I am not a religious man.
“Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you.” (Luke 11:39-42 emphasis mine).
Over the course of the past two months or so God has been reworking my understanding of what exactly the gospel is. It has been a painful, confusing and lonely journey. Much of that time I have spent avoiding God’s call to engage Him in understanding the weight of the gospel. It is ironic, over the past year I can remember praying on multiple occasions that God would help me better understand the weight of the cross. He has responded.
Through many avenues God has pushed and stretched me. He has allowed me to feel the pain and distance that would be my crippling master had I not been freed by the cross, and subsequently, his resurrection. And yet Christ was crucified, and he did rise. He called me and told me to come to him, he says that “my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”* He proclaims that he knows me intimately, “even the hairs of your head are all numbered.”** He knows me fully, I have nothing that remains hidden, “whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops.”*** And despite the wickedness that manifests itself in my thoughts and actions, he, fully understanding and opposing my depravity, died and received the just wrath due to me, indisputably proving his love, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” ****
I titled this post “I am not a religious man.” I followed that up with a passage in which Jesus is exposing the hypocritical actions of the Pharisees.
Sean Mortenson, a friend of mine and teaching pastor at The Element college ministry, recently made a comment to me that he thought we were to quick to label Pharisees as the “bad guys” of Jesus’ day. He pointed out that they have become the scapegoat of the New Testament. This made me think.
The point isn’t weather or not the Pharisees were out of line. Christ was quick to attack their lifestyles and divisiveness. But why. Because the Pharisees were a hollow vessel, a shell of what it meant to follow and love God. They were religious but they were not lovers of people, and you could dispute weather or not they really loved God. They were the best of the best at religion. They fell miserably short of being Christ followers.
Oh how many times have I better represented the Pharisee in my walk with God. How many times have I withheld the very grace that has set me free as I judge the person next to me. How often do I chalk up my blessings to my own actions as opposed to God, from whom all good gifts come.
I am still working through this concept of grace. I’m still learning what it means be a passionate, vulnerable, and totally devoted follower of Christ. Through His grace and patience, through the blessing of friends who invest in me their time, words, and love; through the struggle to obey, I am learning what the cross meant to me. I am learning the power of the gospel. But I’m still not there.
One of the things God has used during this season of my life to help me better understand the truth of the Gospel is this podcast by Matt Chandler at The Village Church.
*Matthew 11:30
** Luke 12:7
*** Luke 12:3
****Romans 5:8
Yeah! Keep going!!
[Now for an unsolicited and not-100%-happy-positive remark...]
I like what Matt Chandler said in that sermon. There was some great stuff! As you re-ponder the Gospel, I’d like to throw out an observation. Matt made a statement about hedonism that rings of John Piper. Piper-esqe theology seems to run through a bit of this sermon. My opinion is that this Piper-hedon approach is still very much about ‘the me.’ Piper’s/Chandler’s understanding of the awkwardly-complex Ephesians 1 is that ‘enjoying God’ [aka Christian Hedonism] is the point/goal of human existence (this is a rewording of the Westminster Catechisms). All of this (Piper, Westminster, the Reformation) coming from a time when thinkers were becoming very self-centric (I would write self-centered but that’s usually what we call 3-year-olds and not what I’m meaning).
In comes N.T. Wright with his statement, “The ‘Gospel’ is that Jesus is Lord.” Add to that (for me) those who have walked in darkness for long periods of time (2.5 years for Tara and I, 400 years more than once for what we now call “Jews”, the second 2/3 of Isaiah’s life, Hebrews 11:35-end).
What seems to be missing is the ‘other side’ of this coin. God.
Put on one of the many continuums that have been created over time: the closeness of God (’imminence’) vs. the holiness of God (’transcendence’). My opinion is that we (myself included!) have focused on the imminence too much for too long. I am NOT espousing that we simply swing the pendulum!! but that the Gospel has both parts at the same time. Or, possibly, that God’s God-ness allows for His grace and imminence and, thus, God being GOD must come first?
Honestly, I’m not trying to direct your journey of thought. I’m only wanting to add to your load
Gratefully your brother,
D
David, thank you for your insight, it is very much appreciated! I had listened to the sermon yesterday for the first time, as I was listening I did catch the Piper reference. I’ve actually not read Piper at all, but was familiar with him using the term “Christian Hedonism.” Having the background you provided helps to paint a more complete picture.
I think what you are implying is that the coin has “the me” on one side and “God” on the other. And that, imminence resonates more with “the me,” since it is really how God relates to me and I relate to God; or rather, you can’t have God close to me with out “me”. While transcendence is best associated to the God side of the coin because God’s holiness is independent and outside of me, having no reliance upon me at all. Is that tracking with what you were saying?
If so, then really what needs to happen is we need to throw the coin out of the window. If God is both imminent and transcendent at the same time we need not limit him. Or do we do that only so we can better understand him?
Hmmm. Not sure where to go with that. I am finding balance to be so necessary here, but finding that balance is never easy. Thanks for another strand of thought and like I said for your much appreciated insight!
i would SO love to get in on this conversation. but i’m not as good with words as you two. can we just please sit on the ‘porch’ for a few hours and chat? ? ? ?
) so far i am loving where this is taking my brain. I have been trying to read Piper’s Desiring God for a while now, but put it down for a bit. i cant seem to get my head around the Christian hedonism thing.. and i do think there is too much ‘me’ in that mix. I think that the balance is this.. its in His grace that God’s holiness invites (invokes?) such a closeness with Him. that Jesus IS the Gospel. also… where can we read more about the Pharisees (besides the Bible)? were they Really not lovers of people? and can we REally dispute their love for God??
Kathi, good stuff. See you did get in on the conversation! Can you further elaborate “Jesus IS the Gospel.” Not disagreeing, but seeing as how I feel like I’m relearning the word, it would be helpful to hear more of your thoughts. Also, I think you brought up a good point in that we can’t judge all Pharisees together any more than we can say all Christians are ______. Really, all that I know is that at least some of them opposed Christ fervently, thus my comments about we can probably question their love of God. I am speaking more about those specific Pharisees than the profession as a whole. Thanks for joining the conversation!
Alright, since my three FAVORITE people have already been in discussion, I think I’ll throw in my two cents. And really it is not mine, but NT Wright’s. Chris, I too have been wrestling with the question “what is the gospel” and I have been greatly challenged by Wright’s works. Here is some of what he says about “the gospel” (though I’m sure he has more to say…)
“The gospel itself refers to the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is the one, true and only Lord of the world.”
- from “Paul in Different Perspectives: Lecture 1″
“The idea of ‘good news,’ for which an older English word is ‘gospel,’ had two principal meanings for first-century Jews. First, with roots in Isaiah, it mean the news of YHWH’s long-awaited victory over evil and rescue of his people. Second, it was used in the Roman world of the accession, or birthday, of the emperor. Since for Jesus and Paul the announcement of God’s inbreaking kingdom was both the fulfillment of prophecy and a challenge to the world’s present rulers, ‘gospel’ became an important shorthand for both the message of Jesus himself, and the apostolic message about him. Paul saw this message as itself the vehicle of God’s saving power (Romans 1:16, 1 Thessalonians 2:13).
- from the Glossary in Wright’s For Everyone series
Interviewer: Could you give us a brief definition of “the gospel”?
N.T. Wright: I could try taking a Pauline angle. When Paul talks about “the gospel,” he means “the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world.” Now, that’s about as brief as you can do it.
The reason that’s good news… In the Roman Empire, when a new emperor came to the throne, there’d obviously been a time of uncertainty. Somebody’s just died. Is there going to be chaos? Is society going to collapse? Are we going to have pirates ruling the seas? Are we going to have no food to eat? And the good news is, we have an emperor and his name is such and such. So, we’re going to have justice and peace and prosperity, and isn’t that great?!
Now, of course, most people in the Roman Empire knew that was rubbish because it was just another old jumped-up aristocrat who was going to do the same as the other ones had done. But that was the rhetoric.
Paul slices straight in with the Isaianic message: Good news! God is becoming King and he is doing it through Jesus! And therefore, phew! God’s justice, God’s peace, God’s world is going to be renewed.
And in the middle of that, of course, it’s good news for you and me. But that’s the derivative from, or the corollary of the good news which is a message about Jesus that has a second-order effect on me and you and us. But the gospel is not itself about you are this sort of a person and this can happen to you. That’s the result of the gospel rather than the gospel itself.
It’s very clear in Romans. Romans 1:3-4: This is the gospel. It’s the message about Jesus Christ descended from David, designated Son of God in power, and then Romans 1:16-17 which says very clearly: “I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation.” That is, salvation is the result of the gospel, not the center of the gospel itself.
Feels like a porch to me!!!
Chris, I agree and disagree with you at the same time. And on the same point.
In my words, “It is only about me as I am about God.” I *think* this is where Piper was going, originally. But I would contend that he left this line and was overwhelmed/overjoyed by what it means, Biblically, to be considered of God / in Christ. I agree, the coin is no good. [To that end, where I disagree is that Transcendence and Imminence are both attributes of God-Himself. He is 'far' or 'near' _to me_ in those words - so maybe that's where the about God vs. about Me part comes in. But, ironically, the adjectives are both supposed to be about God. Maybe(?!?) that will clarify a little of what I was writing]
I think Pharisees are idiots and I would know.
I agree, though, with Kathi… it’s time to have long, slow conversations on a porch somewhere!
Okay David, I’m with you now. That makes sense. And Kathi, yes, I’m all for a little time on the porch!
Tara, I liked the perspective you brought. This resonated with me:
“But the gospel is not itself about you are this sort of a person and this can happen to you. That’s the result of the gospel rather than the gospel itself.”
I think that hits on the perspective that must change when understanding the gospel…God is doing that right now (changing my perspective). Also, I purchased surprised by hope by N.T. and will be taking it with me to Rwanda, so I’ll let you know how my first reading of his stuff goes!
Thanks all :O)