There’s No Need for Competing Gospels

Yesterday a commenter at TitusOneNine responded thusly to something I’d written:  “For my part, I believe the day has past for a church that contains both reasserters and reappraisers. I believe it simply won’t work. I do believe that it is time for reappraiser dioceses and reasserter dioceses to forget the geographic borders and realign based on the competing gospels.”    Here’s an edited version of my reply.

Unfortunately, the commenter’s view that the church needs to split to proclaim its competing gospels is likely to be a self-fulfilling belief. Personally I think traditionalists and reexaminers could work together to preach a least-common-denominator “starter” gospel:

• That there is a Creator;

• that “he” has a stupendously wonderful universe-construction project going on;

• that we are all participants in that project;

• that we do our best work on the project when we follow the Great Commandment and Summary of the Law as Jesus stressed we should do;

• that Jesus, whatever else he was or was not, is someone we do well to emulate; and

• that there’s reason to hope that the Creator won’t simply discard us when our labors on the project in this life are done.

Surely traditionalists could agree with this, even if in their view it doesn’t go far enough.

If we could work together to preach this to nonbelievers and doubters (NBDs), at least we’d have a shot at getting the NBDs in the door.  Then the traditionalists would have an opportunity to persuade them that orthodox Christianity is correct. 

The way things are now, the trads don’t have a prayer even of connecting with most NBDs, let alone persuading them.

Comments

6 responses to “There’s No Need for Competing Gospels”

  1. HokiePundit Avatar
    HokiePundit

    No offense, but that’s not going to work in a million years. Not being unequally yoked and all that. Besides, it’s no gospel at all that the “reappraisers” are promoting. The Good News is that God loved us so much that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life.
    I mean, sheesh. Muslims believe what you just wrote, and so do Buddhists and Hindus. The “God-exists-and-Jesus-was-a-good-guy” thing is pretty noncontroversial. I don’t see it doing much for people’s souls, though.

  2. Scott Avatar

    I think you’ll run into objections over the masked liberalism of your “universe-construction project” in which we are all supposed to be “participating.” That’s not a view that is ultimately acceptable to traditional Christian theology.
    The way things are now, the trads don’t have a prayer even of connecting with most NBDs, let alone persuading them.
    I’ll pass that along to the former atheists I know who are now very “traditionalist” Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians. They seem to have missed the memo!

  3. Topaz Avatar

    HokiePundit wrote: The “God-exists-and-Jesus-was-a-good-guy” thing is pretty noncontroversial. I don’t see it doing much for people’s souls, though.
    Actually, it does a lot for my soul. More than trying to make myself believe the unbelievable, for sure…

  4. Wayne Avatar

    Hokie Pundit writes: “I mean, sheesh. Muslims believe what you just wrote, and so do Buddhists and Hindus.”
    As if it’s a bad thing for people of different faiths to reach consensus on something. It seems to me the world would be much better off if this happened more often.
    The “God-exists-and-Jesus-was-a-good-guy” thing is pretty noncontroversial. I don’t see it doing much for people’s souls, though
    So I think this needs more explanation. How exactly does forcing one’s self to have traditional thoughts about Jesus do something for the soul?

  5. HokiePundit Avatar
    HokiePundit

    Wayne,
    Please. It’s certainly not a bad thing that people agree, but just because people believe the sky is blue doesn’t mean that any of them are necessarily closer to achieving flight.
    As for how “forcing one’s self to have traditional thoughts” does something for your soul, it doesn’t. At least, not intrinsically. The Muslims, Jews, and Cao Dai folks have some pretty traditional views of their own about Jesus. It’s like this: if I told you that in America, the road exists and that a car is a good vehicle to use, I’d be telling you something that’s widely agreed-upon. However, I haven’t told you what the traffic rules are (and they’re there for our own good, not out of random spite), nor have I told you how to operate a car. Knowing God exists is good, as fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Pr. 1:7). Believing that Jesus was good is true, but it leaves aside the fact that, at the very (very) least, he did not correct those who believed him to be the Messiah.

  6. Wayne Avatar

    Hokie writes: Believing that Jesus was good is true, but it leaves aside the fact that, at the very (very) least, he did not correct those who believed him to be the Messiah.
    Isn’t it possible for a human being to be right about some things and wrong about others? I don’t see the reason for this black/white thinking about Jesus that just because he had some correct and timeless thoughts about God that he was right about everything else (like the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God).
    As a side note, I think the assumption that Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah is based on a quite questionable (credulous?) reading of the Gospels as history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *