The Purpose of Jesus
I read recently the statement, from a self-proclaimed spokesman for a new kind of church, a statement regarding Jesus that concerns me greatly.
He was asked in an interview, "You're pretty critical of many Christians' focus, emphasis on personal salvation after death. Why is that?"
His response,
"The church has been preoccupied with the question, "What happens to your soul after you die?" As if the reason for Jesus coming can be summed up in, "Jesus is trying to help get more souls into heaven, as opposed to hell, after they die." I just think a fair reading of the Gospels blows that out of the water. I don't think that the entire message and life of Jesus can be boiled down to that bottom line."
So perhaps I have not given the Gospels a fair reading. In just a cursory reading of the Gospels Jesus himself says, "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:10) “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
This is dangerous thinking. Let's not be enamored by the "new" because we are rightly frustrated with the "old." Let's be cautious to seek biblical reformation of the church and not put our words in the mouth of our savior.
He was asked in an interview, "You're pretty critical of many Christians' focus, emphasis on personal salvation after death. Why is that?"
His response,
"The church has been preoccupied with the question, "What happens to your soul after you die?" As if the reason for Jesus coming can be summed up in, "Jesus is trying to help get more souls into heaven, as opposed to hell, after they die." I just think a fair reading of the Gospels blows that out of the water. I don't think that the entire message and life of Jesus can be boiled down to that bottom line."
So perhaps I have not given the Gospels a fair reading. In just a cursory reading of the Gospels Jesus himself says, "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:10) “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
This is dangerous thinking. Let's not be enamored by the "new" because we are rightly frustrated with the "old." Let's be cautious to seek biblical reformation of the church and not put our words in the mouth of our savior.
posted by goz at 9:38 AM
5 Comments:
Goz
I love your blog!
I have no need nor desire to be "Emergent" nor a defender of those who claim to be inside such a heading. Let me start there. All challenges and "pushing" comes from my own brain.
I should like to ask what one does with this "save the lost" when the "lost" are equated with Israel and no others? (Matt. 15:24)
Of course Jesus lived a long and beautiful life. But I think Goz's point is that we have not summed up his life in one sentence......Jesus did. If he came, lived a beautiful life and then died an old man without the cross he'd be no better than Gandhi or Mother Theresa. Bottom line: Jesus came to save souls. He came to be a ransom for many. Sure, he lived a life that should be an example for all, but he died a death that no one can follow. Christ is the Lamb of God who takes a way the sins of the world. How much more beautiful can you get?
I'd like to revise my previous comment to say, If he came, lived a beautiful life and then died an old man without the cross his impact would be no better than Gandhi or Mother Theresa. Jesus, of course, was sinless.
I agree that our lives need to reflect an authentic, life-changing relationship with Jesus. I'm personally weary of falling in love with authenticity rather than the one who makes me so.
As to "emergent" I am simply stating that I have no need to defend or honor a movement. I happen to be good friends with some "emergent" folks and I enjoy thos I don't agree with. I might even be called an "emergent" by some. I just don't think it's the issue here.
As to "saving from sin" - again, I beg anyone to expand on why Jesus limited Himself to Israel.
Further, is "saving from sins" and "ransoming" and other variations simply a heaven/hell thing? What about loving others (want to know something, you will find "loving the brethern" in EVERY NT book - you will NOT find "saving from hell").
The fact is, the point McLaren was making (whether Goz is quoting him directly or quoting someone who is quoting him) is that Heaven vs. Hell is NOT the issue. Jesus didn't save me to leave me (parallel Gal. 3, esp. 1-3). THAT is the point.
So let me speak for McLaren with words he's never use (grin). We press people for "decisions" for Christ, but we weekly give them "advice" that we'd prefer them to live. WHY? If I am saved from sin, yet return to it, why is that now allowable?
I KNOW Goz is not saying sin is irrelevant after "salvation." The reason for my first comment was to not blast into Goz's post. I honestly don't think Goz disagrees with the intent of the quote, otherwise he would have not longings as a pastor (longings I have seen with my eyes, and even more felt with my soul).
Hope that brings clarity to my oft-ambiguous words.
d.
(does anyone else get a kick out of trying to pronounce the security words when leaving comments! I love these things! puoft - that's what I have to type. What does it Mean!?!)
Post a Comment
<< Home