Purpose
This blog exists to be a place of discussion on the Way. While there will be useless posts and humorous posts from time to time, the primary purpose of my writing is to engage you, the reader, in deeper thought, deeper walks, deeper discussion in “the ways that Jesus is the Way”
I do not come without a perspective or without agenda. I am disgusted with the current scene of American Christianity. I am weary of seeing my Savior being used by pretenders to pay peoples sin bills. Salvation is not “fire insurance.” It is here and now. The message of Jesus must change. I offer no apology to anyone that this is where I am right now in my walk. I am discontent with what I see, and for that I am not sorry. If you disagree, the response I hope to see from you is one of conversing with me. Please don’t label me and dismiss me. There is too much of that going on right now. Let he who is without sin be first in casting their labels upon me.
I should also mention that I am discontent with the melding of Christianity with a particular political party. Christians do not exist to support a body or philosophy of politics. While I think the gospel is political I refuse to be part of a poltics that is the gospel. My allegience to Christ is supreme and I will not swear allegience to another name. As Derek Webb says, “My first allegience is not to a flag, a country, or a man. It’s to a King and a Kingdom.” I believe that American Christians are far too comfortable with the current relationship between the Republican party and the church. So comfortable, that I wonder who these followers trust to bring about real change and transformation in this world – Jesus or Politicians?
I guess the purpose of this blog, therefore, is to be a place of discussion about culture, politics, social-justice, discipleship, and what it means to follow Jesus in general. I believe we are polarized to the point that healthy debate is impossible. To disagree is not to disown. If people were right about everything, then it would be impossible to “grow in the fullness of Christ” I think we can all grow and therefore admit we are all weak and in need of discussion, learning, and practice of walking on the Way.
Hope you will join the discussion!
I stumbled upon your blog through a Gospel of John tag.
What do you mean by the Gospel is political? The crux of this answer I guess will be on how you define political.
Isn’t the Gospel good news about being spared from the wrath that we deserve?
I noticed that you reading list is alot different than mine.
msamudio -
So sorry that it has taken me so long to respond, I have just returned from a retreat that I led.
It is my understanding that the gospel is political, as much as it is social. In other words, I believe that the gospel has social implications, and I understand it to possess political implications (that is, it regards the polis, or the city).
I think Matt. 22:15-22 has political implications. I think that Luke 4:14-20 has social implications.
My understanding is that the gospel is not limited to a focus on a “here-after” reward. I understand it to have “here-and-now” implications. I feel the call in the Gospel (particularly in the sermon on the mount) to live in the present. This paradigm for theology gives birth to a new reality that the gospel possesses all things – here and now.
That is what I meant when I said that the gospel is political.
To further clarify – I want to add that I do not think that the gospel IS or POSSESSES a political theory. If it does anything to modern day politics, it is more subversive than anything else, Republican, Democrat or otherwise.
Joe,
Please call me Mike and no problem on the delay (I of all people understand the busyness of life and if I do not get back to you please also be patient also).
Maybe before we go much further we should understand each others primary authority for basing our beliefs. You can’t take this for granted and I just want to clarify that I rely on the Scriptures alone to be my authority on all matters of faith and practice. If we don’t clear that up at the beginning we may do a lot of talking past each other.
Therefore, I do not mean to seem rude or impolite, but I would ask you to base that definition you proposed upon Scripture. I am not denying that you have cited, Scripture, however the passages you cited need to be interpreted in the light of some much clearer texts regarding this matter.
I would appeal to Romans 1:16 in this situation to provide an explicit explanation of how we are to view the Gospel. It states that the Gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,” thus I would limit my definition to what I previously stated in my first comment.
Maybe justice would be done if we defined what the Gospel is first. What is your definition?
Mike
ps. I don’t know if you will read my response to your comment on my site. However, I encourage you to read the article entitled “Christless Christianity” linked on my site. It goes on to discuss how many Christians today are majoring in the minors.
Mike -
Thanks again for your response.
You asked for my definition of gospel. I think the statement of Paul’s in Romans 1:16 is very clear and concise. However, I think there is more tied up in this phrase than you may suppose. The gospel contains the sermon on the mount, right? In this message Jesus calls us to live out our faith in the present. To not worry about the future, to not lust in our hearts, to not adulterate our spouses and others, to not harbor hate in our hearts, to expose our own deceit, to give to the poor, to develop our private (not public) relationship with him, to love our enemies, to be salt and light, to live according to the law of love, to not repay evil with evil, to value eternal things rather than worldly things, to refrain from a lifestyle of judgment of others, to ask and seek and knock, to keep a close watch for those with evil intensions, to take the road less traveled, and finally to seek Christ as our foundation for all of life?
And this is just the tip if the iceberg for Jesus’ teachings on life!
In my mind, when Paul says, “I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.” I could not agree more!
Therefore I go to the gospel and see what it encompasses… and best I can see it calls me into a new world, where everything is made new. In this new world, Christ is King of all. And in this new world, the gospel is all encompassing.
That is my understanding of the gospel. That it is about new life. New life that begins now. It is more than just getting Jesus to pay our sin bills. It is about an enduringly strong and pwerfully deep relationship with Him NOW! That continues for all eternity. Because of this relationship we engage everything differently than we did before.
I would be interested in hearing you explain your argument that lots of Christians today are “majoring in the minors” when Paul (in the same letter to the Romans that you quoted Paul to prove that the gospel was perhaps more limited in theme than I may assume) tackles issues like eating certain foods, submission to governmental authorities, marriage, and Jew-Gentile relationships. Is Paul majoring in some minors here, or does this gospel he speaks of have implications for all of life? (See Romans 12:1-2).
P.S. >>> I would also be interested in hearing you explain why you interpret the gospels in light of a Pauline text? It is my understanding that the gospels give the Pauline literature their meaning. Also, I wanted to thank you again for your obvious care and concern with which you seem to be writing. I enjoy the conversation!
Joe,
Thanks for the clarification on your definition of the Gospel.
I on the other hand would look to the meaning that the NT authors intended for this word. They use the greek “ευαγγελιον” (evangel), which means good news. I would argue that Christ’s propitiation of our sins and imputed righteousness is extremely good news for a wretched sinner as myself. I would also argue that this is the original intent of the NT authors.
The sermon on the mount does not fit within this meaning. You may be a better man than I, however the sermon on the mount to me is bad news. Here Christ is clarifying the full extent of the God’s law to raise the bar way beyond what any man could achieve. (The Pharisees thought they were actually fulfilling it Phil 3:6). This, I would classify as Law, not Gospel, since it is not good news at all. It is depressing and knocks a person like me off my horse causing me to realize my desperate need for a Savior. If this is good news then it would add an extraordinary burden for the Christian to bear in this life and contradict Christ’s words to us in Matt 11:25-30.
My response to you regarding Romans is simple you are confusing the indicative with the imperative. Chapters 1-11 are the indicative, what God has done in Christ. Chapters 12-16 are imperative, how we should live in light of this. Again, this is the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. This is evident by the use of the word “therefore” at the transition from chapters 11 to 12.
The four Gospel are the record of what Christ said and did. Everything within them is not necessarily classified as Gospel, for example the Sermon on the Mount.
Do you agree with the above mentioned position or not? If not, why not?
Mike
Mike -
Wow… good argument brother!
To answer your question – I do not agree. But I’m not closed to your conclusions either.
(I am a little wary because your responses sound a little like some of the conclusions of my past that people refused to question, as if their interpretation was the “gospel” as much as the gospel is the “gospel” – know what I mean?)
I think I just need to keep asking questions, if that is okay with you?!?
1> Am I hearing you say that the Sermon on the Mount is not to be lived up to? That it is to viewed as the same as the O.T. Law?
2> Am I hearing you say that the Christian Life cannot be Spirit empowered? It sounds like you can’t imagine someone living up to the calling of the Sermon on the Mount. I believe one can live up to that calling – once one has repented and been immersed in the Trinitarian Presence of God. Does not Ephesians 3:14-21 tell us that it is not us, rather “God’s power at work within us” that we are able to live out our calling? Is not the same implied elsewhere in New Testament writings (i.e. Philippians 4:13 / Romans 8:37-39)????
Joe,
Not to seem full of myself, but I would agree it is a good argument. It is a good argument, because it is being faithful to Scripture. BTW, Paul repeats the definition in 1 Cor 1:17-18.
I don’t think I entirely follow your parenthesis statement. Are you saying you used to hold my position and were converted to another view of the Gospel?
To answer your first question I am not in ANY way implying that we should not strive to live the Sermon on the Mount (SOM) – read Romans 7:14-25. I would also admit that I am a wretched man who violates this standard every day. And if it were not for the righteousness of Christ I would be on a one way ticket to Gehenna.
Question 2 we are empowered by the Spirit, however on this side of glory we will never attain perfection. See Rom 7:14-25 and 1 John 1:8. Moreover, begin reading at verse 1 of Ephesians chapter 3. Paul is saying here the whole point of redemptive history reached its climax in Christ’s vicarious atonement for sinful people, which was to include us Gentiles through the Gospel. Isn’t this a very precise definition of the Gospel as well?
Now I have a question for you, is “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48) good news to you?
Also, eventually we probably need to address this comment of yours:
“It is more than just getting Jesus to pay our sin bills”
Where did you learn this?
Mike
Mike -
I have been wrestling with your lastest comment. Sorry it is taking so long. I will post soon!
Grace -
Joe James
Joe,
No problem…it definitely shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Check out my recent Lord’s Day quote and check out the new article it is quoted from on the links section of my site.
It may help you with further explanation of this issue.
Mike
Mike -
As I think through this, I come to a question…
What do you do with Mark 1:14-15?
“After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!”
Two points (or questions) -
1> If the good news is that limited to the atoning sacrifice of Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection… then why does he come proclaiming this “good news” beforehand?
2> What is this good news he came proclaiming? Was it that God was near? Was it that his kingdom was near? Or was it that he was about to die and be resurrected? Or was it both? And does Jesus’ definition of “gospel” in turn determine the other NT author’s definition, or vice versa?
Joe,
You don’t mean that do you? Of course the Gospel was proclaimed before Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Remember Galatians 3:8 the gospel was proclaimed beforehand to Abraham. One cannot easliy refute that it was also preached to Adam and Eve Gen 3:15.
The presupposition is not in accordance with Scripture.
Mike
Joe,
Relative to your second point it gets into views of eschatology, which is a little different than our original point about confusing the law and the gospel. I think it would be best if we dealt with our unfinished business before moving onto that topic. We should first clarify if “be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” is good news or not.
Mike
I am fascinated by the conversation you two are having (Joe shared it with me last week). I totally agree with you guys that Jesus’ news is political, or has political implications or whichever. Year of Jubilee! The last among us is named the first! “On earth as it is in heaven,” right? You are to love perfectly, not just the ones that love you but your enemies too–definitely good news. I mean, if I have to watch out for my own hide, I’m not going to love people who would hurt me, or people who can’t do anything for me. But God be praised, I already died and my life is hidden with Christ in God! When he appears I will appear with him in glory, and between now and then, I can love like a man whose life is locked away safe–I can love like an immortal! My life is hidden away now, I don’t have to wait til I die for God’s grace to take effect, I am free to love!
Also, Mike, I read your testimony–WOW. Powerful, brother. God be praised. “Out of the slimy pit, out of the mud and mire,” am I right? (Ps. 40:2)
Mike -
I am not doubting that the gospel was preached beforehand – just doubting that that “gospel” or “good news” that was preached beforehand was that Jesus has died and been resurrected. So – yes I am serious. What was the good news about (beforehand). And I still didn’t hear you respond to Jesus’ definition of gospel from Mark 1?
Also, I do think the call to holy as God is holy is good news.
If I must accomplish this calling in order to get to heaven, then no, it would then be bad news… but we called to be holy because we have been forgiven – good news for us, and the world – that we become a picture of transformation and a living testimony to the power of God in our lives – See Greg’s comments above.
Sorry Greg, but I do not agree that the gospel is political. My life is a testimony to the grace of God and the power of the gospel. This is why I would like to share this good news with all people of God’s free grace, no strings attached.
Joe,
Relative to comment 14…please see Acts 2:22-36. Peter is drawing our attention to Psalm 16:8-11, which he interpets with apostolic authority that it was proclaiming the good news of the resurrection before it happend. Moreover, I would say that Isaiah 53 is a very powerful and explicit proclamation of the good news about Christ’s atoning death 700 year before it occurred.
I do not see how you can make this distinction and stay faithful to the whole counsel of Scripture.
As far as the good news referred to in Mark 1, I can come to no other conclusion as to its meaning other than what the apostle Paul defines it as in Rom 1:16 or 1 Cor 1:17-18. During His earthly ministry Christ proclaimed both law (SOM) and Gospel (Matt 11:25-30, Luke 15, John 11:25, etc). I don’t know how you can conclude otherwise without imposing something on the text of Scripture that is not there.
Mike
Greg and Joe,
Please also reference the following when you have the chance and give me your thoughts:
http://msamudio.wordpress.com/exhortation-on-esther/
Have you ever heard (read) a sermon like this.
Mike
Joe,
Relative to comment 15…how is that good news to sinful people?
Mike
Mike, I’m sorry, I thought that you and Joe had agreed on that one. Maybe it’s just semantics? I meant Jesus’ news is political because it makes such a difference in how his followers think/feel/behave, such as loving instead of hating, and forgiving instead of taking revenge. So all that stuff changes our approach to “social relationships having to do with authority and power” (I got that definition of politics from a Google search, it seems to fit with what I meant). I didn’t mean Jesus has anything to do with political parties. Maybe political is not a good word to use for what I mean.
I hope it’s ok for me to comment, I’m not butting in am I?
Anyway… I read your sermon Mike, I liked it. I’ve heard sermons like that bunches of times. I like how you used the time to tell the story of redemption in Esther and in our lives. I’ve been changing in my perception of my faith over the past few years, from a faith that was defined by bullet points and formulas to a faith that is described by the story of God and man. Really, until a couple of years ago my faith didn’t require Jesus to have said or done anything–just to have died sinlessly and be resurrected. Nowadays my faith is much more about the life of Jesus, before and during and after His incarnation, and about the different kind of life he proposes (literally, a proposal, like a marriage proposal! That’ll preach!) So I like sermons like yours, that emphasize the good news story.
Have you guys noticed that you keep asking questions and answering each other’s questions with questions? You are driving me nuts.
Greg,
I can definitely sympathize with your comment about answering questions with questions. This is fairly common on blogs I’ve discovered. Nonetheless, I think the current discussion is not as bad as you think…I’ve seen much worse. (BTW, I thought the responses I provided to Joe in 17 was appropriate. Comment 19 was because I was dumbfounded)
No problem if you’d like to join the discussion with me…Joe?
Not to be nit picky, but the bone of contention is whether the gospel is political (see original post). However, relative to your comment about Jesus being political I think there is definitely some equivocation in that term. Nonetheless, Matthew 22:15-22 would pretty much refute the sense of political parties. I agree that the term political is not appropriate.
Relative to your second to last paragraph I was with you most of the way until the last few sentences. I would say that Christianity is primarily about a message and not a lifestyle. It is to be a Christ-centered religion not a man (self)-centered religion. It’s about Christ and what he has done primarily. Our response is part of it, but definitely not the focus of Christianity.
You should definitely read this:
http://msamudio.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/lords-day-quote-michael-horton-2/
And if you are interested by this quote read the entire article.
Mike
By “the different kind of life he proposes” I didn’t mean lifestyle, I meant life–like the difference between a…
I honestly can’t think of an metaphor here. I should go to bed. I wanted to say “between a lightbulb and a lamp” but that just doesn’t make sense.
I meant life, though, a different kind of life. You know, abundant life, life that can’t be used up, eternal life, as opposed to dying. “I have come that they may have life.” So Jesus proposes that I live that kind of life. He offered Himself to eat, offers a vine to remain attached to, paid sin’s death-price so that we can do things through Him as he strengthens us–we can LIVE.
I read that quote. I liked it but I didn’t really get where it fits with what I was talking about. Did you think I meant we have to earn our rescue? I didn’t mean that. I do believe that one decides to believe or not in Jesus’ news, and I don’t think Mr. Horton thinks that. But I’m not a universalist.
Also, instead of political I’ll say Jesus’ news affects social relationships involving authority or power.
I don’t know how to make links but I think this is a good article: http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=119. I don’t say it’s relevant, necessarily, but I think it’s good.
oops I meant to say, is Mr. Horton a universalist?
Mike -
I agree with virtually all you said in comment 21! I fear we have had more in common than we may realize… Actually that isn’t a fear so much as a hope.
Semantics may have impaired our ability to communicate well????
Like you said – it pretty much came down to how we define gospel and the word political.
I am not sure we agree on the gospel thing – but I can safely say we were much closer than we first realized on the whole political thing!!!
Hey Guys…it’s Friday and I am burnt toast!
Dr. Horton is not a universalist…he is a professor at the Seminary I go to.
I will have to respond to the other comments later.
Mike
Sorry, I have been getting ready for a Hebrew exam.
Greg, I don’t really follow comment 22 please clarify. I apologize I don’t have time to read the link, could you summarize?
Joe, about comment 24 I am not so sure that we are that close. You would say the imperative to “be perfect” as the “Father is perfect” is good news. I think that is extemely bad news to sinful people, of which I was and still am. Would you characterize someone like myself who just sees Jesus as someone “paying my sin bills”? First of all I would not characterize it that way, but I would say that is an essential part of the Gospel (imputed righteousness the other essential). And I am afraid that you are seeking to add things to the Gospel that are not at all good news.
Mike
Please read this when you have a moment:
http://www.wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/whenthegoodnewsbecomesbad.php
Mike
[...] in a much broader sense than the Scriptures merit. For example, some seek to define the gospel as political, maybe or maybe not to justify the integration of policy matters into the message. There are some [...]