At church Sunday and the message is proclaimed early:
"God has a Son Who He sent to Earth 2000 years ago to die on a criminal's cross for sinners like you and me to give us the opportunity to have right standing with a holy and just God whose holiness and whose righteousness demanded punishment to your sin and mine but through His Son Jesus dying on that cross he became sin for us and died not only for us but as us but made it possible for us to have peace with God."
"God has a Son Who He sent to Earth 2000 years ago to die on a criminal's cross for sinners like you and me to give us the opportunity to have right standing with a holy and just God whose holiness and whose righteousness demanded punishment to your sin and mine but through His Son Jesus dying on that cross he became sin for us and died not only for us but as us but made it possible for us to have peace with God."
While I cannot necessarily argue that this is wrong, as such, I can state that it is this emphasis, distortion even, that so troubles me. This is the message proclaimed in the non-denominational word, that truncated 'essence' of what the Church as a whole established in its formative years of the 4th and 5th century.
'But...' one may argue. That was the emperor's doing and not really what Jesus was saying. What was He saying? We, in the 20th century, think we know better because we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit. So too did the early Church.
'But...' one may argue. The lay congregation was not able to read and so the 'educated' elite interpreted in a fashion in which they hoarded power, eliminated women from the mix and got into bed with the political powers that be.
While that is certainly part of the story, is it that much different than today? After all, the 'revival' mentality of the Church today, at least in America, is roughly the same age as the time frame in which the early creeds were established. Are we not headed down the same path? Are not 'denominations' formed out of the non-denominations among us? How else do we explain the plethora of different churches competing for one another, cannibalizing each other over the minutiae of the very same fetters of tradition and doctrinal debate from which they claim to be free?
And, I would imagine, it is this mess, this 'truncated' explanation of the Gospel, that troubles unbelievers and falls on deaf ears or leads to further rebellion. Not because they are sinners and don't get it but because it does little to explain how this is Good News other than it taps into the guilt and shame and gives us an apparent out, an easy fix to assuage those feelings.
But it is not enough. At least for me.
'But...' one may argue. That was the emperor's doing and not really what Jesus was saying. What was He saying? We, in the 20th century, think we know better because we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit. So too did the early Church.
'But...' one may argue. The lay congregation was not able to read and so the 'educated' elite interpreted in a fashion in which they hoarded power, eliminated women from the mix and got into bed with the political powers that be.
While that is certainly part of the story, is it that much different than today? After all, the 'revival' mentality of the Church today, at least in America, is roughly the same age as the time frame in which the early creeds were established. Are we not headed down the same path? Are not 'denominations' formed out of the non-denominations among us? How else do we explain the plethora of different churches competing for one another, cannibalizing each other over the minutiae of the very same fetters of tradition and doctrinal debate from which they claim to be free?
And, I would imagine, it is this mess, this 'truncated' explanation of the Gospel, that troubles unbelievers and falls on deaf ears or leads to further rebellion. Not because they are sinners and don't get it but because it does little to explain how this is Good News other than it taps into the guilt and shame and gives us an apparent out, an easy fix to assuage those feelings.
But it is not enough. At least for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment