A Contemporary Theology?

IMG_0106Over at The Gospel Coalition, they did an interview with Gregg Allison over the challenges of writing a contemporary theology, specifically on the doctrine of the church (lower ‘c’ intentional). He points out that among evangelicals there are a wide variety of beliefs on how the church should function and look, which makes a contemporary theology over the issue quite a challenge. But the challenge, in my mind, undermines evangelical ecclesiology and not only makes the task of defining an evangelical church difficult, but proves it is ultimately impossible. The reason is that a contemporary theology of the church is impossible simply because we refuse to look at the ancient theology of the Church.

When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg door, a lot of his grievances stemmed from the authority of the Roman Pope. This, of course, was not the first time in history that the authority given to the Roman Pope caused problems in Christendom. Prior to Luther’s call for reform (and subsequent excommunication), the Western Church had endured some of the most corrupt and violent popes in history. Even prior to the corruption, one of the driving factors in the Great Schism was the great authority the West was giving to the Roman Pope; at the time, there was a Pope of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. Due to the collapse of the Roman government in the West, the Pope in Rome (or archbishop) gained quite a bit of political authority. While he was always viewed as the “first among equals” by the Church in the East, those in the West began to see him as having more authority than the popes in the East. Thus, while not the sole contributor to the Great Schism, the authority given to the Pope was a driving factor in the split, much like it was in the Reformation.

The problem with the Protestant Reformation, however, isn’t that it rejected the level of authority given to the Pope, but instead that it ultimately elevated every man to the office of the Pope. Prior to the Reformation, the Bible was often interpreted by Bishops, Cardinals, and ultimately the Pope. He held (and still holds) the power to declare an interpretation or teaching ex cathedra (“from the chair”). While this power was no more than implied prior to the First Vatican Council, it still carried quite a bit of weight; the Pope’s view of how a passage should be interpreted often influenced everyone else’s view. The Reformation didn’t remove the Pope from their hermeneutic, they simply made every man a pope. Thus, John may interpret a passage one way while Peter interprets it another and the entire time both are left to argue endlessly without having an actual way to solve their differences.

The Reformations failure to eradicate the office of the Papacy (as it was known) and instead transfer its authority to the common man is what led to thousands of denominations. Seemingly small differences became massive when mixed with the pride of a self-interpretation. It wasn’t a matter of discovering the truth, but instead it became a matter of declaring x to be true, that we are the keepers of it, and all others are wrong. It gave every layman the ability to declare his interpretation ex cathedra, to say that the Holy Spirit had revealed the interpretation to him. Any attempts to refer to Tradition or how Christians had typically interpreted the passage were (and are) put on the back-burner or outright ridiculed as Papist.  Continue reading

What is the Gospel?

It seems a favorite pet project for Christians in the modern age is to define the Gospel. A well-balanced post points out that the Gospel Coalition (and other “reformed” views) attempt to make salvation all about what God has supplied for His elect to follow. Other views of “the Gospel” refer more to a Social Gospel, where Christ came for the oppressed. In short, there are multiple views of what “The Gospel” really is.

Of course, many learn from Sunday School that “Gospel” simply means “good news.” But what is this good news and who is it directed towards? Is it good news for the oppressed that Christ has come to strike down the oppressors (side note: anyone notice how the views of Messiah in 1st century Judea match those of liberation theologians)? Is the good news that God has come to call His elect (also a 1st century view)? Or is it something much simpler?

I think Paul’s summary of the Gospel is, in my opinion, the best view on exactly what the Gospel is; “Christ Jesus came to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (1 Timothy 1:15). Paul states that he was a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an opponent to Christ, yet through mercy he was able to turn away from these things. In other words, the Gospel is the good news for everyone who is a sinner. Via reduction, this means the Gospel is good news for everyone.

But what does it mean “to save sinners?” Does this mean that He came simply to save us from our sins, yet let us continue to wallow in oppression or starvation? Does this mean He came to save us from physical oppression, which would then create a pathway to spiritual salvation? The answer to this, of course, is “yes.”

Christ came to save sinners. When we say “save sinners,” we mean exactly that; He came to save us from our sins, from our oppression, from our torment, from our physical ails, and so on. The Gospel is not some Gnostic or Platonic fantasy where the soul is saved and all physical salvation is secondary. Nor is the Gospel materialistic where we are saved from oppressors with no promise of an afterlife. The Gospel is holistic, meaning that salvation is both spiritual and physical. The actions on the cross save us from our sins, but also save us from death; neither is more important than the other, both are equally important. The Gospel makes us whole again – it doesn’t make us imbalanced by saving our spirit, but neglecting our body or saving our body, but neglecting our spirit. The Gospel saves our spirit and body.

If your Gospel doesn’t include helping the unfortunate, you’ve missed the point. If your Gospel doesn’t include helping people repent of their sins, you’ve missed the point. If your Gospel feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, and preaches redemption for sinners, then you’ve got it. You’ve found the good news. And the great thing is that good news is for everyone; they merely have to listen and follow.