The point I made in my last post concerning the whole of Scripture as expressing the "good news" (the gospel) brings me to the most important aspect of the gospel . . . the good news concerns the person and work of Christ.
Without Christ there is no gospel. In fact, Christ should be central to any discussion of the gospel. After all, at its core, the gospel is the message concerning Jesus (Romans 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
This is not to say that in our formulations of the gospel we ignore God the Father or the Holy Spirit, or that we downplay our participation in the gospel . . . yet Christ must be at the forefront of the gospel no matter how nuanced a definition we give.
These statements should seem obvious to Christians, but the truth is that when things are really obvious we may have a tendency to believe they are present even when they are not . . . or to ignore the obvious for other "neglected" topics.
So as we move forward in thinking through the gospel in more of its fullness, let us not forget that Christ is so integral to the gospel that without him there is no good news.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
the multifaceted gospel (part 2)
Perhaps the first thing we should know about the gospel is that it is good news.
The Greek word εὐαγγέλιον simply means "good news."
Thus when we speak about the gospel we are speaking about good news . . . particularly good news that comes from God.
This simple fact is usually well-known . . . yet it has some ramifications we sometimes overlook.
In a broad sense the whole of the Scriptures can be seen as "gospel" . . . that is, good news to God's people. God has not left us in the dark about who he is. He has revealed himself through actions and words which have culminated in the Scriptures . . . and this is good news to us, because the God who created us has given us revelation about what he is like that we may know him. God has also revealed a plan he has for us . . . a plan for our good and his glory. This plan could be summarized in this promise, "I will be your God, and you will be my people." This promise is stated throughout Scripture (for example, see Genesis 17:7; Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Jeremiah 30:22; Ezekiel 36:28; Revelation 21:3) and serves as one of the themes tying Scripture together. Again, this is good news to us because God's plan to make us his people and to be our God is for our good.
So in one sense, the gospel (that is, the good news of God) can be seen as God's revelation of who he is and what he has done for his people.
I think this view of the gospel makes sense of some of the New Testament passages which give us the impression the gospel was not something "completely new" with the coming of Jesus.
Consider the following:
According to this passage, Paul wanted to remind the Corinthians of the gospel . . . which was among first things. With those words he spoke about Christ's death and resurrection which Paul says was according to the Scriptures.
This is an interesting concept because:
a) Paul was speaking of the Scriptures we usually refer to as the Old Testament.
b) However we understand the phrase "according to the Scriptures," we must see that Paul is implying the gospel is not something "brand new" in the sense that there was no previous revelation concerning it. The gospel concerning Christ is according to the Scriptures. The Old Testament points us to Christ and the gospel.
This is certainly borne out in what we see Paul say in another place . . .
Certainly, this passage places an emphasis on the coming of the gospel during Paul's day (perhaps we could say the fuller revelation of the gospel came at that time), but it also demonstrates the gospel was not totally unknown in previous revelation from God. The gospel was, at the very least, promised beforehand in the holy Scriptures.
So too, Jesus gives this kind of evaluation of the Old Testament Scriptures . . .
Jesus clearly states the Old Testament points to him . . . and apparently to the gospel as well.
Luke himself summarizes Jesus' teaching about himself in the Scriptures similarly . . .
And then we have this fascinating passage in Hebrews . . .
One may argue the verb in question in this passage simply means "good news" and not "gospel" the way we normally understand it. I would be willing to grant such an argument has a few points in its favor. Yet at the same time I would also want to point out the phrase "came to us just as to them" has ramifications we should not ignore. When the author says "good news came to us" he is surely referring to the good news concerning Jesus which came to his intended audience . . . but the author also refers to the people of God during the Exodus from Egypt. They received "good news" from God as well.
In context, the good news the Exodus generation received was the good news that God would bring them into the "rest" of the Promised Land. The author of Hebrews connects this promise of rest to the people of his day as well. Thus he concludes God's ultimate rest is something eschatological . . . it is something still yet to come . . . and it is connected with the kingdom we are receiving (Hebrews 12:28) . . . a kingdom in which Jesus is King (Hebrews 1) and into which God brings many sons to glory through his Son (Hebrews 2:10).
I've pointed out all of this in order to state the following conclusions:
a) The gospel (good news) of God has been progressively revealed from Genesis to the time of Jesus and the New Testament. So while the fuller revelation of the gospel (good news) came with the advent of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament, the Old Testament is not lacking the "gospel." It may not be as clear as the New Testament makes it, but it is there nonetheless.
b) We are missing the fullness of the gospel if we do not take into consideration the Old Testament. As 2 Timothy 3:15-16 states . . .
c) While the gospel can be narrowly explained (as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, referring to those truths he considered "among first things" concerning the gospel), it can be defined more broadly to include the entirety of God's gracious actions and words for sinners . . . he wants to be their God and for them to be his people.
And that is certainly at the heart of the gospel.
The Greek word εὐαγγέλιον simply means "good news."
Thus when we speak about the gospel we are speaking about good news . . . particularly good news that comes from God.
This simple fact is usually well-known . . . yet it has some ramifications we sometimes overlook.
In a broad sense the whole of the Scriptures can be seen as "gospel" . . . that is, good news to God's people. God has not left us in the dark about who he is. He has revealed himself through actions and words which have culminated in the Scriptures . . . and this is good news to us, because the God who created us has given us revelation about what he is like that we may know him. God has also revealed a plan he has for us . . . a plan for our good and his glory. This plan could be summarized in this promise, "I will be your God, and you will be my people." This promise is stated throughout Scripture (for example, see Genesis 17:7; Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Jeremiah 30:22; Ezekiel 36:28; Revelation 21:3) and serves as one of the themes tying Scripture together. Again, this is good news to us because God's plan to make us his people and to be our God is for our good.
So in one sense, the gospel (that is, the good news of God) can be seen as God's revelation of who he is and what he has done for his people.
I think this view of the gospel makes sense of some of the New Testament passages which give us the impression the gospel was not something "completely new" with the coming of Jesus.
Consider the following:
I declare to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you- unless you believed in vain. For I committed to you among first things what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . .
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
According to this passage, Paul wanted to remind the Corinthians of the gospel . . . which was among first things. With those words he spoke about Christ's death and resurrection which Paul says was according to the Scriptures.
This is an interesting concept because:
a) Paul was speaking of the Scriptures we usually refer to as the Old Testament.
b) However we understand the phrase "according to the Scriptures," we must see that Paul is implying the gospel is not something "brand new" in the sense that there was no previous revelation concerning it. The gospel concerning Christ is according to the Scriptures. The Old Testament points us to Christ and the gospel.
This is certainly borne out in what we see Paul say in another place . . .
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures . . .
Romans 1:1-2 (ESV)
Certainly, this passage places an emphasis on the coming of the gospel during Paul's day (perhaps we could say the fuller revelation of the gospel came at that time), but it also demonstrates the gospel was not totally unknown in previous revelation from God. The gospel was, at the very least, promised beforehand in the holy Scriptures.
So too, Jesus gives this kind of evaluation of the Old Testament Scriptures . . .
Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke 24:44-47 (ESV)
Jesus clearly states the Old Testament points to him . . . and apparently to the gospel as well.
Luke himself summarizes Jesus' teaching about himself in the Scriptures similarly . . .
Next, we should note Paul's statement concerning God's promise to Abraham . . .And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:27 (ESV)
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you."
Galatians 3:8 (NRSV)
And then we have this fascinating passage in Hebrews . . .
For indeed the good news (εὐαγγελίζομαι . . . the verbal form of εὐαγγέλιον) came to us just as to them; but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.
Hebrews 4:2 (NRSV)
One may argue the verb in question in this passage simply means "good news" and not "gospel" the way we normally understand it. I would be willing to grant such an argument has a few points in its favor. Yet at the same time I would also want to point out the phrase "came to us just as to them" has ramifications we should not ignore. When the author says "good news came to us" he is surely referring to the good news concerning Jesus which came to his intended audience . . . but the author also refers to the people of God during the Exodus from Egypt. They received "good news" from God as well.
In context, the good news the Exodus generation received was the good news that God would bring them into the "rest" of the Promised Land. The author of Hebrews connects this promise of rest to the people of his day as well. Thus he concludes God's ultimate rest is something eschatological . . . it is something still yet to come . . . and it is connected with the kingdom we are receiving (Hebrews 12:28) . . . a kingdom in which Jesus is King (Hebrews 1) and into which God brings many sons to glory through his Son (Hebrews 2:10).
I've pointed out all of this in order to state the following conclusions:
a) The gospel (good news) of God has been progressively revealed from Genesis to the time of Jesus and the New Testament. So while the fuller revelation of the gospel (good news) came with the advent of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament, the Old Testament is not lacking the "gospel." It may not be as clear as the New Testament makes it, but it is there nonetheless.
b) We are missing the fullness of the gospel if we do not take into consideration the Old Testament. As 2 Timothy 3:15-16 states . . .
from childhood you have been acquainted with the Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.If we want to be wise and so understand the salvation that comes through Jesus, we would do well to understand not only what the New Testament says, but the Old Testament as well.
c) While the gospel can be narrowly explained (as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, referring to those truths he considered "among first things" concerning the gospel), it can be defined more broadly to include the entirety of God's gracious actions and words for sinners . . . he wants to be their God and for them to be his people.
And that is certainly at the heart of the gospel.
Monday, September 29, 2008
the multifaceted gospel (part 1)
I've compared the gospel to a diamond in a few comments on this blog see here, here, and here).
My main point in this comparison is to illustrate the gospel is multifaceted. To explain this analogy further . . . a diamond has many facets. One may look at a diamond from one angle and see one thing, and then look at the same diamond from another angle and see something a bit different. It is the same diamond, but since it is multifaceted there are different perspectives one can gain by looking at the diamond from various viewpoints. In a similar way, the gospel is but one gospel, but there are different "perspectives" on the the multifaceted truth of that one gospel (at this point I readily acknowledge the influence of Vern Poythress on my thinking, particularly his book Symphonic Theology . . . although I should also state my conclusions on this blog about the gospel are not necessarily his).
Because the gospel is like a multifaceted diamond, it cannot be defined as narrowly as is typically done in evangelical circles . . . at least not without ramifications to our theology and practice.
As I have already commented in one of the links above, I'm interested in the questions that arise from such a concept . . .
If the gospel is like a diamond with many facets, is there a way to couch all those facets into a coherent whole?
If so, what is the central facet of the gospel (or the central idea which holds the gospel facets together)? How do the other facets relate to it and to one another?
If there is no organizing, central principle, how do we present the gospel in a way that is comprehensive and at the same time comprehensible? What is the connection of the various facets the Scriptures show concerning the gospel?
I believe there are organizing, central principles which hold the gospel facets together in a coherent whole. And I believe the Scriptures present these principles plainly enough that we don't have to come up with a new category which connects all the facets.
Over the next few posts, I'll discuss some of the facets of the gospel which I believe are more central than others.
My main point in this comparison is to illustrate the gospel is multifaceted. To explain this analogy further . . . a diamond has many facets. One may look at a diamond from one angle and see one thing, and then look at the same diamond from another angle and see something a bit different. It is the same diamond, but since it is multifaceted there are different perspectives one can gain by looking at the diamond from various viewpoints. In a similar way, the gospel is but one gospel, but there are different "perspectives" on the the multifaceted truth of that one gospel (at this point I readily acknowledge the influence of Vern Poythress on my thinking, particularly his book Symphonic Theology . . . although I should also state my conclusions on this blog about the gospel are not necessarily his).
Because the gospel is like a multifaceted diamond, it cannot be defined as narrowly as is typically done in evangelical circles . . . at least not without ramifications to our theology and practice.
As I have already commented in one of the links above, I'm interested in the questions that arise from such a concept . . .
If the gospel is like a diamond with many facets, is there a way to couch all those facets into a coherent whole?
If so, what is the central facet of the gospel (or the central idea which holds the gospel facets together)? How do the other facets relate to it and to one another?
If there is no organizing, central principle, how do we present the gospel in a way that is comprehensive and at the same time comprehensible? What is the connection of the various facets the Scriptures show concerning the gospel?
I believe there are organizing, central principles which hold the gospel facets together in a coherent whole. And I believe the Scriptures present these principles plainly enough that we don't have to come up with a new category which connects all the facets.
Over the next few posts, I'll discuss some of the facets of the gospel which I believe are more central than others.
Friday, September 26, 2008
an interesting comparison
I came across these videos and thought they provided an interesting case study in how evangelicals summarize the gospel.
What I find fascinating about these videos is not simply the similarities between the two summations of the gospel, but the differences as well.
As for some of the similarities . . .
Note the emphasis on personal appropriation of the gospel message (one should ask, is the personal appropriation of the gospel message the gospel itself, or is it simply the appropriation of it? I'll leave the answer to that one for another post).
Note also the emphasis on Jesus and the work he does on our behalf.
And of course, there is the focus on sin as the problem the gospel solves . . . couched mainly in the language of forgiveness, although not exclusively (I appreciated how Piper said the gospel message should not stop at forgiveness, although I think his further explanation is not entirely adequate to summarize the fullness of the gospel).
Now for a few comments on some of the differences . . .
First, it is fascinating to see how these two men couch their respective summaries of the gospel. Dever begins and ends well (in my opinion) by connecting the gospel with God's actions of making all things new through recreation. I hope to post on this topic soon under a discussion of what the "gospel of the kingdom" is.
Piper, on the other hand, gives us a bullet-point presentation that seems to lack the overarching idea of the gospel . . . until his 6th point. For Piper, the gospel seems to be God's plan for sinners to forgive and justify them so that they may be enabled to enjoy God. I believe this evaluation may be corroborated by the title of one of his books (which I should note, I have yet to read, so I may be wrong) God is the Gospel. This idea surely deserves some further reflection, and I hope to post some of my own reflections on this topic in the future.
These nuances of what the main idea of the gospel is should not be skipped over. It is not that these two ideas are incompatible, for I believe they are fully compatible (1 Corinthians 15:12-34; Revelation 21). But the way we couch the gospel is important . . . even our nuances . . . for whether we say "the gospel is about God making all things new" or "the gospel is about bringing us to God" we emphasize distinct truths which come out in the rest of our theology and practice.
Second, even though Dever's summary is shorter, he gives a more detailed explanation of the person and work of Jesus than Piper. Dever includes Jesus' incarnation, his divinity and humanity, his obedience, his death, and his resurrection . . . whereas for Piper the gospel involves "an event" . . . that is, Jesus' death.
I realize Piper believes the same things Dever does about Jesus, but it is nevertheless interesting to note the main "event" Piper says is important for understanding the gospel is the death of Christ. I've made some comments on this kind of gospel summary here. Needless to say, I think Dever's presentation at this point has more depth.
There are other interesting comparisons and contrasts to be made, but for now I'll conclude with this . . .
Summarizing the gospel is simple in one way . . . and yet in another way it is more complicated than we might first realize. The way we couch the gospel, the aspects we emphasize, the aspects we nominalize or leave out, shape our theology and practice as well as the theology and practice of those who hear and agree with our summaries.
I realize one cannot say everything that could be said about the gospel in less than five minutes, so I am not criticizing these men (I truly respect them both for who they are and what they have done for the Church) as much as I am noting in them what we all have a tendency to do. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, we all tend to focus on particular facets of the diamond that is the gospel. Since this is the case, we must work through the issues of how to connect these various shades into something coherent AND what, if anything, is the central idea of the gospel which holds everything together. Hard work, yes. But it would be well worth it for the Church to engage in such a task.
What I find fascinating about these videos is not simply the similarities between the two summations of the gospel, but the differences as well.
As for some of the similarities . . .
Note the emphasis on personal appropriation of the gospel message (one should ask, is the personal appropriation of the gospel message the gospel itself, or is it simply the appropriation of it? I'll leave the answer to that one for another post).
Note also the emphasis on Jesus and the work he does on our behalf.
And of course, there is the focus on sin as the problem the gospel solves . . . couched mainly in the language of forgiveness, although not exclusively (I appreciated how Piper said the gospel message should not stop at forgiveness, although I think his further explanation is not entirely adequate to summarize the fullness of the gospel).
Now for a few comments on some of the differences . . .
First, it is fascinating to see how these two men couch their respective summaries of the gospel. Dever begins and ends well (in my opinion) by connecting the gospel with God's actions of making all things new through recreation. I hope to post on this topic soon under a discussion of what the "gospel of the kingdom" is.
Piper, on the other hand, gives us a bullet-point presentation that seems to lack the overarching idea of the gospel . . . until his 6th point. For Piper, the gospel seems to be God's plan for sinners to forgive and justify them so that they may be enabled to enjoy God. I believe this evaluation may be corroborated by the title of one of his books (which I should note, I have yet to read, so I may be wrong) God is the Gospel. This idea surely deserves some further reflection, and I hope to post some of my own reflections on this topic in the future.
These nuances of what the main idea of the gospel is should not be skipped over. It is not that these two ideas are incompatible, for I believe they are fully compatible (1 Corinthians 15:12-34; Revelation 21). But the way we couch the gospel is important . . . even our nuances . . . for whether we say "the gospel is about God making all things new" or "the gospel is about bringing us to God" we emphasize distinct truths which come out in the rest of our theology and practice.
Second, even though Dever's summary is shorter, he gives a more detailed explanation of the person and work of Jesus than Piper. Dever includes Jesus' incarnation, his divinity and humanity, his obedience, his death, and his resurrection . . . whereas for Piper the gospel involves "an event" . . . that is, Jesus' death.
I realize Piper believes the same things Dever does about Jesus, but it is nevertheless interesting to note the main "event" Piper says is important for understanding the gospel is the death of Christ. I've made some comments on this kind of gospel summary here. Needless to say, I think Dever's presentation at this point has more depth.
There are other interesting comparisons and contrasts to be made, but for now I'll conclude with this . . .
Summarizing the gospel is simple in one way . . . and yet in another way it is more complicated than we might first realize. The way we couch the gospel, the aspects we emphasize, the aspects we nominalize or leave out, shape our theology and practice as well as the theology and practice of those who hear and agree with our summaries.
I realize one cannot say everything that could be said about the gospel in less than five minutes, so I am not criticizing these men (I truly respect them both for who they are and what they have done for the Church) as much as I am noting in them what we all have a tendency to do. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, we all tend to focus on particular facets of the diamond that is the gospel. Since this is the case, we must work through the issues of how to connect these various shades into something coherent AND what, if anything, is the central idea of the gospel which holds everything together. Hard work, yes. But it would be well worth it for the Church to engage in such a task.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
a truncated gospel (part 4)
So after reading a post on the New Leaven blog, I was reminded of another way the Church has unintentionally truncated the gospel . . . the emphasis on "going to heaven when we die."
Before I even get to the point about how this emphasis propagates a truncated gospel, I have to ask . . .where do we find this kind of language in Scripture? We have Paul's comments in Philippians 1:23-24 (I feel tension between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, since that is far better; but to remain in the body is more necessary for you) and 2 Corinthians 5:8 (We prefer to be absent from the body and present with the Lord), but other than these almost passing comments, we have very little in the Scriptures that would bolster the view of
salvation as "going to heaven when we die."
I remember hearing the late Ron Nash comment on how a very popular view in the Church concerning the fate of the Christian after death owes more to Platonism than the Bible (ouch!) . . . and I have to admit, the more I have listened to the hope to which many Christians hold, I would have to agree.
It seems the popular view among many evangelicals is that when we die, we go to heaven (if we believe in Christ, of course) . . . end of story. Who needs anything else?
The Biblical view is a bit different, however. The true hope of the Christian is not "going to heaven when I die," but the resurrection of the body and the restoration of all things. It is the hope of a new heaven and new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is the hope of a return to Eden . . . not in a disembodied state, but as we were created . . . both body and soul.
The Scriptures connect the gospel with the resurrection of Jesus for a reason . . . the resurrection of Jesus is the first fruits of what is to come for us (see 1 Corinthians 15!).
Certainly this is an important part of the gospel . . . not simply salvation of my soul, but salvation for my soul AND my body . . . and maybe even more importantly . . . the created order.
Yet the emphasis on "going to heaven when we die" defines salvation in such narrow terms . . . individualistic, ethereal terms . . . that we miss the bigger picture of what God is doing for us and for creation itself . . . making everything new (Revelation 21:5).
When we fixate on what theologians call "the intermediate state" and make it the final state, we reduce the gospel to something spiritual only . . . and we can smell whiffs of an ancient heresy the Church has fought for ages . . . gnosticism. This emphasis on heaven makes the focus on bodily goodness less important . . . less "spiritual" . . . and so Christians are often criticised as "being so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good."
God created everything good . . . and that means everything in creation was created good, including our bodies. Human sin corrupted the good creation. Even now the creation groans awaiting the redemption that will take place when Jesus returns to finalize God's new creation come to earth (Romans 8:18-24).
So when we make the emphasis of the gospel "believe in Jesus so when you die you can go to heaven," we are truncating the gospel . . . making it something less than the glorious truth that God has begun to restore his creation through the person and work of Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit so that God may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).
Before I even get to the point about how this emphasis propagates a truncated gospel, I have to ask . . .where do we find this kind of language in Scripture? We have Paul's comments in Philippians 1:23-24 (I feel tension between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, since that is far better; but to remain in the body is more necessary for you) and 2 Corinthians 5:8 (We prefer to be absent from the body and present with the Lord), but other than these almost passing comments, we have very little in the Scriptures that would bolster the view of
salvation as "going to heaven when we die."
I remember hearing the late Ron Nash comment on how a very popular view in the Church concerning the fate of the Christian after death owes more to Platonism than the Bible (ouch!) . . . and I have to admit, the more I have listened to the hope to which many Christians hold, I would have to agree.
It seems the popular view among many evangelicals is that when we die, we go to heaven (if we believe in Christ, of course) . . . end of story. Who needs anything else?
The Biblical view is a bit different, however. The true hope of the Christian is not "going to heaven when I die," but the resurrection of the body and the restoration of all things. It is the hope of a new heaven and new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is the hope of a return to Eden . . . not in a disembodied state, but as we were created . . . both body and soul.
The Scriptures connect the gospel with the resurrection of Jesus for a reason . . . the resurrection of Jesus is the first fruits of what is to come for us (see 1 Corinthians 15!).
Certainly this is an important part of the gospel . . . not simply salvation of my soul, but salvation for my soul AND my body . . . and maybe even more importantly . . . the created order.
Yet the emphasis on "going to heaven when we die" defines salvation in such narrow terms . . . individualistic, ethereal terms . . . that we miss the bigger picture of what God is doing for us and for creation itself . . . making everything new (Revelation 21:5).
When we fixate on what theologians call "the intermediate state" and make it the final state, we reduce the gospel to something spiritual only . . . and we can smell whiffs of an ancient heresy the Church has fought for ages . . . gnosticism. This emphasis on heaven makes the focus on bodily goodness less important . . . less "spiritual" . . . and so Christians are often criticised as "being so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good."
God created everything good . . . and that means everything in creation was created good, including our bodies. Human sin corrupted the good creation. Even now the creation groans awaiting the redemption that will take place when Jesus returns to finalize God's new creation come to earth (Romans 8:18-24).
So when we make the emphasis of the gospel "believe in Jesus so when you die you can go to heaven," we are truncating the gospel . . . making it something less than the glorious truth that God has begun to restore his creation through the person and work of Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit so that God may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).
Monday, September 22, 2008
a canon within the canon (part 4)
So how do we define the gospel and avoid creating a canon within the canon?
One of the most obvious answers to this question comes in thinking through the whole counsel of God as it has been given to us in the Scriptures. It is not enough to read John 3:16 and think we understand the gospel in its fullness. As nice a summary as John 3:16 may be of God's redemptive plan (in one sense), it needs other passages to fill out what it means that God sent his Son to us.
It is not enough to read the Epistle to the Romans and think we have understood all that God wants us to understand about the gospel. Romans has a lot to teach us about the gospel . . . but as I've stated before without the rest of Scripture Romans doesn't give us the full picture.
I would even argue that it is not enough simply to read the New Testament and think we have understood all God wants us to understand about the gospel. If we think all we need is the New Testament then we are at best functional Marcionites.
Has not God breathed out all Scripture to teach, rebuke, correct, and train (2 Timothy 3:16)? Wouldn't this mean teaching, rebuking, correcting,and training us in the truth about the gospel? Did not Jesus himself say that all the Old Testament spoke of him in some way (Luke 24:44)? Shouldn't we then read the OT as well as the NT to see how both help us understand the gospel?
If we answer "yes" to these questions then we must take the Scripture as a whole to help us understand the fullness of the gospel.
Of course, this does not mean we cannot have ANY knowledge of the gospel apart from understanding the whole of Scripture. Surely God could give a person an "adequate" understanding of the gospel (and I use the word "adequate" here to express the common theological assumption of most Protestants that there is a core knowledge of what one must believe concerning God's revelation in order to be brought into the sphere of salvation) through simply reading or hearing a few verses of Scripture . . . maybe only one. But there is a difference between an "adequate" understanding and a full (or at least "fuller") understanding of the gospel.
Too many in the Church are content with an "adequate" understanding when there is a world of glorious truth awaiting us in the pages of the Scriptures. If I may rework a comment from C.S. Lewis in his sermon "The Weight of Glory" . . .
"We are half-hearted creatures," so focused on simple forgiveness and not going to hell "when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
May our Triune God grant us the ability to overcome this tendency to be "far too easily pleased" when it comes to understanding the depths of his gospel.
One of the most obvious answers to this question comes in thinking through the whole counsel of God as it has been given to us in the Scriptures. It is not enough to read John 3:16 and think we understand the gospel in its fullness. As nice a summary as John 3:16 may be of God's redemptive plan (in one sense), it needs other passages to fill out what it means that God sent his Son to us.
It is not enough to read the Epistle to the Romans and think we have understood all that God wants us to understand about the gospel. Romans has a lot to teach us about the gospel . . . but as I've stated before without the rest of Scripture Romans doesn't give us the full picture.
I would even argue that it is not enough simply to read the New Testament and think we have understood all God wants us to understand about the gospel. If we think all we need is the New Testament then we are at best functional Marcionites.
Has not God breathed out all Scripture to teach, rebuke, correct, and train (2 Timothy 3:16)? Wouldn't this mean teaching, rebuking, correcting,and training us in the truth about the gospel? Did not Jesus himself say that all the Old Testament spoke of him in some way (Luke 24:44)? Shouldn't we then read the OT as well as the NT to see how both help us understand the gospel?
If we answer "yes" to these questions then we must take the Scripture as a whole to help us understand the fullness of the gospel.
Of course, this does not mean we cannot have ANY knowledge of the gospel apart from understanding the whole of Scripture. Surely God could give a person an "adequate" understanding of the gospel (and I use the word "adequate" here to express the common theological assumption of most Protestants that there is a core knowledge of what one must believe concerning God's revelation in order to be brought into the sphere of salvation) through simply reading or hearing a few verses of Scripture . . . maybe only one. But there is a difference between an "adequate" understanding and a full (or at least "fuller") understanding of the gospel.
Too many in the Church are content with an "adequate" understanding when there is a world of glorious truth awaiting us in the pages of the Scriptures. If I may rework a comment from C.S. Lewis in his sermon "The Weight of Glory" . . .
"We are half-hearted creatures," so focused on simple forgiveness and not going to hell "when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
May our Triune God grant us the ability to overcome this tendency to be "far too easily pleased" when it comes to understanding the depths of his gospel.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
a canon within the canon (part 3)
In my last post I raised the issue of making the Epistle to the Romans to "a canon within the canon" and how by doing so we may truncate the gospel by focusing more exclusively on justification by faith than on "the gospel of the kingdom" as presented in the Synoptic Gospels.
Yet there is also a danger of making the Synoptics (or parts of the Synoptics) "a canon within the canon."
Case in point . . . the recent group calling themselves "Red Letter Christians." You can find articles on this group here and here.
Note that this group, quite literally, has made Jesus' words in the Gospels "a canon within a canon."
I can understand why . . . the "Red Letter Christians" see what they believe to be evangelical ignorance or even flagrant dismissal of Jesus' words in the Gospels. Perhaps this group could be seen as a needed correction to some types of evangelical "canon within the canon" thinking.
Yet two of the problems I see in what I've read and heard of this movement are:
1) They seem to be advocating a "political gospel" of sorts. I realize some of their statements seem to the contrary, but when I read their comments that seem to be focused against the political stances of the religious right, I'm not certain they are escaping the "political gospel" themselves. Even if the best statements of the leaders of this movement shrink back from explicitly stating a "political gospel," their statements may not be clear enough to keep others from believing we can bring in "the kingdom" (or some political version thereof) through political action.
2) By emphasizing the words of Jesus almost to the exclusion of the rest of the Scriptures, "Red Letter Christians" are bound to have a lopsided view of theology as well as of the gospel. This outcome is as inevitable as when other Christians focus most of their attention on the Pauline epistles or on the book of Revelation or on John 3:16. If we believe "all Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16), then we cannot simply focus on Jesus' words "blessed are the peacemakers" while ignoring Romans 13, for example. Similarly, we cannot push the "gospel of the kingdom" simply as human beings working for peace, justice, and aid to the poor without seeing salvation as involving more than our rolling up our shirt sleeves to deal with the troubles of our present life.
The gospel is more than a social program, just as it is more than "a free ticket to heaven."
Yet there is also a danger of making the Synoptics (or parts of the Synoptics) "a canon within the canon."
Case in point . . . the recent group calling themselves "Red Letter Christians." You can find articles on this group here and here.
Note that this group, quite literally, has made Jesus' words in the Gospels "a canon within a canon."
I can understand why . . . the "Red Letter Christians" see what they believe to be evangelical ignorance or even flagrant dismissal of Jesus' words in the Gospels. Perhaps this group could be seen as a needed correction to some types of evangelical "canon within the canon" thinking.
Yet two of the problems I see in what I've read and heard of this movement are:
1) They seem to be advocating a "political gospel" of sorts. I realize some of their statements seem to the contrary, but when I read their comments that seem to be focused against the political stances of the religious right, I'm not certain they are escaping the "political gospel" themselves. Even if the best statements of the leaders of this movement shrink back from explicitly stating a "political gospel," their statements may not be clear enough to keep others from believing we can bring in "the kingdom" (or some political version thereof) through political action.
2) By emphasizing the words of Jesus almost to the exclusion of the rest of the Scriptures, "Red Letter Christians" are bound to have a lopsided view of theology as well as of the gospel. This outcome is as inevitable as when other Christians focus most of their attention on the Pauline epistles or on the book of Revelation or on John 3:16. If we believe "all Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16), then we cannot simply focus on Jesus' words "blessed are the peacemakers" while ignoring Romans 13, for example. Similarly, we cannot push the "gospel of the kingdom" simply as human beings working for peace, justice, and aid to the poor without seeing salvation as involving more than our rolling up our shirt sleeves to deal with the troubles of our present life.
The gospel is more than a social program, just as it is more than "a free ticket to heaven."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
