i guess if you’re going to start somewhere, the best place to begin is the deconstruction of our understanding of the gospel because it is from the gospel that everything should flow from and it is from the gospel that our praxy is determined.
now, i would like to give a short disclaimer up front and a clarifying point as well. this post is not intended to question what the gospel is but rather to point out the narrow confines in which we have placed the gospel in the church today, tear down those walls and allow it to breathe in order to get a better glimpse of the fullness of the gospel.
if dr. martyn lloyd-jones is correct in his assertion that the gospel is so rich and layered, so thick as it encompasses the entire biblical story that Paul actually gives us over fifty gospels in a nutshell, then why is it that we have settled for only a sliver of the pie that Jesus spoke of? have we in the church settled for a truncated version of a bigger picture, of a greater reality?
growing up, and even up to about 5 years ago my whole understanding of the gospel centered completely around the individual and about “saving the sinner” by praying a prayer and getting them dunked in the baptistry. it was almost “assembly-line conversion”, you bring ‘em in (whether through trickery—bait and switch) get ‘em wet and let them figure the rest out on their own (discipleship was seeminly relegated to last place as everything else became seeker-focused and seeker-driven in order to “get ‘em saved!”).
so, this is the question… “what is the gospel?”
i have a hard time believing that it’s solely about “saving the sinner.” this seems to diminish and devalue the gospel. the gospel is supposed to be good news, but the “saving the sinner” approach isn’t really all that good of news because it leaves so much to be desired in how we practice it, and leaves us with a whole lot of bad news in the process by leaving so many other realms of life and existence untouched by God. i’m under the impression that God is about a whole lot more than “saving the sinner” and has a bigger and better idea.
about 3 years ago i came to a mind altering, paradigm shifting realization that the gospel is about 4 distinct areas that are affected by the resurrection: 1) our relationship with God, 2) our relationship with others, 3) our relationship with creation, 3) our relationship with ourselves. (these are very clearly defined and seen in Genesis 3 and throughout the letter to the Romans.) even though i completely believe that the gospel affects these areas and God is working to make them whole/complete once again, i wonder if this isn’t a whole list—if we couldn’t take it any further. (although i’m not really sure where else it could go, i wonder if it couldn’t be expanded upon more.) i firmly believe that God is a holistic God and is a God that wants to be completely and wholly transformational and redemtive in all aspects—so the question for further exploration would be what other areas does the resurrection redeem? what other areas does a holistic God transform?
i truly believe that the church today has boxed itself in with a narrow version of the gospel—almost a “hedgehog concept” if you will.* and this is a dangerous path to walk down. i think that jim collins is very correct in his assertion of the hedgehog concept, however i fear that we apply it too broadly—which should never be done with the gospel.
——
* this is a reference to Jim Collins book Good to Great
Related posts:
- return of the social gospel
- oscar.
- a good, long day.
- just in time for easter.
- manifesto of frustration./// (a rant)
Doesn’t the Gospel have to affect everything that our life touches if it really is the ultimate good message? To put it another way, if a man’s relationship with God changed wouldn’t everything about him be affected? Is the Gospel just about a personal relationship with God? How could we keep that personal?
Simon Peter once proclaimed…
“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Spoken by one who would later deny even knowing Jesus.
It seems to me that one can “hear” words of life to no effect.
Do ya think the apostles ever heard the magic words Jesus spoke to heal and give life ? That could explain why the gospel that has been taught has kept the church impotent for the most part.
Now my belief is that something happened later that changed Peter, something transformational, wanna guess what that “is” ?
As Huey Lewis once sang…
Ahhh… It’s The Power of Love !!!
Grace and Peace… t.f.
A good question. We should probably seek to understand the term in the same way as the original hearers. Not to get all professorial on you, but this term was originally associated with good news concerning the kingdom. If a new heir was born or if a great military victory was won, then a herald would be dispatched to the countryside to declare the euangelion. In my mind then, our understanding of the term “gospel” should not be very far removed from our understanding of the kingdom. The gospel is the declaration that God’s kingdom has broken out on earth in the person of Jesus Christ. We are then left with the implications of that which is a long and varied discussion that brings together issues such as salvation (We shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss this aspect just because that is how we’ve always thought of the gospel. Sometimes our traditional impulses are closer to the truth than we assume. Remember, it was Jesus in John 6 who said essentially that the flesh counts for nothing compared to the spirit.), reconciliation, missions, suffering, politics, environment, etc. etc. etc.
i don’t disagree with you rags, i just fear that we’ve boxed in the idea of the gospel from what it was originally understood to be and as a result have relegated the rest of it to be meaningless drivel—which i could argue is the result of eschatological beliefs.
Maybe another question to ask then is, “What exactly do we mean when we say that we are saved?”
Hi Fellas, not much action here.
So…
If you would be so kind as to recognize some more questions from an apparent ignorant bystander…
rags if you could get professional for a minute…
Who were the original hearers of the gospel ?
Do you think they understood that “gospel” definition ?
How did the original “hearers” differentiate the “kingdom” concept versus Paul’s version of salvation through faith in Christ found in Galatians ?
Do you think they understood that “gospel” definition ?
Finally, that long and varied discussion about salvation you mentioned.
Does this modern/postmodern generation understand either definition ?
aaron, When you said… i have a hard time believing that it’s solely about “saving the sinnerâ€. You seem to be alluding to “living the life” that Paul clearly explains in Galatians.
How have you understood and taught “how to live the life” ?
As Dr. Phil would ask… How’s that working for Ya ?
I’m starting a series of “out of the box” posts on that topic at my slice of the net and would really appreciate a little input or maybe you could be an advocate for a heretic !
One more question that sparked my study of transformational salvation that I hope will be reconstructive in nature…
Did you know another definition of salvation is…
Liberation from ignorance or illusion ?
Grace and Peace… t.f.
i don’t like the word “saved” and the reason being is that i don’t think salvation is a past-tense sort of thing. i think salvation is a present/future tense word that stirs up the connotations that you’re constantly and continually being brought further into salvation. i suppose that you could say that salvation goes along with the idea of sanctification and the two are not mutually exclusive but rather symbiotic in nature.
i think we get hung up on the idea of justification—making it the end-all-be-all of salvation leaving out the rest that is clearly prescribed in scripture (sanctification/glorification). it’s almost as if it’s a past-present-future idea but the emphasis shouldn’t be on the past, in fact it should be off of the past and placed squarly on the shoulders of present/future… i think this gets a little at what you’re asking thom, and a little at rags’ question as well.
Thom, some good questions. I believe that the original hearers of the gospel would have absolutely made those sorts of connections. I don’t have time to get into it here, but Luke 2 when seen in its historical context (and apart from our cultural recasting) is absolutely counter-cultural in its intent. Also, to me the key for understanding Paul’s kingdom theology is in his use of the “Lord Jesus” or “Lord Jesus Christ” designation for Jesus. We have so Christianized those terms that the true force is lost. In the first century the Caesar was referred to as “Lord Caesar” and the gods were sometimes referred to with a similar title (“Lord Seraphis”). When Paul refers to Jesus as Lord he is making a somewhat shocking statement about his rule and even his divinity in light of the resurrection.
As to your definition of salvation as freedom from ignorance. Sounds pretty good if you are a gnostic. There is no doubt that the apostles sometimes used the word “enlightened” to talk of salvation (see Hebrews 6:1-3), but this was not enlightened in a purely intellectual or rationalistic or even mystical sense. Christian enlightenment entails Christ’s light shed on our whole existence. Salvation is not just an intellectual enlightenment. A postmodern culture would enjoy that sort of compartmentalization. Salvation is total re-creation. We are new people even as we await the consumation of this salvation. This is truly good news (at least for me and I’m guessing for most others). I don’t want to be saved intellectually or physically or relationally. I want to be restored completely.
Mornin’ aaron…
Thanks and yes, that is a little of what I’m getting at.
I know my problem may be a lay understanding of terms and definitions.
Concerning “how to save/live a life” (not the Fray song).
I am still interested in, not how “we” have understood the process, but how you have understood and taught it and is that working for you?
In my other post I was vaguely making a distinction about resurrection redemption and the time of transformation at pentecost.
I would guess that is the justification and sanctification you mentioned.
rags…
Thanks too. With those answers, more questions. But I think I need more info on the different pairs of ears of the original hearers.
Examples… educated religious (jewish) leaders and teachers of scripture, educated religious (gentile) leaders and teachers, uneducated common folk (jewish and gentile), and always last, but certainly not least, women and other slaves. ;>)
How did their station in life effect their interpretation of the gospel ?
I do agree with the points you make in the last paragraph but is the following rhetorical or true of you ?
“I don’t want to be saved intellectually or physically or relationally. I want to be restored completely.”
What is it that you really “want” and what comes first…
to be saved or restored ?
The salvation definition I gave was Websters not mine and just another one to use for deconstructive/reconstructive purposes.
I guess I am kinda proposing… what if the light of Christ you spoke of… “is shining” on all of existence and the transformation was instantaneous ?
Through the centuries and even more today, many people including believers question why the church isn’t demonstrating this gospel they have heard taught.
Could ignorance be an issue ?
Could it be that the gnostic and mystic followers of Christ understood at least “one mystery” that is the key to ‘living the life” ?
So, who might be responsible for the confusion, the teachers or the hearers ?
And yes, postmoderns do love it served up this way, as long as it leads to genuine relationship. Which btw is where we’re at… ;>)
aaron, thanks again for allowing and answering questions…
Grace and Peace… t.f.
oh Thom… how have i taught and understood the process of salvation—and is it working? that’s the million dollar question, something that i’ve been wrestling with for a long while now and something that, quite frankly, i don’t have a clue.
i’ve always hated the line “i can’t tell you what it is, but i can tell what it’s not,” yet i’m afriad that this time that’s the only way i can answer this question in the hopes that by thinking through it out loud we’ll get to the “what it is.”
i know that it’s not the “say a prayer” approach—although at the same time i can’t completely rule that out either. i just don’t think it’s the only way… rather i think it’s for our own benefit as a gauge of “measuring conversions.”
i know that it’s not baptism—i place a strong emphasis on baptism (it’s more than a command, and more than symbolic), however i don’t think that it’s the mode of salvation as some in my brotherhood believe.
i would, however, love to say that it’s more of a “just come and live life with us” approach where someone comes alongside and begins to live life in community with you and as a result sees Jesus, makes a conscious decision to follow him and continues in the process from there. however, there’s a part of me that is somehow uncomfortable with this—i think it’s the small bit of traditionalist that’s still left within me. or maybe it’s the part that says, “this isn’t really verifiable or measurable!” (oh how the enlightenment has screwed with the church!)
i will say that even though i am uncomfortable with this last way, this is the way that i teach and this is the way in which i actually practice. when i was the youth pastor at northpoint this is what we did. there was never any invitation to “get saved” and there was never an emphasis on baptism as the mode of salvation, yet time and again we saw students walking closer and closer with Jesus on a regular basis—and eventually they got baptized. maybe i used baptism in a practical way as well—as the measuring stick…
i hope this makes sense….
aaron…
You tell me if this makes sense…
Here is what I hear you saying…
You came alongside the young people as a leader, and just by sharing your thoughts, words and actions you were either…
preparing soil, sowing seed, tending the garden and what seems most important, recognizing fruit (baptism being important).
That seemed clear but it sounded to me you lead with a disclaimer…
You said…
“i will say that even though i am uncomfortable with this last way, this is the way that i teach and this is the way in which i actually practice. when i was the youth pastor at northpoint this is what we did. there was never any invitation to “get saved†and there was never an emphasis on baptism as the mode of salvation, yet time and again we saw students walking closer and closer with Jesus on a regular basis—and eventually they got baptized”.
First question, the obvious… What maked/makes you uncomfortable ?
Second, can I point out that you changed “i to we” ?
Third, do you feel you were controlled or told how to teach ?
And if so, if you were really free and could do it all over again…
How would you speak and demonstrate your thoughts any different ?
btw… I think the team concept of ministry is great and not opposed to leadership that encourages leaders to lead.
Also at this point I hope Ya don’t mind the personal questions ?
I believe thinking out loud can be very helpful, your open thoughts are helping me for sure…
Thanks again… t.f.
Thom,
I don’t mind the personal questions at all… so, here goes with some “answers”
what made/makes me uncomfortable is that this “way” is not the same one that I grew up with making it a deviation from the “norm” or the “right way.” it’s uncomfortable because it’s foreign to what i “knew.”
i to we: that’s a good catch. i didn’t do that consciously it just sort of came out that way. i often think in terms of “team” and although i originally started talking about myself it resorted back to the team.
your third question is a doozy!
i don’t was never controlled or told how to teach, however if i had put the words behind what i/we were doing i think there might have been some conflict and some conversations that revolved around what was happening. however, i’m not sure that i would have been told what to do… i think it would’ve been more of a behind the scenes type of conversation. however, at the church that i was just at i was told how to teach in regards to what salvation had to look like—”pray the prayer.”
i like your questions. they’re helping me flesh out some things!
Funny…”behind the scenes type of conversation” that would include you, or “behind the scenes type of conversation” that would exclude you? (Which would better be described as a “behind the back type of conversation” ha.)
A while back on one of my posts (http://livingroomfaith.org/Blog/?p=12) you placed great emphasis on your feelings that being a follower of Jesus should be public and out there for all to see (not just a prayer…I agree). Does this tie in with the “walk and talk and do life with me” approach you mention, or does “life more abundant” have to do with more than simply living “the good life” for all to see?
“behind…” and the answer would be: both.
i think again the answer to your second question would be both/and.
i think that being a follower is a public thing, however i think the blend is that when you’re living the life and doing life with someone else, it should be quite evident for all to see…
Breaking the Missional Code Ed Stetzer & David Putman, p. 14-15