You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
February 04, 2004
Good thoughts from our friend Brian McLaren...
It’s very dangerous to assume you’ve perfectly contained the gospel in your little formula.Man, that’s profound. In fact, it’s so simply stated that it’s blowing my mind right now.
In Brian McLaren‘s latest Emergent Village newsletter, he clarifies the nonexistence of the “Postmodern church” (notice the little “c,” meaning church as a building, organizaton, microcosmic group of Christian believers, etc.). Read the rest of the letter to find out why.
Posted at 07:36 am
Trackbacks (1):The Gospel
A fellow blogger, Tim Samoff, inspired by a quote from Brian McLaren (I know I’ve posted a lot about him lately… bear with me) which says, “It’s very dangerous to assume you’ve perfectly contained the gospel in your little formul…
Sent on October 03, 2005 at 12:09 am , via jakebouma.com
Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (3):
Why did you think that quote was profound. Again, I have no idea what McLaren is talking about. What is he trying to say?
Ochuk () (URL) - February 04, 2004 at 2:32 pm
Profundity, for me, comes in the brevity. I’ll show you why with something that I recently wrote in an e-mail to a friend of mine. It is mostly just one long questions, but that’s just it: the formula that I was brought up on — that I staked most of my faith on in many ways — just isn’t doing it for me anymore.
Read on:
> I do understand that the gospel is not
> something that can be simply stated
> either… This has been my struggle, I
> guess. It would be so much easier if
> it COULD be stated! :) But as
> something that was in fact lived by
> Christ and which now must be lived by
> us, it can’t necessarily be written
> down or described… That would be a
> tremendously long book/discussion!
>
> It is difficult when speaking to
> “moderns” (for lack of a better term)
> about the Gospel because of this.
> Things like “natural overflow” and
> “living God’s Word” and “being
> authentic disciples of Christ” just
> don’t seem to jibe well, you know?
> And coming from a place where the
> Gospel WAS easily describable in a
> couple of short bullet-points makes
> discussion even more frustrating —
> like being in a conversation where
> you go in hoping to sway someone’s
> opinions, but you realize that you’re
> agreeing with their beliefs…
>
> This is the next troubling part.
> Knowing that everything you
> learned previously is correct, just
> not…finished…as you may have
> believed before. Have you ever tried
> to talk to someone who agrees with
> everything that you say but just
> says it differently? To an outsider,
> it might sound more like a debate.
> But it’s not!
>
> My current “dilemma,” if you will
> (it’s more of a constant flip-flop of
> internal wit than a dilemma), is the
> traditional view of the Gospel
> meaning the “rules” in which
> someone receives Christ as their
> Savior. An example being the
> critical view that some people
> might take toward a sermon they
> just heard: “Yeah, he was a good
> speaker, but he didn’t give a very
> solid Gospel message.” What does
> this mean, exactly?! If the speaker
> spoke about helping the homeless,
> wasn’t that a Gospel message? If
> the entire sermon was about
> learning how to love those who
> are different , wasn’t that a Gospel
> message? People think that
> because a speaker might not give
> an “altar call” (or something similar)
> it does not contain the “Gospel.”
>
>...
>
> I understand the nature of the
> Gospel because I have experienced
> it. I am beginning to know how
> important it is to view the Gospel
> as something that grows within us
> as individuals rather than
> something that we only hear
> (i.e., a statement) in hopes to get
> better at. I know that living the
> Gospel is the key rather than
> preaching it.
As far as what McLaren is trying to say… Well… As you can see, I have this inability to grasp the concept of brevity. Therefore, anything I would say to address this might prove just as confusing. I hope I was able to, at least, address my views on the quote that I used.
Read on:
> I do understand that the gospel is not
> something that can be simply stated
> either… This has been my struggle, I
> guess. It would be so much easier if
> it COULD be stated! :) But as
> something that was in fact lived by
> Christ and which now must be lived by
> us, it can’t necessarily be written
> down or described… That would be a
> tremendously long book/discussion!
>
> It is difficult when speaking to
> “moderns” (for lack of a better term)
> about the Gospel because of this.
> Things like “natural overflow” and
> “living God’s Word” and “being
> authentic disciples of Christ” just
> don’t seem to jibe well, you know?
> And coming from a place where the
> Gospel WAS easily describable in a
> couple of short bullet-points makes
> discussion even more frustrating —
> like being in a conversation where
> you go in hoping to sway someone’s
> opinions, but you realize that you’re
> agreeing with their beliefs…
>
> This is the next troubling part.
> Knowing that everything you
> learned previously is correct, just
> not…finished…as you may have
> believed before. Have you ever tried
> to talk to someone who agrees with
> everything that you say but just
> says it differently? To an outsider,
> it might sound more like a debate.
> But it’s not!
>
> My current “dilemma,” if you will
> (it’s more of a constant flip-flop of
> internal wit than a dilemma), is the
> traditional view of the Gospel
> meaning the “rules” in which
> someone receives Christ as their
> Savior. An example being the
> critical view that some people
> might take toward a sermon they
> just heard: “Yeah, he was a good
> speaker, but he didn’t give a very
> solid Gospel message.” What does
> this mean, exactly?! If the speaker
> spoke about helping the homeless,
> wasn’t that a Gospel message? If
> the entire sermon was about
> learning how to love those who
> are different , wasn’t that a Gospel
> message? People think that
> because a speaker might not give
> an “altar call” (or something similar)
> it does not contain the “Gospel.”
>
>...
>
> I understand the nature of the
> Gospel because I have experienced
> it. I am beginning to know how
> important it is to view the Gospel
> as something that grows within us
> as individuals rather than
> something that we only hear
> (i.e., a statement) in hopes to get
> better at. I know that living the
> Gospel is the key rather than
> preaching it.
As far as what McLaren is trying to say… Well… As you can see, I have this inability to grasp the concept of brevity. Therefore, anything I would say to address this might prove just as confusing. I hope I was able to, at least, address my views on the quote that I used.
timsamoff () (URL) - February 04, 2004 at 8:18 pm
tim, that really was great. you should post that somewhere beside the comment section. just what is the gospel (b/c we not it’s not just about getting saved…whatever that means.)
Commenting has been permanently disabled. Please use the Contact button above.Geoff Holsclaw () (URL) - February 09, 2004 at 10:40 pm
