Towards a Prophetic Christology
A Brief Encounter
I was twelve, maybe thirteen at the time. At that embarrassingly pubescent age, the thought of going to a party with parents was not my idea of fun. But other than the customary complaining that is part of the ritual of conversation with one’s elders at that age, I did not complain too much. Despite my necessary protestations, the neighbour hosting the party was actually of considerable interest to me. He had, in his time, been a Roadie for a number of my favourite bands, including Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones. As a novice guitarist, with ambitions way beyond my talent, I was intrigued by the stories he told of life with the rich and famous. Perhaps his party wouldn’t be too bad. The music would be good, at least.
Within minutes of arriving, the host introduced me to an Oriental man. ‘You should talk to Phil,’ he said enthusiastically. ‘He’s a cracking bass guitarist and session musician. He’s played with Ron Wood and Rod Stewart.’ The fact that I was a fan of neither Ron Wood nor Rod Stewart was no barrier to my delight. Here was a real musician! I was in awe of the demi-god in whose presence I now stood.
I don’t remember our conversation. But I do remember the fact that he sat politely with me on the stairs for four hours as I pounded his ears and saturated his brain with questions. I do remember the extraordinary patience of a man who was forced to regale an acne-covered schoolboy with stories of his even more extraordinary career. I do remember the fact that his eye contact never wavered and that he almost looked interested as I enthusiastically took him through the extent of my repertoire after only six months of playing. I do remember that he gave me a plectrum. He said it was Ron Wood’s. I’ve still got it. It may or may not have once belonged to someone famous. Probably didn’t. But that’s not the point, is it?
What I remember from that encounter is a man who was willing to give time, to sacrifice his enjoyment of a good party, for a young person. Me.
I’m sure that, twenty-three years later, he doesn’t even remember me. But I remember him. If you’re reading this article Phil, thanks for a great night!
Who Do You Say I Am?
This is an article about Christology. Christology is about Jesus Christ. Christ-ology. Christ-words. Christ-talk. Our ideas about who Jesus Christ was and is. This is an article about the importance of Christology as a model for Christian ministry. For those of us involved with nurturing others in the faith, it is absolutely vital that we get our Christology right. Why? Because the development of an appropriate Christology is the ultimate challenge which Jesus himself has given to all who want to follow Him in a life of discipleship. I’m sure that you are familiar with that amazing moment in Mark 8 when Jesus and his disciples are coming near the villages of Caesarea Philippi. What an amazing place that was! Caesarea Philippi, in the olden days, had been a real focus of Ba’al worship. There was also a cavern in the hills where, it was said, the Greek god Pan was born. Right at the top of the hill, there was a temple dedicated to Caesar worship. Quite deliberately, against this background of pluralist religious belief and faith-history, Jesus asks his disciples the ultimate question: ‘What about you? Who do you say I am?’ In the midst of this pagan environment, Jesus poses the ultimate question.
‘What about you? Who do you say that I am?’ That is the question that Christ asks everyone who encounters him and is encountered by him. In today’s world, perhaps more than ever before, people are confronted with many different ways to respond to that question. There are so many different ideas about Jesus. Christian ideas about Jesus; Islamic portrayals of Jesus; Jesus the political liberator; Jesus as a Hindu expression of God; Jesus the champion of women’s issues; Jesus the gay icon. The very nature of our pluralistic, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-interest society is such that it is possible to make one of any number of responses to the question of who Jesus is. But as Christians, we want those amongst whom we live and to whom we minister to answer with Peter, ‘You are the Messiah.’ Our desire is to introduce people to the Jesus who is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
However, if we want them to respond to the truth of who Christ is, we must have a well-developed Christology to underpin our own ministry. If our Christology is weak, our theology is weak. Why? Because the words and actions of Christ are the words and actions of God himself. If we misunderstand and misinterpret Christ, we misunderstand and misinterpret God. The contention of this article is that Christian ministry must necessarily be founded upon a valid model of Christology. We are called to teach Christ. We are called to model Christ. When we teach people to pray, we are helping them to build a relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ. When we disciple them in the ways of holiness, it is a righteousness through union with Christ that is being developed. There are many other examples of Christian doctrine and practice that can only be fully comprehended in the light of Christology; our approaches to baptism, the Eucharist, spiritual gifts, healing, forgiveness and reconciliation to name but a few. Our words, our lifestyle and the practical outworking of our Christian beliefs must be a reflection of Christ to others. Christology is our foundation for ministry.
A Scriptural Framework for Christology
Whether or not we have consciously considered this issue, we all have a Christology. As we have engaged in Christ-talk through the years, we have developed ideas about who we think Christ is. There are many influences on how we develop our Christology; the ideas of others, media portrayals, fictional and non-fictional books, sermons we have heard preached, artistic interpretations, doctrines taught in non-Christian faiths and so on. However, the primary source for the development of a valid Christology must be the Scriptures. There are three reasons for this.
First, Scripture provides the context for Christology. The event of Jesus Christ cannot be divorced from the story of the people of Israel as recounted in the Old Testament nor the development of the church as recounted in the New Testament. The life and ministry of Christ – what we might call ‘the Christ-event’ – is the pivotal point of the biblical witness. That truth is even reflected in the name ‘Jesus Christ’. ‘Jesus’ is derived from the Hebrew Joshua, which means ‘to save’. ‘Christ’ is a title from the Greek christos, which means ‘anointed one, messiah’. The amalgamation of the two is a coming together of the ancient Hebrew tradition of the Old Testament and the Greek influence in the church of the New Testament. Jesus Christ – by definition – is not only the pivotal event of Scripture but also the defining moment of history. The Old Testament era builds up to Jesus. The New Testament era is founded on Christ. Jesus is historically located within the narrative that includes Abraham, Moses, Saul, David, Peter, Paul, Cornelius, James and John. The story of Scripture is his context and we cannot fully understand Jesus Christ outside of that. Scripture is therefore the proper context for Christology. History testifies to the importance of this for Christian ministry. Two examples will suffice.
If we do not locate our Christology within the context of the Old Testament, we may be in danger of falling into the heresy known as Marcionism. To cut a long theological story short, Marcion was a second-century theologian who believed that the god of the Old Testament was a different god from the one portrayed in the New Testament. Unable to reconcile images of anger and wrath with the images of love, mercy and forgiveness, Marcion concluded that the Old Testament portrayed a ‘lesser god.’ His conclusion was to encourage an abandonment of the Old Testament in favour of the teaching of the New. Whilst we may recoil at the accusation of being a Marcionite heretic, I suspect that there is more than a hint of Marcionism in the way many of us use Scripture in ministry. There is a real temptation for us to avoid the ‘difficult bits.’ Many of us are far happier expounding one of Paul’s letters than an obscure part of Leviticus or Kings or Chronicles. We are more comfortable in leading people to passages of love rather than those that recount stories of pillage and genocide. However, if we do avoid the tough passages in the Old Testament, it becomes difficult to develop a balanced Christology that is not afraid of teaching the wrath of God, the power of sin, the need for obedience and the reality of judgement. If we avoid the tough passages in the Old Testament, we are in no position to examine the hard sayings of Christ. Christology must necessarily find its context within a holistic approach to the Old Testament if we are to challenge others with the claims of Christ on their lives.
Likewise, our Christology cannot be divorced from the New Testament because all that follows the Gospel narratives reveals the truth that God has a plan for universal salvation. God tasked Israel to be ‘a light to the nations.’ As Christians, we are tasked by God to be ‘lights to the world.’ Through Jesus Christ, God has a plan of salvation that embraces every race, colour and social grouping on earth. The New Testament is the story of the impact of Christ in action. The New Testament is the story of what happens when people are embraced by Jesus Christ and receive the salvation that he offers. If we divorce Christology from the New Testament, there is no story worth believing.
In short then, the Old Testament helps us have a holistic view of Christ and the New Testament helps us see the impact of Christ. Scripture is necessarily the context for a Christology that can underpin our ministry.
Second, Scripture provides the content of our Christology. Quite simply, what we know about Jesus Christ – the information on which we build our Christology – is found in Scripture. What we believe about Jesus Christ is what we believe about a particular person who lived in a particular place at a particular time. What we believe about Jesus Christ is what we believe about a particular person who did particular things and made particular claims for himself. Christology is not about abstract ideas. It is about a person named Jesus. When we are nurturing our others in the faith, we are not teaching them ideas. Rather, we are introducing them to a person: Jesus of Nazareth. It is the unfolding story of Scripture that most effectively ties our faith to the historical event that was – and remains – Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, the Scriptural witness that attests to this person Jesus Christ is both accurate and reliable. Especially in the Gospel narratives, a most remarkable man confronts us: a man with a deep relationship with God; a man seeped in prayer; a man with a profound sense of mission and a real vision for his own ministry; a man who was courageous in challenging the status quo; a man of love and compassion; a man of forgiveness; a man who reached out to the outcast, the whores and the hated; a man who loved the vulnerable and the poor; a man who embodied love and justice and mercy and grace; a man who brought healing to those who hurt. The Scriptures portray Jesus as a quite remarkable individual who revealed God to the world. Klaas Runia was right in commenting that, ‘All [the New Testament] writers, in one way or another, put Jesus on the side of God’ (Crisis in Christology, edited by W.R. Farmer, p.19) because the divinity of Christ is not just expressed in the Gospel narratives. The history of the early Church, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles and the other pastoral and theological writings of the first few centuries, suggests that the biblical portrayal of Jesus is accurate. The manner in which the church grew, the way in which lives were changed, the courageous witness of the first Christian martyrs all testify to the fact that everything we have read about Jesus is true. He really is that most remarkable man who is attested to in Scripture and who is the basis of our Christology.
Third, Scripture affirms the continuity of Christology in that there is continuity between the way the New Testament writers portrayed Christ and the manner in which he himself thought about his own mission. This is a vital point to consider because if the Biblical writers misunderstood Jesus’ mission, there would be a clash of ideals that would cause insurmountable problems for mission and ministry. Of course, this is a most contentious theme in theology. There has been a great deal of debate for hundreds of years about the extent to which the earliest followers of Jesus had a different understanding of his mission than the Messiah himself did. Hence the suggestion that many of the words and actions of Jesus were ‘added’ to the Gospels to prove a Christological or theological point. There is undoubtedly some truth in this analysis of text. However, does that necessarily mean that the historical Jesus has become lost in the mists of time, replaced with a Messianic icon, a theological creation moulded and shaped by the development of ideas in time?
One great theologian who worked on this problem was Professor C.F.D. Moule in his book, The Origin of Christology. In part, what Moule did was to liken Christology to biology and outline the vital difference between evolution and development: ‘…if, in my analogy, ‘evolution’ means the genesis of successive new species by mutations and natural selection along the way, ‘development’, by contrast, will mean something more like the growth, from immaturity to maturity of a single specimen within itself’ (The Origin of Christology, p.2). Moule then goes on to suggest that, in Scripture, we see a ‘developing Christology’ not an ‘evolving Christology’. That is to say, there is only one Christology in Scripture but, as the years went by and more and more books and letters got written, ideas about who Jesus Christ was and is developed. There was a process of maturing happening in the Scriptures. This explains the difference between, for example, the Christology of Mark’s Gospel (written soon after the death of Jesus) and the Christology of John’s Gospel (written many years later). Christology developed in the period during which the Scriptures were written. What did not happen, according to Moule, was an evolution of Christology. Evolution implies mutation from one type of being to another. The self-understanding of who Jesus was did not mutate into something different at the hands of Paul and John and the other Biblical writers.
There was a development but not an evolution that demanded a new language as the years went by. Three such examples shall suffice to prove the point. First, Jesus believed that he had a precious relationship with God that could only be expressed in the phrase ‘Abba, Father’ (Mark 14:36). Hence, the New Testament writers claim him to be ‘the Son of God’ (e.g. Romans 1:3; Hebrews 1:2; 2 Peter 1:17; 1 John 1:3). Second, Jesus believed himself to be charged with the task of creating a covenant community of disciples and believers (Mark 1:16-20, 3:13-18). Hence, Paul portrays him as Head and Lord of the Church (Colossians 1:18). Third, Jesus had an innate awareness that he was God’s anointed one for that moment and that task. The New Testament writers allude to the Old Testament Messianic prophecies by referring to Jesus as the Son of Man. Many other examples could be given to prove the continuity between what Jesus thought about himself and his own mission and how the New Testament writers portrayed his ministry.
That continuity of thought is vital if we are to create a coherent Christology for others and ourselves. The Christian faith is not based on an idea or an ideology. The Christian faith is not a philosophical principle. The Christian faith is founded on God revealing himself through a particular man at a particular moment in time. As Christians, we are not called to believe an idea. We are called to forge a relationship. So, just like any other relationship we may enter into, it is vital that we develop a reliable understanding of the person of Jesus Christ. Scripture vouchsafes that reliability by providing context, content and continuity for Christology. Without a Christology firmly founded upon the Scriptures, the people to whom we minister will be like boats tossed around by the waves of life, rudderless and with no anchor to hold them firm.
A Cultural Framework for Christology
The need for a Scriptural Christology is, of course, only half the story. No doctrinal idea can stand in isolation. It must always be in dialogue with the culture in which it is being presented. The question with which we must grapple is this: How do we move from a series of writings about a man who lived 2000 years ago in a backwater location in the Middle East to a Christology that makes sense and empowers people in 21st-century Western society? Unfortunately, many churches and teachers of the faith have fallen foul of the temptation to forget the 2000 years between Jesus’ time and our own. Too often we are presented with a leap of logic that defies time and location: ‘The Scriptures teach us XYZ about Jesus, so XYZ is what we should teach to others’. If only it were that simple! The element that is missing from such an approach is one that interprets the Christological teaching of Scripture in the light of the culture in which we live and minister. Just as importantly is another missing element; how to interpret the culture in the light of that Christological teaching from Scripture.
The truth of the Christian faith throughout history is that there has always been interplay between ‘the raw data of Faith’ and the culture in which that data is expressed. Differences in culture, geography and time mean that the common Christology of Scripture must necessarily be expressed in a plurality of ways. The same faith – the same Christ – explained and explored differently according to the cultural setting of the writer and audience. Christology is a Living Tradition, explored and developed through Creed and Council, creative interpretation and cultural conversation. Our task, as ministers of the Gospel, is to continue that conversation and interpret Christ for today. Certainly, we must be faithful to the Gospels and the tradition of faith. But we must also be creative and responsive to the needs and expressions of our culture.
The period of history in which we currently live is characterised by an overlap of cultural waves. Modernity is rubbing shoulders with postmodernity and this transition has a fundamental impact on the way we approach Christology. Three main ideas are predominant here. First, there is a challenge to the very notion of Knowledge and Truth. Modernity was founded on the idea that objective truths existed, that there were truths to be discovered, and that through logic, research and science, these objective truths could be objectively known. Post-modernity has challenged that assumption. Knowledge is no longer seen as objective and neutral. Everybody has a point of view. Every point of view is equally valid. ‘Truth’ is pursued at a much more subjective level. Second, the cultural wave we are currently riding questions the very concept of ‘self’. Modernity had a very strong sense of the individual. If the Cartesian principle, ‘I think, therefore I am’ can be claimed as the philosophical mantra of modernity, Simon and Garfunkel’s lyric, ‘I am a rock, I am an island’ must surely be its poetic expression. Postmodernity has challenged that notion of ‘self’. It is more common now for people to view themselves like onions, with layers of identity that can be either peeled away or called upon whenever the need arises. Perhaps Mahatma Gandhi was the first prophet of postmodernity when he exhorted us to, ‘Create and preserve the image of your choice’. Third, modernity was built upon the notion of ‘meta-narrative’; an overarching and controlling story to the way things are. The logic and cohesion of modernity was that world history had a definite starting point and that it was moving towards an end-game with God. Everything that happened, either on a personal level or nationally or internationally, had to be interpreted and contextualised within that meta-narrative. The logic of postmodernity does not depend on the reality of a meta-narrative. Indeed, the very opposite is true. The logic of postmodernity is dependent on the fact that there is no central storyline at all! Every event, every decision, every action, every thought need be considered only within its own context. Beyond our most basic moral and ethical communitarian obligations, there is no external point of reference. The only story that has meaning for me is my story. The only story that has meaning for you is your story. Our stories are not predetermined. Rather, they are being constructed as we journey through life. In his paper, ‘Universal History and Cultural Differences’, the great philosopher of postmodernity, Jean Francois Lyotard asked the question, ‘Can we continue today to organize the multitude of events that come to us from the world, both the human and the non-human world, by subsuming them beneath the idea of a universal history of humanity?’ (Lyotard, in The Lyotard Reader, p.314). The unequivocal answer of postmodernity is ‘No’.
Herein lie three of the greatest challenges of postmodernity to our theological systems. A challenge to Knowledge and Truth. A challenge to the concept of Self. A challenge to the very concept of Meaning itself. It may be that we find some aspects of these challenges positive and other aspects destructive. But they are challenges just the same and we are forced to reconsider our beliefs in the light of their claims. The impact of these challenges on our ministry is immense – not least with regard to our Christological foundations. The challenge of postmodernity forces us to develop a Christology for this age, a Christology for this time and this place. Motivated by a desire to minister effectively, we are forced to develop a Christology that answers the questions that are being asked. A Christology that can speak powerfully as Knowledge and Truth. A Christology that can defend – or at least help reconstruct – concepts of self, personality and human worth. A Christology that presents Jesus as the Lord of Time and not just another individual tossed on the waves of the sea of time. As ministers of the Gospel, we are compelled to develop a Christology that is firmly rooted in Scripture but has the flexibility to interact with the culture in which we live and work.
Christ and Culture
Any consideration of this topic would be incomplete without reference to H. Richard Niebuhr’s seminal work, Christ and Culture. Resulting from a series of Alumni lectures given at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Texas, this 1951 publication has proved to be perhaps the most enduring word on the subject. Neibuhr was concerned to outline five ‘types’ of relationship between Christ and culture, five positional stances that believers may take in their interaction with the world in which they live. If one were to plot a horizontal line, there would be one extreme position at either end and three mediating positions along the middle. We will briefly consider Neibuhr’s types, starting with the two extremes.
Neibuhr’s first type is referred to as ‘Christ against culture’. A Christian holding this position perceives the world to be utterly lost and corrupted by sin. Christians are called to follow the heavenly imperative, ‘Come out, my people! Come out from her! You must not take part in her sins; you must not share in her punishment!’ (Revelation 18:4). The ‘Christ against culture’ type portrays the church as a community of holiness into which the believer must withdraw. It is an uncompromising position that relentlessly pursues purity. It is a position that may result in the establishment of separate communities, such as the Amish.
At the furthest extreme from the ‘Christ against culture’ type is the model of ‘Christ of culture’. This position supposes there to be no conflict between Christ and culture. There is deemed to be a harmony between the values of the faith and the moral and ethical pursuits of contemporary culture. Those holding to this position might refer to their country as ‘a Christian nation’.
In between ‘Christ against culture’ and ‘Christ of culture’, there exist three mediating positions. The first of these, according to Niebuhr, is the idea of ‘Christ above culture’. This position endorses the notion that there is good to be found within human cultures. However, this good is not a result of human endeavour so much as a gift from God. For society to fully comprehend what it has received from God, divine revelation is needed. An example of this type is the Christian who sees good things happening in non-Church cultures and recognises the presence of God there. Paul in Athens provides a biblical warrant for the ‘Christ above culture’ position: ‘I see that in every way you Athenians are very religious…That which you worship, then, even though you do not know it, is what I now proclaim to you’ (Acts 17:22,23). The second mediating position is ‘Christ transforming culture’. The idea underpinning this type is that the whole of culture needs to be converted to Christianity. In order to fulfil the mandate to be like ‘light for the whole world’ (Matthew 5:14), there is a need for Christians to become involved in every strata of life - business, politics, education, the arts – in order to ‘reclaim’ them for Christ. Finally, Niebuhr explored the mediating position of ‘Christ and culture in paradox’. This type explores the tension in which Christians find themselves living. God has given worldly institutions for a purpose and believers must be prepared to work within and alongside such institutions. These institutions, however, are not perfect and there is inherent within them a paradox of Kingdom values and sinful human self-interest. It is this paradox that enabled Paul to reason, ‘Everyone must obey the state authorities, because no authority exists without God’s permission, and the existing authorities have been put there by God’ (Romans 13:1).
Niebuhr’s work is not without its weaknesses. Nor is it the last word on the relationship between Christ and culture. It does, however, give us a way into understanding how we can develop a cultural Christology to underpin our mission and ministry. What Neibuhr shows us is that there are many ways of presenting the truths of Christianity – and the Truth that is Jesus Christ – to the cultural group amongst which we minister. Rather than presenting a static matrix, Neibuhr’s typology presents us with categories that are not mutually exclusive.
Expressing the Gospel message will demand differing Christological images to speak into different cultures. Crucially, each cultural group will need a variety of Christological images at various times. There will be times when we need to present Christ standing against culture. There will be times when we need to present Christ transforming culture. There will be times when we need to present Christ standing above culture. In different situations, even with the same group of people, we will need a flexible Christology that can draw on the diversity of Scripture and speak into the diversity of that cultural environment.
During my time as a minister in the East End of London, there was one group of street kids with whom I spent a number of years working. Drug consumption was prevalent. For the first few months of working with them, I never criticised this activity. Eventually, when I felt more secure in my relationship with them, I presented them with Christ standing against that cultural activity. I quickly supplemented that with Christ above their culture, encouraging them to find the good within their chosen lifestyle – loyalty to each other, laughter, friendship, mutual support through the challenges many faced in education and family instability. From that, we were able to have conversations that explored the Christ and culture in paradox type; the tension between their behavioural patterns and the values of the Kingdom of God. I would like to conclude this illustration by saying that the young people all became Christians and renounced their former lifestyles. Sadly, I cannot do so! But one of the boys did recognise that a change was required of him and he subsequently came off drugs and became a youth worker. He now works the same streets I did and has a powerful ministry amongst the young people who have come after him. His story, I believe, is a wonderful example of the Christ who transforms culture.
Modelling Christ for today
Those of us who are called to the Christian ministry, in whatever format, are called to missionary work. But the work of a missionary is never just to plant our idea of who Christ is into an alien culture. There must always be a degree of interaction between the Scriptural witness and the cultural setting. Christology is about creating a suitable balance between ‘Christ’ and ‘culture’.
In doing that, however, we may do well to recognise that the issue is not so much ‘Christ and culture’ as ‘the culture of Christianity and other cultures’. As we minister the Gospel to others, as we develop a Christology with others, we need to be aware that what we are actually doing is introducing them, not just to a person, but also to a Church culture: a culture of Christianity that cannot be avoided. That is not a bad thing. But it does need to be honestly acknowledged. Postmodernity has taken such a strong grasp on society that the expressive culture of traditional Christianity has become an alien concept to many. There is little or no Christian memory, not just amongst the young, but even those who are now middle-aged. Many of our traditional expressions of Christology do not sit easily with our cultures.
A new Christological approach is desperately needed for the 21st century. The call on us is to model a Christ who is relevant in a multi-cultural, multi-faith environment. The call on us is to model a Christ who speaks powerfully within our cultural settings. This is not to say that Niebuhr’s typologies have become irrelevant. It is the case, however, that his work, produced over 50 years ago, now needs to be reassessed and developed for a new age. This article hopes to add to that conversation. But the most exciting realisation is that this reassessment and development is not coming out of the academy and books so much as from the coalface of practical ministry. Wherever we try to discover new and relevant ways of presenting Christ to others, we are developing the typology matrix by combining Biblical studies with Cultural studies. Given the fact that culture is so fluid, the Christological models that we use this week may be different from the models that we use next week. We may need to speak of Christ as Brother and Friend today but as Judge tomorrow. We may need to stress the forgiving love of Jesus this week but draw attention to his claim of Lordship over a believer’s life next week. When a young person is doing drugs in our church porch, Christ will stand against that culture. When that young person seeks drug rehabilitation, Christ will transform that culture. When that young person sets up a drug rehabilitation service for other addicts in the neighbourhood, Christ is the fulfiller of that culture.
A prophetic Christological model is needed for the 21st century. We are called to be prophets, preparing the way for Christ in our culture. In doing that, we need to develop a Christology that will be flexible enough to discern the need and recognise the movement of God.
Christology. Christ-ology. Christ-words. Christ-talk. Christology is not just about studying a man. Christology is not just about my relationship with that man. Christology is not just about your relationship with that man. Essentially, and most fundamentally, Christology is a community act. Christology has a social dimension by which the oppressed are free, the captives are released, organizations are reformed and the values of the Kingdom of God are instituted. A Christology that is both loyal to Scripture and culturally relevant will empower the Jesus community to move into a life of freedom.
Our commission is awesome. Recognising the types presented to us by Niebuhr, we are commissioned to strive for purity, to affirm what is good in culture and take every opportunity we have to transform and convert that culture to the glory of God. We acknowledge the paradox that arises from living in the end times – the era of the ‘now’ and the ‘not yet’. But we move out to minister in the power of the greatest Christological promise of all: ‘I will be with you always, to the end of the age’ (Matthew 28:20).
Rev Dr Steve Griffiths is Director of the Centre for Youth Ministry, Cambridge, UK. He is also a Partner in Youth Focus and heads up the Emerge Academy www.emergeacademy.net. Steve is Chair of the International Association for the Study of Youth Ministry.
Latest comments