Thursday, April 16, 2009
From Four Laws to Four Circles...
This was featured in an Christianity Today article last year. What do you think of it? How can we follow this example and address the current longings in our culture, much like the "Four Spiritual Laws" addressed the longings of people 25 years ago? What is our culture longing for that the Gospel can address, and how can the Gospel address it?
Also, I hope you're all doing well. It's been a while since I've talked with most of you, but I do miss all of you tremendously - even Mike.
Jason
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Thanks Jason. I feel so loved...
I like this. It's good because it places us in the broader story of God's plan for the world (in that sense it's very postmodern). It's also good because it makes room for a bigger Jesus than just the one who's in my heart--through Jesus God is transforming the whole world.
But I also don't like parts of it. I don't really see any reason for trying to prove the existence of God from people longing for a better world. I long for food, therefore food exists? Or maybe not, and I'm just going to starve to death. It's kind of a painful version of the ontological argument, which was already painful enough ("a being than which no greater being can be conceived!" Thanks for nothing, Aquinas).
But that's a minor criticism. I'm also not too sure how I feel about the portrayal of Jesus. This looks like the social justice version of the four spiritual laws. It's a great counterpoint, but in and of itself it's still pretty insufficient. Jesus didn't just come to sort out the infinite complexity of social, economic, geographic, and meteorological evils. He also came to give life, full life. Does he just provide "resources" (I think that was the word used) so that we can transform the world? Or does he announce the Kingdom of God, brought by God, enacted by God (in Jesus), participated in by us. It's a fine line, and I don't want to be nit-picky (OK, yes I do), but I like my christology "thick," full of objective transformative power (that's why it also needs a healthy dose of the life-giving work of the Spirit). I like to think God in Christ is making "new creation!" and asking us to live in it. Not that we, with Jesus' help, are making the world a better place.
I feel guilty because I just upended my love affair with liberation theology. Everybody, go and live in solidarity with the poor (or at least give them some of your damn money)! OK, I feel better now.
But I didn't really answer any of Jason's questions. So: I think that the people to whom this explanation of the Gospel is directed will be far more impressed if we can invite them to participate in Christian communities (traditionally called churches; I think that's a good name for them) where this transformative Jesus thing is a reality. Now there's an ontological argument for you: "I know that the transforming power of Jesus exists because I've seen it happen!" Hmmm... That sounds like the testimony of some New Testament Christians. Maybe they were on to something!
Wait.... Hold on.... ("right leg... over...") OK, I'm off my high horse now. (And my sisters would be proud of me for executing a proper dismount).
I love you all - especially Jason, because a) he's in seminary, and that makes you cool; and b) I feel guilty for neglecting our friendship for way too long.
Wow, it feels good to be back in the midst of a conversation between Mike and Jason that I don't understand. :)
Mike, as always, you are right. But I wonder if the critique you offered puts unfair burden on a tool that was explicitly created to be useful for evangelism when a napkin and a pen are your best resources? A "thick" Christology is preferable, but it also requires more napkins, toothpicks, a salt shaker, your waitress, and half the menu. If we move the goalposts and ask, "Is this more effective for communicating a general Gospel in a tone that is palatable for Millenials?" I think the answer is an emphatic "Yes."
It's nice to "hear" both of your voices again.
Mike, what if the language was simply changed from "i'm hungry, therefore food exists" to "I'm hungry, therefore I was created to eat"? This would create the parallel: "I long for a world without this crap, therefore I was created for a world without this crap." That might avoid the trickiness of the ontological argument for God's existence while still providing an impetus for God's action in the world through Jesus.
Also, you hit the nail right on the head with the Spirit piece, and were I to preach this worldview in a 20+ minute format, I totally agree with you. However...
Eric - right on. Since this is meant as a conversation starter (at least i think it is), then it works extraordinarily well as an ice-breaker and as a basic primer for the Christian worldview.
Additionally, I'd guess that the guy who made this avoids the word "sin" intentionally (choosing "evil" and "crap" instead). I think it's a wise move, but one thing that is largely overlooked is the individual component of saving faith. Obviously, the community and story aspects of this will attract postmoderns and millenials, but i wonder how those people respond if they are then brought to a "Christian community" where they then encounter the message - "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand."
I think this napkin evangelism nails the second half of that statement, but I wonder if it could more effectively communicate the necessity of repentance.
Yeah, you're right Eric, and I like how you put it, too. I just like to be contrarian, but if it's going to cost me half the menu, I don't think I can afford it.
Speaking of being contrarian: Millennials? It's very postmodern of you to avoid labeling things as postmodern because of the term's imprecision and overuse.
Seriously, though, I think this is a great way to start conversation with a "seeker." But what about a skeptic? Wouldn't the response just be: "Well, the world doesn't seem to be doing much better with Jesus. And neither do the people of God, for that matter." How do we respond to that? I'm always bumping into people asking this question -- both in and out of the church. They just don't see Jesus making any difference. At least not any more than Buddha, the Qur'an, one of 3,000,000 Hindi gods, or the (Most Holy) President Obama.
I agree that it is unacceptable to continue along a path of faith development that intentionally avoids confronting individuals with their sin and consequent need for redemption.
Most Millenials would be willing to admit their contributions to a recognizably fallen world, perhaps in terms of a chronology akin to "I drove the Ford F-150 my Dad gave me before I went to college and learned about carbon emissions..." (Followed by a live-and-learn shoulder shrug and sigh) The issue isn't whether or not they are sinners, it is the way in which they are confronted by this reality. Seems to me this is where relationship and a good dose of reformed trust that God is in control of this anyway allows us to be honest and truthful while staying friends.
Ah, yes, the World still sucks problem. I think the best response is simply, does it? Surely it's not "fixed", but compare life to day to life at any other point in human history and convince me that humanity is worse off.
Hmmm...
Too many thoughts going in too many directions. Here's one:
"The issue isn't whether or not they are sinners, it is the way in which they are confronted by this reality."
Amen.
But the question still remains: Why do we need Jesus (or any god, for that matter) in order to stop driving F-150's?
To use some biblical imagery, Christ is the light that illuminates the truth of the nasty situation the world finds itself in. Without Christ, the world would continue to blunder around in the dark like a maid trying to clean a room without turning the lights on because she doesn't want to know how bad it really looks, or she knows how bad it is and doesn't want to face it.
In order for the world to be understood on God's terms and not on its own terms, and in order for the world to understand God on his terms and not on its own terms, Jesus necessarily must be front and center because only through Him to do we encounter God at all. He is the revelation of God, pure and simple. (My Barthian sympathies are bleeding all over this post)
Unless human beings are willing to accept the truth that Christ reveals about their situation - the truth that every area of our lives is damaged by evil (sin) and not just the area that drives the F-150 - then we will constantly deceive ourselves into thinking that "it isn't really as bad as we think it is" because we haven't seen (or we're refusing to see) the world with the lights on.
To answer your question, Mike: Jesus is the light that causes people to come to grips with the reality that they are sinful/evil/damaged goods. Without Christ, sin is all a matter of relativity, and everyone is in one way or another like the Pharisee who says, "I'm better than that person over there."
Jesus levels the playing field, for he is the standard of holiness, purity, and love that none of us can live up to, and yet he is the standard that God desires to transform us and the world into. Without him, there is no transformation, and thus without him, there is no healing.
That was a bumbling, Christianese answer to the question. I realize that. But I don't think we can emphasize Jesus enough.
[Insert Sarcastic Devin Comment]
I love you guys.
Post a Comment