Scot McKnight, Knight of the Theology Blog Series, is blogging about racism from a Kingdom perspective. We knew he rocked before, but with this series, he RAWKS. When you get a half hour, sit down and partake of Part I, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. (There may be more on the way - he’s famous for long-ass series. (BTW, what’s the plural of series?) Here’s my favorite bit from Part 3:
…I suggest we embrace the gospel in three decreasing circles: first, we embrace the cosmic redemptive work of God (trinitarian work); second, we embrace the faith community wherein the performance of the gospel takes place; and third, but not until third, we personally embrace the gospel. In other words, a genuine embrace of the gospel is an embrace of what God is doing, what the Church is performing, and how we fit into that large, large, big, big work of God. Until we come to terms with this, we are simply embracing our own individual redemption — which isn’t the focus of God’s work.
Now, if this order is correct — and what I genuinely believe is that we are to do all three at the same time but that most times we don’t talk about one and two until well after three, which creates rabid individualism — if this is correct, then a commitment to end racism is part and parcel of what it means to embrace the gospel itself — because it is the embrace of God’s redemptive work.
I’m consistenly amazed at Scot’s insightfulness (not to mention his output!). Everything I’ve read from him makes me hopeful that he might become the leading academic, theological voice for the ECM. I hope so. He has a formidable intellect, and a clear voice. McLaren, Pagitt and others are raising good questions. Scot seems to be starting some rough pencil sketches of the answers.
.
I worry about those who don’t want an academic voice involved, or who eschew the idea of an emerging theology. I fear that if we do not intentionally do theology well, we will unintentionally do it poorly.
Still reading…straight off, though, anybody want to help me understand how embracing the cosmic redemptive work of god is different from personally embracing the gospel? Sounds like awfully similar things to me. Somebody dumb it down, willya?
I think “embracing a cosmic redemptive work of God” is a shift away from the evangelical focus on “accepting Jesus as your personal Savior” in order to save your ass from hell. What IS the Gospel? Might it be bigger than we’ve been thinking, with implications for the here and now? Is the Gospel really God’s desperate, last-ditch effort to counteract Adam & Eve’s original sin? What did Jesus mean when he said, “The kingdom of God is at hand?” What does the word “salvation” mean?
Well, I’m a big Gospel of Thomas fan, so when I hear “The kingdom of god is at hand”, I think of the kingdom being AT MY HAND, touchable, taste-able, visible in somebody’s eyes, etc.
.
Geez, I’d love for Somebody to clear these questions up for you when I’m within earshot. I’d really love to know.
I don’t think it’s a fabulous idea for anyone to clear these questions up right away - it’s been too long since we’ve asked them, and maybe we need to sit with them awhile, come up with some ideas, try out the ideas, and see what happens. The fact that a lot of people are asking these questions is an indication that there’s a shift away from “personal salvation” being the Whole Gospel (which has been evangelicalism’s main concern) toward at least wondering what a holistic Gospel would look like.
Does that make sense? The asking is, for me, the important thing right now - and slowly figuring out answers with people I love who love God, too.
It does indeed. Ramon’s going to love you - in part because the thing that irks him the most about people in modern Christianity is their seeming inabilty to live with uncertainty, with questions, and with the natural paradoxes that occur in our religious psyches. Even in leadership. There’s gotta be a simple, straightforward, biblical [shudder] answer straight from their pastor or their whole faith system goes kablooie.
.
Ramon’s special, though - he skipped most of the usual mundane spiritual development and went straight to mystic, in my view. So did you, I think.
Believe me, there is no skipping of mundane spiritual development up in THIS hizzy. Ash, Gretchen, Chad, and anyone else who has lived with me will back me up on this. I’m very mundane-y.
.
Maybe Ramon can give me some pointers on skipping the grind, straight to Therese of Avila or Julian of Norwich. That would be nice…Aly of Hueneme. I could start an ashram or something.
Nah. He can’t possibly be a mystic. I don’t think he even considers himself a christian any more. You’d have to ask him, though. I think only straight-up spirituality (regardless of religious affiliation) interests him.
.
We’ve talked about this before - your straight line up to god and all [I realize you'll be killing me when you see me]. You call it REALLY loving Jesus, I think. You’re right - that’s not the same as mystic status. Not quite.
Your admiration is laughable, my child. I assure you, my stigmata do not indicate any mystical connection to the divine, nor does the apparition of the Virgin Mother that keeps re-appearing every fortnight in a rash on my sternum. You, too can experience such wonders - if you meditate 5 hours a day and walk on hot coals wearing nothing but Prada.
You wear Prada?
Are you joking? I can barely spell Prada.
Well, I had to know for sure. I thought not, but…