Two Cups

I came across this passage a few months back working through The Cross Centered Life and have been meaning to post on it ever since.

Mark 14:36 "Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

Most of us are familiar with this passage and it's context as Jesus prays in Gethsemane just prior to his crucifixion. Metaphorically speaking, there's a sense in which the "cup" could refer to the whole process that Jesus knows he will be undergoing in the next 24 hours. Theologically speaking, I think it's even more likely that the cup he's referring to is the cup of God's wrath that Jeremiah speaks of:

Jeremiah 25:15 This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: "Take from my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it.

It's even more powerful if you read it in context. Either way though, most of us are familiar with Jesus' prayer regarding the cup. Did you remember that he also spoke of another cup? Mark certainly did, in fact it seems to have been on his mind as he composed his Gospel account:

Mark 14:23-24 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

Just about 10 verses previous, Mark records Jesus' words about the cup that we get to drink (notice, the text doesn't actually say Jesus drank this one, for what it's worth). And beyond Marks literary/compositional rhetoric, temporally speaking, only a few hours elapsed between these two events, so I dare say it was on Jesus' mind too. He drinks the cup of God's wrath so that we might drink the cup of God's blessing. Interestingly enough Jeremiah also speaks of the New Covenant. Was Jesus meditating on Jeremiah on the night of his betrayal? I can't say, but WOW...what an exchange. Perhaps there's a dissertation on intertextuality in there somewhere, but more importantly it's had some serious impact on my communion meditations in recent days.

Wright Responds

Curious about what Wright thinks about Carson, Piper, and Moo? All that and more here.

(HT: Jim Hamilton)

In the Mix

God's been using my job to teach me a lot lately and I want to honor Him for that. Often the only thing to praise God for with a job in collections is that it meets your needs. However, I've been actively trying to learn all the life lessons I can from improving my teaching skills, to developing my leadership abilities with the opportunities He's given me. Since back in my intern days of mocking John Maxwell, I've never believed that the church should be run like a business (and Fressel still hates me for mocking his boy); nevertheless, working both as a collector and even more so now as a supervisor/trainer for new hires and manager trainee I've learned how to be more assertive and direct (two character traits I've known I'd need to develop for years). Yet, even these gains, bring with them more challenges...the ever present need for balance (yes, I can use that word 5 years later having detoxed from college-and I don't mean alchohol). And in all of that God had reinforced some even more fundamental lessons:

1) The constant need for repentance (something I've been doing a lot of lately). Whether it be for my impatience with teaching somebody whose a little slow on the uptake - impatience generated by underlying arrogance because they're not getting it when I teach and the audacity that I might have to adapt my style any further (as you can see double repentance here) - or the use of my tongue when discussing some of our low performers with my peers...repentance has been a common theme.

2) The constant need for balance. Yeah, I alluded to it above, but I'll elaborate. It's easy to excel in the corporate world by being direct, not being afraid to execute and making good business decisions in a cold and calcuated way. It's a bit more complex (and at times impossible) to do all that and incarnate the atonement simultaneously. This was something originally brought to my attention by a Tim Keller lecture and again more recently in McKnight's book A Community Called Atonement (and some influence in my thinking from Drama of Doctrine here too - that book continues to have a paradigm shifting effect on me - impovisation and all that). As I've moved into increasingly managerial roles trying to exemplify Kingdom values and flesh out the atonement has become increasingly complex. Nevertheless, I've been provided with AMPLE opportunity to apply the Gospel to the workaday world, for which I'm thankful. Nothing more fun (or rigorous) than the missional task of contextualiztion.

3) Life experience. I don't know how else to title this, but the point is I have a FAR better grasp of what life is like for everday blue collar workers - cubicle jockey's if you will. Since this demographic often makes up a large piece of the pie in many churches, I can far better empathize now (and I finally understand why people think Dilbert is hilarious). It comes back to contextualization because being there myself, I can relate and offer concrete illustrations. Discussing contextualization of the Gospel in the seminary class with a bunch of other guys with no kids and whose wife's pay all the bills (yup, that was me) is entirely different from slugging it out in the trenches everyday, depriving your best hours from your family to go support them by dragging yourself to a job you don't like to do, made up of tasks that are hard to justify. Surely there can be more than this; and now I can say yes there is. If you can find meaning and value in collections, you can find it just about anywhere.

Having said all that I have a LOOOOOOOOOONG way to go and appreciate your prayers.

Dever on Evangelism and the Gospel

Justin Taylor has posted links to some free Sovereign Grace MP3's of Mark Dever that have led to his most recent publication on evangelism. If you've ever listened to Dever, talked with him or read what he's written (and I've been blessed to do all 3) you'll know he is a gifted "evangelist" (gosh I hate to use that term) who's incredibly sensitive to the Spirit's moving. Good stuff I wanted to link to for my own benefit.

Kingdom and Gospel Part 4: Roberts Does it Again!

Ok, I'm going to stop talking and just keep point to his series. It couldn't have come out at a better time. In the latest installment, he accounts for why the loss of kingdom language. I definatley see his point, but don't think this means we should neglect it (nor do I get the impression that's what he's implying. But the most valuable part of this post is the story about the "evangelistic approach" of his roomate at Harvard. Great Stuff!

Now THAT's What I'm Talkin About: Kingdom and Gospel Part 3

If my first two posts on Kingdom and Gospel left you confused or unclear about just where I was going with all this, PLEASE take a few minutes to read Mark Roberts post on The Mission of God and the Missional Church. While it is part of a series, the link I used will bring you to the section on the mission of Jesus. It is the best thing I've read in a long time that articulates exactly what I was driving at in the relationship between Kingdom and Gospel.

Do Christians Make Good Employees?

This question can be answered at least two ways. There is a part of me that wants to say "no" becuase I've been burned on more than one occaision by "christians" with whom I've done business. But of course, you'll notice the quotes and that leads me to the second answer: those who are following Jesus (ie - christians who don't need to have the qualifying quotes around the word) often and typically are good for business and to have as employees.

This has come to my attention in several contexts in which I've been employed ranging from retail to sheet metal shops to the cubicle kingdom in which I currently bear the yoke. Embracing the Christian worldview and the Lordship of Jesus in all of life typically makes you a pretty easy employee to manage. 1) You grasp principles such as authority, submission, discretion, integrity and deference 2) You attempt to live a life of character which results in respectful (read: professional) interactions with your superiors, your peers and your subordinates 3) You strive to do things to the best of your abilities to bring glory to the Lord (ie you demonstrate a work ethic).

Basic, but mindblowing to most bosses. When I worked in the sheet metal shop, it was remarkable to me that my boss LOVED ME because I came in on time, took break and returned on time and was willing to put in occaisional OT as necessary. When I worked in retail my boss was THRILLED that she didn't have to tell me to smile and say things like "thank you" and "sir or maam" to our customers. When I was framing, my foreman would give me practically anything I wanted because I hadn't lost my license for dui's and could actually drive myself to work. And now at the world's local bank, I've had several managers comment on the reliability of the seminary students that work there and it's amazing to see how fast we advance through the system. The irony of the whole thing is that the values they want their employees to live out (perceptive, progressive, respectful, responsive and fair) and the manner in which they want them to behave (treat others as you want to be treated, be professional and polite and kind to your peers and our customers) often have significant overlap with fruits of the Spirit. In fact they could just sum it up by saying "Be like Jesus"....but of course they can't say that.

PS - the comments section on the last Kingdom and Gospel post has far surpassed the content of the post itself. As is so often the case, bouncing ideas off of Mike has helped me hone in on what I'm getting at.

Kingdom and Gospel Part 2

Yes, the inversion of the title was intentional and it kinda tips my hand as to where I'm going in this second post. I'm going to just cut to the chase, with only one caveat: I may be guilty of a PUI (posting under the influence) due to some heavy duty back pain I've been blessed with as of late. I am on both prescription pain killers AND muscle relaxants - all that to say I've got a get out of purgatory free card (read: plausible denial) if any of the following transgresses orthodox boundaries :-)

If the idea of God's people under God's rule is a (the?) central theme of the Bible (and yes that is a big, though highly possible "if" but for present company, we'll just assume it - and yes Thomas and all you other Graeme worshipers you can add to that "in God's place") then I think perhaps we've (by we, I'm thinking western Christianity in the evangelical strain whose roots [at least the western part of them] lie in the Reformation no matter how bad free-willers may try to deny it) tried to replace that center with another. Huh? Ok....

In the last post I made mention of texts that seem to connect the "gospel" to announcements of God's sovereign rule. While I may not be a biblical theology kinda guy (though I'm getting better here) that does seem to be a theme of tremendous continuity connecting the Testaments. So perhaps the "Gospel" could be better summed up as "God's Kingdom is already/not yet coming and you better get on board" as opposed to "Ask Jesus to come into your heart." The center shifts so it's no longer "eternal fire insurance" oh and you get the Kingdom to boot; but rather, "You want the Kingdom, well you need a new heart and the only way you get that is if God replaces your heart of stone with a heart of flesh and gives you new birth by His Spirit." The difference may be subtle as it actually plays out in conversation (and it may not be), but there is a big difference. In the first model, the Kingdom is incidental to personal salvation; whereas in the second model personal salvation is "incidental" to the Kingdom.

If nothing else, this seems 1) to make better sense out of the sort of textual data mentioned in the previous post while still allowing for the the traditional soteriological texts 2) it allows for a more simple continuity regarding salvation in both Testaments (though Ockham's Razor is not infallible) 3) as an added perk, it puts to death the whole Lordship debate.

As G pointed out well in the comment section of the first post, I am not saying the Gospel is less than justification/conversion/redempton etc. It is that AND more. As Baylor alluded, it gives a better explanation of why the Ressurection was so important (Romans 1 - he was appointed Son of God with power...His reign has begun). Speaking of Baylor, his recent post about the criticism Derek Webb has received for defining the Gospel when put on the spot and not including penal substitution (which I would imagine he does hold to), this strikes close to home. The critics (watchbloggers/TRs) consider anyone placing undue emphasis on the Kingdom when talking about the Gospel is "left leaning" (read: Liberal). Nevertheless, I think we may be missing a big part of the Gospel when we claim to be proclaiming it. The good news is Jesus is King! (and as NT Wright would be quick to add 'and Ceasar is not' but there I go off into liberal land again). By simply proclaiming Him as Savior, we are missing part of who He is - a crucial part - and not being biblical (or at least New Testament) in our gospelizing.

This is precisely why the Gospel is a stumbling block to some - yes because of the scandal of a crucified God - but also because they don't want to bend the knee. If Jesus wants to save me, hey, I'm all for it, but if this somehow entails me having to bow before Him, I bow to no one. Yet this is precisely what we've done in western evangelism (I don't know how it's done in other parts of the world, I can only speak of what I know). Perhaps it's because (to hat tip Krister Stendahl) of the "introspective conscience of the West" but often all we care about is "What do I have to do to get out of hell?" or "How can Jesus make my life better?" "Screw the rest of the message, that's all I care about." And such thinking has left us with what I would suggest is a reductionistic and misleading approach to the Gospel. I'm not knocking Reformed theology nor dropping penal substitution or justification; I'm adding and reordering.

Anyway, that's all for now. I'll post more on this if it percolates anymore in the future (and it probably will). I'd also love any thoughts or feedback anyone cares to offer.

Gospel and Kingdom Part 1

No, not a guest post by Graeme, just some reflections on the topic. As I began to put together the strands for this post, I was amazed by how far back they go. The gist of the question I wish to raise can be phrased a number of ways: What is the Gospel (sure, that one's novel)? What is the message and mission of Jesus? What is the theme of the scriptures? etc, etc. Much has been written and discussed within contemporary evangelicalism (particularly the strands touched most deeply by postmodernity) regarding the corporate dimension of the Gospel/redemption. While I'm not advancing precisely that sort of an agenda, I have often noted that the four books of the NT commonly referred to as Gospels bear little in common with what we call the Gospel nowadays. To be sure they incorporate the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (a la 1 Cor 15:1ff), however, that only comes up at the end. Much of the material, particularly the proclamations of Jesus seem more kingdom oriented than "evangelistic" as we often think of it. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not bashing EE here (though I've done that elsewhere); I have yet to see any evangelistic program/presentation/literature, etc. that sounds anything similar to the message proclaimed by Jesus in orientation. But I'm getting ahead of myself...

It probably started when I first noticed that in Romans 10:15 when Paul is talking about the beautiful feet of the ones who preach the Gospel, he's referencing Isaiah 52:7. Now the interesting thing about Isaiah is that the Gospel there, isn't "Jesus died for you" but rather "Your God Reigns." I remember thinking, could this be a summation of the Gospel? My first thought was of 1 Cor 12:3 - No man can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Spirit. Even more obvious, back in Romans 10:9 - If you confess, Jesus is Lord....Now, to take the phrase Jesus is Lord and the phrase Your God reigns....particularly in view of the fact that both phrases occur in "Gospel" context...well, now that's what I call continuity. At the time I brushed it off as being in danger of too much reductionism.

Then, over the course of the last several months, our ss class at BBC was going through the life of Jesus. Again, I became convinced (in large part from what I had gained in reading Wright's JVG, reading the Gospels for the first time in a LONG time and dialoging with my brothers and sisters, especially James Lane) that Jesus was going around spending a ton of time talking about the Kingdom and not so much time about why we should pray for him to come into our hearts. You just don't see that too much in the Gospels.

So all of this has been percolating in my head for a while now. Just a week or two back I was reading in the opening chapters of Acts and I was hit with it again. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is filled with Kingdom ideology. In fact, repentance doesn't even come up until the very end when the hearers say, "what should we do?" Obviously the message itself didn't answer the question. Typically our "evangelistic" presentations spend virtually ALL of their time explaining what Jesus did and what we should do.

Okay, by now some of you are probably thinking I've gone from fundy, to evangelical right off the cliff to pagan. No, I am NOT denying the individual, redemptive implications of the death of Jesus. What I am saying, is perhaps we've emphasized that dimension of the atonement so much so that it has become the sine qua non of the Gospel, when perhaps that's not exactly what was at the core of the Gospel as it appears in the scriptures. However, this has already turned into much more than I anticipated; thus, I'll put off the defense of my orthodoxy and (more importantly) just what it is I'm trying to say for Part 2.

Gathercole on the Atonement

Here I go again, posting an article I haven't finished yet. However, knowing what I know about Gathercole and SBTS, I'm pretty sure I know how this one's gonna end. Check out Simon Gathercole's article on The Cross and Substitutionary Atonement.

HT: Between Two Worlds

Philosophy of Ministry and the Gospel Coalition

While I know every student of the Scriptures and aspiring teacher/preacher/theolgian/exegete/etc ad naseum is supposed to develop their own philosophy of ministry, I've given serious consideration in recent days to jettisoning mine. Why? Because I read the Gospel Coalition's Theological Vision for Minstry. Yeah, I admit anything with the word coalition in it sounds pretty cheesy, but the substance of this document is outstanding. Sure you might nit pick with fine points here and there, but as for me an my house...

If you're interested in hearing some of these points developed a little more thoroughly, I reccomend going to the Resurgence Podcasts and listening to everything and anything Tim Keller. I've been doing that anyway and when I read the Theological Vision for Ministry stuff, I thought "Hmmmm...this sounds awfully (or should I say delightfully) familiar." Keller stuff is all over this document...and that's a good thing. I also added the Gospel Coalition to my links in the side bar with the same disclaimer.

Some thoughts on "Missional"

As usual, I pick up on the trendy things a few years too late; I guess that comes from growing up as a fundy. While the rest of evangelicalism may view this term almost as dated as the term "postmodern" they both are still in my vocabulary.

I admit, it took me awhile to figure out exactly what was meant by "missional" and I'm not sure there is actually a concrete definition out there. But the gist that I've picked up on by it's usage (which of course is all that matters in my book - form vs. function again) is that it pertains to a church/individual who is on mission (duh). By that, it is often implied (and often explicit) that it is being on the mission of Jesus (or more likely the Triune God) and is often connected to the Kingdom. Teasing it out a little further, it's often used as those who are on mission and or missionaries to their culture, wherever they may find themselves. It typically has cultural engagement overtones and is used often in emerging church contexts (though of course the really cool emerging church types have probably abandoned it because it's too trendy these days).

For what it's worth, I like it. Some have argued that the term missional is not very missional itself (i.e. unbelievers don't know what you're talking about). True perhaps, but I think it's still a good term for inhouse discussion. Anyway, I like an adjective that can be used to sum up the idea of being on mission with Jesus that is Kingdom oriented in engaging the culture with the Gospel. It doesn't get much better than that (even if ascribing such a definition to a single word is culpable of being a raging linguistic fallacy capable of eclipsing TDNT).

The Gospel Coalition

Personally I think the name leaves something to be desired, but I like the idea. I'd post a hat tip or hyperlink but it's easier to just say that if you haven't heard about it check out Justin Taylor's blog-it's all over the place. Fankly I'm surprised I haven't seen any other posts about it, particularly from my reformed brethren in the tidewater area (though to be fair Thomas' computer did crash). Anybody know how exactly it differs from T4G? It seems to be a lot of the same guys.

Identity Crisis

A few weeks ago I had to go back on the phones for a few days...and was reminded of just how much I hated it. However, I knew at that time that it was just for a few days, so I wasn't overcome with depression. I say that halfway seriously...collecting 8 hours (7.5 technically) a day, 5 days a week can become incredibly emotionally/psychologically draining. I began to wrestle through just exactly what it was that I found so depressing. I was genuinely trying to view my job as worship and perform it as unto the Lord, yet failing miserably. The conclusion that I came to is reflected in the title of this post...I was in the midst of an identity crisis.

The problem was that I was allowing myself, my identity, to be defined by my job. Whether it was the people on the phone calling me a #$%&#er or a just seeing some aspect of my stats in the crapper; that was what I allowed to define my identity--who I was. In fact, just having person after person tell you that they won't make a payment despite your best implementation of the call model and wiifms, still takes more than a few check by phones to overcome. Of course a good day leads to a great attitude...but those are VERY few and far between, not to mention idolotrous.

Some collectors deal with it by belittling or demeaning the cardmembers...after they get off the phone of course. To be honest, I've been guilty of this myself. However, that obviously is not a cross centered way of overcoming adversity. Instead, I had to come to grips with the fact that my identity is defined by Jesus and not my circumstances; by the gospel and not my job. Sure I want to suceed at what I do...but that's not to be what's primary. My life is hidden with Christ (Col 3) and ultimately my sucesses and failures are irrelevant...His success is counted as mine. The battle is keeping this perspective at the center and thus avoiding the identity crisis. Sola deo gloria for the Spirit and the Word.

That's a Darn Good Question

I recently came across a blog post that raised an issue I have been thinking through for the last year or so, but never had the guts to admit to anyone. The post encouraged me to go public with the question: Is Spiritual Formation Biblical? Sounds pretty unspiritual doesn't it? Take a look at the post; it's brief, but anticipates a series upcoming on sanctification. But I've wondered the same thing for some time now. With the exception of prayer, much of what we strongly encourage regarding spiritual disciplines finds little resonance in biblical texts. Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong -- that's an entirely different question than whether or not it has biblical warrant. Some things are biblical, some unbiblical, but there is also the "abiblical" or extrabiblical category (and if you think this violates sola scriptura, Vanhoozer will take you over his knee and spank you with Drama). We need to be careful whenever we venture into the extrabiblical category that we don't minimize the pneumatological aspects of sanctification (about which the scriptures have a LOT to say) for the anthropological aspects that morph into 21st century keeping of Torah. Any thoughts?

Stuff Around the Web

Wow. If you haven't read this yet, you should (caution: NOT for the faint hearted or weak stomached).

On a lighter and more utilitarian note: A list of books relevent to the study of Scripture within Google books.

(HT: Evangelical Textual Criticism, who HT'd Stephen Carlson)

Wright on Penal Substitution

If you haven't seen it, Tom Wright has been getting grilled in the blogosphere again, this time over the issue of Penal Substitution. In the process of the discussions, some have been concerned that Tom denies the doctrine himself. However, the following resources have been pointed out in his defence both here and here.

(HT: Between Two Worlds)

The Gospel: What are we saying?

I haven't been online much lately (small surprise here) and it's difficult getting the momentum back up to post. However, I've been mulling over some things about the gospel lately and it's leading me into a post or two...maybe a mini-series. Here's the bottom line:

I struggle with evangelism at times because I feel like I don't know where to start. Sure, I get past it and realize that you just have to start somewhere, but that's not my point. My point is what is it exactly that we're to communicate? Sure, 1 Cor 15:1ff the life, death, ressurrection and lordship of Jesus, but how does that fit to contemporary culture. What is the point of contact to be made in contextualizing the Gospel for the 21st Century? I'm not sure I'm articulating the question I'm wrestling with clearly here, so rather than keep trying, I'll press on.

Vanhoozer's book The Drama of Doctrine has been helping me here (I'm still reading, I didn't meet my goal for a full book in March). He argues that the Christian life is performance; not in the Jerry Bridges sense (Bridges argues God doesn't treat us on the basis of our performance) but in the theatrical sense. It's an extended metaphor - the Bible is the Script, the Spirit the director, we live out the Christian life by "improvising" in a way appropriate to our Script. The Christian life is not just about knowing the right things, but ultimately living those truths out well. The Christian life is in this sense a performance of the Gospel. Thus, the message we are communicating in evangelism is the Lordship of Jesus over all of life (this last point is my own inference, not a proposition from Vanhoozer) or living in such a way that demonstrates the Lordship of Christ and evangelism is calling people to such a lifestyle. At this point, I'm inclined to weave in an inference from Wright on Renewed Humanity (see my previous posts here). In calling people to live out the Lordship of Christ in all of life we are calling them to be truly human, that is to image their Creator -- back to the image in which they were created.

All right there maybe some logical leaps here, I'm thinking out loud and not putting all my thoughts down. But my point is, as I thought through some of the implications I started to see parodies and perversions of such a life all over the place. The things that drive people are urges to fulfill some aspect of living well, acheiving success at being human, yet falling short of what is attempted. Hedonism, materialism, asceticism, egotism, all attempts at fulfillment of some urge that miss the mark of being truly human and ultimately end up in self-destructive lifestyles. The Gospel is a call to true humanity - renewed humanity. Enough rambling, I'll try and flesh this out in some ensuing posts, but these are not my final words on the matter; I'm still working through these things and would love some help.

Branding Jesus

No, this isn't another post on tattoos. Branding is something anyone involved in the business world is probably all too familiar with. HSBC is in the midst of a huge branding push, especially here in the US. "Leveraging the brand" is basically making sure that customers get excellent service and (more importantly) know who they're getting it from. It's remarkable to think of just how valuable various brands are: Nike, Coca Cola, Starbucks, etc. The primary thing that makes a brand valuable is the reflex association that comes to mind when someone is confronted with the brand; good association=valuable brand, bad association=worthless brand. Example: Starbucks can get away with charging $5 for a cup of coffee because of what that coffee represents: 1) a great cup of coffee 2) a comfortable atmosphere where you can hang out as long as you like 3) a free drink if yours doesn't come out right or even if you just don't like it 4) a cup that looks so cool, most other coffee shops imitate them. Starbucks is basically selling a lifestyle...and doing very well at it.

What does all that have to do with Jesus? Well besides the obvious fact that Jesus, being perfect, probably would have drank Starbucks, there is a parallel for Christians seeking to practice acts of kindness and mercy in Jesus' name. In card services, part of our problem is that the portfolios we carry have different names. We don't want people thinking they're talking to GM when they rave about their customer service to their friends...we want them to know it's HSBC they just spoke with....the world's local bank (sorry, reflex). Yet, the challenge is communicating that without sounding hokie. Here's what I'm driving at: how do you give a cup of cold water in His name without people thinking you're doing it just to be a nice guy? Or even worse, without saying, "I'm doing this because Jesus wants me to" or the like, and sounding like you're only doing it for divine brownie points. My question grows out of a concrete situation - wanting to extend the love of Christ to an unbelieving co-worker. The co-worker is very aware that I'm a believer, but somehow that doesn't seem like enough (t0 me). I want them to comprehend that it is the "love of Christ that constrains me." Any suggestions?

Thiselton on the Nature of the Gospel and Preaching

"Paul then proceeds to offer a diagnosis of why these two foundational themes [being in Christ and the cross centered nature of the Gospel] have become obscured. The first concerns the nature of preaching. It is not of such a nature as to invie assessments of competing rhetorics. As such its operative effectiveness depends on the force which it derives from God as authentic proclamation, not on artifices of persuasion or the consumer-oriented goals of rhetoricians. The cross reverses any strategy of manipulatives power. Such a notion of 'power' would prove counterproductive for genuinely christological proclamation since Christ points away from himself to the glory of God and the welfare of others in the cross."


A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC, pp. 107-108.