Last week I ran across this article, an interview with Tim Keller, in Christianity Today. This week in my blog I decided to look at the questions he was asked, pull a quote from his answers, and share some thoughts.

Q: You reject marketing apologetics like, "Christianity is better than the alternatives, so choose Christianity." Why?

A: Marketing is about felt needs. You find the need and then you say Christianity will meet that need. You have to adapt to people's questions. And if people are asking a question, you want to show how Jesus is the answer.

What strikes me as odd about this, is that Keller really is working with a, "Christianity is better than the alternatives" apologetic here, it's just being done from a position of service rather than one of authority.

After all, what he's arguing is coming alongside somebody who is feeling the effects of the law in their life, and offering them a Gospel solution to that felt-law experience. However, in addressing that need with the Gospel, he's also saying, "What you're doing, the alternatives, don't meet that need like the Gospel does." In other words, there's the other stuff, and then there's the Gospel.

In my previous post I argued that, at one level, all religions are the same in their attempt to fill a fundamental human need and in providing similar guidelines for how to live your life. This is what most people see on the surface of all religions and, therefore, from what they see, all religions look the same.

At this point, Christians might attempt to argue that they are different than this because they don't believe in a works righteousness, but that they need Jesus and grace. But, at the same time, when they talk about Jesus, they talk about making a decision, or making him Lord of their life, or going through certain rites or rituals, or some other thing that they have done that sets them up for grace.

Consider this in light of a comment a friend of mine made a while back. Basically, he argued that the Muslim doesn't deny a need for grace, rather, they believe that it is through the five pillars of Islam that they receive grace. We make a decision, they pray. We have certain rites at church, they fast. Once again, at that level, all religions are the same, it's just a question of what you do to get what you need from God.

This is where classic Christian teaching, something we find very little of in popular Christianity, comes into play. Whether it's God going to Abraham, the nation of Israel, or us as individuals, at its root, Christianity says that while there is plenty we can do to maintain right relationships with our neighbor (the level where it's all the same), it is impossible for us to do anything that will give us a right relationship with God (the second level), which is why we need God to come to us (without us doing anything to prompt God's coming). From what I've seen this is what makes Christianity, at least classic Christianity, different from other religions.

Note: I also address this in the closing section of the elemental life.

As everyone who reads this blog knows by now, Anita and Robbie were in an accident a couple weeks ago and our car was totaled. Over the past couple weeks our insurance agent has had all kinds of issues with the other guy and his insurance company. Yesterday, we found out why. He hadn't been paying his premiums and, ten days before he hit us, his insurance was revoked. So now we have an uninsured driver case on our hands.

Thankfully, our insurance covers things like this so, with the exception of our deductible, everything else will be paid for (we've already received the money for both our new car seat and the old car, and all of our medical expenses have been billed straight to the insurance company with no copay).

During this time, Anita and I have been wrestling with how to best handle the situation. We've addressed the issue some over on the fshbwl, both in this article and on this podcast, but this whole uninsured motorist gig puts a new wrinkle in the situation.

So, what are we going to do? We're going to let our government, which, like all government, God established, in part, to punish the wicked (Romans 13), take care of things ... and we'll help them out in the process.

I just happen to know our district police commander, so, last night I sent her an email, explained the situation, and asked what we could to do to add to the existing charges, after all, the guy didn't have insurance and yet presented invalid insurance at the scene of the accident. This morning I received a message from her and she's going to follow up on it with the DA.

I'm not a vengeful person, and there's no gain for us in this course of action, but I do believe that God has given us government for a reason. When we break the laws, we deserve the full punishment we receive (which is why we pay all of our parking tickets, took a trip to court a couple years ago, and was shocked when this happened).

Hopefully a swift kick in the rear from Uncle Sam will prompt the other driver to, if nothing else, be a better member of society who works to serve his neighbors (although it would be great if, somehow in all this, there would be a great Law smackdown that would prepare the way for the Gospel).

Over the past few days, when I've had a few free moments, I've been watching a really interesting series from Concordia Seminary titled, "Paul Through the Ages" (click here to download it on iTunes).

It explores how Paul's discussion about the relationship of the Law and the Gospel in Galatians has been understood at different points in history. It explores early heresies and reactions to them, Augustine, the Roman Catholic interpretation throughout the ages, and then on into Luther. I still have a few shows left so I'm not sure how far it will go, but it provides a really interesting look into theology, the Law, and it's impact on the Christian life.

For the past few days, I've been using pray-as-you-go as one of my daily devotional readings (I'm also following a track that will have me read all of the Lutheran Confessions in a year). Today, they brought up what is, to me, one of the most frustrating passages of Scripture, Matthew 25 and the discussion of the sheep and the goats who were divided based on their treatment of "the least".

The thing about the passage that causes my frustration is that, "the least" is typically interpreted as the poor because they are hungry, thirsty, naked, imprisoned strangers. However, if we follow the logic there, then we are saved by our works (our treatment of the poor) rather than by grace through faith. So, in attempt to figure out what was going on here, I spent some time with the passage this afternoon.

The first thing I noticed is that these verses take place in an ongoing private discourse between Jesus and his disciples that begins in Matthew 24, where he is helping the twelve to understand the end of the age. This immediately causes problems with the "the least" being the poor because the full line says, "the least of these my brothers". That little pronoun creates an image of Jesus pointing to the very people who are the least which, in that context, would imply "the least" being the disciples, aka, Jesus brothers.

So, how could this be important in our understanding of works vs. faith in Matthew 25? Back in Matthew 10, Jesus sent his disciples out to share the faith. They were to go without extra food, clothing, or money, and visit various homes in the villages to see who would receive them and who wouldn't. In homes where they were received, they were to share the Gospel, and in homes where they weren't, they were to shake of their feet knowing that that place would be cursed on the day of judgment.

So, here's what I'm thinking. "The least" in Matthew 25 are actually the disciples who went into towns as strangers in need of food, water, and clothing. Those who received them are among the sheep, not because of their works, but because they were the ones who heard the good news. The goats on the other hand, are damned because they rejected the ones who brought the good news of Jesus (and this is their curse on judgment day). This also makes more sense with the visiting in prison line.

I know it challenges historic interpretation, but it makes a whole lot more sense in the broader Biblical picture. Thoughts?