Salvation in the Postmodern Gospel
Here’s something I’ve been struggling with for months. Please pass on any thoughts you have.
For some time, I’ve been convinced that the definition of salvation that most of us were taught is just not biblical. It is based on Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, “No one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again.” And, further, it is a perversion of what Jesus’ declaration to Nicodemus meant.
Anyway…
Lately I’ve been studying Matthew. And, I’ve been trying to understand how salvation is defined in that Gospel. And, I’m not achieving a settled and peaceful understanding. The Greek word, “sozo” appears in Matthew frequently—16 times, I believe. But, never in a way that resembles the salvation I was invited to receive before I became ‘saved.’
In Matthew, Jesus says things like, “Whoever hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” His last words tell us, among other things, to go and “make DISCIPLES” of all nations…teaching them to ‘OBEY everything I have COMMANDED…” Twice Jesus makes the point that the person who will be saved is the one who will endure persecution to the end. In Matthew 16:24-25 Jesus associates salvation with radical discipleship: “24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.”
Now, I’m convinced that as we take the gospel to the emerging culture, we’re not going to reach many people by begging them to kneel at an altar while the congregation sings 27 verses of “Just As I Am.”
And, I suspect, that Matthew’s definition of salvation will resonate with the ‘lost’ in the emerging world. I’m concerned, though, that it would be too easy to see salvation in Matthew as a call to legalism. And, I can’t buy that.
Can anyone help me with this? What are your thoughts? What does it mean to be ‘saved?’
posted by bill Sloat at 8:16 AM
8 Comments:
Rob,
You are certainly correct. We limit the Gospel when we try to limit it by context.
On the other hand, there are definitions of salvation that are simply erroneous. And, people who seek salvation in a wrong way will be lost.
To provide the first absurdly extreme example that comes to mind:
The men who highjacked the planes on 911 and flew them into the towers and Pentagon did so with the very clear notion that they were earning salvation through their actions.
Here's another example. One of my relatives did go to the altar as a child. He prayed the prayer. He's now failed at two marriages and been served Protection From Abuse orders from both ex-wives. And, from what I hear, the highlight of his life now is bringing a different woman home from a bar everytime he has a day off from his job.
He thinks--no, he's convinced--he's saved. He has, he believes, "assurance of salvation."
It seems to me that our proclamation of Jesus as savior must be based in truth.
You are absolutely correct: "The message is so powerful it supercedes any cultural context." But, there still is error. As you say, "...the bottom line is that it comes from Christ." But, there's more to it than attaching the name of Jesus to any old message.
Bill,
Do you know the history of evangelicalism latching on to John 3:16? I've begun to call myself the Matthew 25 guy because Jesus clearly defines salvation through care for the most needy. Certainly, he tells a man who clearly asks, "What must I do to be saved?", to give away all that he owns (to the poor by the way) and then what? Follow me.
For me salvation is wrapped in this statement, "Follow me." Jesus still lives and moves. He asks that everyday we would follow Him, in obedience to the principles of Christianity but even more, in a subtle mysterious way that as He calls to us daily.
There is no way to be saved except through Jesus Christ, but He is moving, and you must continue to move as well.
We must though be so careful as we judge who is saved and who is not, for we might have judged Peter damned after He refused to follow Jesus in His last days.
The book of Revelation is about following Christ through the last "Shadow of the Valley of Death" kind of experiences. He promises though it will be difficult, possibly even deadly, He will not forsake us nor leave us.
But it is us who so easily forget how wonderful He is and turn to something that is more quickly satisfying.
Rob,
You ask of my relative: "Do we know for sure his heart? Does he battle these things daily?"
I don't know his heart.
Does he battle these things? I think that he understands at some level that he's not glorifying God in his life. In the past, I have confronted him about specific things he has done. And, he seems to believe he is justified in living the way he does. He lives, as Paul says, according to the 'flesh.'
And, he clings to the idea that, because he went to the altar and prayed the prayer, he is saved.
I really believe that the fractured version of the Gospel that was preached to him is a part of his problem.
I think that we often mix terms as though they were the same thing. Salvation is a big umbrella. I understand it as being all that Jesus promised. It operates under principle of sowing and reaping as Jesus describes in Matthew 25 and many other places. We are required to "do" (faith without works is dead). We do have the assurance of our salvation, it is the presence of the Holy Spirit. We cannot forget the parable of the sower and the different soils. I wonder how many in and out of the church are choked by thorns, the things of this life. At what point do those things choke the life totally out of someone - I leave to God. Yet I do believe that can happen and teach it as a warning not as a law of condemnation. When a person no longer wants to think of God, God consents Ro. 1:28. For them it would have been better had they never been born.
Salvation can be described by going through the names of God. It is wrong when we tell people if they just say a prayer they will have fire insurance. The confession of Ro. 10:10 is more than words. The new birth of John 3 is part of salvation it is not salvation as we have been taught. This is the change on the inside,the new creation of the spirit, which places us under the umbrella of salvation so we say we are saved.
There can be a great difference between salvation theologically and the salvation of everyday practice. Praise God we get to struggle through both. I know I have struggled long on this and this is only a small touch of what really is involved.
Brian,
I don't know the history of evangelicalism latching on to John 3:16. But, it's a question I've considered.
The historic Protestant 'movement' known as Pietism has always maintained that a believer must have a personal experience of Christ. And, it is out of the larger historic Pietist movement that this particular understanding of the Gospel has developed.
John Winebrenner was a part of the Pietist wing of the German Reformed Church before he left it. And, when he left the GRC, he left it for a more radical form of pietism. The CGGC is, historically, pietist. And, in a broad sense of the term, so am I.
But, the truth is that the first people labeled 'pietists' were, at the same time, both the first, 'born again' Christians and the first advocates of the 'social gospel.' They were not advocates of the, 'kneel at the altar and you are saved forever' Gospel.
I agree with you that the essense of the Christian message of salvation is closely tied to Jesus' call, "Follow me." I like your observation that Jesus is still moving.
Your statement, "We must though be so careful as we judge who is saved and who is not, for we might have judged Peter damned after He refused to follow Jesus in His last days," is challenging and it's hard for me to understand how to apply it.
It is in Matthew that Jesus commands us to watch out for false prophets and explains that it is by their fruit we will know them.
But, at the same time, you are absolutely correct. If I judged Peter after he denied Jesus, I might have reached an erroneous conclusion. Still, we have that responsibility to the Body and to individuals within it to hold others accountable for the fruit they produce
Hi Guys,
this is one of my favorite topics of discussion lately. a few months ago I heard a message called "Ten Shekels and A Shirt" based on Judges 17. By Paris Reidhead. http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=282 (I don't know how to paste in a link yet)He hit a nerve in me very hard. He mentioned the fact that humanism has become so ingrained in our faith that we, instead of serving God, serve ourselves by becoming "Christian".
His take on what has become Christianity's doctrine of salvation is nothing more than a way of being self serving. the way I translate this is like this. We accept Christ as Lord and Savior to "Save ourselves from going to hell". this is servign no one but myself. I want to be saved from Hell not serve God because I desire to serve Him.
Abram Herschel once said, "I will follow my God even if He leads me to the very gates of Hell itself, even if it's God's desire for me to spend eternity in Hell I will follow Him no matter what!"
This idea of salvation in our modern theology is non-existent. We have come to make God our lucky Rabbit's foot in order to serve ourselves. I hope that in our postmodern world we will once again be able to teach a salvation that is focused on God and not on our wants and desires.
The message that I constantly see that Jesus illumated was one of becoming like Him, like the Rabbi. A message that said come follow me, give up your life for the life that you are meant to have, turn from the ways of the world to the ways of God and anyone who hears these words of mine and obeys them will have eternal life. This is far from the self serving attitude that I have come to loath and rebuke!
A few months ago I did a man on the street interview to help with our renaming of the church campaign. one comment that stuck with me more than the thoughts on our old church name was this one. "Hey, I'm a Christian too, it sure beats going to the other place." It's as though this man was told that the Godpel Message was a choice of two destinations, heaven or hell, now which one you choose is more for your own pleasure then serving God. It's not about beign a Talmudin, but about getting the "best bang for your buck".
I think it's time we rethink our salvation message, even the thoughts on "onced saved always saved" and "Losing your salvation" Salvation is not about me, you, or anyone but God.
"As for me and my family, we will serve the Lord". I will serve him even if I don't get into heaven!
Great question!
I pretty much agree with what brian said here. I'd define salvation as being shown grace for our sins so that we are free to follow in the way of Jesus and enter into the present reality of the Kingdom of God.
I think the error many evangelical theologies have fallen into is to reduce salvation to something that pertains after we die, e.g. we're "saved" so we get to go to heaven instead of hell after we die.
In Jesus' teachings salvation is about so much more than that. It's a new way of life; it's redemption for the whole of creation; it's reconciliation and peace; it's wholeness and love; it's justice for the oppressed and mercy for sinners; it's both a present reality and a future hope.
This is not to say that questions of heaven and hell are not important, but just to say that they are but one facet of the much larger gem that is salvation.
Shalom,
-Mike Clawson
Salvation must be in terms of the answer to the following question; "Saved from what?"
Post a Comment
<< Home