About a week ago I posted a link to a Southern Baptist Seminary video to do with N.T. Wright, with a view to questioning the panel's definition of what is and isn't the gospel. The gospel, according to Al Mohler and co. is basically the following:
We are sinners at enmity with God, deserving of punishment.
Jesus died for our sins, thus taking upon Himself our punishment, and opening the way to fellowship with God.
Of course I don't disagree with any of that. Not one stroke. Nor do I intend to downplay the reality of penal substitution, wherein Jesus bore our sins in His body on a tree, becoming -- in some ultimately unknowable way -- sin for us.
But the surprising news of the gospel is that something so astounding as Christ dying in our place isn't even all there is too it. There's more, and it goes deeper. This is why I found the panel's dismissal of Wright gospel definition so disheartening. I think they have lost the forest for the trees.
Tom Wright said that as all roads lead to Rome, all discussions of justification lead to the Book of Romans. The same can be stated for discussions of the gospel, for that is what the letter to the church in Rome is about.
The reason I embrace Wright's definition of the gospel -- The crucified and resurrected Jesus is Messiah of Israel and Lord of the world -- and actually find it to be more accurate/complete than that of the Baptist panel is simply that it is more in line with Scripture as a whole. Look at what Paul writes in the opening verses of Romans:
This is why Paul can write in Galatians 3 that God preached the gospel to Abraham, and moreover, this is why Abraham was and is a vital part of the gospel. It is a story the ends in blessing for Abraham, yes, but it is also a story about world-wide blessing that comes through Abraham.
We do the gospel a disservice when we divorce it from God's sweeping drama that originated with Abraham's calling. This is what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 15 when he repeats the phrase "according to the Scriptures". He is not talking about proof-texting, where little snippets of Bible passages that hint at the death and resurrection of Jesus are used as proof that prophecy has been fulfilled. He is talking about Jesus being the One in whom the story of Scripture finds its completion or telos; the One in whom the gospel of God preached to Abraham is brought to fulfilment.
Contrary to Dr Mohler, I think pronouncing Jesus as Messiah and Lord is a pretty good summary of this gospel.
The Baptist gospel (as I'll unfairly call it) is also too narrow in its scope of good news. I'm not saying that Wright addresses the following issue head on, but I think his gospel summary leaves open the further dimensions of the good news in a way that the "Jesus died for your sins" summary doesn't.
Going back to Abraham and that proto-gospel preached to Him by God, this is what it consisted of in a nutshell:
Paul says in Romans 1:16 that "I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation..." Can we really separate the power of God from His Spirit, and thus draw lines between the gospel and the Spirit? If Paul felt the need to include Romans 8 in his prolonged presentation of the gospel of God, then surely we must be open to the vital role of the Spirit in the grand narrative of God's blessing being poured out on all nations. Is not God's presence amongst us the reality we lost in The Fall? Then surely its availability once more in a most definitive way counts as good news.
Anyway, consider these to be a few mulled over thoughts in need of further mulling over. For example, is Jesus being Israel's Messiah relevant to those who need to hear the gospel today? Paul doesn't mention Israel in his sermon on Mars Hill after all. But he does mention that other part of his gospel, the bit about God judging the world through Jesus. Where does this leave the gospel when it comes to 21st century ears?
We are sinners at enmity with God, deserving of punishment.
Jesus died for our sins, thus taking upon Himself our punishment, and opening the way to fellowship with God.
Of course I don't disagree with any of that. Not one stroke. Nor do I intend to downplay the reality of penal substitution, wherein Jesus bore our sins in His body on a tree, becoming -- in some ultimately unknowable way -- sin for us.
But the surprising news of the gospel is that something so astounding as Christ dying in our place isn't even all there is too it. There's more, and it goes deeper. This is why I found the panel's dismissal of Wright gospel definition so disheartening. I think they have lost the forest for the trees.
Tom Wright said that as all roads lead to Rome, all discussions of justification lead to the Book of Romans. The same can be stated for discussions of the gospel, for that is what the letter to the church in Rome is about.
The reason I embrace Wright's definition of the gospel -- The crucified and resurrected Jesus is Messiah of Israel and Lord of the world -- and actually find it to be more accurate/complete than that of the Baptist panel is simply that it is more in line with Scripture as a whole. Look at what Paul writes in the opening verses of Romans:
...set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God in power according to the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord...For Paul, the gospel was not so much a spiritual truth told in legal jargon as it was a narrative. God's narrative, based on His calling of Abraham and the promises He made to Him, based on His anointing of David and the promises He made to Him, and fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, in whom all the promises of God are yes and amen.
This is why Paul can write in Galatians 3 that God preached the gospel to Abraham, and moreover, this is why Abraham was and is a vital part of the gospel. It is a story the ends in blessing for Abraham, yes, but it is also a story about world-wide blessing that comes through Abraham.
We do the gospel a disservice when we divorce it from God's sweeping drama that originated with Abraham's calling. This is what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 15 when he repeats the phrase "according to the Scriptures". He is not talking about proof-texting, where little snippets of Bible passages that hint at the death and resurrection of Jesus are used as proof that prophecy has been fulfilled. He is talking about Jesus being the One in whom the story of Scripture finds its completion or telos; the One in whom the gospel of God preached to Abraham is brought to fulfilment.
Contrary to Dr Mohler, I think pronouncing Jesus as Messiah and Lord is a pretty good summary of this gospel.
The Baptist gospel (as I'll unfairly call it) is also too narrow in its scope of good news. I'm not saying that Wright addresses the following issue head on, but I think his gospel summary leaves open the further dimensions of the good news in a way that the "Jesus died for your sins" summary doesn't.
Going back to Abraham and that proto-gospel preached to Him by God, this is what it consisted of in a nutshell:
In you (Abraham) shall all the nations be blessed.Blessed. Not only let off the hook -- as wonderful as that alone would be -- but blessed. Blessed through the seed of Abraham, which is Jesus. And what is that blessing? Paul goes on to say that it is "the promised Spirit". The gospel doesn't stop at us being redeemed from the "curse of the law". It continues on to our "life in the Spirit". The book of Romans doesn't start at 3:21 and stop at 3:26. Nor is discussion of the gospel restricted to these crucial verses. Exclude the Spirit from all gospel talk, and what your left with is good news with no power.
Paul says in Romans 1:16 that "I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation..." Can we really separate the power of God from His Spirit, and thus draw lines between the gospel and the Spirit? If Paul felt the need to include Romans 8 in his prolonged presentation of the gospel of God, then surely we must be open to the vital role of the Spirit in the grand narrative of God's blessing being poured out on all nations. Is not God's presence amongst us the reality we lost in The Fall? Then surely its availability once more in a most definitive way counts as good news.
Anyway, consider these to be a few mulled over thoughts in need of further mulling over. For example, is Jesus being Israel's Messiah relevant to those who need to hear the gospel today? Paul doesn't mention Israel in his sermon on Mars Hill after all. But he does mention that other part of his gospel, the bit about God judging the world through Jesus. Where does this leave the gospel when it comes to 21st century ears?
No comments:
Post a Comment