The Pre-Gospel

The first inkling we have that something big is coming down—the pre-gospel, if you will—comes from some angels, as recorded in the Gospel of Luke. First, an angel called Gabriel appears to a young girl named Mary, and gives her some startling news. She is to become miraculously pregnant with a boy she is to name Jesus.

32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:32-34)

Okay, so this is pretty major. But wait, there’s more:

 35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[d] will be holy; he will be called Son of God.”

I’ve always wondered about the qualification “he will be called son of God.” Does that mean that he really isn’t, he’s just called that? In thinking about this, it occurs to me that he is not the son of God in a human, genetic way. But, “son” is probably the best way to understand it. He will be holy (meaning “set apart”), but also he will have the actual nature of God. We know that later on, Jesus often referred to himself as the “son of man,” which was an Old Testament reference to the coming Messiah; in incarnational terms, he was God who was human-born. But, we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

So first, Mary is told he will be the king of Israel and that he will reign forever. Then on top of that, he will be recognized as being the son of God. Of course, it’s doubtful that Mary grasped all of that at the time, but I’m sure she understood that this was a big, Godly deal. I mean, just the angel appearing indicated that much. 

Looking back from our modern-day perspective, we can notice a couple of things. First, we have the aforementioned “son of God” title. It means something specific to us today, but didn’t necessarily have the same understanding at the time. The next thing we notice is the reference to Jesus’s eternal reign of the throne of David. While we now can seen this referred to Jesus’s personal eternal reign, at the time it was probably understood to reference the reign of the lineage of Jesus, whether literally or metaphorically. The Jews of that time were no stranger to spiritualizing prophecies to make them fit their current realities.

Either way you choose to look at it, this is certainly “good news” that more good news is on its way.

Posted in The Gospel | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Unboxing God – Coming this fall

I haven’t been posting much here lately as I’ve been distracted by other projects, including finishing work on my book Unboxing God–An Unevangelical Guide to Christianity, which is being published by W. Brand Publishing. The book is due out this fall, and I will post updates and teasers here along the way.

The book is the result of several years of reading and studying, trying to understand the essence of Christianity as it existed prior to it being morphed into what is commonly referred to as evangelicalism. This book is very personal to me, and I am very excited to be able to share my own road of discovery and wonder.

Posted in Unboxing God | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What is the gospel?


It has occurred to me that the gospel – the Christian “good news” – has changed over the centuries, so that what many call the gospel today is not necessarily what the authors of the Bible had in mind. One of the things that has stood out for me over the years is that Jesus did not present today’s gospel. He never had an altar call, he didn’t baptize anyone, he only called for a handful of people to follow him, and sometimes he sent them away. Even when he healed some people, he told them not to tell anyone!

So why are we so focused on getting the gospel right? As a Lutheran, I was never trained to “witness” or “lead someone to Christ,” so when I got involved with a bunch of evangelicals I was quite intimidated by the whole thing. It just seemed so complicated. The Four Spiritual Laws, the “Roman Road,” “praying the prayer,” all seemed so regimented. What if I didn’t do it right? After all, people’s souls were at stake!

Now, I realize that this was all a kind of holy superstition, not based at all upon the Good News that Jesus preached (or the Lutherans, for that matter). Jesus even said, “The reason I speak to them in parables is that ‘seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.’” (Matthew 13:13). Not the methodology recommended by evangelists today. Did any of the people who heard Jesus speak ever die without accepting him as their personal savior? I imagine so. Did the thief on the cross understand the gospel? I doubt it. So what exactly is the good news that Jesus preached, and what are its implications?

Things have, of course, changed since then. Jesus died and rose again, and that changes a lot. But what about the gospel message? Has the essence of that changed? Was it supposed to change? And what are the essentials of the gospel (in other words, what do people have to believe in order to be saved)?

This is what I will try to explore in the coming days, starting with the earliest version of the good news – that proclaimed by the angels – going through the Bible and hopefully down through history to see how we got where we are. It should be an interesting journey; for me, anyway.

Posted in The Gospel | Leave a comment

Universal Salvation and Free Will

One of the questions that often comes up when discussing universal salvation – that is, the predestination of everyone for salvation – is that of free will: Does being saved without your permission, or even against your will, overrule the individual’s free will? The quick and obvious answer would appear to be “of course it does.” But does it really? Or could predestination actually be compatible with free will?

The problem of free will

The whole concept of free will seems a bit overblown in my opinion. First, we have to accept the reality of the universe in which we live and the reality of our existence. Did anyone have a choice as to where or when they would be born? Are you proud to be an American (or anything else) because you chose to be born where you were, or are you simply proud of an accident of birth? Personally, I don’t recall being asked when I wanted to be born, or to which parents. Considering that I’m diabetic, I think I would have chosen better genes.

And what about life? How much of our lives are due to things outside of our control? Would it be your free will to be injured in a car accident that was not your fault, or any number of other calamities that have befallen you due to things outside of your control? Where is the free will in that? Then, of course, there’s the problem of death. Most of us won’t have any say whatsoever about when or how we’ll die. Our whole lives are subject to the wills of others, or to seemingly random acts of life.

Certainly, we have a certain amount of free will within the above constraints. Most of us can choose various paths for our lives, including education, what kind of jobs we get, who we marry, what kind of car we drive, whether we’re Democrat or Republican, and so on. I don’t believe any of these things are predestined for us (even who we’ll marry). We are free to make any number of decisions, good or bad, and hopefully we learn from the past and improve our lives as we go on. But at some point, our ability to make decisions comes to an end, and we’re faced with the possibility of eternal salvation. Do we have a say in that?

Predestination

If we were discussing Calvinist-style predestination, where God chooses individuals to save (and chooses those who don’t get saved), then we may have an argument that predestination takes away free will of the individual. But you could always argue that God only predestines those for salvation who would make the right choice anyway. It gets a bit stretched, I think.  Fortunately, we are not talking about this sort of predestination.

Let’s look at predestination from more of a cosmic viewpoint: God chooses to save the whole of creation. In other words, creation itself is predestined to be saved. We make whatever free will choices we make, but Jesus comes to defeat sin and death, and as a result the whole universe is redeemed.

Think of it as passengers on a plane. The passengers don’t know it, but the plane will crash unless God intervenes. God chooses to save the plane, saving all the passengers on board, and it lands on schedule, just like it was predestined to. I know, it’s not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea. The universe was always predestined to be restored and reconciled to God, and we were born into this flawed system that is destined to be fixed.  We were born into a fallen universe and will just happen to benefit from its salvation as residents of this universe.

However…

I can still hear people questioning whether God would save someone against their will, or raising the question of whether one is free to resist God’s love. CS Lewis in The Great Divorce suggests that one can resist God’s love. But this raises another issue: what would be the cause of someone wanting to resist God’s love?

The answer is undoubtedly sin, which is the underlying cause of selfishness, bitterness, etc., etc. The fact that someone’s sin hangs on to someone for eternity suggests to me that sin is not yet totally defeated, something that I have a hard time with. If sin is totally defeated, along with death (the final enemy to be defeated), then it suggests that all become totally sinless, removing any reason for rejecting God’s love. This would not be quashing free will, but removing the root cause for choosing evil (which would no longer exist).

Bottom line, I can’t see where universal reconciliation in any way removes free will, to the extent that we have free will. There are obviously limitations to our free will—for example, we cannot choose to live forever. But within these limitations our free will is alive and well. 

Posted in Unboxing God | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment