at age 63.
One thing the doco often made clear was that while he was a very quiet person in his personal world, he came to life on stage, and seemed to live for the attention and applause of the audience. That was what drove him and energised him. Especially as a stand-up comic, he craved the approval and praise of the audience as they roared in laughter at his jokes, improvisation and high-octane performances.
On a side note, British comedian Eric Idle said of Williams in the doco, he had “a restless mind”. When I heard that I thought that seems to nicely describe my mind. It never seems to stop or slow down. Non-stop thoughts bounce around in my head which in part explains why I find it so hard to fall to sleep easily. Often there are one or two hours of tossing and turning – and hard-core thinking – before I finally fall asleep. But I digress.
So if Williams was so successful, so loved worldwide, and so wealthy, why did he take his own life? Like Lloyd, he had his own inner demons to deal with it seems. We ALL need and want the approval and affirmation of others. That is natural. But above all, we need the approval and love of God in order to really thrive and flourish.
Spiritual Takeout
The sad truth is, countless millions of people are starved of love and acceptance. That deep need is not being met, so all sorts of false routes are taken to fix it. For Lloyd, drink, anger and bitterness were ways in which he sought to cope. For Williams, it was feeling accepted and loved by the audience.
As I said, there is a place for human affirmation, acceptance and avowal. We all need that, and we should expect to find that in the home at the very least.
Read More
Related Posts: