What is the good news?

I love emergent theology. It’s mix of depth, openess, intrigue and intellectual nuance stimulate and excite me. Scanning this site, I’ve discovered there are really other people out there wrestling with the same kinds of questions as I am. One of the criticisms of both mainline (liberal) Christianity and Emergent is that in the embrace of higher criticism, intellectualism and postmodernism, the simple gospel is lost, muted or severely watered down. I think fundamentalism presents a simplistic, rather than a simple gospel, but with sadness, I have observed a certain correctness about their observations.

Without solidarity to a community core, it is difficult for a spiritual community to be filled with a sense of unified mission and shared passion. Yes, there is much of God to be found in Mystery, in the unanswered and unanswerable questions, in the spaces between certainty and understanding. But there is still a longing in my soul for a more solid sense of what exactly the good news of Jesus encompasses and what it means for me personally. Even more so, I sense that redemption (whatever the heck that is exactly) is not just for me, and I want to share it, but since I can’t even articulate it to myself, it’s even more of a challenge to invite someone else into it. So my question is, can we find a non-formulaic way of articulating a response to the question, “what is the good news?”

Re: What is the good news?

here is my summary of the "good news"…

Hot Damn! God is not what they have been telling us.  God is not some angry cosmic ruler out to punish us to eternal damnation if we are not part of some chosen group and we don’t have to solve a secret ancient riddle to know God.  God is not the cause of natural disasters and horrible wars. Instead “God” is the emotion that results when we love people without selfish conditions.  “God” is the community that results from living in this love.  The good news is that we don’t have to stress out with guilt for all the crap we have done, but instead we get to follow the message of Jesus and become transformed into loving people.  The good news is Jesus’ dream of what the universe can be if we all learn to love unconditionally.  The best part of the good news is that when we begin to live and love in this way all the heartaches of the world will disappear and we will live in peaceful communities and the universe will be healed and restored.  The more people that buy into this way of life the less cruelty and war we will have and the abuse of power will disappear as it spreads from community to community and nation to nation.

Good news

The question of what the gospel is, is a very interesting (and central!) one.  It’s amazing to me how few people actually wrestle with it.

As I understand it the gospel of Jesus the Messiah is ‘simply’ that "Christ crucified reigns" (I put the ‘simply’ in quote because it sums up a very long—and not so simple—story).  Fleshed out, it means that God’s project of redemption was fulfilled in a Jewish carpenter who lived 2000 years ago who embodied God’s covenant love for the Jews and for humanity.  While I cannot embrace danutz’s reductionistic (or perhaps simply linguistic) view of ‘God’, I do whole-heartedly embrace his understanding of what Jesus revealed about the nature of God: it is not in natural disasters or mysterious lightening bolts that God’s nature is revealed, rather it is in the willing sacrifice of Jesus to die for his crucifiers—in the self-sacrificial worth-ascribing love expressed in Jesus’s life, death and resurrection that this divine nature is found. 

This ‘thick’ narrative of Israel and the world’s history sets the stage for how we are to live.  Since God is the kind of God who ascribes unsurpassable worth to the world through his love, we align ourselves with Christ’s Reign by living out Christ’s teachings (cf. danutz’s post).  In this way the world is brought into alignment with what God’s intent for it has been all along.  As disciples of Jesus, we carry the hope of seeing the world manifest his Reign fully and of sharing his joy forever.

I realize that this is not the clearest exposition ever, but I wanted to highlight the importance of not separating the gospel from the narrative it emerged from.  What Danutz has to say about the character of God is very important: Jesus reveals the divine nature to humanity by embodying ‘downward mobility’ and agape-love.  For me, this is the heart of the ‘good news’ which I am called to spread by imitating.

Cheers,

-Daniel-

Re: What is the good news?

It’s great news!  The creator of the universe loves us and wants to have a relationship with us.  Jesus of Nazareth has made it possible for us to be reconciled with God and to become the kind of people God enjoys as friends, not because we’re so great ourselves, but because of his love for us in the first place.  If we want to opt in, if we are willing to submit ourselves to Jesus’ direction, if we acknowledge him as our king and undergo the initiation rite, we become citizens of his kingdom!

Re: What is the good news?

This crap starts sounding pretty gay doesn’t it?  Maybe there isn’t any good news.

Re: What is the good news?

This is not a debate about homosexuality ;) But I have to say, I feel we are all muddling around. We all seem to agree God is love, God wants to have a relationship with us and to have genuinely loving relationships with one another. This is good news. It’s not necessarily Christian good news, but it’s good news. How all these generic truths ties in with Israel’s narrative and the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus still sounds kind of vague and gooey to me.

Re: What is the good news?

I don’t think the good news relies on a sophisticated understanding of Israel’s narrative or Jesus life or death.  Certainly many early Christians were well-versed in Hebrew history, but many others were rather more familiar with Homer and Plato.  Certainly there were differences in understanding the significance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Re: What is the good news?

You probably just stumbled onto the answer.  The good news depends on who you are.  Jesus showed us that salvation depends on who you are becasue different people need salvation from different things.  For some people salvation was "sell all you have and give it to the poor".  For others it was "go and sin no more".   For some it was physical or mental healing and for some it was political/social justice. Jesus recognized that all of us need salvation from different things.  The good news is that there is help through some sort of transformation process and it can be found in the the message of Jesus.

It is clear to me that anytime someone asked Jesus about "salvation" or "heaven" or "the answer", he seemed to look deep inside at their needs and tailor his help to fit their particular issues.  For the last 2000+ years we have been trying to find a single mold for salvation, but that isn’t how Jesus did it.  Maybe instead of forcing our answer on peopel we should spend more time listening to the needs of others.

Re: What is the good news?

The way I understand it, the "good news" of Christianity isn’t really that good unless our philosophy of life holds to the reality that human beings are truly incapable of becoming God (or God-like) on our own.  If we believe that, then the Christian message of God reaching out to humanity through Christ becomes amazingly beautiful.

But if we hold to the idea that human beings somehow have the capacity within themselves to reach that higher level of truth and goodness, the Christian message loses a lot of its power and lustre.  The Gospel is fundamentally linked to our understanding of man’s nature (are we good or bad?).

This is not an attempt to downplay the value of humanity, it is simply a recognition that we are not capable, on our own, of becoming that which we should be.  We need God.  Maybe it sounds trite but seems to be very critical in this discussion.

Re: What is the good news?

I agree with Chris that the gospel doesn’t need to be turned into a 500 page treatise in order to transform lives; however, I exploration of the meaning of Israel’s narrative and how it ties in witho ur own narratives, as well as the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection is important for a couple of reasons. First of all, I’ve seen a lot of value placed on situating ourselves in a “narrative” on this site. If we are to identify ourselves with a narrative, we need to explore possible meanings of our share story. There’s alot that’s central to Israel’s narrative that is disturbing to me, such as the “Promise” coming in the form of slaughtering and evicting people from their land, and the wrath of God manifesting itself like a dude in need of some serious anger management. How these aspects of Israel’s narrative are interpreted impacts how well a person can believe that the God of Israel, (which is also the God of Jesus, it seems) is really all-loving and peace-loving. These issues can be a stumbling block to feeling safe in the presence of God and to really believing the good news we have been discussing.

Also, what do we do with Israel’s understanding of the atonement process (sacrifice) and how that impacts future Christian theology? In a vacuum, this would seem like random, pointless theologizing, but how we understand atonement in our narrative is related to how we view ourselves and our need for God, as was pointed out by gdargan. I don’t think these needs to imply original sin (which is problematic if one acknowledges evolution,) but it does imply that we sense we should be more than we are, and yet we are stuck, unable to transcend our survival instincts, which so often cause us to harm each other. Most human beings beings are plagued by guilt and self-condemnation on some level, and the gospel as traditionally understood (Jesus died for our sins and set us free from condemnation) addresses this human need. Is it possible to leave room for this liberation, and the transformation that can accompany it without making God into a God of condemnation and arbitrary rules? These issues are pivotal to understanding and communicating the good news and believing in ourselves, as well as whole-heartedly sharing with others a gospel that is really good, through and through.

I dig Danutz is wrote about God addressing each individual and community at its own point of need and offering both hope and deliverance. We do need to be increasingly tuned in to those around us (and here an Emergent Pnuematology comes into play, in terms of leaning on the Spirit to guide us to those in need and to sense how we can help them to the particular healing, redemption and liberation they need.)

Perhaps our good news could be summed up as, “God came in Jesus to meet each person at their point of need and to offer newness of life now and forevermore.”

Re: What is the good news?

"I think fundamentalism presents a simplistic, rather than a simple gospel, but with sadness, I have observed a certain correctness about their observations."

Their gospel is all about what to do to avoid hell.  How about "love your neighbor as yourself and love your enemy?"  Perhaps redemption (whatever that is) is already a reality, and many simply do not realize it.

Re: What is the good news?

Here’s an alternative view to the "good news"

The long and the short of it is this: "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." There’s a couple of things here that jump out at me.  There’s a kingdom that has come close, and this requires a change of direction on our part.  That makes me ask a couple of basic questions.  Was it not near before? What happened to bring it close if it wasn’t? Has it stayed close? Were we headed in the wrong direction before? Are we still headed in the wrong direction?

On a larger scale: What was the intent of God’s creation? What was its starting point in Genesis 1 and what is it’s trajectory in Revelation 22?  If the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, what role does the good news play in that?

Well in light of all these questions and the frustration of various camps on what should seem like a simple question, "What must I do to be saved?"  I started down a 4 year long investigation myself.  Here’s my conclusions so far.  I’ve not put in the Scripture references in but I’m sure you can see where things fit. Let me know what you think…

The Divine Trajectory:I’ve been reading the Bible from the view that God has a divine trajectory set according to His holiness.  Maybe you’ve never heard this term before.  To be honest I can’t remember where I first heard it or even if I did.  At any rate I would like to submit to you an alternative view on what we currently know as salvation, progressive sanctification, and glorification.  I see these as three seperate phases in the redemption of mankind.  All of which are given the liquid term salvation.

In order for you to better understand where this perspective is coming from I’m going to need you to focus your imagination on some abstract concepts at first that will hopefully "snap" together when we’re all done.  I want to describe a scene for you and then I want you to take a mental Polaroid picture of it.  We’ll then use these pictures to help understand our story a little more and hopefully inspire within all of us an embrace of the term which we have come to know as salvation.  And not just to embrace it but to embrace with a zeal that consumes us with the Father’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven.

Creation and missional tension:Are you ready to start taking pictures?  In this first scene we find the creation story revealing something that God has created and he declares that everything is good and then when He is finished with man, male and female, He says that it is "very good".  Now zoom in here and focus on this aspect:  He declares it very good yet it is not called "perfect".  Do you find that interesting?  Is it something to investigate or is it just another term for complete/perfect?  If "very good" meant perfect why the "oops" moment only a chapter later?  Surely someone who creates something that breaks within a relatively short period of time after making it needs to have their head examined.  Do you think that God the Father looked up and the Spirit and the Son and said, "Whoops! We’re going to need to fix that.  Son initiate plan B."  Or did it break on purpose and by design?  What if God created something that required the "oops" moment as part of His design?  What if the "oops" is actually a good thing that is bringing about in us a state of being that we could not have obtained apart from the "oops".  At any rate I’m getting ahead of myself, he creates male and female and says "Very Good" (say cheese… SNAP… okay now set that on the counter and let that reveal itself later.)

Revelation - a new missional tension:Time for more pictures… At the other end of the narrative in Revelation, we find a marriage of the Lamb and His Bride.  The Bride has made herself ready and because of this it was granted to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and pure.  She is known as chosen, holy and dearly loved.  She is the one whom Christ had admonished in Revelation 2 and 3 to conquer, be faithful until death, and keep His works until the end.  We also see the defeat of Satan, the great white throne judgment and the creation of the new heaven, new earth and the transformation of the Bride into the new Jerusalem. (things seem strangely out of focus but take a another Polaroid)

The Divine Trajectory Line:At this point imagine taking both of these Polaroids and placing them on a wall with enough "space" in between these two events to allow for the course of history to have unfolded.  Now draw a line from the Genesis Polaroid to the Revelation Polaroid and you have what I call the "divine trajectory".  It doesn’t stop at Revelation it goes on for eternity.  And that’s important to understand.  This divine trajectory becomes the holy standard by which God’s creation is to be evaluated.  The part that is so radically amazing is what happens from point A to point B.  For it’s no where even close to that straight line.  In fact its a wild rollercoaster ride.  In order for mankind, by an act of His own free will, to glorify God and enjoy Him forever he must have a way in which that will can be trained to love God supremely.  How could God who is sovereign cause man to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever as an act of His own free will?  Can sovereignty and freewill co-exist or are the mutually exclusive?  I call it the missional tension and it’s a very messy thing.  It’s made for very messy theology over the years and an even messier ministry of reconciliation.

The purpose of the salvation that leads to eternal life:I propose that God in His sovereignty created an environment through which man could consecrate his own will to that of the Father’s by his own volition.  To do so God had to embrace an amazing story that was full of shockingly carnal, incredibly awesome, totally God and totally man moments that all made up a strangely peculiar series of events that bring together two seemingly incompatible concepts.  At the beginning we can’t see how it could ever be possible.  In the end we see how these things allowed for God’s people to become a holy nation and a royal priesthood.  And the farther you move across the time line you realize that for those who love Him, truly all things do work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

When you embrace this view that God put in place this divine trajectory even before the creation of the world so that mankind would glorify God and enjoy Him forever, it leads you to the follow conclusions.  He must predetermine that His Bride be conformed to the image of Christ - who by His very example "glorified [the Father] on earth, having accomplished the work that [he] gave [Christ] to do. (John 17:4)  It was not a predestination in the sense that he ordered everything tiny detail together like some cosmic sized domino game.  He made one simple pre-determined statement.  My creation must conform to glorifying me like my Son does - for in Him I am well pleased. (read John 17 in light of this)

The Fall and Missional Tension:This pre-determination leads to very abstract twist right from the start.  In order for man’s will to become God’s will by man’s free choice a fall into total depravity is required.  And a tree of knowledge of good and evil is placed in the garden.  For such a knowledge is necessary in order for man’s free will to be trained.  It becomes the crucible by which man discovers His dependence upon God.  Not only is it necessary for the tree to be planted in the garden but that Adam and Eve eat from that tree and thrust themselves into total depravity.  This requires something that would tempt them to bend their will against God.  God cannot tempt and so He creates something that will bring about His sovereign will.  And in this sense God creates something that will ultimately make peace but through evil. (Isa 45:7) (at this point make a very contorted face and take another Polaroid… when it reveals itself throw it down on the floor to represent the fall of man)

So Adam sins and we as a human race collectively fall BY GOD’S DESIGN into a pathetic helpless depravity from which we can never recover.  It’s as if we have entered into eternal death for we have been removed from the garden with the tree of life and it has been guarded ever since.  But while man is tumbling head over heels into an endless pit, redemption is promised. (Gen 3:15)  There’s a flash of hope! (take another Polaroid and put this one back on the wall all the way up on the divine trajectory line)

The beginning of the awkward romance:So what happens next?  Well, (not to mention lots of other scandalous things) it requires God fulfilling His promise to redeem man from total depravity through the seed of the woman.  And because that process had to start somewhere he chooses a man.  This man’s nothing special in an of himself.  In fact he makes his fair share of mistakes and he has his doubts just like you and I but He has the ability to trust God and God uses him.  And out of that one man, God makes a nation for himself.  Now before we go any further there’s something that has to be understood here.  Man’s still tumbling head over heels down the endless pit with no ability in and of himself to correct it.  Righteous deeds at this point are nothing but filthy rags.  Yes, some are calling on the name of the Lord and there are some like Enoch and Noah… but these men are the exception not the rule.  And more importantly they suffer from total depravity and it’s only by the grace of God that they are spared.  And these righteous men including Abraham and even his brother Lot live by faith and that not of themselves. (SNAP! put that one on the bottom of the wall… and then consider the missional tension - it’s pretty messy)

A Husband and His Wife of Harlotry:Now back to this nation that God’s chosen for himself.  He takes on the role of a husband with her and choses not to divorce her even though he knows she’s unfaithful.  While often his anger burns against her and she stirs His jealousy he remains faithful.  He is in the process of accomplishing his promise for the sake of His name and fulfilment of His purpose and His plan.  Like I said it’s messy but this is what has to happen in order for a sovereign God to be reconciled to His creation without violating His own character or her own identity.  He refuses to compromise his character, but he also refuses to make her compromise her free will.  This is what must happen in order to create a people who will choose to love God and others with their whole being even in the face of evil and never stray away regardless of the temptation.  This is key to understanding the union between free will and sovereignty.

[I’m skipping the Exodus here, the giving of the Law, the wandering in the wilderness, the entering into the promise land, the claiming of the promise land, and many other classics, but these are just more stories where all of these aspects above are stirring together in an awkward romance to say the least.  I want to come back and address these when I have more time.  But for now just know that there is two classic photos to take here: God as deliverer of His people out of slavery (And note that he takes them all!), and the giving of the law and the tabernacle… and eventually the temple.]

More on God’s whore of a wife… He tells her that she doesn’t need a king for he is her king but she insists and he goes through a long drawn out process with them demonstrating to them that earthly kings aren’t what they are all that cracked up to be.  Even if they are men after God’s own heart.  Even if they are men who are full of wisdom given by God.  Remember here creation is still tumbling head over heels into the endless pit… but now some are starting to realize it!  It’s another sign that maybe all these things are working together for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose.  Like always there are some that live rightly before God as they walk before Him in faith that redemption comes from God alone and they are rewarded for their efforts (but not immediately for they died without receiving the promise)  The prophets take front and center stage and speak of a new era in God’s economy.  (SNAP! This is an important picture because Israel realizes that it has a heart of stone and needs a heart of flesh in order to please God)

The Silence and missional tension:The narrative brings us to the point that God’s chosen nation hears nothing from Him for 400 years.  During this time God is preparing the soil for a plentiful harvest.  They know what they need, they just don’t know how to get it.  Israel tries to embrace what they think is holiness but it is shamefully outward and rarely if ever addresses the inward corrupt heart of the matter.  Various groups during this 400 year drought try to embrace the missional tension and shoot for the divine trajectory but they are all lacking God’s critical involvement.  (What happens next? SNAP! just to celebrate the missional tension and the fact that you can see that God is on the move)

The Redeemer Comes and Brings the Kingdom:Then enters God’s chosen servant His own Son to replace the current economy of fallen depravity with one of divine salvation by grace alone through a holy one time sacrifice of His Son.  His Son presents the gospel simply, "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand."  Even before His death on the cross.  Do you find that interesting? I do.  He appoints his 12 disciples and short after sends them out with the same message and instructs them to heal and cast out demons.  Do you find that interesting? I do.  Christ fleshes out daily what life in that kingdom would consist of and also demonstrates what a person who is set apart for the will of the Father alone would look like.  Something that is key in the redemption story.  There’s a key to zoom in on here.  The kingdom of God is able to be engaged but look at the order.  Where’s the cross at? Have we taken a snap shot of that yet?  NOPE! But there’s a call to discipleship and there’s a proclamation of the Good News!  That’s funny where’s the Roman’s Road and the Four Spiritual Laws?  Are people actually entering into the Kingdom this way? (SNAP! this is such a telling picture just wait until it reveals itself)

WHY did He come? & His death and resurrection:So all this is building to what appears to be the pinnicale event.  Christ’s death and ressurrection.  But first Christ makes some telling statements that we should take note of.   First, Christ says he has come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.  Second, Christ says that he’s come to seek and to save that which was lost (might I ask - does this refer back to the fall?).  Christ says that he did not come to save the righteous but sinners.  Zoom in here… that’s an upclose picture of something very important I think.  He says he came that they might have life and have it more abundantly but that the theif comes only to steal kill and destroy (and there we see mankind tumbling head over heels into the endless pit) It’s at this point that I’m going to make a major theological break from the Sunday School class (not that we haven’t already… so take a picture in case we need to get back here)

First Adam vs Second Adam:For reasons I’m going to go into in depth in later posts Christ becomes the savior of the world and just like in Adam one man caused the whole world to fall into total depravity Jesus by grace gives all men a second chance.  Jesus Christ stirs a want in every mans heart when he is lifted up and literally draws all men to himself.  For the rest of human history men will not be able to get rid of the call that Jesus places on their lives.  Christ’s death and resurrection puts an end to the total depravity of mankind and should they respond in faith to the gospel they will begin a mighty renovation of the will.  He literally brings humanity back to life from eternal death.  He establishes for all of mankind in this new economy a way to the Father but it is only through Him because that is what the Father predestined before the foundation of the world. Not only does he establish this new economy but he makes available to all the resources needed to not just survive but thrive in that new economy.  And then before He leaves, He calls his followers back to the divine trajectory and tells them that they are to go and make disciples as well.  Something that now is a realistic goal and now should be understood as essential to the obtaining of eternal life. (SNAP! A picture here of a light burden, an easy yoke, a completely surrendered life, the forging of a new will because we want to, and freedom to those who abide in Christ’s words… tack this one back up on the divine trajectory line… it’s a keeper!)

The Epistles and Embracing the Messiness of the Mission:So what happens next?  Well, the apostles then flesh out what it looks like in Acts to take this ministry of reconciliation to the world.  To let people know that they now have a heart of flesh that has been given to them by Christ but that those who choose to not accept God’s free gift of grace will become calloused and hardened and handed over to all kinds of depravity and this depravity will be worse than the first for nothing can save you from it.  In the Epistles we see them struggling to share with the world the difference between what God has done and what they as new believers in Christ are to do.  There’s a new economy and many aspects of the old economy are up for debate.  What do we keep? What do we leave behind?  Take a picture this is important stuff here… are you sensing the missional tension here?

Salvation from… Salvation to:More on grace alone and faith alone… The salvation from their total depravity was not by works that they had done but by grace alone.  However, it is that very grace that is required to daily walk out of darkness and into the glorious light of the Kingdom of God which was now AT HAND!  Hope was reinserted into the picture to all those who chose to walk away from the fallen world and embrace Christ even if it cost them their lives, and not just as a one time choice but as a daily choice.  It was to be a walk of faith.  Just like it had always been but this time every divine resource and even the power of God himself was at work in this coming salvation called progressive santification.  It’s important to understand that the salvation of all mankind was a point in human history when Christ was crucified and buried and then rose again.  God’s economy drastically changed that day and the sin of the whole world was paid for.  Transaction slips were made out for every man and woman in history and were given without question to all who asked for them.  They had been saved FROM something - total depravity.  But they needed yet to be saved to something - eternal life.  Our being saved is not a point in time salvation like previously described above but a faithful long walk of obedience in the same direction.  A daily walk in which we allow ourselves to be discipled by Christ no matter the cost.

In all reality it’s not about our continued existence it’s about the glory of God.  Amazingly he lets us be a part of the story, and it just so happens a very huge part.  Maybe this resonated with you or maybe it fell on a deaf ear.  Regardless I would like your view on it, and I hope it was something vintage yet fresh.

JC

weeping, pleading, seeking

Re: What is the good news?

It resonated here.  In particular, I appreciate (a) There is no Plan B; God’s plan always had the cross in it; (b) There is not some universal Plan of Salvation by which people always have and always will be saved; rather, God works through time in a progressive way, and at many points in time he and his people weren’t working on "how to be saved"—though his grace has always been there.

I do find myself uncomfortable with the phrase "total depravity"—it carries too much modern baggage, and forces people like Enoch to violate a rule instead of being expressions of what is humanly possible if highly improbable.  (I prefer "fleshly nature" or some such.)

Re: What is the good news?

There are too many things that I disagree in that long post, but basically I read it as a defense of TULIP or the traditional calvanist view of the good news. I’ll just start in the beginning with the "T" although I disagree with all 5 points. I guess you could say I am a zero point calvanist :)

The concept of Total depravity requires a literal reading of Genesis.  You need adam and eve to have been real literal people in a real literal historical garden of eden.  I just don’t see how anyone in the 21st century could believe that as literal rather than a metaphor or "myth".  I can buy into the fact that people are naturally prideful and self interested, but the idea that a single man once sinned and now our DNA or psychological construction has been altered is way too bizarre.  These literal interpretations of obvious myths are what continues to make us as Christians a "joke" to most people. Do you ever just sit back and think about the things you would need to rationalize in order to believe this literal interpretation of the bible? 

I prefer to view Eden as a metaphor that describes how we are not connected to God. Specifically, I mean that it displays our inability to directly communicate with a being that created us.  In that sense, Genesis is acurate and true, but not literal and historical.  I see Eden as a poetic description of what the storyteller would like life to be.  The storyteller is telling us that he would like to live in a world where God could be physically seen and talked to, but he can’t so Eden and the fall of man is an artistic explaination of why we can’t.  As a metaphor it contains an amazingly TRUE meaning, but no way is it literally and historically true.  This lens for reading the bible allows us to take every word of the bible as a serious message with literal impact without having to "check our brains at the church door".

Re: What is the good news?

I’d be interested to hear you expand on this portion…

“The kingdom of God is able to be engaged but look at the order. Where’s the cross at? Have we taken a snap shot of that yet? NOPE! But there’s a call to discipleship and there’s a proclamation of the Good News! That’s funny where’s the Roman’s Road and the Four Spiritual Laws? Are people actually entering into the Kingdom this way?”

If this is true, then was Jesus’ death atoning in itself or was it symbolic of God’s suffering the pain of our sins and forgiving us anyway? Or was it a ransom/debt paying action that, because God is timeless, reverberated throughout all time?

Also, did God create Satan or did God give all creation free wil and Satan went to the dark side, so to speak?

I agree with Danutz about 1st Adam/2nd Adam being problematic in light of evolution. Also, I’d like to understand more of how you understand why Jesus had to die to save us from total depravity. Also, if it was God’s design for humanity to fall, what about all those people along the way who, in your view lacked the ability to walk with God…do you believe they are consigned to hell? If so, how does God designing things in this way fit with a God of unfathomably love?

Also, if some new power is available to us through Christ to live a life of progressive sanctification, why is it so hard for really sincere Christians to love one another and our enemies? I mean I know I have days when I pray alot and I still don’t feel very many warm God-lovey fuzzies toward certain people…maybe I just need someone super spiritual to lay hands on me…

Seriously though, there are people who know how to love of all faiths and people of all faiths who are pretty unevolved spiritually. Does this fit with your idea that everyone is saved from depravity? Can others journey toward God without acknowledging Jesus?

Re: What is the good news?

About the cross…

I feel that the cross was not condoned or predestined or ordained by God. It was an example of a systemic political domination system killing a person that objected to the system. More importantly it was also Jesus actually living what he preached.  He preached about non-violent resistence to evil and the cross was his living example of his sermons.   It was crucial to our transformation process that or Lord (teacher, messenger, savior) also showed us how far we must go to resist the desire to strike back.  I think that is where we should stop when interpreting the cross. If we go any further we just cloud it with mythology and other ideas that make Jesus’ message more like a myth than a literal teaching.  The only other thing I would say about the cross is that it worked! The domination systems of the day that Jesus was rebelling against were the corrupted temple system and the Roman Empire.  Both fell soon after his death and you could make a great argument that HE was the reason for both!  So in sumary non-violent protest works, but sometimes you have to die.  I guess the question for us is, Can we "live" with that?

I think anyone from any faith can journey in the direction of Jesus.  Of course some paths in that direction may not be as direct or as effective and some may not even work.  As far as I know Christianity might be the only path that works because it is the only one I’ve tried. For me I chose Christianity.  It is my way to transformation, but I am not in a place to speak for someone else.  Obviously I’m going to prefer my own experience.

Re: What is the good news?

Danutz, I like what you have to say about the radical effectiveness of Jesus’ nonviolent, loving approach to political sins of domination. It is easier to believe in (some form) Jesus than it is to walk as he did. Like the Christian Peacemaker Teams, are we willing to die for peace?

At the same time, I think there is more to Jesus than a mere (mere is the wrong word) template for Ghandi-would-bes to follow. Think about it, the Jews killed Jesus because they perceived he was claiming to be God AND because they felt their position/authority was in Jeapardy. In the same way you can’t separate personal transformation from communal and societal transformation, neither can you separate the “spiritual” Jesus from the political Jesus.

Re: What is the good news?

JKM, I disagree completely with you on this point.  The jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus for 2 main reasons. First, he made atleast one (you could argue more) strategic political demonstration against them (clearing the temple and defying their authority). Second, there were claims that he was the messiah, but he was not promoting the violent revolt against Rome which is what the jewish leaders were looking for in a messiah. The jewish leaders didn’t see him as the dangerous revolutionary they wanted.  They saw his message of non-violence and compassion as being counter to their purpose. On the other hand, Rome wanted to kill Jesus because they DID see him as a dangerous revolutionary against their domination system.   Rome didn’t want a revolution and they feared Jesus might be the beginning of one.

As far as your last comment, you seem to be making my point for me that the message of Jesus was NOT one of only personnal transformation from sinful nature to righteousness which traditional TULIP, Evangelical, protestant Christianity has made it into.  Jesus was not political as a side note, but his message was first and foremost a message of political non-violent resistence to the imperialistic domination systems of his day.  The call for social justice through the non-violent overthrow of social injustice was his primary message.  Personal transformation is the means to the end.  The "end" is social justice and personal transformation is the means to that end.  A personal transformation that doesn’t create in us a desire to give all you have to the poor is shallow and unfinished.  We should desire such a radical transformation to our society that our own desire for well being and is completely destroyed. Paul characterizes this as "dying to self". 

What you see in modern Evangical Christianity is the result of stripping the politics out of Jesus’ message so that it becomes domesticated to fit our western views of economic capitalism and maintains the status quo of economic injustice.

Re: What is the good news?

Danutz,

This comment is loaded — forgive me for only touching on one aspect. I am simply curious to see how your view of "dying to self" plays out in community. 

You speak about the needed "personal transformation." What does this look like in the context of a community? In other words, I am just one person. What impact does my personal transformation have on social justice?

In your estimation, what would it look like if "personal transformation" was not just an individual phenomenon, but rather communal?

Cornelius Plantinga asserts that because we are made in the image of God, who is triune, we were created to be in relationship with one another. Plantinga writes, "Only in relationship - as persons-in-community - are we able to reflect the fullness of the divine character… the church is essentially a community characterized by love, a people who reflect in relation to one another and to all creation the character of the Creator."

Dying to ourselves surely reveals the divine character of God, as we reach out to the hurt and broken, to those in need. But is the extent to which community can be involved? This strikes me as individual helping individual in need… how can it be more of an experience for the church community as a whole?

Re: What is the good news?

Danutz writes:  “Jesus was not political as a side note, but his message was first and foremost a message of political non-violent resistence to the imperialistic domination systems of his day. The call for social justice through the non-violent overthrow of social injustice was his primary message. Personal transformation is the means to the end.  The “end” is social justice and personal transformation is the means to that end.”

I gather from this that you are a ‘student’ of J.H. Yoder.  I’m just curious if you have interacted much with any of the evangelical critiques of “The Politics of Jesus”?  Even prior to the publication of Yoder’s famous book, there were other works that dealt with the biblcal material Yoder focused on that, I believe, have devastating implications for his (my language) politicized gospel (e.g., Ridderbos’ “The Coming Kingdom”, published in the 60’s, in which he presuasively argues against such a socio-political interpretation of the kingdom announced by Jesus). 

I would agree that the ‘end’ is social justice, but as part of the absolute justice of God’s reign (both a present and eshcatological concern) to be finally established in the kingdom to come (which is ultimately eschatological and divine). Personal transformation is the inauguration of a ‘new creation’ to be consummated in a ‘new heavens and a new earth’ in which there are no more tears, no more pain, no more injustice, cruelty, oppression, or sin.

Re: What is the good news?

KingJames1, I’ve not read Yoder, but maybe I will.  I’ve found Leo Tolstoy to be valuable in digging the message of social justice out from under the trappings of fundamental Christianity. If I’m not mistaken, I believe Tolstoy was the author that turned Gandhi onto the message of Jesus.  There are countless other Christians through history that understood the political passions of Jesus like Walter Wink or ML King Jr.

I disagree with the idea of a literal "new heavens and earth". Instead I see those as metaphors of Jesus’ equivolent to "i have a dream speech" by MLK Jr.  The kingdom of God is for Jesus his dream or vision of what the world could be like if we all understood and following his message.  I don’t think this language of the kingdom coming is an attempt to predict the future, but it is an attempt to change the future (that is a powerful difference if you think about it).  Jesus and NT prophets were not trying to predict that this kingdom would happen. Instead they were trying to make this dream of what could be actually become reality by selling this vision to those that would listen.  It is up to us to do what we can to help make this dream happen.  For me the word faith means that I have a strong sense of hope that this can and will happen. 

Re: What is the good news?

Hi Danutz,

Certainly Yoder approaches ‘the kingdom of God’ in many ways similar to and sympathetic with Tolstoy’s "The Kingdom of God is Within You", yet Yoder does attempt a more exegetically serious and in-depth articulation of this gospel as a message that centers on non-violent resistence to political evil.  Though Yoder comes from an (historically evangelical) Mennonite tradition, and seeks to justify his arguments on the basis of scripture, his proposal in ‘the politics of Jesus’ represents a significant shift from his evangelical moorings into a ‘new’ phase of the peace church movement (much to the chagrin of his Mennonite brethren of the previous generation).  As you may know, this particular view (which is not really all that different in many aspects from the now outmoded classical liberalism of 19th and early 20th century, in which the gospel’s relevance translates almost entirely into social justice concerns and a secularized utopian optimism) has grown in popularity among many mainline circles in the past forty years, including the Mennonites - many of whom have less concern for biblical fidelity than their forebears, or perhaps even Yoder himself. 

My problem with statements such as "the kingdom of God is for Jesus his dream or vision of what the world could be like if we all understood and following his message," is that that is not how it is presented in Jesus’ teachings as recorded in the gospels, nor by the apostles.  It is seen as both a present reality in the world (through the coming Son of Man) and as the future, eschatological (and violent, I might add) irrupting of God’s reign into the world - it comes inexorably, it is the absolute destiny of ‘the sons of the kingdom’ and the bitter, greivous loss of those ‘who are cast outside the kingdom’.  Jesus did not preach, if you obey, it will come.  Rather he taught: It is coming, therefore repent, believe, obey!

You go on to say, " I don’t think this language of the kingdom coming is an attempt to predict the future, but it is an attempt to change the future (that is a powerful difference if you think about it). "

I don’t see this as an accurate antithesis.  First, the message of the kingdom, as understood by (apparently) the apostolic church and the historic church since is not ‘an attempt to predict the future’.  The coming of the kingdom is not ‘predicted’; it is boldly proclaimed as fact, as cosmic destiny.  It is this ‘apocalyptic’ reality that we must face if we are to reckon with the Son of Man, and in light of this coming, our whole lives take on a new and radical significance and (re)direction.  Second, the coming of the kingdom is indeed the changing of the future, it is God’s redemptive ‘acting’ in the world (John 5:17) to critically alter its course of perversion, violence, self-destruction, and divine damnation. 

  

 

Re: What is the good news?

I would think that our personal transformation should begin to transform our community as we change our views about giving to the poor.  It should change where we give so that we no longer give to churches that mostly spend their resources back on their own members rather than tending to widows and orphans. It should change the way we view violence which should effect our communities as well as our neighboring nations. It should change our political views from motives of self-interest in protecting our own way of life into methods of non-violence and love of neighbors and enemies over ourselves.  It should change our views about vanity and how we dress so that we no longer seek to draw attention to ourselves and devalue the less attractive people in our communities.  It should change our attitudes toward materialism so that we no longer shame those that are not as economically blessed. It should change the type of  cars we drive which will collectively effect our environment.  It should change our choices about having children so that we might consider the self sacrificing practice of adopting children from less fortunate situations instead of having our own biological children. It should change our choices to value entertainment over community service.

In summary, I don’t see any way that our communities could NOT be changed by the real Christ-like transformation of individuals.  That is unless we continue to let traditional Christian theology trick us into thinking that the main message of the gospel is about avoiding personal sin or receiving forgiveness for personal sin.

Community is obviously important in making changes to the domination systems that keep down social justice. We need people to work together as communities to make the needed systematic changes. Also, just loving each other in our community is an important part of Jesus’ message.  After Jesus’ death, he is now resurrected in spirit and lives through us.  We are now his body, so if he is going to impact lives it is to our communities to make that impact as we live for him in his "spirit".

 

Re: What is the good news?

It seems to me that Jesus embodied the ultimate “whole person” and as such he valued love and transformation on a personal AND social scale. From EXTREMELY early on (see Larry Hurtado,) Jesus’ Jewish followers attributed divine worship to him without compromising their monotheism. Hurtado makes a persuasive acase that this unlikely (in light of their strong commitment to monotheism and the necessity this change posed to reimagine what monotheism means) was in part a response to thier powerful personal spiritual experiences. Wile I agree the church needs a corrective from a self-absorbed gospel, I don’t think “personal trasnformation is the means and social trasnformation is the end.” What does it matter if we live ina utopian society if we lack It’s all about a relationship with God and each other. Your approach beautiful gives vision to a utopian society where we succeeded in truly loving on another, but ignores a transcendent, mystical connection with God that is able to outlive death. If Jesus was only about making this life more tolerable for everyone, life is futile because tomorrow we die. Why not painlessly euthanize ourselves now and spare ourselves the pains, losses and struggles of life? But if there is hope — hope that we are part of something greater that lasts forever, beyond the day when our son becomes a red giant and life on earth dies out, then there is reason to work toward redeeming this world and make it better (personally AND politically) for every person in it, because our work cannot be destroyed by death.

Re: What is the good news?

Why not painlessly euthanize ourselves now and spare ourselves the pains, losses and struggles of life?

Actually your example would seem to work to prove my point. If you really believe in a literal afterlife, why wouldn’t you euthanize yourself so that you can get to it?. The belief that the Gospel is about life here and now IS THE EXACT REASON that we should cherish life before it ends. Your logic doesn’t add up. The Gospel is not just about ending pain, it is about beginning joy. Why would we want to stop that?

Jewish followers attributed divine worship to him without compromising their monotheism.

I think in this statement you also misunderstand religious pluralism. You seem to think the only way to religious pluralism is to have every group accept every theology as its own, but that is not the case. Another way to see it is that every group can have it’s own monotheistic theology but accept people from other groups even if their view of God is different. It is a both/and approach rather than either/or. Nobody is asking you to change your theology if that truely leads you to a Christ-like status of character. Does it do that?  Or does it lead you to an exclusive view of the world that only ministers to other people that are like you and can accept your view of God.

What does it matter if we live in a utopian society if we lack It’s all about a relationship with God and each other.

If we lived in this utopian society (the kingdom of God) we would all have wonderful relationships with each other and God. I’m not sure how your logic works here either. Just because you individually don’t have faith that we can fullfill the dream of Jesus doesn’t mean that the rest of us shouldn’t try. Isn’t faith all about having hope that we will acheive what seems to be impossible? Why must our hope be on something we can’t make happen. It seems to me that this logic leads to the feeling of hopelessness that is so common in today’s churches. Most people feel like they have no impact and no hope because their wholely transcendant view of God leaves them feeling like puppets on a string with no control and no definable hope and purpose other than just waiting around to see what God will do with us (or has predetermined for us).

Re: What is the good news?

Danutz,

Obviously, if one believes in an afterlife, and one also believes in certain criteria for "entry" into that afterlife (ie: John 3:16), then one’s primary motivation for not taking the easy road is to stay on Earth and help as many people as possible to accept those criteria.  Else, one’s sense of social justice is severely imbalanced.

Take a moment and hypothesize with me: a glorious afterlife is promised by Jesus to followers of his, and only followers of his.  He goes to prepare a place for them, and in their zeal to get to that happy hunting ground, they all commit suicide and go there.  Then who else will ever get to that same  eternal, perfect, glorious afterlife?  No-one.  That’s almost the worst social injustice imaginable, as far as I’m concerned.

If I truly believe that you are going to a worse afterlife, then I have a duty to do everthing in my power to help you heavenwards.  That’s why I’m still here.

And ultimately, for me, that ease of entry is the Good News, the Injil, the Gospel.  All we have to do is believe that Jesus has opened the way for us to have that afterlife (again, John 3:16, and many others) and we’re in.

In brief: Good News = you/I/we suck spiritually, God has a plan, God enacts his plan, and by his grace, you/I/we don’t suck anymore!  Simply, effective, and something you’d expect from a God who "desires the death of no man" (pardon the gender-exclusive translation!).

Blessings,

Cilionelle

"It’s not how long we’ve been standing here,      It’s that we haven’t moved forward…"

Preference?

I understand that you “prefer” to view Eden in a particular way. It seems to me, based your brief response, that your preference is quite similar to the original tulip apologetic. What reasons do you have for preferring this particular view of this text? You give a few such as “I just don’t see how anyone in the 21st century could believe that as literal..”, but never really give reasons why your view should be considered “more right” than the commentor. Maybe I’m missing something (it wouldn’t be the first time), but if you wouldn’t mind spending some time on this it would be appreciated.

Re: What is the good news?

JC,

Great post. It seems you have thought this through quite a bit. Better yet, it seems like you have read your Bible quite a bit. I love the "divine trajectory" idea. You also point out something that most of us shudder to think about: God subjected His creation to the Fall. Romans says as much (Rom 8:20). It looks like you have gotten some criticism on the idea of total depravity. I’m sure a good reading of Romans would be helpful to those who are uncomfortable with this idea. I encourage you to continue in this divine trajectory explanation of things. Do you feel that the discussion of free will vs. God’s soverignty is necessary to include in the trajectory? Have you explored the Theology of the Seed any further than what you mentioned in your post?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.