The danger within the new church movements, even as we seek to be the gospel in healing, comforting, clothing, and feeding, is that we practically confuse our good works for the gospel of Christ's good work. ...
If we divorce the sharp edge of the gospel -- the scandalous message of sin and grace -- from our missional efforts (or whatever you want to call them) we are not glorifying God at all. We are glorifying our own compassion.
Similarly, Bob Spencer responds to the all to common message these days of "Christianity has nothing to do with words, but with deeds." That is, the Church should be positioned as a community of love practicing fellowship, forgiveness and unconditional love. Nice sounding but insufficient. Spencer rightly observes the following:
1) This is not the Biblical pattern. In the Biblical sequence, vividly described in Colossians 1, community is the "fruit" that followed from the hearing and believing of a message. That message was brought to them by Epaphras, who, by speaking the message of the gospel, ministered Christ to them. He was a "faithful minister of Christ Jesus" precisely because he faithfully spoke the message of the gospel to the Colossians.
2) The suggestion is that people today are drastically different than people in Paul’s day, and therefore different methods must be used. Back then, the ears were "the organ of decision." Now, the eyes are. Therefore, the NT pattern is no longer relevant. I’m just not willing to go there. I’m not willing to displace the message upon which depends, according to the New Testament, our very destiny, replacing that message with, ummm, my demonstrably inferior acts of love and good deeds.
3) According to this fellow's suggested pattern, our community of love is simply so attractive that people will choose us over other possible communities. Shall they join, say, the community of the Mormons, the community of the Buddhists, or the community of the Christians? Is our love as a community really so impressive? Mormons, for example, can make a very loving community.
4) One cannot help but notice that to join a community, even to join a community of loving Christians, is not the same thing as to hear and believe the message of the Gospel. It is simply to join a community. That is why, in my church-community and yours as well, I’ll bet, are numerous unbelievers. Membership in a "community," no matter how wonderfully loving, is not salvation. Believing the message of the gospel is.
5) We come very close to making an idol out of our good deeds and acts of love (or out of our wonderful "community"). I have found this to be a common mistake among us. But our good deeds and acts of love are not the gospel. They almost never, if ever, even come close to embodying the message of the gospel. The only act of love that did so was the act of Jesus described, for example, in Philippians 2. To displace the good news of that act of love with the demonstration of our own community of love in its stead is an act of idolatry.
HT:PC
6 comments:
It's always funny to me that some people assume love somehow removes the Gospel from the story, as if we have no story to tell.
It is love that leads us directly to the cross, to repentance, and to restoration.
I'm sure Jared is a nice guy but I don't share his take.
Jonathan - these days I'd be more surprised if we were to agree than disagree. You have boiled all of God, His being and His interaction with mankind, down to love. I have already expressed how I think you are gravely mistaken.
This post outlines some of the critical ways we are different. I respect you as a person and a good thinker, but we are worlds apart in our message. We use some overlapping language but we serve a different God and carry a different message.
You asked me once to judge based on the full weight of your blog and not a single post. I spent a good deal of time doing that and this was my conclusion.
This post outlines some reasons why love is not enough (as defined and demonstrated in human compassion). But it does not preclude love. I would expect you to not agree.
No one here said love removes the Gospel from the story. What was written is that we cannot divorce the Gospel from love and promote love (as many today define it) alone - which is what I perceive you want to do and therefore your reaction.
Rick, then you got me wrong. I've never said divorce the Gospel from love, or love from the Gospel.
I've also never said that love is simply compassion BTW. It's the cross.
I've always simply said that love is the fullest expression of our humanity as eikon's and our central calling in Scripture.
Jonathan - we remain on very different paths.
No worries then.
Jonathan - I had to laugh this morning, thanks. While we (ok I) continue to disagree, you close most open points with "no worries" ... very British. I find it interesting because I don't believe we've aligned yet both of us think there is no value in arguing (which I appreciate) ... then later I wonder if you think we agreed while I think we did not.
Anyway, I enjoyed the "no worries" - you are exactly right with that. Peace.
Post a Comment