Succinct and clarifying - the true "radical" kingdom option contrasted with the second-rate reductions on both sides. Thanks.
BDRhodes
· 1 year ago
So, Mark: what is the gospel?
markvans
· 1 year ago
Well, in order to answer that, I'd need to read to you the entire New Testament. :)
But to simplify: The Gospel is that Jesus is among us, by His Spirit. When Jesus proclaimed the Good News, he said it was that the kingdom is here. And when Paul re-affirmed the Good News, he pointed to the Cross and the Resurrection, and to Christ's continued presence by his Spirit--so that through these events we can experience a reconciled relationship with God. He dwells among us. And his presence ought to transform us.
And if we, the Church, are to be people of the Gospel (evangelicals in the truest sense of the word)...then we need to not only proclaim the Good News, but live as though it were true. The reason that we are given an entire Testament in which to discover the Gospel is that there are many terrifying and beautiful implications to the reality that God is among us. Our being and doing and proclaiming all should point to the presence of God among us. And that is why we, the Church, exist—to proclaim and embody the Presence among us.
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
Mark,
I like your definition of the Gospel, particularly the part "And his presence ought to transform us." because it embodies both the singular and the plural simultaneously. This transformation is the hope we have not only for this world, but the next. I'm not sure we can really understand the gospel without the Old Testament though. The references of the church being the bride of Christ come out much more strongly if one reads the OT. For me, the New Testament is clarifying that this transformation process is inclusive rather than exclusive.
hewhocutsdown
· 1 year ago
I think that's the key. The inward transformation instigates, informs and clarifies the outward.
todd
· 1 year ago
Question. You said, the gospel is about experiencing a reconciled relationship with God. How does one experience this? How can I be brought close to God?
Joel
· 1 year ago
Yes, I am not alone in the world! Jesus proclaims, announces the Presence (parousia) of the Kingdom, he says it is <here>, not will soon or later be here. And his miracles, i.e., "signs," are the signs of that presence of God here among us already working for those who see; and for those who see, they, we, see nothing, NOTHING outside of that Kingdom, and NOTHING can separate ANYTHING for the Love of God proclaimed in the final sign of that Kingdom-- God's suffrage of the death of the one son in whom is is well-pleased! For those who see nothing but the Kingdom here and now, that death is the death of the world and the rising-up, resurrection, ascension, transfiguration of that son into the Perfect image [ikon] of God in himself.
The Gospel is Proclamation of aFait a complete, "The kingdom of this world has (already [in Greek]) become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ and He will reign forever and forever!" says the Christian Revelation of all things in Christ, not a preparation for something later.
Sorry to get preachy... I am singing out with joy for having found another who is hearing the same tune!
reibwo
· 1 year ago
Mark, I like this note. You show some subtle self-understanding (noticing when you have ditched the kingdom for Marx) and good critical thinking (seeing that the agenda of the left still lacks a telos without a vital connection to the Suffering God).
Ted
· 1 year ago
It may be semantics, especially as read and re-read the last half of this paragraph, but I wonder if "our job as the Church isn’t to redistribute wealth" is too strongly stated. Purely at face value, I'm not sure it's true. It serves its rhetorical purpose in the article, and sets up some fantastic observations in the remainder of the piece -- the idea that both oppressed and oppressor are set free by the gospel is a gem. So I don't want to go off on a Ghandi tangent, but I'm a wee bit leery of such a pronouncement.
Wealth redistribution is not the primary focus of the church, to be sure, especially if by this we mean overseeing or advocating for programs intended to redistribute wealth on the systemic level. But the early church certainly seems to be involved in some sort of rudimentary wealth distribution. This is, in fact, at the heart of the jubilee ethos invoked in Jesus' messianic platform -- or the Jesus Manifesto, if you will.
Whatever replaces capitalism (if anything can) will almost certainly reiterate the oppressive structures of empire. Whatever new shape the human self-aggrandizement project takes, somebody will get screwed. I think our fallenness pretty much guarantees this. "The poor you will always have with you" was an ad hoc reply to Judas' snarky comment -- a comment that only makes sense if Jesus and co. were about helping the poor (which implies a kind of voluntary redistribution). The truth of Jesus' reply simply points to the perennial nature of the church's opportunity.
Forms of oppression that don't involve an economic component are rare. As we "imagine a world set aright and stubbornly live that out", it would seem that some kind of redistribution of wealth is necessary. So I guess I'm not sure how freedom from the machine precedes the kinds of things -- sharing wealth, speaking to the powers, recognizing freedom from oppression -- by which such a freedom would seem to be defined.
Or, to put it as a question: what is the existential character of this freedom that would allow us to think of it as distinct from its constitutive praxis?
Ted
· 1 year ago
Yikes -- that first sentence should read, "...especially as I read and re-read the last half of this article..."
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
Ted, I was thinking of the story of the paralytic. Jesus forgave sins first, healed second. If there had been another way or a better way to show the love and power of God to forgive sins than healing the paralytic, then Jesus probably would have done that rather than heal the man.
WRT money and the early church, sometimes there was a need to distribute, sometimes there was a need to aggregate. The problem with money comes when it is hoarded, like the man with the one talent. For money to work as it is intended it needs to flow. When it doesn't it's like a bruise and can turn gangrene if it is too long in one place.
For the rich young ruler, he needed to give up his money. But other people have different idols. Practicing the presence of God can be giving up money if you're a rich young ruler or it can be going to Nineveh if you're an arrogant preacher.
markvans
· 1 year ago
Fair enough. It would have been better if I had written "our job as the Church isn't merely the distribution of wealth" or something like that. I certainly see that as a strong implication, at least within the Body of Christ.
markvans
· 1 year ago
Ted, to answer your question: I'm not sure it is possible to think of any real difference between the existential quality of freedom of Christ and the embodied practice of the Church.
NewGuy
· 1 year ago
I don't know, when I read some of the Old Testament prophets and the words and actions of Jesus, I really feel like there is an active social component to the mission of Christ -- which we, as Christians are meant to participate in.
As individuals I think a foundation built on a genuine transformation is essential, but the structure built on top of that foundation, IMO, involves some of the social activity traditionally associated with the political left.
Not BECAUSE those things are associated with a particular political philosophy, but in spite of it. Redistribution of wealth seems to have been a part of the very earliest church. In today's Western culture such a concept seems way too radical and will not be very well-received by the world.
But does that mean it's wrong?
When you put your faith into practice you always run the risk of elevating that practice above the faith, which is a kind of idolatry, but that just means you need to be vigilant in your faith, not abolish the practice.
At least that's how I see it.
Benjamin
· 1 year ago
As I tinker with thoughts like this, I struggle with the nature of the good news as well. If I'm reading generously, I agree with Mark about the nature of the gospel - that the Kingdom is here, already, among those who are possessed with the Spirit of Christ, and that listening to and living with that Spirit transforms us into people who want to feed the multitude.
But when I think about things like the redistribution of wealth, I find that I begin to think of the good news as some sort of earthly kingdom again. I begin to think that the good news is that I give my income away to those in need, or I take care of the orphans, or whatever. Truth be told, I'm not sure what Jesus means when I start to think that way - he seems to be an unnecessary add-on to just doing things to help others. I've become convinced that being actively empathetic is good news to those in need, but falls dramatically short of the Good News. In other words, if I feed a family because I can, that's just plain news. When Americans give food to other countries, that's just news. I'm convinced it isn't the Gospel, and instead makes the reality of God secondary to the "more important" task of giving people food. To quote Cardinal Ratzinger, "If man's heart is not good, then nothing else can turn out good, either. And the goodness of the human heart can ultimately come only from the One who is goodness..."
In my reading of the Stringfellow quote, I see a particular order being advocated. Christians should be poor so that this temptation to create some earthly kingdom is taken away. All we have is Christ. We don't desire to turn stones into bread with our paper money, or set ourselves on a mountain and say we know the cure for the world is redistribution of wealth. Rather, all we have is Christ, who showed us the face of God, and with that knowledge, we know the path that humans have to take in the world out of the Love birthed in us by the Spirit, through faith in Christ.
This comment is getting too long, but I think this order is important - the Good News has to start with Christ, who showed us God, and reminds us through the Spirit. After that comes the path we have to take in the world. After that comes the feeding of the multitude and the "redistribution of wealth", which is really more like kenosis. Otherwise we end up calling our material actions "good news" when in fact it is just some humanistic effort divorced from the reality of God, without which nothing can be good.
So, should we err on the side of the evangelicals and just say that Jesus is all you need? Of course not. But I've become convinced that leaving out the reality of Jesus' message (which, from my reading of the New Testament includes a good deal of repentance and suffering) from our giving takes away the face of God, and makes our actions simply materialistic, which is the Marxist mistake. Hmmm, I guess I find myself agreeing more and more with Mark...
The hard question is always, "What does this look like?" So, my question back to Mark is: What does it look like to "live as though it were true"? Too often the knee jerk reaction makes true Christians beholden to the "signs" of our theosis, but the alternative seems to be an enigmatic existence. What do you think?
Dave
· 1 year ago
Excellent Post! Thanks for verbalizing some of my concerns.
Zachtamplin
· 1 year ago
Very good, I will give much thought to this.
Hope things are well for you and your family.
Does a Davy Tackett (crockett) live at Missio Dei? peace
markvans
· 1 year ago
Thanks Zach. And yes, Davy Tackett (crockett) is a part of our community.
All Comments
But to simplify: The Gospel is that Jesus is among us, by His Spirit. When Jesus proclaimed the Good News, he said it was that the kingdom is here. And when Paul re-affirmed the Good News, he pointed to the Cross and the Resurrection, and to Christ's continued presence by his Spirit--so that through these events we can experience a reconciled relationship with God. He dwells among us. And his presence ought to transform us.
And if we, the Church, are to be people of the Gospel (evangelicals in the truest sense of the word)...then we need to not only proclaim the Good News, but live as though it were true. The reason that we are given an entire Testament in which to discover the Gospel is that there are many terrifying and beautiful implications to the reality that God is among us. Our being and doing and proclaiming all should point to the presence of God among us. And that is why we, the Church, exist—to proclaim and embody the Presence among us.
I like your definition of the Gospel, particularly the part "And his presence ought to transform us." because it embodies both the singular and the plural simultaneously. This transformation is the hope we have not only for this world, but the next. I'm not sure we can really understand the gospel without the Old Testament though. The references of the church being the bride of Christ come out much more strongly if one reads the OT. For me, the New Testament is clarifying that this transformation process is inclusive rather than exclusive.
The Gospel is Proclamation of aFait a complete, "The kingdom of this world has (already [in Greek]) become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ and He will reign forever and forever!" says the Christian Revelation of all things in Christ, not a preparation for something later.
Sorry to get preachy... I am singing out with joy for having found another who is hearing the same tune!
Wealth redistribution is not the primary focus of the church, to be sure, especially if by this we mean overseeing or advocating for programs intended to redistribute wealth on the systemic level. But the early church certainly seems to be involved in some sort of rudimentary wealth distribution. This is, in fact, at the heart of the jubilee ethos invoked in Jesus' messianic platform -- or the Jesus Manifesto, if you will.
Whatever replaces capitalism (if anything can) will almost certainly reiterate the oppressive structures of empire. Whatever new shape the human self-aggrandizement project takes, somebody will get screwed. I think our fallenness pretty much guarantees this. "The poor you will always have with you" was an ad hoc reply to Judas' snarky comment -- a comment that only makes sense if Jesus and co. were about helping the poor (which implies a kind of voluntary redistribution). The truth of Jesus' reply simply points to the perennial nature of the church's opportunity.
Forms of oppression that don't involve an economic component are rare. As we "imagine a world set aright and stubbornly live that out", it would seem that some kind of redistribution of wealth is necessary. So I guess I'm not sure how freedom from the machine precedes the kinds of things -- sharing wealth, speaking to the powers, recognizing freedom from oppression -- by which such a freedom would seem to be defined.
Or, to put it as a question: what is the existential character of this freedom that would allow us to think of it as distinct from its constitutive praxis?
I was thinking of the story of the paralytic. Jesus forgave sins first, healed second. If there had been another way or a better way to show the love and power of God to forgive sins than healing the paralytic, then Jesus probably would have done that rather than heal the man.
WRT money and the early church, sometimes there was a need to distribute, sometimes there was a need to aggregate. The problem with money comes when it is hoarded, like the man with the one talent. For money to work as it is intended it needs to flow. When it doesn't it's like a bruise and can turn gangrene if it is too long in one place.
For the rich young ruler, he needed to give up his money. But other people have different idols. Practicing the presence of God can be giving up money if you're a rich young ruler or it can be going to Nineveh if you're an arrogant preacher.
As individuals I think a foundation built on a genuine transformation is essential, but the structure built on top of that foundation, IMO, involves some of the social activity traditionally associated with the political left.
Not BECAUSE those things are associated with a particular political philosophy, but in spite of it. Redistribution of wealth seems to have been a part of the very earliest church. In today's Western culture such a concept seems way too radical and will not be very well-received by the world.
But does that mean it's wrong?
When you put your faith into practice you always run the risk of elevating that practice above the faith, which is a kind of idolatry, but that just means you need to be vigilant in your faith, not abolish the practice.
At least that's how I see it.
But when I think about things like the redistribution of wealth, I find that I begin to think of the good news as some sort of earthly kingdom again. I begin to think that the good news is that I give my income away to those in need, or I take care of the orphans, or whatever. Truth be told, I'm not sure what Jesus means when I start to think that way - he seems to be an unnecessary add-on to just doing things to help others. I've become convinced that being actively empathetic is good news to those in need, but falls dramatically short of the Good News. In other words, if I feed a family because I can, that's just plain news. When Americans give food to other countries, that's just news. I'm convinced it isn't the Gospel, and instead makes the reality of God secondary to the "more important" task of giving people food. To quote Cardinal Ratzinger, "If man's heart is not good, then nothing else can turn out good, either. And the goodness of the human heart can ultimately come only from the One who is goodness..."
In my reading of the Stringfellow quote, I see a particular order being advocated. Christians should be poor so that this temptation to create some earthly kingdom is taken away. All we have is Christ. We don't desire to turn stones into bread with our paper money, or set ourselves on a mountain and say we know the cure for the world is redistribution of wealth. Rather, all we have is Christ, who showed us the face of God, and with that knowledge, we know the path that humans have to take in the world out of the Love birthed in us by the Spirit, through faith in Christ.
This comment is getting too long, but I think this order is important - the Good News has to start with Christ, who showed us God, and reminds us through the Spirit. After that comes the path we have to take in the world. After that comes the feeding of the multitude and the "redistribution of wealth", which is really more like kenosis. Otherwise we end up calling our material actions "good news" when in fact it is just some humanistic effort divorced from the reality of God, without which nothing can be good.
So, should we err on the side of the evangelicals and just say that Jesus is all you need? Of course not. But I've become convinced that leaving out the reality of Jesus' message (which, from my reading of the New Testament includes a good deal of repentance and suffering) from our giving takes away the face of God, and makes our actions simply materialistic, which is the Marxist mistake. Hmmm, I guess I find myself agreeing more and more with Mark...
The hard question is always, "What does this look like?" So, my question back to Mark is: What does it look like to "live as though it were true"? Too often the knee jerk reaction makes true Christians beholden to the "signs" of our theosis, but the alternative seems to be an enigmatic existence. What do you think?
Hope things are well for you and your family.
Does a Davy Tackett (crockett) live at Missio Dei?
peace