The Gospel is Historical

This was originally posted over at Reformation Theology last year, and in light of some recent conversations I've had about how we really should preach the gospel I have decided to post it here in the hopes that it will foster some counter-intuitive thinking. Please soak in the radical nature of what Keller is saying:

The gospel is historical . . . The word “gospel” shows up twice [1 Peter 1:1-12, 1:22-2:12]. Gospel actually means “good news.” You see it spelled out a little bit when it says “he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. Why do we say that the gospel is good news? Some years ago, I heard a tape series I am sure was never put into print by Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones. It was an evening sermon series on 1 Corinthians 15. He clarified how the Gospel is based on historical events in how the religion got its start. He said there was a big difference between advice and news. The Gospel, he would say, is good news, but not good advice. Here’s what he said about that: “Advice is counsel about something that hasn’t happened yet, but you can do something about it. News is a report about something that has happened which you can’t do anything about because it has been done for you and all you can do is to respond to it.”

So he says think this out: here’s a king, and he goes into a battle against an invading army to defend his land. If the king defeats the invading army, he sends back to the capital city messengers, envoys, very happy envoys. He sends back good newsers. And what they come back with is a report. They come back and they say: It’s been defeated and it’s been all done. Therefore respond with joy and now go about your lives in this peace which has been achieved for you. But if he doesn’t defeat the invading army, and the invading army breaks through, the king sends back military advisers and says . . . “Marksmen over here and the horseman over there, and we will have to fight for our lives.”

Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones says that every other religion sends military advisers to people. Every other religion says that if you want to achieve salvation, you will have to fight for your life. Every other religion is sending advice saying “here are the rites, here are the rituals, here’s the transformation of the consciousness and here are the laws and the regulations. Marksmen over here and horsemen over there and we are going to fight for our lives.” We send heralds; we send messengers and not military advisers.

Isn’t that clarifying? It’s just incredibly clarifying. And it’s not like there’s nothing to do about it, my goodness. Both the messenger and the military adviser get an enormous response. One is a response of joy and the other one is a response of fear. All other religions give advice and they drive everything you do with fear . . . as you know, when you hear the gospel, when you hear the message that it’s all been done for you, it’s a historical event that has happened, your salvation is accomplished for you, what do you want to do? You want obey the Ten Commandments, you want to pray, and you want to please the one that did this for you.

If, on the other hand, military advisers say you have to live a really good life if you want to get into heaven, what do you do? You want to pray and you want to obey the Ten Commandments. It looks the same, doesn’t it? But for two radically different reasons: One is joy and the other one is fear. In the short run, they look alike. But in the long run, over here we have burn out and self-righteousness and guilt and all sorts of problems. And that’s fascinating.

But having said that, what’s the ministry implication? The ministry implication is this: the significance of preaching, of proclamation, of declarative preaching, is irreplaceably central in Gospel ministry. Declarative preaching is irreplaceably central.Why? If basically we are sending people “how to”, if we are saying here’s the “how to” to live the right way, if that’s the primary message, I am not sure words are necessarily the best thing to send. You want
to send a model.

If I was to teach an advanced seminar on preaching (and I never have) I would make everybody read CS Lewis’ Studies in Words. It’s amazing because we are wordsmiths and he shows you how important it is to craft your words properly. The last chapter is called “At the Fringe of Language” and he says language can’t do everything. He says that one of the things language cannot do is describe complex operations. On the other hand, when it comes to describing how, to explain to somebody that Joshua Chamberlain, without any ammunition, charged down Little Round Top in an incredible, risky adventure at the height of the Battle of Gettysburg, and as a result changed the course of history. You don’t show people that, you tell them that. It’s something that happened, you describe it. You tell them that. If you are going to give them how-tos, very often what you want is modeling and dialogue, action and reflection and so forth.

Therefore, if you believe the gospel is good news, declarative preaching (verbal proclaiming) will always be irreplaceably central to what we do. However, if you subscribe to the assertion that the gospel is simply good advice on how to live a life that changes people and connects to God . . . dialogue would be alright. Stories and modeling and reflection would be more important. In other words, you would believe what some people would quip: “proclaim the gospel, use words if necessary”. You’ve probably heard that. That shows, I think, that they don’t quite understand what the gospel is all about.

Excerpt from Keller's sermon "Gospel-Centered Ministry."

(Source)

Thomas Cranmer: Reformer, Coward, Martyr

This day marks the anniversary of the death of Thomas Cranmer, the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury. He is a hugely important figure in the development of Anglicanism, and I believe he should also share the gratitude of any who ventures to call themselves Protestant; especially if one is an English-speaking Protestant.

Thomas Cranmer came from a rather humble beginning. He was born in Nottinghamshire in 1489 and at the age of 14 he started attending Jesus College, Cambridge. In 1510 he was ordained a priest. Cambridge become the focal point in England of discussion about the Reformation and in 1520 Cranmer joined a group that would meet to discuss Luther's ideas.

It was an accident (or act of Providence) that set Cranmer on the course of becoming the genius behind the English Reformation. He happened to meet the King in a neighborhood he was visiting and spoke with Henry about his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, a devout Spanish woman who had "failed" to produce a male heir for King Henry. (She did, however, have a daughter; the future Queen Mary who would be known to the Protestants as "Bloody Mary.") Henry was impressed with Cranmer's reasoning on how he could best divorce Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn. Cranmer was quickly appointed as an ambassador and charged with writing a treatise arguing in favor of the divorce.

In 1533 Cranmer was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest ecclesiastical position in England. Interestingly enough, the Pope actually signed off on the appointment thinking it would placate Henry after the Vatican had refused to annul the King's marriage to Catherine. This backfired. Immediately the new Archbishop declared Henry's marriage to the Queen null and void, and on top of that, validated the King's secret marriage to Anne Boleyn that had already taken place.

Over and over, as King Henry VIII changed wives only slightly less often than codpieces, Archbishop Cranmer would back the King's wishes and grant yet another annulment. In all this he was a coward, refusing to hold Henry accountable to sacred Scripture and its views on divorce and remarriage.

Where Thomas Cranmer's better colors shine however is in the reforms he undertook under Henry's son, King Edward VI. The monarch was a boy when his father died, and so much of the power was in the hands of decidedly pro-Reformation advisers, including the Archbishop. Cranmer was therefore able to take the Church of England in a staunchly Protestant direction during Edward's reign. Until....

Edward died six years after taking the throne and despite a nine-day rule by Lady Jane Grey, the Catholic Mary (daughter of Catherine) entered London and assumed the throne. She made short work of weeding out the Protestants and taking England back into the fold of the Roman Catholic Church. Cranmer was among the victims.

In 1556, after a three year trial, Thomas Cranmer was convicted of treason and sentenced to burn at the stake. He was humiliatingly defrocked in a ceremony stripping him of his episcopal and priestly vestments. In an effort to save his life, he signed a recantation of his Reformed views and submitted himself to the Pope as supreme head of the church. Mary decided to burn him anyway.

Supposed to read his recantation in church the day of his execution, Cranmer instead shouted out, "All such bills which I have written or signed with my own hand [are] untrue." He continued, "As for the pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine. As for the sacrament..."

Dragged off before he could finish his speech. When the fire was lit, he put out his right hand directly into the flame and declared, "This hand has offended."

Though Thomas Cranmer died as a martyr, when Elizabeth came to the throne two years later her reforms of the Anglican Church were really Cranmer's, with a few compromises. His forty-two points of doctrine were reduced and became The Thrity-Nine Articles of Religion, still the foundational doctrinal statement for Anglicans worldwide. His Book of Common Prayer is still the liturgical guide used in Anglican worship services, and parts of it have seeped into other Protestant churches' worship. For example, the traditional wedding ceremony that most English speakers are used to is either taken directly or slightly modified from Cranmer's Common Prayer.

All Protestants in the English speaking world should thank God for Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. He was by no means perfect, but without him there would have been no Reformation in England; and without that those giants of biblical theology we call the Puritans would never have been able to edify the English church as they did. May Cranmer's memory serve to magnify God's faithfulness to His church.