It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year
Christmas—Incarnation.
In the past, with great trepidation, I have proclaimed on this blog that I do not consider myself to be an ‘evangelical.’
The reason I don’t consider myself an evangelical has to do with Christmas.
Let me explain.
The term ‘Evangelical’ was one of the nicknames given to the Protestants in the Reformation era, hence the attachment of the term 'Evangelcial' to Lutheran groups today who do not align themselves with moderate conservative twentieth century Protestants. In fact, in the middle part of the twentieth century when moderate conservative Protestants began to disdain the word ‘Fundamentalist,’ they chose ‘Evangelical, or “NEO-evangelical’ as their descriptor. Why? They wanted to proclaim themselves as the true inheritors of the spirit of the Reformation—as opposed to the Modernist/Liberals or the Neo-Orthodox or the Fundamentalists.
So, when I say that I’m not comfortable describing myself as an Evangelical what I’m saying is that I’m not entirely comfortable claiming the spirit of Luther and Zwingli and Calvin and even Arminius.
The reason for my discomfort is my conviction is that when the dust of the Reformation settled, the Reformation had disintegrated into an argument over the Doctrine of Salvation. All of that fighting artificially elevated the Doctrine of Salvation to a position of hyper-importance in Protestant thought. And, the essential balance and inter-relatedness between the Doctrines of Salvation and of Christ was lost in the shuffle.
My personal journey beyond Evangelicalism began when I was reading the Gospel of John. One day, I noticed that in John 3:16,Jesus put the verb, ‘give’ in the past tense. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus He said, “God so loved the world that he GAVE His one and only son.”
GAVE!
What a revolutionary notion for an Evangelical!
Up to that time, I thought the love of God is defined by the death of Jesus on the cross.
But, the biblical truth is that the giving of God’s Son that defines God's love was a done deal before the cross. John 3:16 refers to what began in the manger.
Later, when I was preparing for a Feetwashing service, I noticed that after He washed the disciples’ feet, Jesus said, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
That day, as I searched for fresh understanding of feet washing, I saw that Jesus was, again, speaking in the past tense. “As I have loved you…” According to Jesus, the model for our love for each other is not the love He showed on the cross. He had not gone to the cross. When Jesus said, “As I have loved you…” He was referring to His act of humiliation in washing feet, which He began when He was thinking that He had come from God (John 13:3).
As important as the cross is, Evangelicalism is too much about the cross.
In 1 Corinthians 2:2, Paul offered this description of the message he preached: “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”
Can the essence of the Gospel be summarized more succinctly of more powerfully?
There’s a magnificent balance in the New Testament’s Gospel. Paul did not say, as some seem to think, “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Christ’s crucifixion.”
No, the Gospel is ‘Christ and him crucified.’ It is God embracing human existence as a man—in the flesh—and it is His ultimate act of atonement that took place on the cross.
Too many Evangelicals think that John 3:16 and Jesus’ New Command in John 13 define Christ’s love in terms of the crucifixion. Too many Evangelicals proclaim a Gospel of Christ’s crucifixion, not the Gospel that is ‘Christ and him crucified.’
And, so for me, this is the most wonderful time of the year. It’s the time I am reminded of the essential balance in the message we have been sent to proclaim and live.
And, I am convinced that the emerging postmodern world will only embrace the Jesus who died for it when it understands that, before Jesus died for it, He also lived for it.
posted by bill Sloat at 10:24 AM
16 Comments:
Great thoughts Bill! It reminds me of what Dallas Willard says about the atonement-centered theologies of evangelicalism producing "vampire Christians who want Jesus for his blood and little else".
I like your thoughts here, Bill. I've always interpreted John 3:16 ("gave") and John 13 ("have loved") as comprehensive statements regarding the complete work of Christ -- life, death, and resurrection. I believe Evangelicals' high regard for the vicarious atonement does have scriptural merit, namely Paul's focus in 1 Cor. 1-2 on the "message of the Cross."
Is an atonement-centered theology wrong? It is if the life of Christ among fallen humanity (i.e. the Incarnation) is ignored. But Jesus himself told us that it was to our benefit that He go away, so that the Comforter/Advocate could come (John 16:7). There is a direct connection between the Crucifixion/Resurrection/Ascension of Christ and the arrival of the Holy Spirit, and thus we are able to affirm that Christ is in us and we are in Him.
I like Dallas Willard a great deal, but I suspect that some who deemphasize the atonement do so in order to label Jesus as our moral example (a la Abelard), rather than our Savior and Lord -- the "only Name."
Blessings,
Ben
Thanks, Mike.
Good thoughts, Ben. I hope you don't think I intended to, as you say, deemphasize the atonement. I spoke of the essential balance and inter-relatedness of the Doctrines of Soteriology and Christology.
The joy of this time of celebration is the call I feel to embrace all the parts of the Gospels that lead up to the accounts of the Passion and the Resurrection, which some of us seem to be tempted to think are nothing more than painfully long introductions to the beginning of the real story.
No, I don't see you deemphasizing the atonement with your article. Establishing a balance is crucial for the overall message of the Gospel, and certainly this is the season of the Church year in which to do that.
Blessings, Ben
Balance is key.
What I find interesting is that our ancient creeds tend to perpetuate this focus only on Christ's birth and death, skipping over his life. The Apostles Creed, for instance goes right from "Born of the Virgin Mary" to "Suffered under Pontius Pilate".
Perhaps you guys have seen The Jesus Creed by Brian McLaren. It focuses on our beliefs about the life and teachings of Christ and, IMHO, it makes a good "insert" between those two phrases of the Apostles Creed.
Mike, you're right about the jump from the Incarnation to the Passion in both the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds, but in practice the Church year focuses a great deal of attention on the life and teachings of Christ in the seasons of Epiphany and Lent. Unfortunately, the Church year is one of the many things thrown out with the bath water as a result of the Reformation. So because we've ditched the disciplined ebb and flow of the lectionary (based on the life of Christ), we're out of sync with the historic Church as well as with each other. Furthermore, the trend is to become more topic-oriented in our teaching and preaching, and so many of our people know very little about some of the more "obscure" passages of Scripture (which are only obscure because they don't fit our so-called "needs" and preferences).
The tension I deal with here is in bridging the gap between what my heart says I need (i.e. the spiritual formation of life in Christ) versus the demands for "relevance" in reaching an increasingly secular culture.
Ben
Mike,
Good point.
And, no. I was not familiar with The Jesus Creed.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Ben,
Re: "Unfortunately, the Church year is one of the many things thrown out with the bath water as a result of the Reformation."
Well, I don't think the Reformation is the villain in this case.
I was raised in the UCC. The week of the church year was acknowledged at the top of every bulletin. The sermons were preached from the lectionary text.
If there is a villain in the demise of the church year, it is the fact that John Winebrenner's theology was restorationist at its core. It is the radical elevation of the authority of the New Testament and the Bible in general in Winebrenner's thought that identified Scripture as our "only rule of faith and practice," that has led the cGgc to reject all that stuff.
Bill,
When I said "as a result of the Reformation," I see Winebrenner's action as part of the Reformation heritage, although it certainly is more "protestant" than "reformed"!
What do mean by "all that stuff"? Do you think that W. was correct to reject the Church year?
I appreciate your expertise in things historical, so I look forward to your response.
Blessings, Ben
Could the singularity of purpose that has come to define Christianity within Evangelical circles be a product of the modern era?
While the Christmas vs. Easter debate is interesting, doesn't it somewhat reinforce that the Bible can be summed up in one particular way? (As opposed to allowing the text to speak for itself in a variety of ways.)
Brent
Ben,
I just wanted to make the point that the Reformation traditions didn’t throw out all that much of the bath water and that the baby is still safe with them.
Re: “What do mean by "all that stuff"?”
Well, all the stuff that went along with the Restorationism: The celebration of the liturgical year, Creeds—everything that is implied with the Bible being our only rule of faith and practice.
Re: “Do you think that W. was correct to reject the Church year?”
I admit to sharing John Winebrenner’s passion for the New Testament church. And, beyond that, I’m perfectly aware of the radicalism on Winebrenner’s view of the authority of Scripture and I’m perfectly content with that. And, I lament that, as a body, we’re not as true to the spirit of his thought as we might be.
Perhaps a discussion on Winebrennerian theology might be appropriate here at some time in the future. Who knows?
Brent,
"Could the singularity of purpose that has come to define Christianity within Evangelical circles be a product of the modern era?"
Is the Pope Catholic?
Brent,
"Could the singularity of purpose that has come to define Christianity within Evangelical circles be a product of the modern era?"
Is the Pope Catholic?
ROTFLMAO!
Very well put. :)
Mike,
You sent me to Google to learn what "ROTFLMAO!" stands for - an appropriate response to Bill's answer.
Bill,
"Perhaps a discussion on Winebrennerian theology might be appropriate here at some time in the future. Who knows?"
This is a great idea. I think there are some underlying assumptions that connect the Emerging Church movement with Winebrenner's theology (at least the parts with which I am familiar).
Brent said, " I think there are some underlying assumptions that connect the Emerging Church movement with Winebrenner's theology. . .."
And, I agree!
Post a Comment
<< Home