Who Am I?

Original Sin 15 – What is the Gospel?

Posted: March 10th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Original Sin | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

I have been struggling over how I would write this part of the series since I started it. I know what I want to say, but I’ve discovered over the years that this is a place where the fact that I was not culturally shaped within the context of American Christianity creates a disconnect that is difficult to bridge. I don’t really grasp the inner experience and automatic assumptions of those who were shaped within that context and so it is often like navigating a minefield. I tend to express myself in ways that produce reactions I did not intend. I’ve never been known for a reluctance to “stir the pot” in any situation if that’s what I feel is necessary. However, I don’t have the sense that anything I want to say on this topic should be controversial for any Christian. It’s not only deeply embedded in the Scriptures, but consistently in the interpretation of those Scriptures throughout the first centuries of the Church. So I ask that if you react negatively to something I write in this post, take  a moment to explain your reaction to me and I’ll see if I can find better words.

I’ve been writing this series from the perspective of my own personal journey into and with Christian faith, so I’ll continue in that vein. It seems to me that most American Christians today don’t realize that in order to proclaim their story of “good news“, they must first either make a person feel bad about themselves or convince them that there is a powerful deity out there who will torment them forever if they don’t do as he requires. When you boil them down, most of the common “gospels” require you to first induce fear, guilt, or shame in the hearer before the rest of the proclamation (which is basically deliverance from the very shame, guilt, or fear you’ve worked so hard to instill) makes any sense at all.

Stop here and think for a minute about how you would explain to someone why they should consider being Christian. Am I wrong? Now, if someone is already consumed to some degree by shame, guilt, or fear, then it’s an easy sell, I suppose. But if a person is not, then unless you can manipulate them into feeling guilty or fearful about their status before this deity, most modern “gospel” proclamations have nothing to offer. And it seems to me that as soon as we fall into manipulation, we are acting in ways that God does not act. If I am trying to manipulate you, then I am treating you not like a person, but like an object instead. I cannot love you and use you at the same time. If that’s not “sin“, I don’t know what is.

I did not come into Christianity because I feared what this deity might do to me. I was living within non-Christian frameworks and was largely content with them. There was no ground in which fear of this Christian God could take root. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hand of the Lord, but you have to be Christian or shaped by a Christian culture before you begin to understand the deep truth of that statement. And by then you should understand that it is fearful due to the all-consuming fire of his love.

Similarly, I did not become Christian because I felt guilt or shame before the Christian God for my “sin“. Oh, I had and have guilt and even shame, but largely for the way things I’ve done have hurt other people or for failing to be the person I desired to be. (Some of it also probably flows from childhood experiences, but that’s a different topic altogether.) I had no sense of guilt toward the Christian God. In fact, I would still say that I am just discovering what sin actually means in a Christian context and how deeply that thread is interwoven in my life. Sin is also something that can truly be understood only from within a Christian framework.

If those aren’t the “gospel”, what then is the “good news” of Christianity? And why is it good news?

Christianity proclaims a good God who loves mankind. Christianity tells the story of a God who is about the business of rescuing mankind and all creation. The Christian God is not some distant, transcendent deity. No, the Christian God is the one who comes near, the one who enters his creation as a part of it, who empties himself. And by doing so, the Christian God is the one who destroys death and heals mankind’s nature, making communion with God possible for us all.

Here’s a question for you. If mankind had never sinned, if we had remained faithful, would the Son of God still have become Incarnate? The ancient Christian answer to that question is yes. Jesus would not have had to die if that were the case. It was through the Cross that he was able to destroy death in the Resurrection. But it was always God’s purpose (see Ephesians) for mankind to be joined in full communion with God. And that was only ever possible through the action of God. We could never have joined ourselves to God unless he first joined his nature to ours.

When I think about the Gospel, I like a phrase of Fr. Stephen Freeman’s. “Jesus did not come to make bad men good. He came to make dead men live.” I think that captures a significant and central part of it.

I realize that this post is getting long and I’ve still not reached the point that I originally intended to make. So I’ll wrap this up here and continue the discussion tomorrow.

4 Comments on “Original Sin 15 – What is the Gospel?”

  1. 1 Fr. Christian Mathis said at 5:58 am on March 10th, 2010:

    RT @tmorizot: New at Faith & Food: Original Sin 15 – What is the Gospel? https://faithandfood.morizot.net/2010/03/10/original-sin-15-what-is-the-gospel/

  2. 2 Shaswata Panja said at 2:48 pm on March 31st, 2011:

    Brilliant write-up…..I guess this write-up of yours will help me explain to my parents ab0ut the many aspects of Christ.Being reared in Dharmic traditions like me they cannot grasp The Concept of Sin and the gravity of Sin..Not that I understand any better but your write-ups are so so helpful to better explain my POV during discussions that creep up about Divinity,this life and next,predestined vs freewill…It is these non-condemning explanations about Christ that I always used to search for but failed to find in American-funded churches..(Since they are the best-funded they are the ones which are most likely to make the first contact with non-Christians on paper like me)

  3. 3 Shaswata Panja said at 2:57 pm on March 31st, 2011:

    I always hungered for this non-condemning,non-horrifying explanations since I was picked up by Christ in a very very real manner when I thought all the doors closing on me and that if there ever was a God He probably had forsaken me…Then came my personal experience of Christ….An overwhelming love and support that truly breaks you down…..I never could match this personal experience of Christ with the explanations of missionaries with whom I came in contact much later…That’s why I always stress on the personal experience of God rather than being preached…But I guess for that I perhaps also tacitly believe the need for blows and even tragedies to draw human beings to God knowing that human beings will eventually learn that those things are merely temporal in the grand scheme of things..Am I on the right track with these thoughts?? Your observations would be welcome

  4. 4 Scott said at 6:29 pm on March 31st, 2011:

    I would probably say that we suffer. I’m not sure I try to explain it. In some sense evil is a mystery. It is neither created by God, not self-existent. Rather it is a distortion of God’s good creation. But God joins us in the midst of that suffering. That’s the beauty of the Incarnation. And while he loves us the same in our suffering and when we suffer less, it seems we are more likely to experience him when we cry out in pain. God is always seeking to face us, however hard we try to turn away. And his face is the face of love.