the characteristics of revival - gospel vs. religion
6.Jun.08 | church planting, ecclesiology, emerging church, ministry |
What is the gospel? This is the million dollar question and if we as a church are to truly begin to understand the implications of revival and bring about the possibility and atmosphere of such a world transforming experience, then answering this question must be at the front of our minds. Often times we have understood the gospel, too simply, as praying a prayer to receive forgiveness so that one may enter into heaven upon his/her death. But this does not bring about a sense of joy, or happiness to much of today’s culture. We are not occupied with the notions or implications of death in our lives, rather we’re more consumed with the thoughts of here and now—the injustice of war and poverty, the social brokenness of our families and relationships, global warming and our relationship to creation.
Our understanding of the gospel has been shortened, just as we have also shortened the term. Dallas Willard in his book Divine Conspiracy offers up a concept of the gospel that brings about a broader understanding. It is not simply “the gospel,” rather it is the “Gospel of the Kingdom of God.” It’s a gospel that is really big, different, something to be experienced and entered into in the here and now. It’s about an aspect of God’s divine life that is now, not just after death.
I like how Halter & Smay sum up our current understanding of the gospel (page 88 The Tangible Kingdom):
The gospel—that is, the huge, life-reorienting story that has had such massive drawing power to just about any spiritual seeker over the centuries—has been reduced to a pathetically simple, doctrinal Podcast that no one is interested in.
When Jesus came proclaiming his gospel, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, he offered up that it was available now, the gospel is a present reality that we can actively participate in and that we are expected to participate in!
Until we recover a holistic understanding of the gospel as something that is not just available after death but is to be lived in and experienced now, we will not be able to enter into a type of revival that can transform the world. Until then, we will continue to be stuck in the dogmatic sort of “pray the prayer” type of religion that inspires… no one.
This recovery is an instrument of the Spirit… it is what the Spirit will use to cause an outbreak of revival, however it is in our control to move in this direction. A nice little paradox isn’t it?
Eric |
6.Jun.08 @ 1:52 pm
Preach!
Alaina |
6.Jun.08 @ 6:27 pm
This is why I keep coming back to your blog.
Guy |
6.Jun.08 @ 10:31 pm
One question that I always have about revival is this: Revival is a return to a previous state… so who is to say that this supposed previous state is the state or place that God wants us to be?? Maybe where we once where is totally missing the point? Maybe we don’t need revival, maybe we need revolution
gentry13 |
7.Jun.08 @ 11:35 am
i really dug that halter & smay quote. is the rest of their book worth reading?
recently, i have been thinking that it would be really helpful if pastors and spiritual companions could help people understand the gospel in more contextual manner. for me, since i spend 50 hours a week at work, this would mean understanding what the gospel means in the context of a social service org that serves people with disabilities and how the gospel shapes my approach to helping the disadvantaged seek and sustain employment.
i suspect that such contextualized considerations would not only help us to develop a better understanding of the gospel, but would also revolutionize the way we seek and open ourselves to the filling and power of the Holy Spirit.
the more i think about it, the contexts in which we live, move and have our being not only influence our understanding of the gospel, but probably deeply effect our perspectives on the Godhead him/it/herself.
shutting up now.
monts |
7.Jun.08 @ 8:57 pm
gentry, i haven’t finished reading the book yet, but so far i’ve found it rather enjoyable. it’s written from a reconstructionist point of view which is a nice change of pace from the typical deconstructionist rantings i’m becoming accustomed to and growing slightly weary of.
something you wrote that struck me as peculiar was the contextualized considerations… this sounds very similar to the ideas within the seeker movement that you have to give people help in contextualizing the teachings of scripture… the “how to” sermons if you will. it seems very similar to me only with a much broader perspective as opposed to the narrowing of the gospel we’re currently engaged in. am i understanding you correctly?
Guy,
i think, perhaps, that we have competing definitions of revival. i’ve never understood revival as the idea of returning to a previous state… in fact, i would almost use revival and revolution as near synonyms.
gentry13 |
7.Jun.08 @ 9:15 pm
eh, who knows what i meant.
i think that i was suggesting that our social location changes our understanding of the essence of the gospel, and perhaps even the Godhead, itself. my thought wasn’t so much that we need to pour the pre-determined gospel into unique contexts in order that people can understand/apply/incarnate the gospel in new ways. rather, i was suggesting that social location might in some sense open up new understandings of what the gospel in and of itself actually is and how it functions.
i’m sort of interested in how contextualization influences our hermeneutics and, perhaps, our conceptualization and presentation of the doctrine of God.
clear as mud, i’m sure.
Thats the problem with relativism at Shepherd Servant |
8.Jun.08 @ 10:18 pm
[...] My comments were and the article can be found here. [...]