SERMON: ACTS 17:16-34

INTRODUCTION
Few of us, I guess, have spoken to First-Century Greek philosophers. If you have,
let me know! What possible connection is there between First-Century Athens and
Twenty-First Century Britain? Actually, I think there are similarities, and I want to
discuss two.

PARALLELS
FIRST
The idolatry Paul encountered is not so different today. On entering Athens, Paul
was deeply distressed to see that the city was full of idols. These were the
statues of the state-religion, which were greatly esteemed, because they
represented the gods. And they'd even built an altar "To An Unknown God", to
make sure they hadnt missed one out! 1 Now, is this really so foreign to us?
Today there's a widespread interest in astrology - TV - radio - virtually every
newspaper. I know people say its not serious, but why is it such big business?
Then there's the New Age (a catch-all for countless man-made religions), with a
tremendous market. Go into any book-shop - therell be a section called 'New
Age/Mind, Body, Spirit,' and youll find as many gods as titles! Todays idolatry is
not really so different.
SECOND
There was a marked resistance to the Gospel because of background beliefs . At
the end of his address to the Areopagus (a council on moral/religious teachings),
Paul mentioned Jesus Resurrection. Interestingly, it says: When they heard of the
resurrection of the dead, some scoffed 2 Why? Because the Greeks believed
everything of this world - all matter - was evil. So, for anyone to say a divine
person had returned from the dead bodily, was ridiculous. Death meant escaping
the body, not return. So background beliefs were central to their rejection of
Jesus.
And its true today. The difference is the beliefs have changed. People still scoff at
the Resurrection, but for completely different reasons! Today they say: It breaks
the laws of science. We must realise that huge numbers of people resist
Christianity because their background beliefs undercut what we say. The German
theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, described it like this: the worldhas come of
age. 3 Science and technology have advanced so dramatically, that many people
1

Acts 17:23

Acts 17:32

Bonhoeffer, 114

no longer [have] any need for God as a working hypothesis. 4 If, as people
imagine, we can explain the world without God, why keep Him? Once weve
realised thats where many people stand, talk of resurrection and judgement can
only seem quaint!
But theres more. Increasingly, were moving from the modern world into whats
being called the post-modern world, where belief in truth itself is questioned.
Many no longer see truth as something fixed; its simply what we, as individuals
and as communities, make it to be. 5 So now, when we preach Jesus as Lord of all,
were likely to be called intolerant and bigoted. The power of background beliefs
is enormous. We ignore them at our peril.

THE GOSPEL?
So how can we communicate this Gospel? We can learn from Pauls success and
failure.
SUCCESS
First, Paul doesnt condemn; he gets alongside people. He applauds when theres
something good in their culture. When he says, In him we live and move and have
our being, 6 hes quoting their poets. And when he says, "I see how extremely
religious you are, 7 hes finding good even in their religious life. Secondly, he
looks for common ground. He sees this altar "To An Unknown God," and
recognises an opportunity for the Gospel.
When I lived in London, I met someone whos always doing this. He has a ministry
to New Agers. First, he makes friends, then finds points of agreement. So, if
someone says: I believe in Scientology, because there's more to life than meets
the eye, hell see that as an opportunity, and say: Yes, there is more to life. I
agree. But it's this: God is real and loves you.
But to do this effectively, we must recognise that God is already at work in
peoples lives. The Catholic theologian Karl Rahner called this grace, or Gods
self-communication. 8 God gives everyone some unconscious awareness of
Himself . Grace always surrounds [everyone] even the sinner and the
unbeliever 9 - even if theyre unaware of it. Now, if thats true, it gives us great
hope. It means that even within New-Age mumbo-jumbo, a person can be
4

Ibid., 121

Groothuis, 20

Acts 17:28

Acts 17:22

Rahner, Theological Investigations, ch. IV, in McCool, 178

Ibid., in McCool, 183

expressing some immediate feeling 10 of God. And we can work with that! It
doesnt mean we approve of their beliefs; but it does mean we cant say: Oh,
what rubbish! and upset their feelings. Rather, we agree with them - where we
can - and gently move forward.
FAILURE?
But what about background beliefs? I suggest, tentatively, that Paul demonstrates
how not to do it! After befriending them, and finding common ground, he quickly
starts to correct them. Some were Stoic philosophers. They believed God and
Nature were the same. So Paul corrects them:
The God who made the world and everything in it 11
Some were Epicurean philosophers, who thought the gods didnt care about
people. Paul says, No:
[God] is not far from each one of us. 12
He corrects their views. And then it says:
some of them joined [Paul] and became believers 13
In other words, not many. Why? Was it because he didnt sufficiently engage with
those background beliefs? Perhaps jumping in and correcting people too quickly
isnt a good idea. (Im not criticising Paul. Doubtless he did what was necessary
in those circumstances.) But maybe theres another way.
Another way was suggested by Paul Tillich, an influential Twentieth-Century
theologian. He called his approach correlation. 14 Instead of bombarding people
with doctrine, perhaps start from where they are, and find out whats important to
them. Everyone has thoughts, feelings and questions that touch on the fundamental
things of life. Who am I? Do I mean anything? Whats death? Once we know
peoples ultimate concern, then we can look to the Gospel afresh, both for
answers, but also with new eyes.
When I became a Christian, my concern wasnt sin; but meaning and purpose.
And, thank God, my evangelists understood this! They looked into the Gospel and
found answers for me. I had meaning because God loved me, and a purpose
because God had plans for me.
10

Schleiermacher, 36

11

Acts 17:24

12

Acts 17:27

13

Acts 17:34

14

Tillich, The Problem of Theological Method, 7, The Method of Correlation, in

Taylor, 138-141.

CONCLUSION
We will see idolatry and, like Paul, we should be distressed. But we should also
see it as opportunity, look beyond the facade, and recognise the active presence of
God. Then we must take time to discover what makes people tick, and see how the
Gospel can speak into their lives.
One final thought. Theory is fine, but at the end of the day, we have to do it. And
people will ridicule us too. Paul knew theyd laugh, but didnt shrink from the
task. And if we truly love people, neither will we.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Letters and Papers from Prison, (Collins/Fontana: London, 1969)
Groothuis, Douglas R., Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of
Postmodernism, (IVP: Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000)
McCool, Gerald A., A Rahner Reader, (Darton, Longman & Todd: London, 1975)
Schleiermacher, Friedrich, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, tr. John
Oman, (Westminster/John Knox: Louisville, Kentucky, 1994)
Taylor, Mark Kline, Paul Tillich: Theologian of the Boundaries, (Collins: London, 1987)
OTHER RESOURCES
Berry, George Ricker, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, (Broadman: Nashville,
Tennessee, 1985)
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha, tr. Bruce
Metzger, (OUP: New York, 1989)