(e)mergent Voyageurs

1 - Hey Jamie,
Sounds good. Two thoughts
1) I understand the emphasis on the Trinity in the emerging church and the greater notion of community that it opens up, but I wonder if your statement is missing a Christological focus. Christ is the revelation of the Trinity and our only access to the life the of the Trinity (so says Barth, I think).
2) As I am currently using this blog as a distraction from writing a paper on the Early Church doctrine of deification, I can''t help but wonder if we are loosing a sense that the gospel is about eternal life. The content of the gospel for the Fathers, it seems, or so I''m arguing in my paper, is that "God became man so we could become God" (Irenaeus). They meant by this that we take on the cahracteristics of God, primarily immortality. It is not merely a wait until the resurrection view of salvation, however. They thought that the process of immortality begins with baptism. I don''t really understand this, but it seemed to be a given for the Church Fathers.
Have we taken immortaltiy out of the gospel? (Comment this)

2 - Don,

Actually, I think there is not enough Trinitarian emphasis in the emerging church. I would say the emerging church is very much on line with the emphasis that you speak of.

However, your second point is really my point. Theosis, in my opinion, is more about taking on the characteristic of the Trinity through the person of Christ. God exsist in perichoresis, the mutual dance of indwelling/co-inherence of the three Persons of the Trinity. When He created humanity, He said, "Let us make man in Our image"- ''OUR'' being operative. It is the plurality and connectedness that is His central image. Immortality is important, but to what end? To participate in the dance of perichoresis that God invited all of Creation into, through Christ.

Does that make any sense?

Peace,
Jamie

I believe God''s intention was to connect with humanity through incarnation before sin even entered the picture. (Comment this)

3 - Jamie,

I like it. I think it is says alot in a few well thought out phrases. I like your phrases and words. The addition of fullness of life and harmomy with creation is helpful. Scot''s definition on xiii in "Embracing Grace" would inherently include these, I believe.

I would probably try to use the word "love" (and maybe "grace") in such a definition. Love is certainly a part of that "glory" in your definition. And is inherent in the perichoresis which you mention as basic to this.

So these are my sketchy thoughts in response. This makes me realize I need to read some good theology. I need to crack open my Grenz book on theology and look at Franke, etc.

Thanks for your effort and thoughts here.

blessings, Ted (Comment this)

4 - Revelation 14:7 mentions an eternal gospel that nabbed my attention the other day in my studies: "Fear God and give him glory". I wonder how this particular bit of ''good news'' fits with our common understandings. (Funny how I''ve read Rev, but never noticed that particular passage before...assuredly something to ponder). (Comment this)

5 - Great stuff, Jamie! I look forward to your post - heck, I look forward to reading the comments/discussion on this post. It''s off to an excellent start. I think your summary is superb and remarkably complete for a single sentence definition. The only thing I can think of to question is whether many people have any idea what the word "glory" means.

I recently took a (more Christological, but still intentionally Trinitarian) stab at the same question, here, which I offer for whatever it''s worth. I need to read more Scot McKnight. (I could have stopped at "I need to read more.") Sigh.

Peace,
Mike (Comment this)

6 - Good for you. This question began a personal quest for me about eight years ago, resulting in some major rearranging of my theology.

Your point about God connecting with humans through incarnation is one that NT Wright makes too :) and which I find simply breathtaking...

Here''s a verse that is full of treasures:

How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings Good News, proclaiming Shalom- bringing Good News of good things, announcing salvation and saying to Tziyon, "Your God Is King!"

Good News-Shalom-Salvation-God Reigns- it''s all One Big Thing.

Warmest wishes to you & Kim for a very blessed new year.

(Speaking of warm, have you decided if you''re going to San Diego for the NPC?)

Dana (Comment this)

7 - Ted,

Thanks for the great input. I actually felt that fullness of life & harmony with Creation (not to mention the aspect of glory) were not adequately inherent in Scot''s definition. This is why:

-Fullness of life in the context of this larger definition affirms (rather than implies) the importance of the individual. Individualism is incredibly dangerous and damaging, but the opposite extreme is equally so.

-Creation, too often relegated to environmentalism or completely ignored, centers more importantly in the perichoresis of humanity. I will be writing more about this in a future post, but I believe that Creation, like our physical bodies, are inseperable parts of God''s original intentions, thus reflective of His likeness as a whole.

-Glory, in the context of the Gospel, IS the manifestation of this perichoresis. God is glorified in His truest nature and all that honours it- thus His perichoresis and the reflection of that in His Creation, gives Him glory.

Thanks again for weighing in!

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

8 - Laura,

Interesting verse indeed. I believe that a great deal (though not all) of giving God glory is defined by God''s Trinitarian nature (see my previous comment to Ted). Hope to see you visit again!

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

9 - Mike,

It will now be a series, with this being the first post. I will be drawing from my teaching notes from my recent lectures in Vancouver. It is a bigger, more challenging topic for me, so thanks for the encouragement.

If you read my previous comment to Ted, I address the glory issue in a little more detail. The link to the article your wrote didn''t work. Feel free to post it again or email me. Is it at your blog?

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

10 - Dana,

I am looking forward to exploring N.T. Wright more, so I am glad to hear he affirms this kind of thinking. Thanks for letting me know. As for San Diego, I am still praying about it. A missionaries "salary" limits my travels. I''ll keep you posted.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

11 - Well, it certainly is a complex statement and that, I humbly suggest, is problematic. It also seems to go well beyond what the NT would consider to be “the Gospel.” Still, I look forward to your work of refining a basic definition. (Comment this)

12 - Blind Beggar,

While I''ll admit it is a hefty sentence, I think the definition is good starting point. I do not think that it goes beyond what the NT would consider Gospel, but rather that we have, for too long, failed to allow the OT inform our understanding of NT. The "Good News" of God for humanity predated sin, starting with God''s intention to create us in His image. We see it redemptively through the Abrahamic Covenant, for one example.

However, I would be open to hear more specifics on where you see it being problematic. Thanks for taking the time.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

13 - Jamie,

Thanks for your good explanations. I like all three of them. Very thoughworthy. I want to reflect on them more.

blessings, Ted (Comment this)

14 - Problematic (may have not been the best word) only in that it may not be clear and succinct for the “average” person to grasp. My first impression was that it was written by an academic or theologian for an academic or theologian. Almost like you are attempting to pack every possible concept you can into one short statement. As a result it didn’t really resonate with me.

The Gospel is about God redemptive work throughout history. It is a work of restoration -- the restoration of man to his pre-fall physical and spiritual communion with God.

My humble comments are not intended as a criticism, just an observation to hopefully help the conversation along. (Comment this)

15 - Doh! OK, I''ll try again to link to my article (yep, just a blog post) on "What is the Gospel?" This time I''ll not attempt HTML, which is apparently too challenging for me:

http://mcroghan.blogspot.com/2005/11/what-is-gospel.html

The conversation here continues to be very illuminating!

Peace,
Mike (Comment this)

16 - Blind Beggar,

Well, I am a high school grad, not an academic, so what can I say? Sorry it doesn''t resonate with you. Hopefully my future posts will bring more clarity.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

17 - Mike,

Thanks for the link.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

18 - Jamie,
That is the best dang explication of what "glory" is that I have ever heard!

Dana (Comment this)

19 - Dana,High praise, indeed. Thank you.Peace,Jamie (Comment this)

20 - WOW! Write this down - I agree with you, Jamie! That is the best definition of the "gospel" that I''ve ever heard. I''ve been in a conversation lately with some others about "What gospel did the disciples preach if Jesus had not yet died and resurrected?" and this perfectly fits what we''ve been talking about! Thank ya! Oh, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

Love Jez (Comment this)

21 - Interesting read here. Blind Begger I think you miss that the Good News is something that happens in light of our need for redemption. You are right that it exists in the Abrahamic covenant, but it is also very present in the so called "Curse" (which is really a curse to the serpent and hope to humanity). The state of fallen freedom (to use a Paul Ricoeur turn) has so affected our thinking that even the author of the second creation narrative cannot adequately imagine a time of innocence in freedom. In that sense it is truly a fall as Paul would later name it.

Jamie I''m a big fan of social trinitarianism and the perichoretic nature of the Godhead. I think you would really like Moltmann if you haven''t already gone down that road. I will be keen to see how this project develops.

peace,
Frank (Comment this)

22 - Frank,

Excellent points all. You are not the first to suggest Moltmann to me, so I''ll have to save my pennies for some of his works. Any suggestions of where to start?

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

23 - Jamie,

Good stuff! I wrote a post about the gospel, my thoughts on it, but it turned into a little kids foodfight over Rob Bell.

I am glad to see more mature stuff here!

Mike (Comment this)

24 - Happy new year

Alan Roxburgh has an excellent chapter on the trinitarian nature of our missiology in "Global Missiology for the 21st Chapter " (Comment this)

25 - Andrew,

Thanks for the recommendation. I will pick it up. Happy New Year to you as well. Your blog is part of my daily discipleship.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

26 - Shalom :)

I stumbled upon this site and, as I''m interested in more fully understanding the ECM and its ebb and flow, I thought I would join the conversation.

I have to admit that at first, I''m with blindbeggar on the issue. But I want to present the Gospel in all its glory and simplicity and note why I have trouble with your definition afterwards (if indeed I understand you):
---------------
Gospel literally means "Good News". While there may be many types of Gospel in the Bible, the Gospel of Salvation is only revealed through the historical events of Jesus on the earth--his life, death, and resurrection from the dead. All of these things reveal that God''s redemptive plan, working its way up throughout history (indeed from Genesis when the first promise was made for the Christ--see Gen. 3:15), is finally culminated in the ushering in of God''s kingdom through Christ''s victory over death and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It is indeed the beginning of the year of the Lord''s favor. (Isaiah 61)

We see the historical emphasis of the Gospel in the beginning of Mark (1:1) and in Peter''s address to the Jews in Acts 2. Peter''s sermon is crucial, as it lays out some important things:
- The kingdom of God is now, shown by the Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost (v.17-21)
- Jesus is Christ and Lord, as seen by his miracles, birth, death, and resurrection (v.36) [note this: Lord was not a term used lightly by the Jews of that day.. it signifies deity in this case]
- The proper response to this good news is to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (v.38)
- The result of this is the forgiveness of sins. (v.38)

Paul also talks extensively about it. Romans is great, because the whole book is an exposition on the Gospel. It''s important to note that a majority of Roman Christians may have been Gentiles (see 1:13). Thus, there are a few key distinctions from Peter''s short sermon to the Jews:
- Paul''s summary of the Gospel is basically that the righteousness of Christ, the second Adam, is being conferred to the heirs of the first Adam''s sin through faith in Jesus. (1:17)
- Paul reveals an important distinction of the Gospel that he would defend vehemently throughout his life; it is by faith alone that one is saved. Hence his distinction about false Gospels in the other epistles (see Galatians).
- One might notice that while Peter neglects to emphasize sin and moral corruption, Paul speaks a lot about these subjects. The middle of Ch. 1 begins to speak about God''s wrath (beginning at v.18). One can only assume that Paul speaks as much about God''s righteous judgment of sin because the listeners were unacquainted with the Jewish Scriptures.
- All are commanded to believe, and it is only through THIS Gospel that men and women will be saved. This is because God is saving people by grace through faith in the Gospel of Christ (Rom. 3:21-26).

The rest of Romans is great, too, but I believe that these are the key features of the Gospel--It is a call for sinners to repent of their sin and trust (i.e. have faith) in the true, living Christ for a righteousness from God that is a gift of God''s love and grace.

-----------------

I admit that I may have a misunderstanding based on your word usage. You say the Gospel "is" such and such. The problem I see is that the definition you cite is more of what the Gospel is "about." Indeed, the Gospel, from a 3rd-person view, might look like that -- the glory of God being manifest in the redemption of sinful humans. However, what the Gospel is "about" is not a valid substitute for what the Gospel "is" when we are preaching it. As I''ve mentioned, the Gospel is a call and a command to believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. If we go beyond that simple concept, we prove unfaithful servants to God (see Balaam--Numbers 24:12:13). This is why Paul declares that the Gospel is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Corinthians 1:23). His decision to know only Christ and Him crucified among the babe-like Corinthians should echo in our sentiment today as we preach the Gospel with earnestness and simplicity (1 Corinthians 2:2).

Thus, as your definition about the Gospel is missing the most important aspect of the Gospel--HOW God is doing this reconciliation (by grace through faith in Christ) and is even missing the "access point" as someone mentioned--Christ Jesus, I can only conclude that this is not the Gospel. I pray that my words do not seem harsh, but that they help shed light on a better way to present the Gospel. Your feedback is welcomed.

Peace in Christ,
Paul (Comment this)

27 - Don,

the early church''s view of the gospel and salvation, as the eastern church''s as well is union with God, or that "we might become partakers of the divine nature"-st peter. this is where theosis takes place.

and a small quibble: "God became man..." quote is actually st athanasius. (Comment this)

28 - Paul,

Thanks for stopping by. If you are interested in exploring this issue in more depth, I would HIGHLY recommend reading Scot McKnight''s posts at www.jesuscreed.org and his books "Embracing Grace" & "The Jesus Creed".

That being said, I understand your perspective and appreciate the detail, but I respectfully disagree. To start in Romans is to forget that everything Paul teaches is built upon a rich Old Testament history/context.

Again, my definition is a jumping off point for the specifics, not meant to be exhaustive. Give the series time to unfold and you will see how centrally Jesus stands in my view.

Regarding simplicity, I think this is a commonly misunderstood concept. There is great complexity behind the simplicity of faith. Like love, nature, etc. this complexity needs not always be understood- in fact, it works regardless of our understanding (or misunderstanding). This does not, however, reduce the complxity behind the simplicity, which I find to be beautiful. There is far too much history within the Evangelical church of distrust and even rejection of intellectualism, as though it was unbiblical (see Mark Noll''s "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind).

Thanks for your great input.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

29 - Jamie,

I have to ask, then, how you would share the Gospel with a non-believer? I am not fearful of intellectualism--I''m a religious studies major in a highly liberal school! That being said, I have to read a lot of "intellectual" stuff, not all of which I am very pleased with. I do see some value in it, though. I''m wondering what it is you disagree with, though--do you not think that this is what Paul preached?

In Christ,
Paul (Comment this)

30 - I appreciate the focus upon the Trinity, therefore including each "person" in the work of reconciliation and cummunion. The words that stand out: reconcile, commune, [bring] fullness and harmony, [to establish] a community [that brings] good. I might word it differently -- that the communion leads to reconciliation. I find that we over-simplify salvation too often and leave out the communion that God establishes with us before, during and after our "expereinces" of reconciliation with God and humanity.

I wonder if we could explain more effectively how and why fullness and harmony are a part of this Gospel. I would object to the USAmerican "pursuit of happiness" as Gospel. Hope that helps. I''m looking forward to this post! (Comment this)

31 - Paul,

Good question. However, how I would share the Gospel would depend on who I was sharing it with. The Gospel is a dynamic reality, one that more than just an explanation of ideas. There is a place for that, but it shouldn''t be central, IMHO.

I wasn''t disagreeing with Paul, but rather pulling Paul''s explanation out of Romans without the deeply informing stories of which he was a part- namely (but not exclusively) a deep rooting in his Jewish heritage. Much of his explanations dramatically transform when this is embraced. There are several excellent works out right now dealing with this, such as "Paul: In Fresh Perspective" by N.T. Wright.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

32 - Hey Mike,

Thanks for the input. Regarding "fullness", you will see no mention of happiness (though I have nothing against happiness). Jesus said that He came so that we might have life to the full- thus fullness of life.

Regarding harmony, in one of my upcoming posts, I should cover it more thoroughly. Basically, I believe that God intended a more intentional harmony within His entire Creation. Man was made in His image, thus most central in the order, but we too often act as though Creation is there for us to use or ignore as we please. Rather, I believe that it, too, reflects the nature of its Creator.

Peace,
Jamie
 (Comment this)

33 - I kind of skimmed a lot of comments so this was probably already said but I just thought I'd dum things down a notch and say that the gospel is the news that we no longer have to remain apart from God. He's letting us back in, no longer cast out, and we can come back finally.

I suppose the fact that he says he loves us is pretty huge too, but first and foremost I'd still say that the good news is that God wants us back again. Which I suppose kind of shows he must like us or something in itself.

Of course the way you say it is way purdier, but I think I might blank out if anyone actually said all that to me. Mind you, even Jesus's disciples didn't understand him half the time so maybe thats not a bad thing :) (Comment this)

34 - Just dropping by for a second - but just wondering if you or any of your informed commentators have read Baxter Kruger's " The great dance" and if so, how this helps the conversation? (Comment this)

35 - Simon,

I discovered Kruger over the last year and love him (I am rereading The Great Dance now). I think he offers a good introduction to the Dance. I would go farther than him in some areas and would lighten on some things he is strong on. However, he is EXCELLENT. He has been engaging with YWAM Canada recently, which as a mission, we deeply need.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)