Tag Archives: Gospels

Bringing back the gospels

2 Replies

We’re talking about the idea of favoring the gospels over the epistles, considering the statement: “I take Jesus way more seriously than I do Paul.” Let me speak first in favor of the proposition.

I believe that we need to preach Jesus more than we do his church. I think we need to preach Jesus more than we do doctrine. People need a Savior.Believers and non-believers need to be pointed to Jesus, urged to imitate him, follow his teachings, do the things he did.

Historically, many Christians have neglected the gospels; this has harmed the church. In a group on Facebook, some people were discussing the Nicene Creed. The creed basically says that Jesus came to earth, suffered, and died. Nothing is said about what he did nor what he taught.

As I mentioned yesterday, many in churches of Christ have wanted to begin with Acts 2. The only important things about Jesus were seen to be his death, burial, and resurrection. Life? Teachings? Minor points. Part of the “Old Testament that was nailed to the cross.” We’re New Testament Christians; that stuff doesn’t affect us. That was the teaching.

That’s wrong. Very wrong. The New Testament church focused on becoming like Jesus. It’s hard to become like him if we don’t know what he did. (which is why the “red letter” movement is equally off base; it takes away importance from the life of Jesus and the things he did)

We need to restore the gospels to their rightful place in the church. So if we’re willing to modify the above statement and say, “I take the gospels as seriously as I take Paul’s writings,” then I’m in full agreement. But if we choose to take away importance from the epistles in order to give more worth to the gospels… I’ve got a problem with that. I’ll take about that in the next few posts.

Choosing Jesus, rejecting Paul

1 Reply

The other day a friend included this in a Facebook post:

“I take Jesus much more seriously than I do Paul.”

That statement didn’t sit well with me.

On the one hand, well… yeah. Jesus is Lord of Lords. He should be taken much more seriously than any other human.

But it seems to me that this friend was echoing a sentiment that I hear in the church today, a need to downplay the writings of Paul and emphasize the gospels. He wasn’t really talking about Jesus and Paul as individuals, but about their teachings.

Historically, churches of Christ have often been guilty of doing just the opposite, preaching Paul and ignoring the gospels. I’ve written before about the strange doctrine that would seek to relegate the gospels to a time long past, discounting their relevance and applicability to people today. That’s an extreme form of the traditional view that argues “The New Testament begins with Acts 2.” (I’ve heard that exact statement)

Today’s view would seem to be the expected pendulum swing that happens so often as churches, as people react to one view by going to the opposite extreme.

I want to spend a little time examining the “gospels only” approach to the New Testament. I’ll include the “red letters only” view as well, which tries to take quotes from Jesus and elevate them above the rest.

Feel free to voice some opinions now or wait until we start trying to cook some of these half-baked thoughts.

The Dispensationalist Dodge

13 Replies

We’re looking at how people work to get around applying Jesus’ teachings to their lives, especially the Sermon on the Mount. I’ve referenced a blog by Michael L. Westmoreland-White that got me to thinking about these specific points; he in turn credits John Howard Yoder and Glen Stassen.

The first “dodge” that Westmoreland-White points to is the Dispensationalist Dodge. This simply says that Jesus’ teachings were given not for the age of the church, but for the future realized kingdom. In our fellowship, with a generalized rejection of pre-millenialism, it’s more common to hear the argument that Jesus’ teachings were meant to tell the Jews how to live during those 3 years of his public ministry; after his death on the cross, those teachings became null and void. You especially hear this from people who don’t want to have to wrestle with Jesus’ teachings about divorce.

As regards the pre-millenial view, as Westmoreland-White says, even if we accept their viewpoint about the coming Kingdom, much of what is described in the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t fit such a time period. The problems with strife between brothers and sin in general shouldn’t be present after Jesus’ return. It just doesn’t make sense. (I wrote an earlier post about the chronology of the Kingdom, if you’re interested in discussing that).

As for the “these teachings only applied to Jews” or “these teachings only applied before the cross” views, neither of those fit with the reality of what the gospels are. Just because they are placed before Acts in our New Testament, doesn’t mean that they were written before the events in Acts took place. The gospels are Christian literature, written by Christians for the use of the church. Do they contain Jesus’ teachings just as a novelty? “Look at the tough things Jesus said while he was here.” Why would Christian writers go to such lengths to preserve Jesus’ teachings if they weren’t relevant to their readers?

If we want to be called Christians, we must strive to follow Christ’s example and Christ’s teachings. Not as a means of salvation, but as a means of being who we were called to be. Can I believe in Christ and not believe that his teachings about how we should live represent the best way to live? Can I say that I follow Christ, yet show no concern about living the way he said we should live?

We won’t do it perfectly. Surely we all know that. But only by striving after that goal can we be truly transformed into his image, by the power of God’s Spirit.

MMLJBC

31 Replies

MMLJBC. I hadn’t even heard those initials strung together until recently. For those who don’t know, it stands for Matthew Mark Luke John Before Cross. It’s used by those who teach, as one book puts it, “Jesus’ public ministry was nailed to the cross.” Sure, read that statement again. The basic idea is that Christians shouldn’t worry about what Jesus’ taught; only what is contained from Acts 2 through Revelation 22 applies to us as “New Covenant Law.”

Sometimes a teaching is so far-fetched that it’s hard to know where to begin to refute it. I’ll lay out some basic principles, and if any of my thousands of faithful readers want any further clarification, I’ll offer it.

  • The “New Covenant Law” is nothing like the Law of Moses, that is, it is not a set of ordinances and regulations spelled out in legislative passages. The heart of the two covenants is the same.
  • The gospels are not biographies of Jesus nor are they documents composed out of a sense of historical curiosity. They are documents of the early church, written by Christians, for Christians. They do not compete with the teachings of the apostles; they are teachings of the apostles. If you fail to grasp that fact, you will never read the gospels correctly.
  • As followers of Christ, we follow the teachings of Christ. That should be obvious. Admittedly, those who want to turn the New Testament into a legal code have problems with that concept, wanting to take this revelation of God’s will and turn it into legislation. Since it is not legislation, it naturally does not fit well within those confines. Try this simple exercise: read Numbers 35. Now find a chapter in the New Testament that resembles the language of Numbers 35. Numbers 35 is legal code. It was intended to be legal code. Which part of the New Testament looks like legal code to you? Which part of Jesus’ teachings seems to be legal code?

I’ll stop there for now. Let me sum it up this way: the gospels form an important part of the revelation that God gave to the apostles to pass on to us. Let’s not neglect God’s generous gift to us.