I'm currently reading Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It is interesting on a number of levels, but one question that came to mind this morning is this. Is the talk in Christianity of the Gospel an attempt at a unifying theory for Christianity similar to that of the Tao?
I am not denying the truth of the Gospel, but wondering if the language that is being used today by the church is not truly Biblical and actually a construct. One that is very good for preaching and pastoral care, yet falls short when giving a Biblical view? Think of all the books that are written The Gospel According to the Simpsons, The Gospel According to the Sopranos, the list goes on and on. Do we fall short when every reading of our Scripture is thrown into a gospel approach to the text? Are we making it easier to understand and tolerate when it is more complicated.
Yes the Gospel as defined by the Bible is The Good News. Jesus saves the lost and makes them his own forever. While that is the cornerstone of our house, does it describe every brick used in construction?
Honestly my understanding of Tao is limited, as presented (so far) in the book I am reading it is easy for me to draw parallels with how people in my circle throw around the words, The Gospel. This got me thinking and wanting to hear some opinions.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Unifying Theory and the Gospel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
interesting thought. we do throw that word around alot (gospel), so I think naturally the meaning becomes diluted. I'm not sure if I think that "gospel" being a construct is necessarily bad, or unbiblical. As with anything, I think we have to look at everything through a Biblical lens, even if we separate the word gospel and give it a broader meaning. As long as we recognize that for what it is. So we can get some good things, and maybe some truth, out of a book like "Gospel according to the Simpsons" while at the same time knowing that it is not the Bible. You got me thinking...
Totally agree that Gospel is not unbiblical, I guess the way it gets used (I am not throwing stones because I do it all the time) could be. Do we use Gospel as a unifying theory becuase it is unfamilar and abstract enough to do it? Is Kingdom a better picture? Grace? Does our theology have enough room for all these.
If I'm understanding correctly, you were saying that gospel used as a construct or a unifying theory may be unbiblical. I think you hit the nail on the head with your response above, that it is unfamiliar and abstract enough that we can do this. It's also easier to slap a label on something. I like what you said about Kingdom being a better picture. To me, Kingdom feels more holistic in this context. Gospel applies to salvation of men, while Kingdom covers reconciliation of God's entire creation. That's just my reaction. Have I confused you?
No confusing at all.
Post a Comment