This post follows up some previous posts on evangelism and discussion with Greg Harris and significantly influenced by a series of lectures at Regent College by Scott Mcknight on his new book The King Jesus Gospel.
When talking about Christianity it is common to hear the word "gospel" thrown around: gospel music, the full gospel, gospel centred, gospel coalition, sharing the gospel, preaching the gospel, living the gospel, the power of the gospel... ok so we generally seem pretty clear that its really important but what exactly is it?
What makes me nervous when this word gets thrown around, especially in the context of equipping or encouraging evangelism, is that basically what is being implicitly encouraged, most often is stuffing the four spiritual laws down people's throats... or spoon feeding it to them with sugar... Even if this is not meant or said I would worry that the expectation is the proclamation of the penal substitution theory of atonement in as compelling terms as possible... It is only through the brilliant lectures by Mcknight that I am able to articulate more fully what the problem is with the promotion and perpetuation of these models and what a more Biblical view would be.
What is the Gospel? Mcknight commented that there are two distinct tendencies currently one is the social gospel: the good news of liberation and almost exclusively enacted in real tangible terms... this is of course reacted against by the second who emphasize "justification" as the gospel, this group usually argues that social justice naturally flows out of a response to the good news of justification...(regardless of if this has ever happened in history)... there are also others, like Tim Keller, who brilliantly and even more effectively synthesize these two camps showing their connection and relationship.
However, Mcknight, argues that all of this misses what the gospel is regardless of their validity, goodness or truth...
So what is the Gospel? To answer Mcknight turns to 1 Corinthians 15:
1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
So what? Well, Paul presents here the story of Jesus. Note in particular the use of the word Christ, Greek for Messiah, as well as repeated mention of "the Scriptures." Further, this a lengthy and detailed narrative that includes burial, Peter, the twelve, James and Paul himself. Mcknight argues that this is the earliest oral Gospel tradition that we have and emphasizes its narrative quality, which is very similar to the sermons in Acts and dissimilar to the propositional nature of the 4 spiritual laws...
Mcknight very compellingly argues that we have misappropriated the Gospel which is the STORY of Jesus, which is the fulfilment of Israel's STORY. It is a story about Israel's need for a king and the answer found in the life of Jesus and his present ongoing universal reign... We have, however, in the last 50 years, in the course of the revivalist tradition and culminating in Billy Graham and Campus crusade, made the gospel about salvation and in particular, personal salvation. For 50 years we have preached Jesus as saviour, to the point that many if not most would be hard pressed to explain what Jesus as Messiah means... This development rises explicitly in North America due to our obsession and reduction of life to technique, which in turn is born out of our uncontemplative pragmatic primal experience of claiming the continent. Our society is born out of the need for immediate practical measurable results as it forged a new life in the "new world." Because of this technical pragmatism North America has become the most productive and technologically advanced society in the world (George Grant, "In Defense of North America." 1969). This focus on results has led to the reduction of the Gospel to salvation. This has resulted in the reduction of Jesus to saviour. This has resulted in the reduction of disciples to "converts". As we have been enamoured with the result of salvation we have lost hold of the story of Jesus as the fulfilment of Israel and bringer of shalom to the world. This is the Gospel: the story of Jesus, a story we are invited to enter into and live in and participate in. Many modern evangelism techniques, such as the four spiritual laws, or the dimming of the lights for the altar call, are brilliantly moulded to generate a crisis, a crisis which is required for "conversion" (any conversion, to anything, requires a crisis). This is why this form of evangelism feels dirty: it is explicitly psychologically manipulative. In Mcknight's most spectacular rhetorical flourish he compared these manipulated conversions to abortion, that is pre mature birth. Rather than sharing the story of Jesus, rather than sharing ourselves, rather than trusting God, we have created a transactional, crisis inducing, conversion creating Gospel, which has failed to make the disciples we were commissioned for... The "Salvation" Gospel creates converts; the Story Gospel demands followers, because Jesus is King.
Why are the gospels called gospels? because they tell us the story of Jesus. May we, by the grace of God have opportunity to share that story and the story of Israel and restoration it is the culmination of. May we trust God to work in people's lives, growing faith in them, drawing them to himself and prompting the response to the Gospel: "What shall we do?" (Acts 2) May we we trust God, and not in our propositions, or theories... May our theology be generous, filled with both faith and humility, that God's glory be manifest in our love...
I'm not sure what you mean.
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to say that its the fact that its a story that makes the gospel or is what the story is about that makes it the gospel? I don't has ever argued that its not a story...
It is the content of the story: the life, death, ressurection of Jesus, Israel's Messiah. However, typical modern gospel presentation is Creation (maybe) Sin (definitely), Jesus death (transactional), Salvation (heaven)... So while this is a story and it contains gospel elements it is a significant reduction and interpretation of the biblical sense of "gospel". We do not bat an eyelash at the idea that it is part of our role as evangelists to convince people that they are sinners, have a void, or in other sense have need... Biblical gospel presentations/declaration are narrative presentations of Jesus life - not diagrams show how far away you are from God with cross bridge... The essence of the Gospel is Jesus as messiah fulfilling Israel's story and the implications for the world - NOT the atonement and salvation. Note the difference between the gospel being about Jesus... and the gospel being about what Jesus has done for you... Jesus the person vs Jesus the means to an end...
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteI totally get the idea that the Bible is narrative and I agree with you. I also agree that we focus on the event too much and not enough on knowing God.
I would push back though. I think the atonement s the central issue. Listen, the penal subisttionary death of Jesus is really loaded way of saying that Jesus died in my place for my sins, Call it whatever you want its part of the story its how Jesus shows his authority over Israel. you quoted for 1 corthians, but the same author says in the next book, "He made Him who aknew no sin to be bsin on our behalf, so that we might become the crighteousness of God in Him." thats all the atonement is call it this term or just say it in the story its the same thing
I would also push back on the idea of what Jesus can do for us vs knowing Jesus. Duncan I agree need to know Jesus the man vs the attitude that Jesus is somehow a genuie. but i think you're being too harsh. I don't know a single person has come to Jesus for a selfish reason. There's no Christian in history that has come to know God because they wanted to know him, they all needed him to something first we have all come to Jesus because we needed him. - -over time though we come to know Jesus because we want to know him, but i don't think Jesus ever faults us for that
I don't think atonement is the only thing Jesus did on the cross I do agree that Jesus did demonstrate himself as king over Israel but i also think Jesus dying in place of my sins is kind was part of it too I mean when Peter preaches to the Jews He right out says Jesus died for our sins and thats in a narrative acount
ReplyDeleteCertainly lots of people agree with you Dan that the atonement (regardless of your theory of choice)is central and I am not even going to argue whether it is or not. What I will passionately say is that the conclusion regarding its centrality has led to horrendous reductionism in the very recent past... this is my main point. Further in this reduction the loss of context has resulted in a loss of meaning.
ReplyDeleteWhat did the disciples "need" in their following Jesus? And yet it is precisely this following that is asked of us...
It is not a matter of whether we need something, we all do. It is a matter of whether we are "selling" Jesus or presenting Jesus... whether we are selling salvation or inviting followership. Saying Jesus died for/because of our sins is different than accusing telling them they are a sinner and going to great lengths to convince or trap people into agreeing to condemnation...
"What I will passionately say is that the conclusion regarding its centrality has led to horrendous reductionism in the very recent past... this is my main point. Further in this reduction the loss of context has resulted in a loss of meaning."
ReplyDeleteI would agree with that. I guess for myself what you stated is one big factor why I am falling in love with systematic theology - it is all encompassing and holisitic and seeks to avoid the reductionism you're talking about
Really Dan? Systematic Theology is "encompassing" and "holistic". Sorry, I must disagree. If you have holism without genera, then yes. If you have Encompassing, without story or narrative and their ramifications, then yes. If the text is flat, non animated, and context secondary then systematic is all it is cracked up to be. (I hope you catch the sarcasm).
ReplyDeleteSystematic theology can be beneficial, but it requires one to look at scripture as data, not story. In that way it is similar to empiricism, but we as a society have realized that only god so far. Eventually light needs to be particle and wave, string theory emerges, chaos theory, etc. Eventually empiricism has an end where it no longer looks like empiricism. Story on the other had, that which I think Duncan is pushing (given he put it in all CAPS) has not had the same end, at least from my perspective. Story continues to be persuasive. Is is on that level, I believe, Duncan is pushing us to see things differently.
I don't think the two are mutually exlusive. Sysemtical theology is based upon the story. It needs the story, you're saying they are two different realms all together. Take for example the issue of atonement we have been talking about as a formal dicipline, it focuses on all the Jesus did on the cross including Jesus showing his dominion over Israel. As a theology is looks at what the whole story says about one issue instead of focuses on one. You don't get the reductionism duncan is talking about in this kind of theology because it tries it best to summarize the whole story not just part of it
ReplyDeleteStory is so immportant its the way Jesus taught most of the bible is written in story its awesome but that doesn't mean making a hard and fast statement about some aspect of the story is wrong.
Also consider the need to articulate the story in a way that crosses cultures.. If you just told the story and hoped people would get it you would have so many problems. People won't come to the idea that Jesus was King over Israel.
For example, Im got my degree from Prairie. Prairie is known world wide for its strong missions. I forget the name of the missionary but there was a man who left the school to become a missionary to a remote tribe. When he got there be began to tell the gospel story - just that story. the tribe never understood the narrative. Well they did they just intrepreted differently. In that culture lying deceipt and betrayal where seen as good things so Judas was understood to be the hereo of the story and Jesus was considered be a man of shame someone that deserved what he got. For 3 years the missionary tried to tell this story. He gave up but on the day he left he noticed that the tribe they were warning with they were exchanging children. He learned that as long as the children were in the other tribe there would be peace between the tribes. He used this as a metaphor to describe the gospel narrative and they understood what it meant. If hey had persisted in just telling the story the missionary who have only successed in fostering a community where lying was good.
S. theology NEEDS the story BUT if you just tell the story and hope people get it you leave the narrative up to the intrepration of the culture . That missionary would have never been able to communicate and he somehow could aritucalte in his head what the story was trying to communicate then then re translate into culture. Thats all systematic theology is its just trying to give the whole picture on some aspect of the story. Never ever ever have you reduced the gospel to the atonement with systematic It never teaches that thus it is more holistic. and at least for North Americans a tool used to share the gospel cross culturally
a cole notes if you will on the gospel narrative
ReplyDeleteIf you`re interested the missionary`s name was Dawn Richardson, I highly recommend his book
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Richardson_(missionary)
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIt is a wonderful story which I am also familiar with. However, it precisely betrays what I think I am trying to get at. The gospel, is the climax of a larger story... it is not magic... you can not just recite 1 corinthians 15 at people... I have seen video of missionaries in Africa who spent 3 or 4 years working through the entire Biblical narrative and the tribe just erupts dancing when the resurrection occurs. This I think is great evangelism.
The problem with systematics is that it imposes external categories and priorities and then fits the text into them. While perhaps at its best it is or attempts to be "holistic" I think at a practical level it is precisely what allows us to reduce. I would suggest that at a practical level systematics has encouraged and allowed a lot of people to say that salvation is the goal and most important, the way that happens is through penal substitution so lets package that in the 4 spiritual laws and take it global... Notice the enterprising capitalist flavour, which is why this is born in North America.
Anyway, we, I think, are so immersed in this way of thinking and reading that we barely even notice, which is why I appreciate McKight's strong language.
For example: I searched systematic theology and the first book that comes up is by Wayne Grudem, whose son I go to school with, and I am confident is a wonderful person.
this is my biased summary of the table of contents:
Scripture
God
Humanity (and sin)
Jesus and the HS (atonment)
"The application of Redemption" (salvation)
-this section in the table of contents mentions conversion but not discipleship...
Church
Eschatology
So in comparison the 4 spiritual laws are:
God loves you.
Humanity is sinful.
Jesus died for your sins.
We must accept Jesus as saviour.
Once you are a Christian you are expected to go church because that what Christians do while we are waiting for the end times...
So to me, the 4 spiritual laws, just seem like a condensed version of Grudem's systematics or systematics just an expanded version...
And to me, they both mostly miss the biblical narrative in favour of an emphasis on "personal salvation"...
As long as we continue to to present the gospel with a focus toward "salvation" we are not only creating a false sense short term gain at the expense of long term depth and growth (Precisely like we have in our economics and agriculture...) as well this approach has an alienating effect on other people who cannot comprehend such a transactional account of religion. The gospel is about life, all of life and changing EVERYTHING. This is becomes clear when Jesus is king not when Jesus is merely saviour. We have created a bizarre two step process that is entirely unBiblical and unnecessary where first you accept salvation and then later you have the option to commit your whole life to Jesus... (I have literally had this presented to me in the course of my growing up)
Hi Duncan,
ReplyDeleteAnother fantastic post! I didn’t hear McKnight’s lecture and haven’t yet read his book, so I respond mostly to you and almost avoid McKnight altogether. Before I go into a more detailed post I truly want to affirm you for the deep thought you have invested in your posts. I am encouraged by your love for Christ and your desire to have all of your life reflect his Lordship and Reign. I am confident that if we had a chance to chat in person about this topic over tea we could nuance our words immediately and we would not be very far apart.
That said; if you would be so kind to indulge me in reading the following thoughts I would be grateful. I have 6 (sorry!) responses, the first is longest because of an extensive quote.
(1)
I agree with DeYoung and Gilbert in their book "What is the Mission of the Church" when they say the following (it's a longer quote - sorry!):
"A good deal of confusion [re: defining the "gospel"] can be untangled, we think, by making some careful observations about how this conversation plays out. It seems to us that these two groups-those who say the gospel is the good news that God is reconciling sinner to himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus (let's call them 'zoom-lens people'), and those who say that the gospel is the good news that God is going to renew and remake the world through Christ (call them the 'wide-angle people')-are really answering two different though highly related questions. Of course both groups say they are answering the question 'What is the Gospel' (and they are!), but if you look closely at how they talk, it turns out there's quite a lot being assumed by both sides about that simple-sounding question. To zoom-lens people, the question 'What is the gospel?' translates as 'What is the message a person must believe in order to be saved? And so he answers by talking about the substitutionary death of Jesus in the place of sinners and the call to repent and believe. To a wide-angle person, though, the question 'What is the gospel?' translates instead to 'What is the whole good news of Christianity?' And of course he answers by talking not just about forgiveness but also about all the great blessings that flow from that, including God's purpose to remake the world... When a zoom-lens person hears a wide-angle person answer the question 'What is the gospel' by talking about new creation, he thinks 'No! You're taking the focus off the cross and resurrection! That's diluting the gospel!' On the other hand, when a wide-angle person hears a zoom-lens person answer the same question by talking only about the forgiveness of sins through the cross, he likewise thinks, 'No! The good news doesn't stop there! There's more to it than that! You're reducing the gospel to something less than it is!'" (93-94)
DeYoung and Gilbert go on to state that: "In fact, the Bible asks both the question 'What must a person believe in order to be saved?' and the question 'What is the whole good news of Christianity?' - and it answers both in terms of the word gospel." (94)
They cite the following passages re: answering the wide-lens question:
Matt 4:23; Luke 4:18-19; Acts 12:32-33
They cite the following passages re: answering the zoom-lens question:
Acts 10:36-43; Rom 1:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 (though McKnight would disagree with them on this passage); 1 Corinthians 1:17-18
Post 2 of 2
ReplyDelete(2)
While I think much of what you wrote in this post is great work that aids good discussion, however some of your comments came across as polemic. To equate the belief in penal substitution as the controlling metaphor re: the atonement with adding sugar to the 4 Spiritual Laws and manipulating people so they convert and subsequently don’t get discipled or follow Christ as Lord and King is frankly poor work. You deal with your ‘opponent’ in terms they wouldn’t be comfortable with and then go from there. I hold the view that penal substitution is the controlling metaphor of the atonement because I believe that the big problem in the Bible is the separation between Man and God, and that separation needs to be reconciled and is so through Christ's work on the cross - however, I am also against the use of the 4SL and manipulation, I too believe it is God's work to convict of sin and woo people to Himself.
(3)
I want to leave room for correction that you actually rejoice in penal substitution, but that didn’t come across in your post. While it isn't the entirety of the good news, it is without a doubt good news that Jesus died for us so we can be reconciled to God because God's wrath was poured on the willing Christ for our sin, and Christ's righteousness is given to us - praise God for penal substitution! If the problem in the Bible is separation between man and God - Christ dying for our sin and giving us his righteousness is necessary to reconcile man to God and bring shalom - which is here already though not yet fully.
(4)
You mentioned Grudem, and I think his handling of salvation is fantastic. The order of salvation mentioned there is helpful because I think he is right in saying that “salvation” means all of the following: "Election, Gospel Call, Regeneration, Conversion, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Perseverance, Death, Glorification" (670). While Arminians and Calvinists will want to quibble over the exact order and definitions, we see both evangelism/conversion (gospel call) and discipleship/followership (sanctification and perseverance) as necessary for salvation. Or in other words, as Timothy Keller has said before "You're saved by faith alone but not by a faith that stays alone"
(5)
With all this said, I still think the framework of "Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation" is a helpful one to use when thinking of and speaking the gospel. We see God as the creator and sustainer of all; we identify that the primary problem is that everything is broken through human's rebellion; we identify that redemption is needed and this redemption begins in Eden and culminates at Calvary; and we identify that our saviour Christ is Lord and King and is reconciling all things to himself already - though not yet fully - and he will ultimately consummate his eternal reign when he returns in glory - Come Lord Jesus Come!
(6)
I am open to further discussion, correction or clarification if I misread something or misunderstood you. I want to affirm your understanding that the gospel is a story about Christ; I may still be uncomfortable with putting my own experience as a part of that story but nevertheless I want to echo your benediction - May we trust God, and not in our propositions, or theories... May our theology be generous, filled with both faith and humility, that God's glory be manifest in our love...
Sincerely,
Greg Harris
Greg,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your responses. I am prepared to indulge all 6 of your responses and would love a cup of tea...
1) I think the authors you quote have accurately noticed assessed reactions and areas of disagreement/miscommunication. I don't necessarily agree with their conclusion. While this is the central issue of my post and is perhaps worth belabouring and analyzing each passage making a systematic case... I don't have the energy. To capture why I am not as willing to say the word is used both ways and everything is awesome I will say this. The gospels are called gospels because they are the gospel. So even if I agree that the cross is central... it cannot be lifted out the way I think that it is so often. Do you see what I am getting at? I will use the example of a kinder surprise: the cross is the toy but you can't just give someone a toy and call it a kinder surprise. When we read 1 Cor. 15 with our soteriological lens all we see is Jesus dies for our sins (and we read into that penal substitution). However, if we take a moment and breath and look again you will see that Jesus died for/because of our sins is one part of a narrative that emphasizes messiahship, Israel's scriptures, therefore Jesus' fulfilment of Israel's story, includes resurrection, and personal experience. This is all I will say.
2)Greg, without a little polemic its just not interesting :) Why would I want my "opponent" to be comfortable? Dan you also accused me of being "too harsh." Perhaps this is fair... I certainly did not try to understate my terms for the sake of ecumenical ambiguity as I sometimes do. But I am not sure am willing to just accept the charge of "poor work" regarding my implicit suggestion that penal sub, 4 spiritual laws, and manipulation are connected. That's right. Although I admit I was far less nuanced then I could have been. Let me also say: that I genuinely love and respect both Greg and Dan and know the to be gentle, humble people filled with Christ's love and I am proud and honoured that they are engaging me in this conversation.
Ok. first: we agree the 4 spiritual laws are not awesome evangelism. great. Do we agree they are manipulation? what I mean by this is that they induce a psychological crisis and offer an immediate resolution... I will assume that we agree about that. It is my contention that difference between the penal sub "story" of salvation and the 4 spiritual laws is negligible... emphasis on human sin, God's wrath and a legal/transactional atonement = salvation... THEREFORE creating and alleviating the same psychological crisis...
I would argue that the big STORY in the Bible is Israel and the Israel's problem is they need a King...
3)I love the way you posed this one... I definitely tried to dance around this one enough in to not distract too much from the point I was trying to make, while simultaneously hinting strongly enough that perhaps people will see some of the connections I am making. Greg, I am trusting in your promised generosity to continue to call me brother and friend if I say that I think that penal substitution is a 15th century theory that is problematically transactional, unhelpfully emphasizes God's wrath, and is no longer useful in communicating the glory of the atonement in the modern western context. Furthermore, the legal metaphor of "justification" used by Paul, in which Penal Sub roots itself, is one of many images used by Paul to describe atonement and is generally limited to Romans and certainly not universal, which suggests to me both freedom and complexity neither of which I find in calling Penal sub the "controlling" metaphor. But I am happy we agree on the word metaphor so hopefully we can both rejoice that I do agree that the atonement occurred through Jesus and we have been effectively reconciled to God.
ReplyDelete4)Isn't it just a little problematic for you... even a little bit... that the word disciple doesn't occur in the Table of Contents? Do you see the problem with systematically separating "salvation" and "discipleship" in a linear model? Am I wrong in pointing out the similarities between the ToC and the 4SL? Do you not see them?
5) I would want to emphasize that Christ the King is also saviour rather than the reverse...
6)Christ is a great word but it has lost the meaning of Messiah (which we generally don't understand)... I deeply appreciate your mutual affirmation of generosity and pray it may be felt in the larger theological context.
Peace.
Hey Duncan,
ReplyDeleteThis response will be somewhat shorter, I promise :)
I'll respond with numbers again because it helps me systematize my thinking which is helpful for me ;)
2)
Your "opponent" (me!?) shouldn't remain comfortable, but I think the rub should stem from the implications of the differing views and not the describing of them. I felt the rub in the describing of the views, and I think that was unnecessary and distracting from your real point. I wasn't fair or charitable in saying it was "poor work", I'm sorry - you are a gifted writer and thinker and I thank God for you.
I think all strategies for talking to people about the good news of Christianity have the potential to be manipulative, and the 4SL is definitely not immune to potential manipulation. I still think the most helpful framework for having gospel conversations is Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation, and I think you can apply different strategies to that framework; those applied strategies can be manipulative but I don't think the framework itself is necessarily manipulative in the way you described.
3)
I affirm Wally Unger's paper given at the MB Conference "Deep Spirited Friends" (which I think we were both at) that penal substitution is the central metaphor - though not the only one - of an orthodox understanding of the atonement (http://www.mbconf.ca/home/products_and_services/resources/publications/mb_herald/december_2010/pe/friends/)
4)
While it may not reflect in the Table of Contents, I see Grudem saying that discipleship is necessary for salvation (Part 5: The Doctrine of the Application of Redemption). I don't see him systematically separating the two in a linear model, and even if it was there (implied?) in the outline it isn't there in the content. In this case, from my reading of the material, I would humbly suggest your assumption is wrong.
I'm thankful we agree that the atonement occurred in Christ alone and we have been effectively reconciled to God. I am also thankful that you want to make much about the life and work of Christ. My hunch is that we both desire to convince the other of our view, but I am confident that we both love Christ, His church and have a deeper desire to continue calling each other brother and friend.
I'm in the process of applying for an MCS (and hopefully afterwards a ThM) at Regent - so we may cross paths and actually have a chance to grab that cup of tea.
@ Duncan
ReplyDeleteI do understand where you're coming from. I do agree that the gospel is about everything and life. and somehow we think the salvation is be all and end all to the exclusion of everything but i guess for me its really hard to understand or a traditional theology (systematic theology/ billy graham theology) is responsible for this. I do understand how you got there. But for me its hard to affirm because everything you said Christianity should be I've learned from the theology you have a misgiving with. So we both agree that theres problems, but the theology I grew up addressed those issues. When I've read through most of these blogs I agree with a lot of the misgivings everyone has voiced about our Christian culture including what you have mentioned in this specific entry. My best understanding is that a lot of the misgivings come from our faulty North American theology and I would agree with that at some points. In this issue I think you have a misgiving about how we articulate the gospel narrative and blame the theology for it. While I would suggest what Theologies we gravitate too more than others. and so I can see your point about how Systematic theology goes that. I'm not against a narrative approach to it but to say that its responsible for people missing certain aspects of theology is only addressing half the problem. I think most your greivence would also have to blame for which parts of theology they focus on. For example Grudem talks a lot about the gospel being everything not just believing. I think he might have like 15 pages devoted to it. Or take for example your issue with soley Salvation. Grudem has a whole chapter devoted to the offices Christ fufills, salvation, prophet, priest and king. So to me its hard me to believe its the theology when the theology you' saying brings about the issue also addresses the very same thing you have a problem with. However as a communicator I can choose not go bring that up. I think the same thing can happen in a narrative approach. We can skip some of the story - fast forward even assume the the cultural values on one story can translate into another. Its not that I am against narrative its just i feel like you're saying we should throw out the old way in favor of this "new" way when I think the real solution is to have a multi vector approach to it. I think this is more a form thing than a theological issue of whether or not the atonement makes people feel guilty. You can do that through a narrative.
I don't think you to throw" the baby out with the bathwater" to accomplish what you want to see. Some of that theology is really, really good and dates back further and the reformation
Greg, all I really care about is point one which you did not address...
ReplyDelete2)To me, and I realize it is difficult to fully drag our thinking and language out our present position, historical experience, church culture etc... But to me... the word strategy inherently betrays both salesmanship and manipulation... as well as the us vs them binary thinking that Silas was talking about. Although I recognize you are certainly not intending this...
3)I find Wally, who is wonderful, super frustrating on this topic because I feel like tries to sort of hold middle ground but he blurs words in ways that I think are actually unhelpful and further divisive. Since it has come up, I found that conference super frustrating, horrifyingly one sided, distinctly combative and kinda bizzare. I found the Bruce Geunther article far more helpful and compelling towards finding common ground not that it got any airtime.
4)I acknowledge my deficit knowledge here. While I think that Grudem distinctly betrays the Soteriological emphasis (certainly in the way the book is put together), which I am suggesting is problematic. I will defer direct comment to such a time as I can leaf through the book.
Greg, this has been an exemplary example of an earnest conversation that probably needs to happen at the denominational level on a number of topics with equal generosity... I assume you are aware of the very reform shape of Northview and your own position... Do you perceive this as problematic for a historically anabaptist denomination? (perhaps a topic for a less public conversation)
Regent! That's exciting! This fall? There is 1000 dollar mutual scholarship referral program thing I'll find out the details and we can both get a $1000!
Silas we should maybe fill this out too...just in case...
Greg do you have a concentration in mind already?
Probably best to just message me on Facebook I guess.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI really like the world multi vector and appreciate your affirmations as well as critique... Both you an Greg are schooled on Grudem and Reform theology better than I am, although probably not better than McKnight. Either way I am bowing out as I seem to be failing to communicate effectively the nuance I am trying to present and the rootedness of that nuance in scripture... I appreciate the time energy and attention you have both given it has been exhilarating.
but I that doesn't mean I disagree with you practically about what's happened
ReplyDeleteWow; 20 comments in 3 days! I have read through this with great interest. I'm not a theologian, and you guys are way over my heads on most of this.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel compelled to point out an irony w.r.t. Dan's post of Feb 15 5:34am(!). The topic is gospel presentation and reductionist/systematic theology presentation vs. narrative presentation. I assume that everyone here values systematic theology in various contexts. I assume (not ever having studied it) that it provides tools for understanding and interpretation that are not readily available in other forms.
However, the topic here, again, is gospel presentation. The example Dan quotes is the Peace Child story. He points out that the presentation of the narrative was not successful. In fact it was unhelpful.
The irony is that in that case the "solution" was not a systematic/propositional presentation. The "solution" was the presentation of a modified *narrative*. That of the Peace Child: God so loved the world that he gave it a Peace Child. It was metaphore; not systematic/propositional.
I think we're over our own heads too... but for clarification: despite the fact the discussion wandered a fair amount, you are accurate in noting that we have discussed systematic vs. narrative in relation to gospel presentation. However, the official topic is "what is the gospel?" and while I am arguing it is narrative I am also arguing that it is differently focused than evangelicals have tended to think about it for the past 50 years or so. That is it's focus is Jesus as King vs the result of salvation (soteriological) as per Scott McKnight's new book. And narrative presentation does not automatically remedy this... it must by rooted in scripture (all of scripture). The 4 spiritual laws are in a sense a story or at least can be presented as such (minus the word law...) but they maintain the problematic soteriological focus. I do think that even in its attempt to be comprehensive systematics are inherently reductive and therefore must be handled with care. The issue Dan addresses is if I am right about the "gospel"... how does one present it? and what if that's not effective? Do systematics allow us to boil down Gospel essences which can be applied contextually either by narrative or other? I am arguing effectively no. Others will disagree. Do ideas need to be translated and contextualized? yes. Is the peace child a good example of that? probably. But I think the story of the missionary betrays the focus on salvation that I think is problematic, similar of course to most of our missions work. There remains a transactional/mechanical emphasis to the "gospel" which I am concerned about.
Delete