Two Ways To Live has been my gospel tract / gospel outline of choice for years. I regularly give it out, we have it available at church and we'll be using it prominently on camp.
Yet, recently I've heard some criticisms of it:
(1) It can seem rather complicated and a bit much for non-Christians
(2) It emphasises head-knowledge of the fact of sin without being affecting and giving much sense of the great horror of sin etc.
(3) It seems Arminian by presenting us with a choice without speaking of the work of the Spirit and the need for God to have mercy on us and regenerate us if we are to make the right choice
(4) It implies that we become Christians by praying a prayer rather than repenting, believing and being baptised
What do you think? Are any of these criticisms fair? Have you heard any others?
Is there a better reasonably complete brief gospel outline available?
For myself, I'm not inclined to criticise such a brief tract for its omissions unless they are really essential and I reckon we could argue about emphasis untill the cows come home.
If I were asked to sum up the gospel in 4 words (conveninetly) I'd go for "Jesus Christ is Lord". But if were allowed 6 pictures, I think I'd still go for Two Ways To Live.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
One of my problems is that fact that it requires you to draw pictures of God. Something wrong there (Exodus 20.4).
Surely it should be 'One way to live: the command we must obey.'
I wrote THIS but you have to follow the discussion to see how the text was sharpened up.
I confess, I'm not a big fan of pictures.
Steve Jeffery put THIS up yesterday which also looks quite good.
Thank you, Daniel.
We are not trying to depict God in 2WTL though, are we? And we are not proposing worship of those images? Doesn't the crown simply stand for king like a symbol?
Yes, you've reminded me of the quip that its "one way to live and one way to perish everlastingly".
Yes, I read the discussion of your tract. Have you been using it? How's it going?
I'm sure it has its drawbacks. I don't mind drawing pictures - there are no pictures of God in 2WTL, as they are deliberately schematised to be pictures of God's role as king. As a (retired) mathematician, I still feel the most useful thing to do when presented with a problem is "Draw a Diagram" of the problem you're working on. Diagrams often help explain truth.
Your crits I feel I can answer.
1. Complex. Nah. That's the whole point. On a napkin you got with your rather nasty tea from the buffet car in the 5 minutes you have until your station.
2. Head-knowledge rather than affective. Why would someone say that? Actually, picture 3 is brutal. If anything, pictures are ideally suited to engage with emotions as well as intellect.
3. False disjunction. We have a choice. AND: God must move first (in a non-Arminian sense). But not to present someone with a choice because we think doing so is Arminian is a false disjunction and leads to "hyper-Calvinism". God changes our wills, rather than working in spite of them. And is hidden decrees and its effects are hidden - what we experience is the ability to say "yes" to the gospel whereas formerly we'd always say "no".
4. Picture 5 shows Jesus risen and ascended. Picture 6 shows two ways of living in the light of that objective event. It does not tell you how to move from A to B (or B to A - I can never remember which way round the A and B go). That's up to the person explaining the scheme.
I like it. Most of the crits I've heard can be met by the way it is explained and used. E.g.: Does it go soft on penal sub? Picture 4 doesn't, in and of itself, but it would be possible to explain it in such a way that did go soft. So don't.
As I say: It's main selling point is its accessibility, simplicity and memorability - especially when trying to reach out to a culture that is increasingly non-verbal, non-reading and even (for some people) near-illiterate.
Thanks, James. Yes, I think I agree with all that.
We may further distinguish between using the pictures / outline with your own explanation and using the range of tracts which come with differing degrees of explanation.
I just have to plug What's Going On? by Stuart Dean. He is my pastor and friend so, obviously, I'll be under discipline if I don't recommend it. Add in the fact that I looked at early drafts and gave some suggestions and you've got as biased a review as possible.
However, it's dirt cheap, simple and faithful.
Ah, Paul, you were beaten to it by Daniel quoting Steve, but everyone should feel free to say how marvelous it is...
A friend from Australia used 2WTL very effectively in Africa but was talking to a missionary friend from Pakistan who found 2WTL very unhelpful. As the missionary among Muslims said, the first 3 boxes kind of described Islam anyway and then in box 4 Jesus pops up explicitly as the Man Jesus Christ to solve a problem he's apparently had nothing to do with. They were going to run a conference in Syndey entitled "2WTL: A gospel presentation for *all* nations??" But the Sydney crowd were *not* amenable to such a discussion (even though my friend was quite positive).
I use 6 diagrams teaching the 6 doctrines but have Jesus in each one. I've found this version makes box 4 the one that makes the most sense. I find with 2WTL usually it's box 4 that *doesn't* make sense to people. (Who's this guy? What's his death got to do with anything?)
JWs can happily use 2WTL and I've heard that they actually have done too!
Tim Keller also does a thing on how there are not two ways to live but *three*. You can be your own lord and saviour not only by outward rebellion (rejecting the crown), but also by legalistic moralism (elder brother stuff). I think there's something to that.
The big problem with 2wtl is that there is only one way to live. Eph 2 - we are all dead, unless God gives us life. There are not two ways to live, but one. Life without Christ is no life at all. Right?
Thanks Josh, yes, as previous commenters have said. Maybe it should at least be called 2 Ways to "Live".
Glen, I think you make a good point about Jesus. He does seem like a weird innocent 3rd party on some ways of telling the story. Why not, as you suggest, say Jesus the creator, rebellion against Jesus, Jesus the judge etc. You could do it all from John's gospel, couldn't you?
Do you have Bible verses for your alternative version, Glen?
You guessed it in one. Yes I do it all from John.
Creation: John 1:1-4;
Fall: John 3:19 and/or 16:8-9
Judgement: John 5:22-23
Cross: John 10:11
Resurrection: John 14:19b and/or 20:17
Choice: John 3:36
I'll show you my drawings some time if you like...
Yes, please, Glen. I might even be converted!
I'd say they ought to appear on your blog, don't you think?
You could just write JESUS in the crown, of course?
All of which brings the title of Smale's book to mind, "The Forgotten Father".
Christianity is fundamentally patro-centric and patro-telic, n'est-ce-pas? What makes it Christian is that we are not talking about some impersonal "g-o-d" but the one whose name Jesus revealed to be "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".
:) I've always found the content of that book to be soul-nourishingly christocentric. But of course, that's the only way to honour the Father. John 5:23
Which then raises the question as to how foundational the doctrine of the Trinity is to the gospel. If we just talk about God, then introduce Jesus-the-man we are riding roughshod across Chalcedon and the Trinity. If we just talk about Jesus, we are in danger of other misleading notions.
Actually I think, then, that the real issue is this: There is no such thing as "the gospel" considered in abstract. This is because there is no such thing as neutrality. So a "gospel presentation" comprises "what this person needs to hear so that their confidence is in the gospel".
Hence: Paul in a synagogue says "The Christ is Jesus". Paul in Athens says "God does not live in temples made by hands (etc...)"
So, the project of "One pictorial / simple textual gospel outline for all people of all cultures" won't wash. As an answer to that project for post-Christian Westerners, possibly 2WTL is a pretty good answer.
James, very interesting. Would "Jesus Christ is Lord" wash?
Absolutely. But some unpacking of those terms would be required, and how you would do so would depend on the prior commitment someone has to (a) the person they understand to be "Jesus"; (b) the conceptions they have of "Christ", whoever or whatever that refers to; and (c) their current overlords.
As a casual observer, a thought or two.
Does this entire discussion not drift away from the point of a tract? You may have only 5 minutes - It can't say everything.
We want people who may know nothing - to understand something. A full, sound, accurate, systematic theology will not fit on a napkin...
You may only have 5 minutes...
The real tragedy I fear, is that in discussing whether it is one way to live, two ways or even three, is that the search for what is "wrong" with something takes over and we disobey Christ by failing to share the gospel at all because we are all too busy crafting something "perfect" instead
You may only get 5 minutes...
Sorry tired and slightly grumpy...
Perhaps we ought to distinguish '2WtL' used as a tract from it as a gospel summary?
As a gospel outline I think it's useful, and one of the better ones on the market. That said, I think it does have some serious weaknesses. Were I to teach a gospel summary to a bunch of christians I think I'd go for 'Jesus Christ is Lord' as
a. more biblical
b. having more explanatory power as a 'controlling centre' of the various differing presentations and summaries of the gospel found in the NT.
And I say this even though in lots of ways learning 2WTL as a gospel summary did help sort out various aspects of my theology 8 or 9 years ago when I first really encountered it.
As a tract I think it's a really excellent tool. Not the only tool we should use. Not right for every situation. But what tool is?
Post a Comment