Another Gospel
Some things remain universal beyond the boundaries of chronology.
As it is with the modern day, it does seem like many (if not most) people of Jesus' day were comfortably happy with the mode of religion constructed for them by the religious authorities. Perhaps the religious programmes that were institutionally constructed helped them to feel a sense of security. "Do this and this and that, and participate in this ritual and that ritual, and you're all right."
In as much as we would like to think that people are beginning to seek reasons for their faith and to question the meaning of their existence (and hence, together with the significance of familiar religious symbols), this is perhaps not characteristic of the vast majority of the masses. Perhaps most religious people are simply secure in their unquestioning state, preferring to stay with prevalent religious conventions.
This presents the dilemma of preaching a revolutionary Christ, who by his very nature of being God, questioned the religious order of his day. He was the oddly strange person who seemed to be dissatisfied with what conventional religion had to offer to the human dilemma. And yet, how could anyone know if his revolutionary ideas were truly those that God desired? It was an insane risk to follow him. Some did anyway.
To those who were desperate for some fresh answers to their lives' concerns, Christ's message seemed inspirational and refreshing. To those who were "all right" because the religious institution said so (since they were abiding by all the prescribed religious requirements), Christ probably seemed to be a psychologically displaced oddball.
Perhaps those who did listen to his message were simply the misfits who had nothing left to lose in life. When there is much to lose, much of the revolutionary message of the Gospel has to be sifted through the lenses of our vested interests; the message of Christ needs to be "neutralised" so it becomes less distasteful.
After centuries of "preaching the Gospel to all the world", the dilemma of preaching the authentic Gospel abides. And I wonder just how much "evangelicalism" (if this term even means anything anymore) is contributing to this dilemma.
Comments (5)
It's easy to be content with the system and mode of religion given unto us by the religious authorities. One doesn't have to burn out one's mind in figuring things out and seeking the truth - just listen to some higher authority; 'After all, he's ordained by God and His Church, rite?', 'They had Bible school training @ they'd been used so much by God @ they're years farther ahead in the faith', 'Since so many people is following it, surely it's true?', 'That's how things have been all this time'. As a commentor put it, "The Catholic church may have one Pope, but the Protestant church is increasingly guilty of having thousands of 'pope's' - one per church!"
It's also easier and requires little effort - no need to search through theological or whatever religious books ... just accept the perscription given. And many also fear the feeling of uncertainty and questioning that one has while attempting to dissect the 'meaning of life'; makes them feel insecure. Same in many dialogues held between people & groups of different creeds - no one wants to be open to others or allow their beliefs to the questioned : everyone thinks that "I am the right one - no Q's asked!!". They do not want to be put in a vulnerable situation.
One saying goes, "Most intelligent beings despise living in a state of uncertainty and change" - so they cling to any point of certainty and stability of convenient choice, regardless of whether is it correct and true. As long as they feel ok, it's fine by them. Even if they're believing utter nonsense - their feelings are their barometer and compass. Which'll result in disaster . . .
Yet, not to say that we're better than them; for it's God who'd opened the eyes of our hearts and mind - it wass His Spirit's working in the first place. By the grace given us, we move on to know the Truth more and more.
Posted by mad_scientist | March 20, 2006 10:38 PM
It sounded like the evangelicalism has negative implication which impose and dictate us how we should preach the gospels and determine what should the gospels be. In my understanding as far as I know about evangelicalism (being trained to be convinced from the movement from FES doctrinal studies), evangelicalism's main thrust is the supreme aalone authority of the Scripture in all the matters and conduct in our faith and ministry. So, the gospels messages should-be suggested by the evangelicalism is based on the study from the Scripture. Unless as we study the Scripture, the gospels should-be suggested by evangelical movement is deviated...then we must address the issue. So now, as far as i know, I'm pretty convinced what gospels should-be preached by evangelical. Now I wonder what are the specific that you are not agreeing with the gospels preached by the evangelicals and I think you should come up with some biblical basis to convince that in what ways we have deviated unless your stand is not on the "supreme authority on Scripture alone". Then, we are probably on different ground and therefore, you probably need to come up why "supreme authority on scripture alone" may not stand on biblical basis. Then, I probably need to read more on this issue and maybe should come up with a thesis on this..hee hee;)
Posted by CK Lee | December 18, 2007 10:17 AM
On top of the above, I feel both pastors and lay leaders are not doing a good job of training the members to read the bible properly themselves. Therefore, pastors and lay leaders would take advantage to impose a system according to their experiences and prefereces on the members. In the end and long run, members would blindly follow without developing a critical mindset on their leaders who could be wrong. So, I'm convinced there are a great need to train our lay leaders and members to read bible properly themselves and checking against each other. Pastors need to be humbled and learn to be opened to critically evaluated by the members according to the Scriptures.
Posted by CK Lee | December 18, 2007 10:28 AM
Hi CK,
I think you've pinned the nail on the head as far as the issue of sola scriptura is concerned.
I've always had a problem with the sola scriptura principle. While scripture does talk about how it is in itself useful for correcting, rebuking, etc, I find that the Apostles speak of a handing down of "tradition" (paradosis) rather than the scripture itself.
Perhaps scripture itself is just a part of the whole tradition rather than comprising the entire framework by which the Christian faith should be defined.
Posted by sk | December 19, 2007 1:00 AM
Sherman,
Hmm...this is interesting. Shall study and reflect on this issue in Scripture whether it was the tradition that the Apostles handed down or Scripture or something else.
Posted by CK Lee | December 19, 2007 9:20 AM