Camp has already admitted his biases in favor of anabaptist understandings, Yoder theology and ecclesiology, and now also Lipscomb's anabaptist leanings. I appreciate that honesty in laying the cards on the table.
Page 23 (2nd ed.) states the following, "the Good News [proclaims] a kingdom that held to Jesus as its head: the kingdom of heaven as a real kingdom in the midst of time and history. It is in the world but not of the world, and thus would refuse either to submit to sectional war-making and racism, or to turn a blind eye to the needs of the poor."
This is my understanding of the NT as well. I too admit my biases in being heavily NT Wright/Greg Boyd/Stanley Hauerwas/Jim Wallis/anabaptist mushing and meshing in my approach as well. The radical mission of the kingdom has somehow been lost by the evangelicals among whom I minister. In four years of preaching and embodying the same kind of good news Camp espouses and quotes Lipscomb as having preached, I have found precious little progress. Some days I lament. Other days I am filled with hope from the Holy Spirit.
Thus far in the book I find myself enthusiastically agreeing with Camp. I don't want to beat up Jesus' bride, but I frequently find myself also saying, Jesus' bride needs a second Reformation. Thoughts? And thoughts on this gospel stated on p. 23 (2nd ed.)? Is it a gospel you proclaim? Do your congregants express such a gospel? If not, then at a minimum do they even understand such a gospel?
REV
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
On the topic of various gospels, Jeff and I are a part of an ecumenical dialogue group that over a year ago explored the topic of "the gospels."
Curiously, some of the folks from other Christian traditions hadn't even HEARD of the kingdom gospel Camp was citing. Others had heard of it but didn't preach it or much understand it, some of which even feared it as far right theocratic rhetoric.
When I first began to preach in my current church context, many folks shared with me in those first months that they'd never heard a gospel of the kingdom before. Which led me to wonder if they'd ever read the NT!
But that issue aside, I asked which gospel they did know. The most typical was the four spiritual laws in essence: (1) I'm a sinner, (2) Jesus died for me and forgave my sins, (3) now I get to go to heaven.
Curiously, this is not the content of the gospels and is largely derived from Paul (and a very narrow select pulling from Paul at that, I'd argue). Now thats not to say Jesus would ever deny (1) or (2), its just that they weren't the focus of His proclamation ministry. And as for (3), well, we can credit Platonism and neo-Platonism with getting us in that mess!
REV
Totally don't understand how Plato is responsible for heaven.
Plato. Ahhh, LeRon Shults, where are you when I need you?
Where to begin? Basically, Dale, I took an entire class at Bethel dedicated to the Plato understanding of dualism, spirit, etc. and its effect on the church and heaven.
Let me begin with Platonic Greek philosophy on physical/real/form and spiritual/ideal/template. The physical worldly existence is material and but an imperfect shadow of the heavenly template, the ideal original thing or person or number. When it comes to Christianity being syncretized, then, it follows that this earthly body, the flesh, is sinful and corrupt, but the inner spirit/soul is the heavenly, good thing. The whole point of salvation, then, is to free one's spirit/soul to a heavenly bliss and escape this nasty world.
Neo-Platonism, then, infests the church as readers read into (in my opinion) the Bible a "I'm going to heaven after I die" mindset. This only gets worse with "Left Behind" nonsense (again, clearly my opinion). The whole aim is to escape nasty fallen creation and go to heaven when I die.
By contrast, I believe, the biblical picture is one of new creation, re-creation, restoration, redemption, reconciliation. A new earth. And on that new earth, yes, there is a resurrection of the dead, but this is hardly the main point, its simply a reward, an icing on the cake, for the faithful. The point all along was that the faithful remain faithful in carrying on the work of the Messiah WHILE STILL ON EARTH. For the Platonist mind, however, this is entirely beside the point, as the main point is gettign the soul freed from its fleshly prison and flying away to heaven.
The contrasts in evangelistic message then become clear: is the main point in someone else's conversion that they accept Jesus so that their soul can go to heaven when they die ("saved" from earth and of course hell fire) OR that they convert so that they become a new person, a new creation, a transformed individual, the perfected and complete form of which is the resurrection ("saved" from sin, death, and the devil who rules the fallen creation).
Camp is arguing for the latter. I also fall into the latter camp. Most folks in my church grew up knowing and accepting the former. As a result, "good works" are always, yes, wanted by God, but are always to be guarded against lest we become "Pharisees" who rely on works to be saved. My understanding is total opposite. Good works simply become the fruit of the transformed new creation life. Good works are not merely "additional commands" but in fact completely necessary to demonstrate that one in fact does have sincere living redeemed style faith. Living the new creation life!
Enough rambling for now. Have we scratched the surface with Plato?
(1) is the main point that you "go to heaven" when you die (and should live for Jesus when we live) OR (2) that we live for Jesus when we live (and happen to be resurrected to the new earth after we die)?
REV
More thoughts on the disconnect... Camp says on page 35 (2nd ed.) in the paragraph that begins "Instead of grappling..." - toward the end of that pargraph - two powerful sentences about following Jesus, attending on Sundays, etc. I won't quote those in full, but I'm curious what the rest of y'all think about that.
REV
Okay, Plato is not responsible for heaven. Plato is merely responsible for a platform that provides some Christians with an escape plan that dodges the heart of the gospel. Got it. Right?
I think the heart of any gospel, that is truly the gospel of Jesus Christ, must include his words, "Take up your cross and follow me." Is it to much, or too far afield, to think that he implies in these words: "Start now, don't bypass the cross (mine or yours), and continue forever?"
Nothing in what Jesus taught seems to indicate that we were to skip "life" in hope of heaven. Neither do I see the reverse disconnect, that we were to skip "heaven" in preference for life. I'm thinking true Christianity embraces "the Christ-life" as fully present now and fully realized then. In other words, just as Jesus "who for the joy set before him, endured the cross," we also endure in hope of some future resolution, not that this present endurance lacks either activity or significance, it simply is not all there is.
Another way of thinking about it is under he umbrella of "eternal life," I think. Eternal life does not begin at death but at some moment in relation to conversion (I'm content to let the Arminians and Calvinists figure out the chronology.) Therefore, the believer, by virtue of receiving in Christ eternal life begins his "heaven" existence in the here and now. Too many however, fail to realize that for them, the kingdom has already begun and so has the kingdom living! I think Jesus exemplified the Spirit enabled kingdom citizen while he walked the dust of the earth, and his continuing body in the world, so should we. That means our lives of faith and obedience are not merely to be excused as "spiritual" but to be actualized in the power of the Holy Spirit in real time, now!
We are to be and do now everything we think we will be and do then, only then we will do more so than now, not because of the release of spiritual limitations, but because of release from certain physical limitations. What you think?
Wonderful Dale, wonderful! Thats what I think. Eternal life. Great. The kingdom life. Super. The Christ-life or "little Christ" life (as the Orthodox call it). Fine. Whatever. Call it whatever we want to, but I suspect that is what Camp is driving at: that holistic, sold-out, radical following of Jesus that marks the life that foreshadows the resurrection life to come, that witnesses that eschatological kingdom breaking-in now, that lives as Jesus lives now, etc. etc.
YES!
Here's my rub with that: while I believe that YES that IS the gospel, that IS the NT, for some reason that doesn't translate to our churches.
Either pastors of years past have failed to truly understand this and teach it
OR they have done this well and the people haven't had ears to hear
OR people really do know what they are summoned to live out and they just don't want to, for whatever reasons
OR perhaps something else.
Jesus really is the one who talks about the narrow road. The vast majority won't even call on Him as "Lord, Lord." So already the road is broad. Then add to this already wide road some of those who DO call on Him as "Lord, Lord" and yet He still never knew them! Aye karamba, now we're talking a HUGE majority of humanity!
Yikes!
I feel myself going down a sad and despairing road, so I'll come back.
I'm not sure what has happened between the NT writings and 2009. Camp argues Constantine was the big first bad step and the rest went downhill from there. That may be it.
As a former church planter I can guarantee that if the radical discipleship of Camp was practiced, the traditional style of church planting the MBC does would not sustain a church. The followers would be few and far between. As church planters, we just wanted to "get them in the door." Hey, call it good if at least they'll say yes to Jesus 'cause the majority won't even do that! Ugh!
So have we dug our own discipleship graves by lowering the bar just in the hopes of at least attracting SOME???
REV
Post a Comment