Gospel Definitions: What is the Gospel?
It seems that it has been popular in the blog world in recent months to discuss definitions of the gospel. Some have said that we've made the gospel too small. Others have worried that our definitions have gotten too big. Some will give a one sentence definition, others require several paragraphs.
So who here wants to step up? What is the gospel?
Labels: gospel
posted by Dan Masshardt at 2:27 PM
19 Comments:
I’m not going to “lay down” my own take on the gospel in a precise way here, because when I do/say stuff like that, I have a bad habit of shutting down conversation, rather than opening it up. But if anyone is interested in this conversation, here are my thoughts to make our wheels turn a bit…
First, in the Gospels, Jesus’ message seems to be about what is available now, and what we should do now, whereas in the modern church the message seems more about how to get in on the offer of what comes later. How do we reconciles this?
Second, Jesus picks up on the cultural conversation among the Jewish people of his day regarding the Kingdom of God and speaks continually about the Kingdom, but in a way that undermines or reshapes the ideas various religious groups had about the Kingdom (what it was, how it would come, when it would come). Even in Acts, the description of what was preached by the early apostles is several times referred to as “the message about the Kingdom of God”. What are we to make of the fact that the modern church has largely ignored Jesus’ concept of the Kingdom?
Third, while modern gospels tend to be informational and to ask for a response of believing the true information (about God, about man), Jesus’ use of parable suggests that the primary need of human beings might be less an assent to true information and more an awakening to deeper realities. He tells stories he doesn’t explain, and when his friends ask him why not, he says it’s because people are looking but not seeing, listening but not perceiving. As McLaren puts it, you wouldn’t have to tell any stories to communicate our modern gospels—they’re straightforward information. Is it possible that while we say to people, “You need to believe in Jesus,” we are failing to invite people to awaken? Can you picture Jesus, instead of speaking the parables of Matthew 13, saying, “Well here’s the things folks—in not too long I’m going to go to Jerusalem and die for your sins, and the important thing for you to do at that point is make sure that you’ve prayed to trust me as your Savior so that you can get into heaven when it’s your turn to die”? Instead, he says, “The Kingdom of God is like a treasure hidden in a field…”
Several recent thinkers have raised the question of whether our “Gospel about Jesus” has lost track of the “Gospel of Jesus” (the message he himself preached). It’s a good question.
I will recommend and insightful book for those who want to ponder the meaning of the gospel: The Challenge of Jesus by N.T. Wright. Wright sets Jesus’ message of the kingdom in its historical and cultural context.
For what it’s worth, it bothers me deeply that while several good thinkers are raising and writing about questions related to the nature of the Gospel, our CGGC denominational staff/leaders don’t seem to even be aware there’s a question that needs to be wrestled with here. But if contemporary evangelicalism has the gospel wrong, even to some extent (and I contend such is the case), I’d say we should be thinking about that.
i have a lot of thoughts on this, but my first instinct to go back to the Bible and try to put together the "gospel nuggets" or summaries that are scattered throughout the Bible, especially the NT. some examples being John 3:16, Rom. 5:8-11, 1 Cor. 15:3-4, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Pet. 3:18, and 1 John 4:9-10.
there are many more, but the basic elements i see are this: Christ's finished work on the cross is our (the believer's) grounds for righteousness before God (justification) and our freedom from the wrath of God (propitiation) so that we may enjoy being with God (reconciliation) for all eternity, now and forever more. we see elsewhere that the idea of adopted sonship through Christ is also an aspect of the gospel (Rom. 8:14-17, Gal. 4:5-6, Eph. 1:15). this is all through faith in Christ (ubiq.) and is begun by the new birth (regeneration) (John 3, Eze. 36 "new heart", Tit. 3:5), which i think is a doctrine that we've really lost in the West.
anyway, the point i think is that the heart of the gospel is about us and God: our purpose as worshipers of Him, our separation from Him, the solution to that problem and our reconciliation to Him. thoughts?
Perhaps some understanding of the gospel can come from the historic roots. Euangelion was first used to describe a message of victory. Connect this meaning to a decree in 9AD proclaiming the birthday of Augustus Caesar the beginning of the civil year because his birth signaled "the beginning for the world of glad tidings that have come to the world through him".
We know that didn't happen but we know that the birth of Jesus was a message of victory. So in part the gospel is the story of Jesus announced as promise in Eden and demonstrated in the flesh in Jesus.
just a thought i had today: perhaps our presentations of the gospel have focused too much on what we're saved from and not enough on what we're saved to. does that make sense to anyone else?
God made a good world - a world where he is king. A world of justice, righteousness and peace.
It is evident that we do not live in such a world. People have rejected God as king and set up our autonomy - and the results are disastrous.
God's revelation is that he has not given up on his creation. Jesus came announcing good news. Preaching about 'The Kingdom of God.' God's righteous and just rule established again.
Jesus inaugurated this kingdom in his death and resurrection, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit empowers us to live now in light of this kingdom until Jesus returns to establish the kingdom of God in the ultimate act of restoration (re-creation).
Because we have rejected God's kingship in light of our idolatry (sin), we are in need of redemption. Jesus died for our sin, and rose again that we might be reconciled to him when we turn from our sin, receive forgiveness. We are then empowered by God the Holy Spirit to work and live in light of the present and coming kingdom.
There's a quick attempt - I'm sure there are flaws in language. I believe that the gospel must encompass The already/not yet kingdom AND our means to join it.
Blogger Scot McKnight posted on his Jesus Creed blog today two different gospel formulations he sees most often.
The first:
"The gospel is not a call to follow Christ's example or his teachings. It is not a proclamation of his kingly reign. It is not an invitation to enter the Church. It does not include a promise of his return. These are all aspects of Christian teaching. But the Gospel, very specifically, is the starting point that prepares for the teaching. The gospel is the good news that Jesus came to save us from our sins by dying on the cross and rising from the dead."
The second: from N.T. Wright:
My proposal has been that 'the gospel' is not, for Paul, a message about 'how one gets saved', in an individual and ahistorical sense. It is a fourfold announcement about Jesus:
1. In Jesus of Nazareth, specifically in his cross, the decisive victory has been won over all the powers of evil, including sin and death themselves.
2. In Jesus' resurrection the New Age has dawned, inaugurating the long-awaited time when the prophecies would be fulfilled, when Israel's exile would be over, and the whole world would be addressed by the one creator God.
3. The crucified and risen Jesus was, all along, Israel's Messiah, her representative king.
4. Jesus was therefore also the Lord, the true king of the world, the one at whose name every knee would bow.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/03/which-gospel-do-you-choose.html
This has hit me fresh recently. The gospel is, “Repent, forgiveness of sins is available through Jesus Christ, and His Spirit will live in you.” John the Baptist preached, “Repent, and look to Jesus, and he will baptize you with fire.” Jesus preached, “Repent, and follow me.”(Matt 3:2,11; Matt 4:17,19 )
Jesus said all of Scripture was about Himself, the Christ, and that the message His disciples were to preach was, “repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name, and you will receive power from on high.” (Luke 24:44-47)
The Great Commission is the baptism of repentance in the name of the triune God and He will be with us. (Matt 28:18-20)
Then at Pentecost, Peter preached, “Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
The gospel is a call to action. We are to repent of our sins, find forgiveness in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and be empowered by the Holy Spirit to live and spread the gospel.
May I put a trinitarian spin on it? Repentance before the Holy Father, forgiveness in the perfect Son, empowerment by the Holy Spirit.
The bad news, we are sinners condemned to hell, the good news or gospel, we can repent and be forgiven of our sins and find new life now and forever.
This is the gospel.
Walt,
I want to give you a few more Scripture nuggets and tell me how they fit into your gospel definition.
14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. -- Matthew 6:14-15
Matthew 25 - The Sheep and the Goats
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." -- Mark 10
one thing that i think has confused conversations like this is the scope that we talk about when we say "gospel". these are the scopes i can see, which are cumulative:
0: the background- the context in which 1 makes sense. this is the background of God as Creator, the fall and human depravity, the need of a savior. this could be included in 1.
1: the good news of Jesus- the news of Christ's finish work on the cross for sinners sake, and His victorious resurrection three days later. this is all about God's love, the propitiation of His wrath, His victory of sin, satan and death, etc.
2: our personal response- add in our direct response to the gospel (scope 1). this includes repentance of sin, faith in Christ, etc.
3: the new life in Christ- add in our new life that is a result of 1&2. this is the new life lived out of 1, the continuing of 2, and the new attitudes and good works and general sanctification that come from them both. i think this is most of where the "Kingdom" stuff gets played out.
i think most of us think of "gospel" in scope 2: the background, the work of Christ, and a call to respond in repentance and faith. perhaps the reason why some who are more Kingdom-minded get frustrated with others is because they have a larger scope? just a thought.
dan m.,
i think your comment about mcknight's post is mainly scope 1, though 2 different approaches to it. in either case, it's all about Jesus, not about us individually, right?
andrew,
i think most of what you're saying is a) what a lot of us (in general) need to hear, because we in the west seem to forget about the repentance part a lot; and b) that we need to respond (2) to Christ's forgiveness (1) and then live that out through the power of the Spirit (3). am i reading you right?
brian,
this is probably unnecessary, but just so that i'm not making assumptions: my first response is to emphasize sola fide, because that sounds like what you're arguing.
assuming that we agree on salvation by faith alone and not by works, the next thing that comes to mind is a quote from calvin: "faith alone saves, but faith that saves is never alone." this is the scope 3 that i was talking about. that once you've got the message of Christ's work, and you've been regenerated and have and are repenting and trusting Christ (past and present tense), then we live out of that, which means acting out Matthew 25, Isaiah 58, etc.
i think Matt. 6:14-15, when taken in the context of Scripture, means that God won't forgive you if you're not forgiving, which you won't be unless the Holy Spirit regenerates you by faith. the same applies to Matt. 25, that we are not saved by our works but that our faith naturally comes out through works as fruit. Mark 10:17f is about the young ruler's idolatry, his love of wealth over his love of God, which again shows his lack of faith.
does that makes sense? does the whole scope thing help clear up stuff?
Walt,
This idea of scopes is interesting. Is this your idea or has somebody developed this? I'd be curious to read more about it.
Within your scopes, you refer to scope 1 as "the gospel." I would have to reflect on your definitions and make sure I'm understanding what you mean by scope, but if I understand, then I would define the whole scope (0 to 3) as "the gospel."
And I would put it all in the context that God is reconciling to Himself, the redemption of all things, through His Son Jesus Christ.
The Good News isn't just hell or heaven, sin or freedom from sin,... the Good News is the reestablishment/renewal of the Kingdom of God, where there will be no more tears, no more sickness, the lion will lie down with the lamb, ... Hell will be for those who choose not to live in the Kingdom (Matthew 25 is an understanding of the Gospel, not a how to live in the Kingdom. Mark 10 would be another example as the man refuses to give up his riches and follow Christ.)
Christ made himself last and died on the cross to free us from our sins, but then was raised to first, king of the coming Kingdom. We must accept Him as last and as first. We must accept His forgiveness and then follow Him.
For me, the Gospel has been mostly in the realm of His forgiveness. That is why discipleship has fallen to the way side.
Good stuff Walt. Thanks for the conversation.
walt, you said
i think most of what you're saying is a) what a lot of us (in general) need to hear, because we in the west seem to forget about the repentance part a lot; and b) that we need to respond (2) to Christ's forgiveness (1) and then live that out through the power of the Spirit (3). am i reading you right?
--------
Yes Walt, you're reading me. My concern is that a lot of this conversation is focusing on the implications and results of the gospel rather than on the gospel message itself.
The gospel literally, is the good news. What is this good news? For the answer I looked to the Gospels. The four messages of good news in the Scriptures. In particular I wanted to look at the words of Jesus. How did He articulate the good news?
I've found a basic three fold message. We can explore the three fold message deeper. We can expand our understanding of the message, its place in history and its implications, but the basic three fold message remains at the heart.
Is it difficult for us to think about the essence of the gospel compared to the implications of the gospel?
Sometimes we try to boil it down to minimums. Others make it so big that it is difficult to define at all.
Here's a question: How much of the good news is an announcement and how much is an invitation.
It seems like we've reduced the 'kingdom of God' merely to the mass of individuals who have responded to the gospel message.
I believe that the gospel is good news objectively. Our individual part in it becomes secondary to what God has done in Jesus Christ.
brian,
i would imagine i'm not the first to think of speaking of different scopes of the gospel, but the bit i wrote is my own thinking.
the basic idea i'm presenting is a series of concentric circles (engineering major, bear with me). the background (scope 0) is necessary to understand why the gospel is good news. scope 1 is the part that is actually news: it's what God did on our behalf. scope 2 expands to encompass our direct response to that news (faith, repentance, etc.), and then scope 3 adds in the some-what indirect response, which is the transformation of all aspects of life.
i don't think you can actually separate these pieces from each other: news without a response isn't worth much, and if you're life isn't transformed, then you haven't really experienced the power of God (cf. Matt. 7). the idea of scopes is for talking about the pieces of the gospel, and for clarifying what we mean. when some say the gospel, they only mean the news of Christ's work (scope 1), while others mean the whole of transformed life in light of that news (scope 3), and this often leads to frustration or confusion, so i came up with these scopes to help clear up some of that.
so yes, brian, in on sense it's all the gospel, but for the purposes of discussion, it's sometimes useful to limit the scope of what we're talking about.
andrew,
i'm glad for your passion to pull us back to the Scripture's examples of the gospel message. one of the things i love is that Biblically the message is the same at heart, but with very different words. matthew speaks much of the kingdom of God or of heaven, while john is all about eternal life, and paul focuses on the "theological terms" like justification. it's all the same message at the core, but expressed in different verbage. contextualization from the start, one could argue. something to think on.
dan m.,
i want to think a bit more before i respond much, but the questions your asking is the main reason i came up with the scope thing: so that we can have a way of conversing between those with a "big" gospel and those with a "small" one. more to come.
God bless you, brothers, and may His gospel go out through you.
The blog has gone a bit silent… thought I’d throw out what I really think about the gospel at this point. Brian’s been barking up this tree, and I think I’ll elaborate a bit.
The most elemental question for me is the question of what Jesus thought needed to be said when he came. Jesus is the Word made flesh, so whatever later elaborations of the gospel we may have among his followers, after his death and resurrection, these must not be seen as supplanting Jesus’ own message, but rather further explaining it or making it more accessible. And Jesus’ message was simply that the Kingdom was near (variously “at hand”, “among you”, “within you”). His admonition to “repent” is not the good news, but the response the news calls for.
As N.T. Wright and others have aptly insisted, what it means that the “kingdom is near” must be understood in the context of the various views of the Kingdom of God (and how it would come) which were prevalent in second temple Judaism. While the prevalent Jewish views at the time envisioned the restoration of a theocracy-style religious/political Kingdom (as under David at it’s peak), Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God as an already-present reality to be discovered (a treasure hidden in a field—find it and it changes everything). The Kingdom of God, in Jesus’ teaching, has two dominant characteristics: On the one hand it is a source of life and strength and joy TO LIVE FROM(“in his great joy he went and sold all he had, and bought the field”), but on the other hand the Kingdom represents THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE in God’s world, the way they one day will be, and the way God invites us to help them become (“May your kingdom come and your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”).
It is also interesting to ponder Dallas Willard’s insight that “kingdom of heaven” is almost always plural in the Gospels, as in “the kingdom of the heavens”. You can read his elaboration of this in The Divine Conspiracy, but showing the phrase’s similarity to other N.T. passages, he concludes that the jist of this may be rendered, “the kingdom which surrounds us” (as opposed to the kingdom far away “in heaven”). If this is accurate, the implication of Jesus’ words in Matthew 4 (“the kingdom of the heavens is near”) is that the Kingdom (in reality and possibility) is as close as our next breath at all times.
This is the good news Jesus announced: that the Kingdom (encompassing all we need and all God wants to restore) is present and available now. Of course this does not mean that all will be restored right now, but that the possibility of restoration, and the invitation to be a part of restoration, await us right now. Brian referenced the rich young ruler—he cannot have the life of the Kingdom without letting go of the “life” he already clings to. Jesus is clear that those who help inaugurate the Kingdom now will have a place in the Kingdom when it comes in its fullness (Matthew 25—feed the poor, visit the sick and lonely, clothe the naked).
At it’s core, though, the good news is not even a message about how things can be or should be—the good news is God himself: God who is good, God who is near. Paul got it, and even Epimenides, whom he quotes, got it: “In him we live and move and have our being.” God is all around us at all times, available to us, prepared to give us Himself, and inviting us to be restored to goodness and help Him spread the same in His world. Even today, people almost always feel God is far away, and that they cannot see Him as they wish—in fact many are willfully blind to Him… but the kingdom is near. Therefore the reality of the God who surrounds us is not something we merely need information about, so that we may believe the proper things, nor do we merely need to turn from wrong acts so that God is no longer displeased with us—our deep need is to AWAKEN. Jesus knew this (“they are ever seeing, but never perceiving, always hearing, but never understanding”). This is why poetic theologians like McDonald and Lewis and Buechner and Nouwen are dead-on when they compare coming alive to God with awakening from a spell (as in the fairy tales). It's why Jesus used parables he refused to explain. You wouldn't need any parables to help people get the gospel preached by most evangelicals today.
It is my contention that all else we describe as the gospel, or parts of the gospel, fit inside of Jesus’ message about the Kingdom, rather than replacing it with a different message after his death and resurrection. This seems clear from the fact that in Acts we repeatedly hear that the apostles were preaching “the good news of the kingdom of God”. The death and resurrection of Jesus are good news in so many ways for us as human beings, and all of those ways fit within the good news that the good God is near and is restoring all things. In his death he redeems us and wipes clean the slate of mankind—all obstacles to our entering the kingdom have been done away, as Paul says, “he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves”. He has also, in his death, shown us the nature of the kingdom, that it’s streets are paved with love that serves, that absorbs offense, and which defeats evil not with retaliation, but with sacrificial goodness. In his resurrection, he invites us to come and truly live, and reminds us that there is no power in the universe which can kill the life of God. As Bonhoeffer wrote, “The joy of God has passed through the poverty of the manger and the torment of the cross; and so it is unconquerable, irrefutable.”
So indeed we must preach the death and resurrection of Jesus, but we have sold the Cross and the empty tomb short when we describe what they bring to us only in terms of forgiveness of sins and a secure place in heaven—not to diminish these, to be sure—but forgiveness is the good God cleansing us that we might step into his Kingdom, and “heaven” (or really, life in the new earth) is where the journey of restoration to goodness takes us. In the victory of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Jesus’ own message comes through powerfully: The kingdom of the heavens is near… what you need is available… the possibility of restoration for everyone and everything is on the table. Think of how Paul expresses it: “Nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus.”
I am convinced that modern evangelicalism has supplanted Jesus’ original message with a message that is limited to justification and going to heaven—most of the time when I hear Christians (and preachers) talk about the gospel, it feels removed from questions of being, distant from the human heart and from the God Jesus showed us, for whom the heart is the primary concern. One of the consequences of this is that while many in western culture wish they could find LIFE in the present, they mostly hear the church saying how they can get off God’s bad list and make the cut later. They do not hear us preaching that God is near, and available, and wanting them to join his grand restoration enterprise. When we understand what Jesus preached and lived and held out to men and women, we will see that the messages of forgiveness and of eternity with God are in fact parts of the larger, primary message. Perhaps the greatest slight-of-hand in modern theology is how we took Jesus' phrase "eternal life", by which he almost always meant the life we need and were made for NOW, and couched it always as a reference to the afterlife.
If Jesus had written his gospel on a banner and hung it up for us to read and understand, we seem to have made a banner of our own and covered his with it. Ironically, our banner is all about Jesus—what he has done on the Cross and what it can get us—but his original message does not come through. What we should have done, in the wake of his death and resurrection, is taken the banner he had already written and hung it from the Cross and over the entrance to that garden tomb. We need to understand the message Jesus proclaimed, let it soak deeply into our souls, follow it with our lives... then make it our message, too.
If we rush past the words of Jesus to detailed explanations about what his death and resurrection accomplished and how to apprehend their benefits, we will miss the forest for the trees.
Incidentally, Wright contends (in The Challenge of Jesus) that in the context of Jesus’ preaching, “repent” signified not only turning from sin, but the replacing of one’s agenda, what one has been living for, with the agenda of God. Heard this way, we might render Jesus’ message this way: “Change what you’re living for, because the kingdom of the heavens is near.”
ah, what a great discussion.
I think that most of us here would agree that we (Evangelical churches)have too often been guilty of offering 'fire insurance' or a ticket to heaven.
That was a good thought-provoking post Fran. During the first part though, I couldn't help resisting a little bit. If the problem is really that we need to be awakened awakened to the fact that all at we need is available now, couldn't God have send a prophet for that message and not Jesus.
The path of enlightenment is the way of the Eastern religions. Our problem is not a lack of awareness of spiritual reality - it's our will and ability to live in light of it. We simply can't do it! The prophet Micah can tell us that what God really desires is justice, mercy and humility, but it is to no avail.
We need saving! We need to be born again, be given a new heart, a new creation. The death and resurrection of Jesus open up that reality.
Only then can we live in light of the kingdom of God.
Thanks for the response, Dan. You may be misunderstanding me, though. I’m not dismissing Jesus redemptive work one bit (which no mere prophet could have done). But we have a tendency to skip past what Jesus himself said, which keeps us from placing our understanding of what was accomplished in his death and resurrection within the context and theme of his own proclamation. For the most part, I do not hear Christians proclaiming a message synonymous with that of Jesus—are we to conclude that Jesus did not have the primary message right, the message he himself called the “good news”?
On the question of awakening, you wrote,:
“The path of enlightenment is the way of the Eastern religions. Our problem is not a lack of awareness of spiritual reality - it's our will and ability to live in light of it. We simply can't do it! The prophet Micah can tell us that what God really desires is justice, mercy and humility, but it is to no avail.
We need saving! We need to be born again, be given a new heart, a new creation. The death and resurrection of Jesus open up that reality.”
Thoughts:
1. Just because people who aren’t Christians have figured out that we need awakening does not make it untrue. I would suggest that someone like Gandhi was quite awake, and he ironically concluded while reading the words of Jesus that most who called themselves “Christians” were not.
2. There is a difference between essential spiritual awakening and the highly complex Eastern concepts and levels of enlightenment. I am not advocating some esoteric concept of enlightenment.
3. If our problem is not blindness and our need is not for awakening, you need an alternate explanation for Jesus speaking in parables so much. Paul’s prayers for us in his letters are largely that we would have “sight”, that we would perceive that which we are currently not perceiving. I am not suggesting that we do not need the redemption wrought by God in Jesus—on the contrary!—but rather that this redemption avails us little apart from awakening… even that our conversations about redemption apart from conversations about seeing and being become more mechanical than spiritual.
4. Of course we need saving—but we need to think deeply about the idea of being born again. Keep in mind that Jesus’ words to Nicodemus could not be based on any knowledge on Nicodemus’ part about the redemption Jesus’ would bring in his death and resurrection. Of course, Jesus death and resurrection had benefits for Nicodemus, as they do for all people who have ever lived or will live. But in the context of their conversation, Jesus seemed to be suggesting that Nicodemus needed to set aside what he’d known and start over in a whole new way of seeing and being.
5. With you, I believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus open up to us the possibility of a new heart, of becoming new creatures, but our embrace of Jesus’ death and resurrection are to lead us right back to what Jesus himself said this journey is about, and instead it has led us into proclaiming messages not synonymous with his. In my book, that’s a problem.
6. Your response suggests that only after we have an evangelical-style born again experience can we live in light of the Kingdom of God. I understand what you are saying, that until change happens, we can’t live the new life, and I think as you mean this, I agree. What I’m suggesting is that in Jesus’ message about the Kingdom there is something that is supposed to be primary to our message. The kingdom is not just an issue “once we get on the journey”—Jesus proclaimed it a priori, and it was the first thing the disciples were to announce when they entered a village (“The kingdom of God is near!”).
I would humbly suggest that to get this right, we will need to first make sure (each of us) that we have devoured and wrestled with Jesus own words in the Gospels over and over until we are sure we are hearing his message fairly well. Then, and only then, will we be ready to take the words of the epistles and ask how they fit in with what the Word of Life Himself said to us.
Brothers, if my perspective seems unique, or odd, I apologize. I am not trying to be a pain in the ass or a heretic. Just about three years ago I decided to read only the Gospels for one year. What I found was that Jesus said things which ran counter to some of my evangelical theology, and that his message did not “sound like” what we usually proclaim as “the gospel”. The tension between Jesus’ message and ours is worth both noting and wrestling with.
fran,
i would find it hard to really disagree with anything you're saying. i very much agree that evangelicalism has often limited the gospel to positional justification, which we do need to retain, but is only one aspect of it.
i love most when you said: "At it’s core, though, the good news is not even a message about how things can be or should be—the good news is God himself: God who is good, God who is near."
this is the thing to keep at the forefront, in my mind. i don't want to talk about the kingdom unless we're focused on the King, because in my mind the kingdom is, at its most basic, where the rule of the King is, where His subjects are acting in obedience to Him, following Him. the kingdom is all about the King, enjoying Him, and letting our love of God overflow in love of others, the Matt. 25 type deeds. to quote a movie from my childhood, "i wanna be like you. i wanna walk like you, talk like you, too." and so our joy in God, our desire to act like our Father (natural to a son, even though adopted), works itself out in loving others and so-called kingdom work.
when you've found something that you enjoy deeply, you want others to know about it and experience that same joy. so when we find Jesus, and Him our most satisfying, most joy-filling Treasure, than we want to share the good news that "He is not far of from each of us" (Acts 17). as has been mentioned, the Matthew 13 parables point this out brilliantly, that it is "in his joy" that a man sells all he has to possess this treasure, and in the same joy another man trades all he has for a pearl, his true treasure. we ought to find joy like this in God, our true Treasure of infinite worth.
the other big thing that i will harp on again is that the awakening we seem to have misunderstood, the reality of a new heart and new birth which we've buried under worldly decisionism, is the truth of regeneration. regeneration is huge, and we've hidden it under the un-Biblical "ask Jesus into your heart" mentality. i stand with paul washer on this one, and this is something that we need to repent of.
Good stuff guys. Fran I appreciated what you had to say. I certainly had no thought of heresy.
I think (hope) that we are moving toward a synthesis of thought.
Because we are all still thinking through these things, we need each other.
We also can't help but responding to past (and current) abuses of the Gospel.
Here's a question/thought: I wonder how much the communication of the gospel changes in who it's communicated to?
If much of Jesus' communication was to first to Jews and much of Paul's to Gentiles, does that make a difference in how the message of the gospel is presented?
maybe there is nothing to it, but just a thought.
Dan said, "If much of Jesus' communication was to first to Jews and much of Paul's to Gentiles, does that make a difference in how the message of the gospel is presented?"
Yes. Paul's writings are to Christians, but in Acts we see examples of Paul's preaching the gospel to the unsaved. Acts 17 is his message on Mars Hill to the Greeks.
Jesus could start straight with "Repent and be forgiven, I am here, God's kingdom is at hand." because the Jews had Old Testament background knowledge.
Paul had to start from scratch with the Greeks. He had to start from the beginning: God creating the world. However, his main message was still repentance found through the one(Jesus)whom God raised from the dead.
Our culture today is much more Greek than Jewish. Biblical illiteracy is high. Most people today don't have the biblical background knowledge that was common even a generation ago.
This would be the step 0 background point that Walt is talking about.
Post a Comment
<< Home