« still time to buy the book | Main | enduring comfort (Advent 1 sermon on Matthew 3:1-6 and Isaiah 40:1-9) »

November 28, 2010

Comments

Jeremy King

Hey Dan. I got this book last winter and read through the first half of it. I hopefully will be picking it up and reading it through with you all.

But in response to this post, I do have a question.

Is "reconciliation to God" a life that is the opposite to the wrongs that you cited?
Not poor, not imprisoned, not sick, not part of a government operation to oppress the "others"?

I agree that all these things are wrong, and should be fought against, but I think that Jesus had a much larger thing in mind when he talked about the gospel. It was Jesus who said to not worry about money, or what to wear or eat tomorrow. It was Jesus who told John the Baptist, who was in prison at the time, that He was in this world to set the prisoners free, but let John die in prison. It was Jesus who took His time getting to Lazarus, knowing he was sick and was going to die.

The gospel certainly isn't "fire insurance", but it is also not limited to fighting these temporary struggles.

I hope that while we all read about this man's heart for the nations and the poor and the imprisoned and the oppressed that we remember that Jesus' mission first and foremost was about all of our hearts and then the reconciliation of our hearts leads us to a loving heart for those in this world.

Jeremy King

I wish to comment on my previous comment. I read this chapter last year and only took my comment off of what you, Dan, wrote. I went back and reread the chapter and want to say something else. It is clear from the opening of this chapter that the author understands that Jesus Christ did die for his sins, and that only because of Jesus' atoning work on the cross is he saved from condemnation.

But he goes on to 2 extreme views of Christianity, and from what I believe sides with one extreme. I want to question that choice and open up the discussion to whether that it is the right decision to do so.

The first extreme is the "fire insurance" side. This is the side where the gospel is all about "winning" people. You save one from the fire pits of hell and then move on to the other letting the first guy go on and live his life however he wants. This happens by saying the sinner's prayer, or by going up to an alter call, etc.

The problem with this extreme is that it is not truly the gospel, and that it is not a true heart change. This is not Christianity. No where in the bible does it say "Pray the sinner's prayer and you'll be saved". That is not a real thing. Nor is being a true believer and going on to live the same life as before. Accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior gives you a living heart. A heart that seeks to praise God above all things. Secondly, the Gospel is not a get out of jail free card. It is an invitation to spend the rest of your life in the presence of God, and then spend eternity with Him.

The other extreme the author seems to take is the act of ushering in the Kingdom of God now. The author says that the Beattitudes are Jesus' way of showing us the Kingdom and asking us to come alongside of Him to bring it to reality.

While this does not appear to be wrong on the outside, lets take a closer look. Yes, we are certainly called to be ambassadors of Christ, sharing His love to the world through our actions. But we must not see it as our job and duty to accomplish this. God's plan to deal with the wickedness of this world does not depend on us, but it has been revealed and in some ways accomplished through His Son on the cross. When we try to say that it is our job to bring this kingdom, we are placing God in chains saying that His will cannot be accomplished without us. How foolish of us to believe that. Moreover he says that when we say that Gospel is most about our afterlife, we are limiting the gospel.
While I think that the Gospel is about both now and then, it is ultimately about our condition and situation with God. Whether we are seen as righteous or unrighteous.

When we say that the gospel is about ushering in the kingdom of God we loose the power of the gospel, "He made Him who knew no sin to become sin on our behalf that we might be the righteousness of God in Him". This is the gospel. It is about us [humanity] and God.

When we get "beyond" this, we aren't dealing with the gospel anymore. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians that he made sure that he taught nothing among them except for "Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

I am certainly not saying we should not care about those in the world who are hurting and need help. When we serve them, we are showing them God's love. But we must not stop there. Morality is not the Gospel. Showing love is not the Gospel. Our motivation for loving people in this way needs not be out of obligation, or out of moral reasons but chiefly because Christ loved us this way. When we were blind He showed us His light. When we were in prison under the power of our sin, He died on the Cross killing sin and its power over us, and rose from the dead, giving us life which we now live for Him. When we were sick, He was the great physician and healed our wounds and brokenness.

We do need to help people, but if we are not showing them this Christ who did all these things for us, then what are we showing them that is different than anyone else.

So what do we do? Is it right to view the gospel as some prayer that we try to get as many people to pray? or is it a call to move beyond the soul and go out and heal the hurt, blind, poor, and imprisoned?

Or is the Gospel that power of God which he heals us day after day, bringing us to confession and repentance in order to have a pure heart that breaks for the hurting and the lost and gives us the Spirit of God to go out and proclaim His salvation of not only our souls but also our lives? I believe there is a middle ground to this Gospel thing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner