It was an aside during a sermon at The Bridge Church this year, that highlighted Luke’s technique of including two characters in incidents and parables. Or, better, that Christ Himself did. We are drawn into the narrative, perhaps with our sympathies moving from one character to the other, and then perhaps back again. In our Hollywood-influenced world, we like our stories to have clear heroes and villains – Bible stories are sometimes not so tidy; since real life is not so tidy!

I found seven stories in Luke’s gospel.

7.36-50 – the sinful woman and the host Pharisee.

13.10-17 – the woman with the spirit and the ruler of the synagogue.

15.11-32 – The ‘Prodigal Son’ – with the younger and elder brother.

16.1-13 – the dishonest manager and the rich man.

16.19-31 – Lazarus and the rich man.

18.1-8 – the persistent widow and the judge.

18.9-14 – the tax collector and the Pharisee.

The latter characters are strong, with seniority in society, enjoying wealth and power.

The former characters are weak, with obvious sins; they are poor and dependent. The first includes the sinful woman, probably a prostitute; the final incident includes the tax collector, someone hated in first century Judea.

In all seven incidents, where the former character becomes the ‘hero,’ then they are all flawed heroes, which of course is the way of scripture.

Jesus never condones sin, but He seems not to be phazed by sin either. Jesus is looking for repentance and faith with obedience.

Jesus routinely challenges cultural norms and expectations. His listeners would be surprised by the stories, perhaps offended by them. ‘Surely he (she) would never behave in that way!’  He is telling stories, not giving lists of do’s and don’ts; He wants us to enter into these stories, with our own failings and weaknesses, and learn His ways, hear His voice, His heart-beat for us.

The book of Acts describes Christians as followers of The Way. This is significant, since the apostle Paul refers to the ‘way of life’ in Christ Jesus (1 Cor 4.17; 2 Tim 3.10). Followers of Jesus Christ do not merely subscribe to a set of beliefs or doctrines. To follow Jesus Christ is not restricted to obedience to a set of rules and commands, whilst avoiding certain sins and errors. We follow a real person Jesus Christ in His way.

Six times in Acts we find this phrase, ‘the Way;’

Acts 9.1-2: He went to the high priest  and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way,

Acts 19.9: But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. (referring to Paul’s experience at Ephesus.)

Acts 19.23: About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. (Again referring to Paul in Ephesus.)

Acts 22.4:  I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death (of Paul’s own life.)

Acts 24.14: I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, (of Paul’s own life)

Acts 24.22: Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way,

The phrase implies a life at odds with the prevailing cultures of the day. The phrase implies an identifiable group of people; these people followed the Way and belonged to the Way. The phrase also implies a journey and a destination.

Paul’s testimony through these verses is clear; ‘I was a persecutor: now I am a follower.’

This article of derived from the Troutt Lecture Series, 2010, delivered by Michael Craven. At the time of writing, I was unable to find the original documents online.

The Lectures address a common fallacy that the call of God upon Christians is to change the world around us ‘from the culture of death to a culture of life.’

His first comment challenges our over-simplistic understanding of culture. ‘The fact is, culture is a far more complex phenomenon, especially our culture today with its extraordinary contest and synthesis of ideas, values, and worldviews.’

One current development, and Michael Craven writes from a US perspective, is the move from pluralism to polarisation, resulting in the politicisation of the process of culture change. So we change culture from our position of power rather than a position of influence. This has led to the tendency to use ‘triumph’ rather than ‘persuasion.’  We have seen this in the last three US Presidential elections. ‘Thus these efforts, which began with the goal of commending their view of the world, eventually descend into political coercion as the means of culture change.’ And he adds that political power is ‘not the means by which the Christian church, the most powerful social and cultural transforming force in history, has or should fulfil its mission and purpose.’

Michael Craven then turns to three historic developments to illustrate his point in regard to cultural engagement and influence:

• The prohibition movement;
• The abortion-on-demand movement; and
• The early Christian Church.

The prohibition movement sought to accomplish moral reform through political means. The author points out that the resultant damage far outweighed any benefits. And, I learned that, it created the only Amendment (the Eighteenth) to have been removed from the US Constitution.

The abortion-on-demand movement was part of the sexual revolution which in turn had developed from the eighteenth century Enlightenment. This gave authority to the self as against the corporate, whether the nation, or a local community.

The author comments that the ideas of Enlightenment pervaded the culture-forming institutions, such as education, media and the arts, science, etc. ‘This transfer of power within the commanding heights of culture was only made possible by the church’s retreat from these same institutions.’

The change happened over many decades culminating in the 1973 Roe v Wade decision of the US Supreme Court, which gave American women the right to abortion. As I mentioned above, and have commented in another article, Christians had largely retreated from culture-forming institutions. ‘Christians, generally speaking, no longer lead the institutions of culture, where the culture is actually formed. It is why we are losing the culture war: we’re not fighting on the right battlefield or with the right weapons.’

The final example is that of the early Church, and its success in affecting the pagan culture of the Roman Empire. In the general decadent and cruel world of the Roman Empire, infanticide (the ancient equivalent of abortion) was both legal and widespread. ‘suffice it say, for much of the world and throughout most of its history the culture of death and brutality has been the rule, and a culture of life, love and mercy has been the exception.’

Through the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ a revelation happened. ‘A new day had dawned, and those who had been drawn into this kingdom began to think and act in new ways. They would strive to live and act in obedience to their king – not their flesh and not their culture.’ Those early Christ-followers ‘didn’t publicly denounce or condemn the pagan world. Instead, they challenged the ruling powers by simply being a faithful, alternative presence – obedient to God.’

Christians fed the hungry, supported the poor, cared for the sick, and rescued abandoned children. This was simply putting into practice the ways of Jesus Christ.

‘Once imperial power was discredited by the superior life and ethic of the Christian community, the church would build upon its newfound cultural credibility and eventually ascend to the heights of cultural power and influence. And, western civilisation would become the most successful civilisation in history.’

‘if I am correct – and the history of the church bears this out – then the most effective approach to changing the culture in our day begins by being a faithful presence. Being faithfully present – obedient to God – in our families, our marriages, our neighbourhoods and communities, and our vocations, a presence woefully lacking in the American church today.’

Christ overcame the world systems by an ultimate act of love; what seemed weak was powerful. And it changed the world.