By now you may have heard of the parent of a 6th grade girl that plays on the LRCA basketball team who assaulted the coach after a game because they lost and he felt the coach did not play his daughter enough (apparently he backhanded the coach). The police had to be called. After the fact (and being written up in the paper), the father wrote an open letter of apology with all the appropriate regrets. In it he states that he is a born-again Christian and that he is sorry.
I think this is a perfect example of what we have been talking about. Now, before I rant too much about this, let me say that I feel for the guy and am not suggesting that I too do not have these types of moral failings. It happens a lot. But it is extremely instructive.
Apparently, being a "born-again" Christian in and of itself is not much help in situations like this. At that point in time, this man was the type of person that, in anger, will assault a coach because things did not go his way. He failed in the most direct and fundamental teaching of Jesus (don't be angry). Apparently, not much heart transformation had taken place. More sad is that all those years of attending church were not much help. Even more sad is that we (the church) will not think too much about it. Yes, we will agree he failed. Yes, we agree that he should be sorry (which he is). Yes, we agree he should be forgiven (which he should be). Yes, we think to ourselves "If not for the grace of God, that would be me." What is sad is that we have no real expectation of change. The important thing is that he professes to be "born again" that way he gets to go to heaven when he dies. In the meantime, we will send him to counseling and hope he gets a handle on his anger. The gospel we preach at church will not change. The programs and teaching we will give at church will not change. The Christian life goes on; we are "not perfect, just forgiven."
I say we should face this incident and those failings in our own lives head on. They are examples of where our hearts are at. Our churches should retool what we are doing as a result of this and the other failures we see in and around us. We should reexamine the gospel we are preaching. Does the gospel we preach naturally lead to discipleship? We should reexamine what we believe. Do we trust that what Jesus taught us to do can actually be accomplished? If so, how? This man's church should immediately offer a 12 week bible study on how we can learn to not be angry as Jesus commanded us. Aren't we supposed to go into all the world and teach everyone to do all the things he commanded? Wouldn't it be refreshing to respond this way as a church?
I would love to partner with this quy and together learn how to utilize the sufficient resources of God to make actual progress in becoming less angry from the inside out; to obey Jesus. It would be a journey of transformation. It would be learning how to live the gospel that Jesus preached - living life in the kingdom of the heavens now. That is the good news. Will someone tell this man the good news?
14 comments:
i dont know...if he says he is a born again Christain...then shouldnt we just assume he already knows the good news?
by the way...that was a good example...
That is a good question. Has he really been told the good news?
If you were going to tell him the good news, what would you say?
i wouldnt know...i would guess if he is a Christain he has heard the good news...i would say it might just be the fact that he hasnt put the good news into action and actually do what it says...
and i dont know..i would have to get to know him first to see what kinda person he is...cuase i know some people if you just walk up and start telling them about God they will get a bit annoyed and just ingnore you...it would have to be a more progressive thing than something that just happens i think...
I guess what I am getting at is, what is the good news (gospel)? You suggested that since he identifies himself as a Christian he would already know the good news. That might depend.
There are different gospels, even in the bible. Paul gives his definition of the gospel somewhere. If you ask evangelical Christians the question, you might get slightly different answers (try it - ask the Christians you know what the gospel is). I would guess that many would say something similar to Paul's gospel. Something like that God sent his son to die for our sins and he rose from the dead and now you can be reconciled to God if you believe in him. That is one gospel, just not the one Jesus preached and taught. If you spend some time in the gospels or even Mark, it will be clear what gospel he preached.
It would be something like: Reconsider the direction of your life, a new kind of life is now available to you, one where you can learn to live under the rule of God.
The good news for this dude who is the kind of person that hits female coaches when they lose and do not play his daughter enough is: "Hey, look what kind of person you are and how you are living your life. You can learn a different way of being. One where you will not be ruled by your anger, but by God."
A way to live a life free from anger. That would be good news to this guy about now. Will anyone tell him this?
Actually, they are quite different in practice. You have to ask yourself, does the gospel you preach naturally lead to discipleship?
The way the gospel is presented by some supports a kind of dualism (a separation between this life and the afterlife), where spiritual formation is an option.
The gospel Jesus preached was about the arrival and accessibility of the kingdom of God, as promised to Abraham and prophesied over time. Jesus taught us directly what this was like (just read the sermon on the mount for starters). Anger, contempt, and lust are three biggies that are not part of kingdom living.
This man identifies himself as a born again Christian. He made a point to include that in his open letter of apology. I assume that means that he believes a certain gospel that he associates with being a Christian. Does he not see the duplicity (Def: speaking or acting in two different ways concerning the same matter with intent to deceive) in his life? He has been "born again" but he is controlled by his anger. Something is seriously wrong. He is missing a huge, if not the point, in Jesus' gospel. Living life where your anger controls you is not good news. It is not kingdom living. It is slavery. This man needs to reexamine what good news he is believing. Importantly, his spiritual community needs to point out his duplicity and tell him the good news. He is probably hurting right now and may not know what to do. Will anyone tell him the good news?
Depends...will people see his suffering as something they can help? like we were talking about tonight at youth...if he claims to be a "born again Christain"...they will just assume he has heard everything he needs to hear and has everything he needs to have in able to comfort him...i think if this guy(and any person who sturggles with this...i did...sometimes still can...but i believe i have heard this good news you speak of)...if he can truly see that he may not be this "born again Christian" he thinks he is...then maybe he will start to get at the deeper issue...he will see that he really hasnt been born again and that his sinful nature still controls him...if then he can accept that and openly confess that and seek help...well...then...i say yes...someone will tell him the good news...whatever kind of good news he needs to hear...im sure it will be said to him when he is ready...
what about the pastor out in colorado who paid for gay sex and meth? (who law and order did a good episode on last night, btw) im sure he has heard the "good news" as he is a pastor.
i think it digs deeper than hearing. there is hearing and listening, and i think listening is where we fail, as it takes more effort.
Exactaly...this is why i enjoy our youth so much this year becuase it does a good job of not only teaching...but also appyling and doing the things that are taught...
hello there clay btw(that is you right?)
Don't miss my point, guys, which has to do with what the good news is. Which gospel has the church and Christian culture preached to this guy? In the case of Ted Haggart, which gospel was he believing in and preaching himself?
They both were living very duplicitous lives.
Maybe the gospel they were believing in misses the mark. It did not lead to discipleship or transformation.
So the question is what gospel does lead to discipleship and transformation?
Clay, what gospel has been preached to you? Which gospel do you believe in?
I'm still not sure about this whole "more than one gospel" thing you are bringing up. I dont see the distinction between these different gospels you speak of. The gospel I know is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and through him and his loving sacrifice we find new life. I think if you actually take that and live it out it will lead to discipleship and transformation. I think that people who do not take to heart the gospel they are preached then that will lead to an empty profession of faith, and they will do things like punch people when they are angry or things like that. So its kinda what Clay was saying in that we need to hear and listen and do what the gospel says. And the fact that they believe in the gospel(which is kinda where you are coming from right?) but maybe they are only believeing it to the extent that they can say they have been "born again" or whatever fancy saying they want to have.
It is subtle. Dallas Willard calls it the gospel of sin management. He even has a footnote in one of his books where he identifies "vampire Christians" or people who want Jesus for his blood but nothing else. Kind of like the idea of fire insurance.
You definition of the gospel is a common one. It is not put the same way Jesus put it. The question is, where does that gospel naturally lead? Just look around or look at ourselves. For many, the church is irrelevant in our culture. The church is also becoming irrelevant to many within the church, in the sense that is is not leading to discipleship and transformation. I worry that this man is an example of that.
In a simple way, here is how it goes. We are all sinners and going to hell (insert 4 spiritual laws here). If we believe (sincerely pray 'the prayer') then we are saved because of what Jesus did. Once saved, always saved. Yes, we will continue to sin. If we confess, we will be forgiven (but does it really matter that we do, aren't we already going to heaven?). It would be great if we actually did what Jesus said, but we are imperfect. I kinda like my life anyway, so mostly, I do what I want, except the big sins. It is all grace. You can't do anything to earn God's favor or grace. You just receive the free gift. Something like that.
Discipleship become optional; not necessary for salvation. The primary issue is resolved: We get to go to heaven when we die.
Transformation is just a "positional" thing, not something that will actually be obtained. That is, because of the blood of Jesus, we are made righteous. It is all theoretical. We really don't become righteous is terms of how we actually live. We can try to "walk in the spirit" and become sanctified, but this has little to do with our justification (salvation). So, again, transformation is optional.
Contrast this with what Jesus actually taught fairly explicitly. You may need to get into the gospels to find this.
ps: Least you think I am a heretic, let me say that I believe the gospel as you presented it is true and has biblical support. It is just that there is more. I will explain more in another post
just so you all know, there is a huge swing and turnig point to thinking in this area.
how are you saved? basically what you guys are talking about comes from two different mindsets.
"modern" thought has for sometime
now with some "premodern" mixes would say, "salvation is all about accepting Jesus' sacrifice and getting to heaven." this is my paraphrase and i know that not all "modern" or "premodern" mindseted people would say this in the same manner.
but now there is coming this postmodern thought on salvation. postmodernism is a lot about experience. so its more than just "getting saved, from hell, and going to heaven." but there has been large turn toward living out a life, through experiencing this "saving" truth in Jesus, which we call discipleship. this shifts some focus on here and now, which i'll admit i've even neglected. and is something that Jesus does not neglect at all, Jesus sees life here and now as being very connected with life in heaven.
while back you all talked about heaven here and now, or bringing heaven to earth. rob bell, dallas willard and other names have been real influential in teaching this.
i think you guys are right on with this discussion about the "gospels" because that is kind of the way it has been understood as. gospel one says "get saved from hell" gospel two says "become a Jesus follower." i think that the so called two gospels here are really one and the same, but people have placed differnt emphasis on the gospel. i think people have place a "what is the higher priority" to the gospel. which kinda in a way boil downs to faith or works, but the two never are to be separated.
i realize this is kinda a rant and probably has "holes." but dallas willard makes a good point in a lecure series i have recieved from a friend. he is at wheaton college chapel and has left time for some Q&A. the question came as, "you speak a lot about entering into a life of heaven here and now, can't that put to much of an emphasis doing the right things and figuring out the right things to do in order for salvation?" (paraphrase) his reply is, "no, not really, for entering to the life of kingdom living involves a certain kind of faith that Jesus teaches about, and he himself is the Saviour of. i would rather error on this side than the other." (paraphrase)
so aaron, i can appreciate what mark is saying about this issue. i think we have grown up believing that accepting Jesus is the goal of life and then we are good to go for the rest of life. (even dispite dad always trying to get us to do more "discipleship" things) in the past year and a half i've done a lot of growning on this issue. and still have much to grow on. sorry for this, the end.
ps. i'll post more about this modern and premodern and postmodern mindset on my blog...it is interesting and i'm taking a class that is talking and teaching on this subject.
You are right, Loren. There are people talking about this, mainly the emergent church. Unfortunately, many evangelicals have issues with the emergent church and are not talking much about these issues, which is what the example in this post is getting at.
I agree, there is really one gospel. But someone is misunderstanding this one gospel. You can't have it both ways. It might be instructive to flesh out the (at least) two viewpoints on what is the "true" gospel. Or, as the emergent types would say: it may be both/and rather than either/or.
Nonetheless, it is helpful to articulate these biases.
Post a Comment