After a break last week, I am continuing the series on Missional Church. You can read Part 1, 2, and 3here.
This is a summary of the first part of what I was preaching yesterday, as we are continuing a series on “Thinking Missionally”. Please do leave a comment - I would interested in getting your thoughts, so we can learn together. Part 2 tomorrow. Come on, heckle the preacher!
What is the Gospel?
As we thinking about participating in God’s Mission (Missio Dei), it is important to ask: what is God’s mission? Otherwise we may find that we are working at odds with God, and that doesn’t really seem a great idea!
So what is the Good News? Often we have defined it as forgiveness of Sins: we are sinners and we need to repent to have our sins forgiven so we can go to heaven. But this seems such a narrow view of the gospel, according the Bible, and especially the teaching of Jesus.
When Jesus talks about the good news, he consistently talks about the good news of Kingdom (for example Mt 4:23,24; Mt 9:35; Lk 4:43). There is clearly some great thinking and work being on done on what the good news of the Kingdom means. People like Steve Chalke, Brian McLaren, Dallas Willard, NT Wright, Walter Wink, Walter Brueggemann have been writing about this.
McLaren (I gather drawing heavily from NT Wright) paints a picture in his book, The Secret Message of Jesus, of the fervoured expectation of the Kingdom of God being established at the time. The Roman empire was the occupying force (and were probably as unpopular as the US/UK occupying forces in Iraq!). The expectations of the Messiah to come and establish the Kingdom was focused on removing the Roman occupiers.
Within in Israel, there were four different strategies on how to establish the Kingdom, from four of the different religious groups at the time:
Zealots: We must establish the Kingdom by force. There is no other way we are going get rid of the Roman: we are going to need to kill a few people.
Heriodians (& Sadducees): To survive we must make the best of the situation and work with the Romans. Don’t rock the boat, cooperate. Anything else is suicide.
Essenes: We must get away from the corrupt society, form our own community, and isolate ourselves from the Romans and everyone else.
Pharisees: The Kingdom will only be established as we purify ourselves; we must obey the Bible more rigorously; there must be more righteous people and fewer sinners. Then God will deliver us.
Into the cultural mix, comes Jesus. People would have been asking: which group does Jesus fit in? How does he propose we establish the Kingdom of God? But he didn’t fit any of their boxes. Instead he proposed a totally different view of the Kingdom, who it was for, how to bring it about, & how to enter it:
- The Kingdom is NEAR
- The Kingdom of Shalom
- The Kingdom is radically inclusive
- Entering the Kingdom: repent
I will flesh these points out over the next few days. So if you have a comment on these hold on until the next post.
But just now, lets think about the four different groups above. As I reflected on those groups, and how each viewed establishing the Kingdom, I began to see that the church had used all four techniques (at various points in history) to bring about the Kingdom. For example, I have heard it said on numerous occasions that if we would only purify ourselves, then God will send revival … sounds rather like the Pharisees to me? Or there are (and certainly have been) some real “fruitcakes” who think that by violence we will bring the Kingdom … think crusades & bombing abortion clinics…
What about you? Have you experience Christian groups trying to established the Kingdom in any of these ways?
Or perhaps you think that McLaren’s analysis is wrong?
Tags: Brian McLaren, Missional Church, NT Wright, Steve Chalke, The Secret Message of Jesus, Kingdom of God, Kingdom, Gospel, Missio Dei
I posted a response to this but I can’t see it…if it doesn’t appear I’ll post again…
OK, posting again:
First of all, thanks for preaching on this topic. Although I want to discuss quite a bit of the details, I agreed with the general thrust of the message: we have limited the gospel to a somewhat existential proposition about going to heaven after death, and this is not the gospel of the bible.
The description of the four main groups in 1stC Judaism was well communicated, although it wasn’t anything new for me. I do want to comment further on these groups, with respect to providing a more nuanced description. Most of this comes from NT Wright’s first volume in his mega-series.
Zealots - When we hear descriptions of this group today they sound like terrorists and its hard to believe they had a credible following. However I think if you look at this way, they become more believable:
- Judea was in Roman occupation
- Rome was pagan
- therefore the people of Israel were being oppressed by hostile, pagan powers
- By all accounts, Yahweh was no longer with his people
- the Zealots looked at the OT for inspiration; they saw a lot of material about dealing with pagan oppressors with force
- in recent social memory, the whole Maccabean saga had perhaps re-inforced the message that violence works and is sometimes necessary to regain God’s favour and expel the pagans.
Looking at this way, perhaps we can understand why the Zealots were such a credible movement.
Heriodians/ Sadducees: The point I wish to add here is that many in this group believed that Yahweh had broken his covenant with Israel and had joined the Romans. This seemed evident to anyone looking at things naturally. So this position wasn’t just pragmatism — there was a theological and common sense aspect.
Essenes: The thing about this group is actually that scholars have commented how similar they appear to 1stC Christians! They believed that they were the true Israel - that the priests and temple system was no longer authorised or validated by God. They were the remnant, and they saw validation of this by their interpretation of OT prophecies. By belonging to this group and following its ethics and rituals, one could become righteous and be connected back to Yahweh.
Pharisees: Just wanted to note that there were two main schools of Pharisees and many scholars comment that Jesus often agreed with one of them. The other is that they were a Torah-based group, and placed less emphasis on the Temple. As such, they had greater sway in areas away from Jerusalem. They believed that those that God would justify and declare his people were the very people who followed all of the “works of the Torah”. The rest were not really true Israel.
All of the above is from memory and mostly from Wright. But with this added data, you begin to see the credibility of each of the movements, and how each of them was providing an answer and a solution to the situation Israel as a whole found itself in. Christianity then is not the only obvious understanding to the Kingdom, in its original context, all these groups were vying for and competing for the loyalty of the Jews and all claiming to be the truth! In fact, the Kingdom as we understand it seems to contain elements of all of the above positions.
On the church falling back to sub-Christian theologies of Kingdom, yes, it seems like it does all the time!
I want to comment quite a bit on the whole gospel = kingdom = shalom thing. Shall I wait for your next post?
I totally agree that they were credible (perhaps accept the zealots … i suppose they probably were in 1st C … but not really to my mind). I think that is why Jesus message created such a storm … and why the church has bought into each of them over the centuries. I recognise much of my thinking has fallen into one of these camps over the years i have been a christian.
I will post part 2 later, and then we can get into the debate on the rest…
“I think that is why Jesus message created such a storm ” — lost you here, what are you referring to? Cheers!
I was thinking: here are all these credible ways of bringing in the Kingdom. Jesus comes along, and doesn’t do it that way … he sets himself up as different from all these groups.
That, it seems to me, is partly why he was so controversial. The other groups are alternatives to Jesus. Why don’t he join one of those groups? But no, His Kingdom was so totally different.
Jesus setting himself up as different, caused enormous tension for all the other groups. They couldn’t quite get him. They might have thought he was one of them to start with. But as they realised he wasn’t, they tried to kill. That was the storm i was referring to.
If they weren’t credible, Jesus coming along might not have been so controversial. More of relief perhaps (”at last, here is someone speaking some sense”)?
ah, thanks!
what ho, if i remember the mclaren book he does some analysis on why jesus was like all of these groups in some respects and totally different, can’t remember what he said but at the time i thought good stuff…
now that was suitably vague
I agree … at least for some of the groups. I think you see the Pharisees trying to work Jesus out. They are asking: Is he one of us? He does some things that look a bit like us, but other things not.
Eventually they realise he isn’t and in fact his message is so subversive for their “kingdom” they try to kill him.
My understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven is that it is not of this world. It’s not a place that can be taken or entered into, instead it is in the hearts and lives of people that follow Jesus.
I am now beginning to see that Jesus talked about his Kingdom invading earth. In fact i think our job is to bring the kingdom here, now. We will do that completely, but that is why we pray: your kingdom come on earth, as it is in heaven …
I guess too, i think the Kingdom is bigger than individuals … but also where we work, institutions, cities, communities, countries maybe.
What do you think?
I’m really into the gospels, especially Jesus’ parables. Some days when I read the parabels I find them to be cryptic and it is then that ‘I’ interpretate it so that it ‘fits’ me. I know other people who tend to do that too.
Yeah, the Kingdom is too big to comprehened and God can’t be put into a box, so because of our occasional lack of understanding we try to make it fit us.
I also believe it’s our job to bring the Kingdom here by spreading the Good News. Jesus will return when all the nations, and all the tribes and all the tongues have heard about Him.
We better continue to do our job as Christians.
How very true Tanya that we interpret things in our own ways.
Thanks for the comments.
hello Rupert,
Been thinking about all this gospel stuff and wondered what the gospel meant to you personally? not churchily, not missionally, not theologically but personally…………………………………
And anyone else who feels like sharing that too!
Unless this is too public a space!
in love
James - really good question … and not too public space at all.
You have prompted me to think about what i have been speaking about in church and writing here … i have really spoken much about what it means for me. I may try to do a summary post speaking from a more personal perspective.
But here goes with some thoughts:
I hugely value the forgiveness aspect of the gospel - that i am cleansed and forgiven. And therefore that i experience God’s incredible, insessant, powerful love. This is stuff that we all need to grow in, but are fairly familiar concepts. They are definately part of what the gospel means for me.
But that is only part of it for me: the gospel means for me that i have life NOW … this is one of main things that is changing for me just at the moment. I am not sure i really am grasping all that means. But i am seeing that it means i can live with access to shalom … wellbeing. So, i am learning to live in harmony with others; come to peace quickly when offended.
I think i am re-assessing my priorities - seeing what is important to God. Slowly some of my priorities are changing. eg. taking the environment care seriously; wanting to see justice. These things are all part of the gospel, the Kingdom, and as i am grasping that more i am finding my attitudes changing.
Does that make sense? Is that the kind of thing you were looking for?
Rupert,
yeh makes sense! and was the kind of thing i was looking for, thanks. I love hearing people’s personal stories and what the gospel means ‘on the ground’ in people’s lives (especially when its your pastor!). I dont feel im much of a theologian with regard to the 4 main groups etc………………………
j
And please - no calling me PASTOR!!!>!??!??!?!>!>>!!
