Revising the 'Two ways to live' outline

A new draft version for your feedback

As promised, here is a proposed revision of Two ways to live (2wtl) for your comment and feedback.

Some brief words of introduction, especially for those who might not be super-familiar with 2wtl:

• The overall aim is to summarize in the shortest, most memorable form possible the key elements and logic of the NT gospel, along with any conceptual background needed to understand those key elements.

• Points 4-6 of the outline capture the core elements of the NT gospel (the death of Jesus for sins, the resurrection of Jesus as Lord and Christ, and the response that these events call for). Points 1-3 fill in the necessary background to understand the meaning of points 4-6, especially for the kind of biblically unaware hearers we most commonly encounter today (in the same sort of way as Paul does in Acts 14 and 17).

• The language used to convey the summary seeks to employ as little Christian jargon as possible—that is, it aims to convey the ideas in everyday contemporary language that a 21st century Western person could easily comprehend (e.g. ‘ruler’ instead of ‘Lord’; ‘rejection of God’ instead of ‘sin’; and ‘rely’ instead of ‘faith’; and so on).

• The aim of this revision is to sharpen and improve the summary wherever possible, while resisting the urge to add more and more good ideas in—since the overall goal is to have a simple, memorable summary, not a complete systematic theology.

Let’s get to it. (In what follows, new text in the proposed new version is shown in bold.)

---

Point 1

Current version:

God is the loving ruler of the world.

He made the world.

He made us rulers of the world under him.

(Rev 4:11)

But is that the way it is now?

New version:

God is the ruler of his world.

He made the world, for our good and his glory.

He made us to be rulers of the world under him.

(Rev 4:11)

But is that our experience now?

 

Comments:

• This first box establishes which ‘God’ we are talking about—the one true, sovereign God who created the world—and our fundamental relationship to him as creatures.

• Adding ‘his’ into the first phrase strengthens the connection between God as creator and his current sovereignty over the world.

• ‘Loving’ was inserted into the outline in one of the revisions of the late 80s, as a way of conveying that God was a good ruler and creator, not a selfish tyrant. But there was always an element of arbitrariness about choosing that one divine attribute—why not also say he was a good, righteous, faithful or holy ruler? The new version loses ‘loving’, and moves the idea of God’s goodness as creator and ruler to a new purpose phrase in the second statement —he made the world ‘for our good and his glory’ (thanks Ray Galea for that suggestion).

• Adding ‘to be’ into the third statement smooths out two kinds of clunkiness—the stylistic awkwardness of the original, and the problem of whether ‘making us rulers’ referred to an original state (now lost) or to our current status as rulers.

• The linking phrase has been changed to remove an ambiguity—is it questioning whether God is still the ruler now, or whether we are still rulers now?

---

Point 2

Current version:

We all reject the ruler—God—by trying to run life our own way without him.

But we fail to rule ourselves or society or the world.

(Rom 3:10-12)

What will God do about this rebellion?

New version:

We all reject God as our ruler by living our own way without him.

We follow our own desires, values and religions.

But we fail to rule ourselves or society or the world.

(Rom 3:10-12)

What will God will do about our rebellion against him?

Comments:

• The change to the first phrase in the first statement is stylistic; it’s just simpler and easier to memorize than ‘We all reject the ruler—God—by trying to run life our own way without him’.

• It has often been noted that when presenting 2wtl to a non-Christian religious person some extra work is required to explain how seemingly upright and religious people are rejecting God as their ruler. The major change to point 2 seeks to address this by filling out how ‘living our own way’ can play out in various ways. You could say that it addresses the romantic/hedonist (desires), the moralist/philosopher (values) and the religious person (religions). See further below in Point 6 for another change that addresses this issue.

• The linking phrase has been modified to increase the sense that our rejection of God is personal (‘against him’).

---

Point 3

Current version:

God won’t let us rebel forever.

God’s punishment for rebellion is death and judgement.

(Heb 9:27)

God’s justice sounds hard. But …

New version:

God won’t let us rebel against him forever.

God’s punishment for rebellion is death and judgement.

(Heb 9:27)

God’s justice sounds hard. But …

Comments:

• A minor change in the first phrase—adding ‘against him’ to continue the sense that our rejection of God is not just an impersonal breaking of laws but a rejection of him as God and ruler.

• We looked hard at how to describe the punishment or judgement that is due to us as rebels against God, and whether to anchor this in Heb 9:27 (as the current version does), or in 2 Thes 1:8-9 (as the very first version of 2wtl did) or somewhere else. ‘Death and judgement’ is memorable and neatly mirrors Heb 9:27, but also has some ambiguity to it—since judgement normally leads to punishment rather than being the punishment. We thought of using ‘hell’ (as in ‘death and hell’) but like ‘sin’ and ‘faith’, ‘hell’ is a religious word with a cartload of baggage in contemporary language. We considered going back to 2 Thess 1:8-9 and casting God’s punishment for disobedience as ‘eternal destruction’ (as that verse does). But it is a complicated verse, and (somewhat confusingly for the logic of the presentation) introduces Jesus as the avenging judge before we have even gotten to him as saviour. All of which is to say that we’re planning to leave it as is unless someone can come up with a brilliant alternative!

---

Point 4

Current version:

Because of his love, God sent his Son into the world: the man Jesus Christ.

Jesus always lived under God’s rule.

Yet by dying in our place he took our punishment and brought forgiveness.

(1 Pet 3:18)

But that’s not all…

New version:

Because of his love, God sent his Son into the world to save us: the man Jesus Christ.

Unlike us, Jesus always lived under God’s rule.

Yet by dying in our place he took our punishment and won us forgiveness.

(1 Pet 3:18)

But that’s not all…

Comments:

• The new phrase in the first statement ‘to save us’ introduces the theme of salvation and deliverance into the presentation. This is a key NT gospel concept that didn’t make it into the first edition of 2wtl. Introducing it here lays the groundwork for improvements in points 5 and 6 as well. Should we use the word ‘rescue’ instead of ‘save’ for this idea? I’m leaning towards ‘save’ because it works better in point 5 (see below).

• ‘Unlike us’ in the second statement ties this point back into points 2 and 3 more closely.

• Jesus ‘bringing’ forgiveness is a bit bland and impersonal; ‘won us’ forgiveness is more vivid, and emphasizes the achievement and victory of the cross (thanks Josh Russell for that suggestion).

---

Point 5

Current version:

God raised Jesus to life again as the ruler of the world.

Jesus has conquered death, now gives new life, and will return to judge.

(1 Pet 1:3)

Well, where does that leave us?

New version:

God raised Jesus to life again as the ruler of the world.

Jesus has conquered death, now gives us new life, and will return to judge and to save.

(1 Pet 1:3)

Well, where does that leave us?

Comments:

• Adding ‘us’ into the third statement connects the new life that Jesus brings to us more personally.

• Adding ‘save’ into what Jesus will return to do adds a gospel element that is missing in the current version—a sense that the gospel is a message about a ‘living hope’ (as in 1 Pet 1:3) of salvation, and not just about the present. Does it work?

---

Point 6

Current version:

The two ways to live

A. Our way:

Reject the ruler—God

Try to run life our own way

Result:

Condemned by God

Facing death and judgement

B. God’s new way:

Submit to Jesus as our ruler

Rely on Jesus’ death and resurrection

Result:

Forgiven by God

Given eternal life

(John 3:36)

Which of these represents the way you want to live?

New version:

There are only two ways to live:

A. Our way:

Reject Jesus as our saviour and ruler

Keep living our own way

Condemned by God

Facing death and judgement

B. God’s new way:

Rely on Jesus alone to save us

Submit to Jesus as our ruler

Forgiven by God

Given a new life that lasts forever

(John 3:36)

Which of these represents the way you want to live?

Comments:

• There are some stylistic changes here—e.g. ‘There are only…’ in the first line, and the removal of the ‘Result’ language.

• But there are some more significant changes as well. The new version ‘updates’ our rejection of God (in point 2) to be a rejection now of Jesus as God’s appointed ruler and saviour. This places the focus firmly on people’s response to Jesus himself, as both Lord (or Christ) and saviour (and ties in nicely to John 3:36). Introducing the idea of rejecting Jesus as saviour also reinforces the problem of the religious person, who might be willing to accept Jesus as a teacher or even as a Lord, but thinks that religious practice is the path to salvation.

• The salvation theme comes out again in the revised Way B, with ‘relying on Jesus alone to save us’. There’s also a change in order here—with faith (or ‘relying’) coming before repentance (or ‘submitting’). This is a tricky one, and there are good arguments both ways (i.e., whether to put repentance first or faith). The main reason for the revised order is that it matches the logic of the presentation (Jesus as saviour in point 4 and ruler in point 5).

• The other significant change in point 6 concerns the drawings that accompany it. Having pushed back against Sam Chan’s critique of 2wtl in my last post, I have to say that he is completely correct to question why the ‘world’ disappears in the diagram for point 6. I’m 95% sure it was a graphic design decision, not a theological one! But (as Sam quite rightly points out) it has the unfortunate effect of implying that the new life in Christ has no connection with the created world. So we’re planning to rework the Point 6 diagram accordingly, perhaps like this:

---

Well there you go. I look forward to hearing your feedback!

Perhaps the most efficient way to give feedback is via the comment thread on the website—so you can see if someone else has already made the comment you were going to give (in which case you can ‘like’ their comment rather than repeating it). Just hit ‘Like or comment’ at the end of the email to go straight to the comment section on the website.