Understanding the Times
There is a blog series I have discovered in the last few days, put together by JR Woodward, who calls himself a "dream awakener."
Mr. Woodward asked a whole slew of people, I think around forty in all, to "summarize their understanding of the Good News in 300 to 500 words." The Good News, meaning, the gospel, more or less.
All these bloggers claim Christ to varying degrees, many are pastors or work somehow in Christian ministry. It should give you a representative view of where exactly the American church is moving. The group is geographically diverse. Not all would likely describe themselves as "emergents," but they should probably be classified as such.
Here is the link, I urge you to check it out and read a few.
Good News series
Here are a few observations:
1. There is a great deal of emphasis on one verse in Ephesians: "that he might bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, namely Christ." This short excerpt from a larger thought is made to do some heavy lifting.
2. A key idea is that the gospel is about more than just "personal salvation." The Good News is not just about the security of our future, but about the hear and now.
3. With this in mind, we see that as we go out into the world, the good news, or gospel, instructs us to be renewing the whole of creation.
These ideas are very common today, and are gaining ground in the Christian schools. I have heard these ideas from friends at Fuller, Biola, and Wheaton. These ideas inform a lot of Rob Bell's thinking. Increasingly we are moving away from a gospel which speaks a specific message to man as he is, and to a seemingly larger, narrative gospel that is about us fitting into God's plan for all of creation. Sin in this case is not a legal matter that bars us from God's presence and makes us liable to punishment, but rather a evil force that is hindering God's plan for his creation.
Some of this is similar to Orthodox thought. But I think the real intellectual force behind all of this is NT Wright.
From him we see the first great attack on justification and substitutiary atonement (first, in the sense that it claimed to be made within the context of solid Biblical interpretation). Then, a shift in focus from the gospel as something that largely respects our future hope, into something that is "larger than the individual's salvation." Lately, a great emphasis on the renewal of creation being gospel work.
Read for yourself. Here are some thoughts from me:
1. The gospel is about the provision for sin...it is about Christ "redeeming us from the curse of the Law." The statement "the gospel is about more than personal salvation" is true in only a very limited sense. Every time I read that statement it frustrates me because it sounds so right, without actually being right. The gospel is about more than personal salvation in the sense that it does not exalt me, the end of it was not to glorify me. There is a grand scope to what God is doing, and what he will do.
But if the gospel is not about me, then what do I care? If it does not deal with my deepest need, that is, the punishment that is due me because of my sin and alienation from God, then what good does it do me? The gospel is first and foremost about one thing...the problem of human sin introduced in the garden of Eden.
How is that not blindingly, glaringly obvious? Answer: it is!
2. The gospel does not tell us to care for creation, nor does it have anything to do with environmentalism. The message of the gospel deals with human sin.
3. The gospel is not about this life. It is not about living in "the best way." The gospel offers you things you will never get until you die. If you did get them before you died, then you would no longer hope for them. They would be things you have.
There is a big emphasis on how the gospel has to be about this life, about bringing the kingdom to earth, etc. This is, simply put, the voice of wealth and privilege. What does a gospel that primarily speaks into this life say to a starving child? If we offer hope in the gospel, we don't offer it in this short and miserable life.
I have more thoughts, but it is very late and I need to go to bed.
posted by Steven at 12:49 AM
4 Comments:
NT Wright's critique of Justification is not an attack on imputed righteousness, but a of Luther and how he read Romans - in particular regarding Luther's use of 1500s law Court.
5:48 PM
Wright certainly attacks imputed righteousness--that is the whole point of his attack on Luther's supposed 1500s law court.
4:13 PM
Where to begin... This blog, more specifically this post, lacks academic integrity of the highest order. Perhaps, the author should broaden ones reading outside of the incredibly monolithic world of puritan scholarship to see that, as good as it may have been, it needs serious corrections. Furthermore, before one begins to place the problems of the church upon N.T. Wright, one should be much more informed (as I take great issue with your statement that he denies substitutionary atonement, which is an absolute farce and only serves to demonstrate intellectual arrogance). In addition, he is not the first, nor the last to bring to bear the issues of some areas within protestant theology that need fixing, as all constructs of men will ultimately find that they need fixing in this depraved world. Great men and learned SCHOLARS such as Albert Schwietzer, Krister Stendauhl, James Lightfoot, and Ernst Kaseman have all laid groundwork before him.... Perhaps it is time for the "neo-reformed," such as yourself, to look on others within the evangelical camp, who hold to orthodox doctrine, with Christian love seeking to serve together in the cause of persevering until Christ comes to renew his creation, rather than viewing conservative christian stalwarts such as Wright as if they are enemies to be destroyed, of which they are most certainly not. And before you attack the Gospel message of anyone, it would greatly behoove you to be much more aware of what they actually say.
2:21 PM
Seth, do you think I haven't read N.T. Wright? I have, and I have heard him speak, read interviews etc. I don't think he is not a Christian. I think the direction he is pushing the church is largely negative.
I disagree with N.T. Wright, you agree with him. But you think that my disagreeing with him means that I do not understand him.
And...academic integrity? I'm not sure what you mean by this. I do enjoy the Puritans. I'm not sure what you mean by "neo-Reformed." My reading, however, is as broad as I can make it, although admittedly not as broad as it would be if I could devote all my time to reading.
I do think NT Wright is dangerous. I don't think he holds "orthodox doctrine." Maybe you could seek to understand why I think he's dangerous and then answer my thoughts, rather than angrily dismiss my thoughts!
1:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home