Here's an interesting article promoting the multi-faceted dimension of the Gospel where the author suggests that we shouldn't necessarily be threatened by new tellings of the Good News...a very interesting issue as we continue to consider how and what we must communicate to a world deeply in need of knowing Jesus...
At the 2006 Ancient Evangelical Future conference, historian Martin Marty commented briefly on the Atonement theories proposed by the early church. Did the church fathers hold to penal substitution, Christus Victor, or Anselm's view of the Atonement? Yes. All of the above.
Panelists pressed Marty to declare one view or another the "right" one. Whatever one thinks, he responded, the reality is that the church held to multiple versions.
The same is true today, in evangelical thinking about the nature of the gospel. Because we are a biblical people, we want to preserve the gospel in as pure a form as possible, which is why many people and institutions (like this magazine) prioritize substitutionary Atonement. But because we are an evangelistic, missional people, we want to contextualize the gospel to reach as many as possible.
The danger of the conservationist impulse is that it can lead to static reductionism. The danger of the entrepreneurial impulse is that it can lead to utilitarianism or relativism. At our best, we hold these impulses in tension, creating gospel approaches that are both timeless and timely. The result is multiple ways of explaining the gospel—and that makes some of us nervous.
Communication theory teaches that messages are conditioned by the social location of both sender and receiver. You can tell two people the same sentence, and they might hear entirely different things. Likewise, people naturally tell the gospel in their own particular way. Some focus on a change of heart, mind, or direction; others major on judgment or conviction of sin. Some speak about the promise of new life, now and eternally; others stress individual transformation or societal and cosmic renewal.
We need all of the above. Jesus did not speak the same blanket message to all people. Instead, he used a variety of metaphors to explain his identity: light, door, bread, way, truth, life. Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman received very different messages. Jesus proclaimed the Good News sometimes in parables, sometimes through denunciation, sometimes by action.
Indeed, some might criticize Jesus for not presenting the gospel comprehensively on every occasion. Sometimes he mentioned "eternal life" or "the kingdom of God." Other times he didn't. Sometimes he called for repentance, but not always. Jesus, and the New Testament writers who followed him, modeled cultural creativity and contextualization by telling the Good News in multiple ways: "Come, follow me." "The kingdom of God is at hand." "Jesus is Lord." "Repent and be baptized." "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." "For God so loved the world."
We need not pit these passages against one another. Plurality does not equal pluralism. The ancient creeds, echoing 1 Corinthians 15, say that for our sake Jesus was crucified, buried, and on the third day rose again. God's people have been reflecting on these declarations ever since. We will never exhaust their implications, whether expressed as "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life," or "I once was lost, but now am found."
Every gospel summary has pros and cons. None is comprehensive; indeed, some may well be deficient. But different approaches can provide necessary correctives. Thus, we need what Joel Green calls a "kaleidoscopic" understanding of the Atonement, or what Scot McKnight calls "stories of the Story."
Evangelicals needn't be afraid of new approaches to the gospel—the church has been coming up with them for centuries. We managed to get through 1,900 years of Christian history without the Four Spiritual Laws and the bridge diagram. The formula of "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" is also fairly recent. And what worked in the post–World War II context might not be appropriate in the early 21st century. Many people today have different questions, assumptions, and concerns.
Hence, we need variety and creativity in our gospel witness. A chorus of voices from N. T. Wright and Dallas Willard to Allen Wakabayashi and Brian McLaren calls us to rediscover the kingdom of God. Scot McKnight tells a story about the restoration of cracked eikons (image-bearers). Kevin Vanhoozer places the gospel in the context of an unfolding drama. James Choung's True Story offers a "four worlds" diagram in which we are designed for good, damaged by evil, restored for better, and sent together to heal.
Let us continue to explore and share the gospel in ways old and new. Whether we talk about justification by faith or defeating the powers, sight for the blind or reversal of entropy, freedom for the oppressed or healing of the nations, it's all good. The gospel is all of the above, and so much more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Communicating the Gospel in different ways with different emphases is good and fine. Of course, that is necessary, there are tons of different type of people that need to have the Good News presented in a way that makes sense. But the Gospel has to stay the Gospel--that is, BIBLICAL Gospel and Biblical teaching. And it is understanding as to what exactly that is that has to occur before trying to contextualize it, otherwise the core meat of the Gospel will be lost in translation so to speak. To lump Brian McLaren into this article completely undermines its credibility because McLaren sees a different gospel in the Bible--or the parts he likes--which are pretty much only Jesus' life and words. I understand what this article is trying to say, but it definitely takes it too far--to a point where everything becomes acceptable. Are there implications and results of the Gospel that are numerous and diverse? Of course. But to deal with the matter of personal salvation Gospel and... as mentioned "healing of the nations" as equally interchangeable is Biblically irresponsible, and a mishandling of the Word of God.
Pastor Kelley Brady dealt with the Gospel head on today in chapel in a very refreshing manner. Like he said, there is no Good News without the bad news of our sin. So my thinking would be, how can you proclaim the gospel without sin? What I mean is, people often claim they are proclaiming the Gospel with Jesus as a healer of our brokenness. Brokenness is not presented as sin. A result of sin? Sure, but Jesus simply becomes a healer of our unjust circumstances when presented that way. Sin and Judgement are as essential to the presentation and contexualization of the Gospel as peanut butter and jelly are essential to a PB&J sandwich.
We need more teachers, chapel speakers, and student who, like pastor Brady prayed in closing today, "Embrace the notion of the Gospel."
I would shy away from this article and all associated lines of thinking. This is a dangerous pathway to be thinking about the Gospel. It waters it down and makes it ineffective. It may present truths here and there about the Biblical Good News, but as we all know from personal experiences, half truths presented as the whole truth becomes untruth.
I have written much more than I anticipated now, and I should probably get back to lunch/study hall.
The notion of the Gospel is definitely a good topic to dwell and meditate on. The reality is however, we must properly define it for those who hear it. As John Piper says in his book (God is the Gospel),
"But the gospel is not only news. It is first news, and then it is doctrine. Doctrine means teaching, explaining, clarifying. Doctrine is part of the gospel because news can’t be just declared by the mouth of a herald—it has to be understood in the mind of a hearer."
Indeed, sin and our need for a Savior are quintessential components of the Gospel. Without it, the Good News can't be fully appreciated, it doesn't sound as good. I would agree with Benjamin as well that bringing an individual like Brian McLaren definitely detracts from its overall credibility because he does not believe in certain components of the Gospel that I believe are essential due to what the Scriptures teach. This is exactly what Pastor Brady was preaching against this morning. We need not be ashamed of the Gospel. Why must we tailor it to our audience? I have no problem with making the Gospel easier in the context of cultural differences, but we must not and cannot go overboard in this sense. Kelly Brady was right in being extremely grieved and concerned for a church that fails to communicate the whole Gospel, or worse, fails to live it out. The Gospel is not a box of good works, although God can be in that, but it is rather God's "good news" to the depraved race of mankind who desperately need a Savior. That has never, and will never change. The Gospel certainly can provide freedom to the oppressed and healing to the nations of the world, but it should not be defined as such. Is something like Operation Iraqi Freedom really the Gospel? Is overcoming the AIDS crisis the Gospel? Freeing nations and bringing healing to the oppressed are incredible good works that when done with a right spirit, are a fragrant aroma to our Lord, but they are not the Gospel!
I look forward to more student and faculty perspectives on this all important issue. We must take care in this discussion. The Gospel is too precious and central to the Christian faith to mess up.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2008/2723_Im_Sending_You_to_Open_Their_Eyes/
Last week's sermon--relates well to this in a sense...talking about genuinely relating to non-believers in sharing the Gospel...very edifying practical encouragements. Watch the video of it--gotta love the video.
"Is overcoming the AIDS crisis the Gospel? Freeing nations and bringing healing to the oppressed are incredible good works that when done with a right spirit, are a fragrant aroma to our Lord, but they are not the Gospel!"
I think that you make a very good point William. These are things that Christians NEED to be concerned about. The question is why? And I think the answer is because we have been charged to love God and love our neighbors. The problem comes in when we think that we are loving God BY loving are neighbors, instead of loving of neighbors BECAUSE we love God. There is a world of difference between these two approaches, in short, that the correct view is centered on Christ.
There are so many issues in our world that Christians need to address, not because they are somehow part of the gospel, but because we have received the true Gospel and are a part of the kingdom of God.
That is where our identity MUST be, in Christ. The Bible tells us that our citizenship is in heaven. Because of this identity, we have a responsibility first to love and serve God. And the deeper we fall in love with him, the more we should feel compelled to act in the world around us. And that action must be centered around the true gospel. That is, that we are all born completely dead in sin, but that God has intervened in grace through his own son's death. And through acceptance of that grace and a faith in Christ, we will have an abundant eternal life.
The biggest obstacle the gospel faces right now is that Christians are not living gospel-centered lives. We are trying to be too "relevant" instead of boldly living and preaching the gospel. And when I say "living the gospel" I don't mean in the McLaren sense of things. I mean that Christians do not live like people who have been "delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom" of God (Colossians 1:13).
When I go to church on Sunday's, I do not feel like I am with people who have been set free from the power of sin. Why is that? Because we have forgotten the true gospel. We have forgotten the unbelievable reality that Jesus Christ took all our sin upon himself on the cross, and defeated death by rising again. That is the gospel folks; that is what we have to get back to.
One of the things that God has been continually teaching me this year is to nail my sins to the cross each day and not fall into bondage. If I am going to live abundantly-if the church is going to live abundantly, we have to return to the foundation of our faith: the fact that Jesus has saved us from hell, in spite of our filthiness. What we have done is gotten distracted. And even though the things we have gotten distracted by are "good things", our motives are all wrong.
We need to get back to the basics; trim away all the fluff we have labeled as "gospel."
and don't even get me started on the prosperity "gospel" :)
Well said Michael...people trying to be "relevant" in their communication of the Gospel is often when it becomes NOT the gospel. The article calls for "creativity" in the gospel...great, but again, the "basics" of sin, judgement, and redemption need to be there (obviously). Well, I say obviously, but it isn't obvious to everyone.
I think the prosperity gospel is great, Mike. I see nothing to be concerned about with it.
easy there Benjamin. Sometimes that is not even a laughing matter.
like the dialogue guys, in light of kelly's chapel, as well...
Gentlemen,
Interesting dialogue for sure. But it's easy when you all agree with each other. To be honest, I cannot say that I am in the same camp. When you speak of... '
'The problem comes in when we think that we are loving God BY loving are neighbors, instead of loving of neighbors BECAUSE we love God. There is a world of difference between these two approaches, in short, that the correct view is centered on Christ.'
I think that we are DEFINITELY loving God by loving others. Isn't that what he has called us to do. Aren't those what the fruits of the spirit are all about.
I'm not sure this is an if, then thinking that needs to occur. I don't think it's as simple as JUST a message oral based Gospel. That seems much too limiting to me. I think that ending the AIDS crisis is indeed the gospel because I feel that it runs directly in line with who God is, and what he does.
The scriptures are clear, remain in me and you will produce much fruit. We cannot separate these two. One comes with the other. It is seemingly a chicken or the egg problem.
Sciences indicate that actions are more often than not what enable our brain and our senses to believe in things with more clarity and sincerity than ever. I see this very similar to spiritual disciplines. I don't always enjoy them, but they are essential to my growth as a believer. Likewise, the fruits of the spirit, the action of love are equally necessary in my growth and understanding in who God has created me to be.
I think far too often we take the human aspect and reasoning of Christ away. I think that his mission was more than to JUST 'save us.' )And to be honest, I think it was to save us TO SOMETHING, not from something.) I think that redeeming us from sin was ONE part of Christ's mission. I think that another part, and potentially larger (if we are going to start labeling them) was to redeem everything. Us to him, us to each other, the earth, etc. The FIRST act in the scriptures was not original sin, it was original design! I see Christ's coming as a way to reclaim what was lost at Eden, not just to fix it.
I reckon one of the greatest revelations in heaven will be the very human nature of Christ. And so much of what he did, and his gospel message was centered around making things complete and whole.
But the fruit of the Spirit can grow out of someone who has the Holy Spirit living in them (i.e. someone who has accepted Christ as their savior.
You speak of being saved "TO SOMETHING." I honestly have no idea what that means. When you use the word "saved" you inherently imply that there is some sort of impending danger that a person cannot escape from themselves. it requires someone or something else to come in to "save" the day. In the context of the Bible, this is hell, sin, eternal death, etc. If we are not saved from that, we cannot even begin to tackle the world's problems effectively.
I do not think that anyone is disputing that Christians need to be actively living as God's hands and feet in the world, because we are God's temples here on earth. But the point is that we are not suitable temples for God, and thus not suitable agents for him, unless we have recognized our sin and accepted Jesus' sacrifice for us.
The center of the gospel is that Jesus came to save us from the path of destruction we are born into. Once we get a glimpse (we cannot possibly see the whole picture) of what God has done for us, it is natural to fall in love with him more and more. As we do so, and our hearts become more aligned with his, he will show us the needs in the world that he wants us to meet.
So, Ryan, I agree with about 99% of what you said. The difference comes at what is gospel, and what comes after one receives said gospel. But I do think that this is an important distinction.
Post a Comment