Gospels in the plural?
Even the church can offer various takes on the gospel as well, some more on target and some less so. Mark Driscoll delineates between three gospel presentations: forgiveness, fulfillment, and freedom (1).
The traditional church preaches the gospel of forgiveness. Summarily, we are under God's wrath because of our sin until we repent and believe in Christ. Driscoll aptly comments, "This gospel worked for people in [a primarily Christian culture] because they had a general knowledge of authority, sin, judgment, hell, and Jesus" (2). Driscoll, however, points out that in our postmodern world, there is no longer a true conception of what sin is. Authority is radically doubted and rejected. Jesus is just another way. Do we abandon it? Contextualize it--if so, how? And when does contextualization become dangerous?
Contemporary churches (along the lines of the seeker-sensitive movement) have moved to a fulfillment gospel. David F. Wells calls it a therapeutic gospel (3); at its worst, it can border on what has been called a "moralistic therapeutic dualism" (4). Perhaps borrowing too much from modernism and materialism, God's good gospel becomes twisted to meet our felt needs and comfort us. Sin becomes more of a lack of self-esteem--the answer is that God found us so loveable that he died so we could reach our full potential.
Finally, the gospel presentation that focuses on freedom is often found in the emerging (not Emergent) or missional church. Sin blocks us from the community with God and with one another we were created for. Sin has brought death and havoc into all of life. Driscoll writes, "Our God, Jesus, came to live without sin as our example, die for our sin as our substitute, and rise from death as our Lord who liberates us from Satan, sin, and death" (5).
Is one more faithful to the Bible than the other? The gospel of fulfillment surely is not. Yet, as I read the summary of the gospel of forgiveness and the gospel of freedom, both sound theologically sound. The former emphasizes penal substitution and the authority of God--essentials that are not prominent in the gospel of freedom (6). Yet, it is very individualistic and narrows the scope of the gospel. The gospel of freedom emphasizes what theologians have called Christus Examplar and Christus Victor--Christ's life as our pattern (although not saving in and of itself) and the Christ as victor theory of atonement. It highlights the broader scope of the gospel, that all things are put under the feet of Christ (Eph. 1:21-22; Col. 1:18).
Is one more faithful than the other? Both contain important aspects. Theologians have long wrestled if there was one more basic idea to the atonement (ransom, recapitulation, satisfaction, penal-substitution, moral example, governmental, Christus victor, etc.). The gospel is rich--as Saint Jerome supposedly said, "The Scriptures are shallow enough for a babe to come and drink without drowning and deep enough for theologians to swim in without ever reaching bottom." Paul spoke of nothing but the cross of Christ, that is, the gospel--but filled up hundreds of pages in the Bible with the same theme.
This all points to an important point: contextualization. This demands both a strong understanding of the true gospel and a strong understanding of the competing gospels. The true gospel is rich enough, varied enough, true enough, and relevant enough to speak today. Thus, it can be contextualized. But contextualization is different from accommodation--where the therapeutic or liberal gospel has failed. They accommodated, taking too much of the culture, and failed to faithfully hold fast to the Word of Truth. I, my church, and we need to ask ourselves today: How can we contextualize this treasure so my friends far from God would understand? How do they define sin, see God and Jesus? What are their competing gospels? Are we in love with Christ enough that we will be zealous for his gospel? Do we share the heart of Christ enough that we will show the lies in the other gospels and offer the truth unequivocally, giving our neighbors true hope?
NOTES
(1) Mark Driscoll. Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006: 23.
(2) Ibid.
(3) David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's Publishing Co, 2005).
(4) “Moralistic therapeutic dualism” (MTD) summed up by the following creed: 1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth. 2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions. 3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself. 4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem. 5. Good people go to heaven when they die” (J. Todd Billings, Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011).
(5) Driscoll, Confessions, 24.
(6) It is clear that Driscoll is a firm advocate for the penal substitution theory as well--see his excellent book with Gerry Breshears. Death By Love: Letters from the Cross. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
The traditional church preaches the gospel of forgiveness. Summarily, we are under God's wrath because of our sin until we repent and believe in Christ. Driscoll aptly comments, "This gospel worked for people in [a primarily Christian culture] because they had a general knowledge of authority, sin, judgment, hell, and Jesus" (2). Driscoll, however, points out that in our postmodern world, there is no longer a true conception of what sin is. Authority is radically doubted and rejected. Jesus is just another way. Do we abandon it? Contextualize it--if so, how? And when does contextualization become dangerous?
Contemporary churches (along the lines of the seeker-sensitive movement) have moved to a fulfillment gospel. David F. Wells calls it a therapeutic gospel (3); at its worst, it can border on what has been called a "moralistic therapeutic dualism" (4). Perhaps borrowing too much from modernism and materialism, God's good gospel becomes twisted to meet our felt needs and comfort us. Sin becomes more of a lack of self-esteem--the answer is that God found us so loveable that he died so we could reach our full potential.
Finally, the gospel presentation that focuses on freedom is often found in the emerging (not Emergent) or missional church. Sin blocks us from the community with God and with one another we were created for. Sin has brought death and havoc into all of life. Driscoll writes, "Our God, Jesus, came to live without sin as our example, die for our sin as our substitute, and rise from death as our Lord who liberates us from Satan, sin, and death" (5).
Is one more faithful to the Bible than the other? The gospel of fulfillment surely is not. Yet, as I read the summary of the gospel of forgiveness and the gospel of freedom, both sound theologically sound. The former emphasizes penal substitution and the authority of God--essentials that are not prominent in the gospel of freedom (6). Yet, it is very individualistic and narrows the scope of the gospel. The gospel of freedom emphasizes what theologians have called Christus Examplar and Christus Victor--Christ's life as our pattern (although not saving in and of itself) and the Christ as victor theory of atonement. It highlights the broader scope of the gospel, that all things are put under the feet of Christ (Eph. 1:21-22; Col. 1:18).
Is one more faithful than the other? Both contain important aspects. Theologians have long wrestled if there was one more basic idea to the atonement (ransom, recapitulation, satisfaction, penal-substitution, moral example, governmental, Christus victor, etc.). The gospel is rich--as Saint Jerome supposedly said, "The Scriptures are shallow enough for a babe to come and drink without drowning and deep enough for theologians to swim in without ever reaching bottom." Paul spoke of nothing but the cross of Christ, that is, the gospel--but filled up hundreds of pages in the Bible with the same theme.
This all points to an important point: contextualization. This demands both a strong understanding of the true gospel and a strong understanding of the competing gospels. The true gospel is rich enough, varied enough, true enough, and relevant enough to speak today. Thus, it can be contextualized. But contextualization is different from accommodation--where the therapeutic or liberal gospel has failed. They accommodated, taking too much of the culture, and failed to faithfully hold fast to the Word of Truth. I, my church, and we need to ask ourselves today: How can we contextualize this treasure so my friends far from God would understand? How do they define sin, see God and Jesus? What are their competing gospels? Are we in love with Christ enough that we will be zealous for his gospel? Do we share the heart of Christ enough that we will show the lies in the other gospels and offer the truth unequivocally, giving our neighbors true hope?
NOTES
(1) Mark Driscoll. Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006: 23.
(2) Ibid.
(3) David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's Publishing Co, 2005).
(4) “Moralistic therapeutic dualism” (MTD) summed up by the following creed: 1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth. 2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions. 3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself. 4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem. 5. Good people go to heaven when they die” (J. Todd Billings, Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011).
(5) Driscoll, Confessions, 24.
(6) It is clear that Driscoll is a firm advocate for the penal substitution theory as well--see his excellent book with Gerry Breshears. Death By Love: Letters from the Cross. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
Comments
Post a Comment