Dave's Challenge to the Gospel

[Metacrock]

This is by our old poster Dave Stump. He's asking people to describe what the gospel is about with no references to God or any typically Christian slogans? He's not doing it to put down Christianity, but to make the point about the way we get attached to slogans and forget the meaning.

takers?

[mdsimpson92]

This is by our old poster Dave Stump. He's asking people to describe what the gospel is about with no references to God or any typically Christian slogans? He's not doing it to put down Christianity, but to make the point about the way we get attached to slogans and forget the meaning.

takers?

A collection of stories that make up a combination of myth, second and third hand stories and the author's own personal interpretations covering the life and ministry of Jesus.

That is the driest ways to put it.

[Metacrock]

This is by our old poster Dave Stump. He's asking people to describe what the gospel is about with no references to God or any typically Christian slogans? He's not doing it to put down Christianity, but to make the point about the way we get attached to slogans and forget the meaning.

takers?

A collection of stories that make up a combination of myth, second and third hand stories and the author's own personal interpretations covering the life and ministry of Jesus.

That is the driest ways to put it.

Not the literary genre of "Gospels" but the Gospel, the doctrinal understanding of the meaning of Christianity.

[KR Wordgazer]

I can easily describe the gospel without Christian cliches, but to describe the gospel without references to God is like trying to describe marriage without references to husbands or wives, or like trying to describe parenting without references to children.

The gospel is about restoring broken relations between humanity and God. Impossible to describe an interaction between two parties if you have to leave one of the parties out of it.

[Metacrock]

I can easily describe the gospel without Christian cliches, but to describe the gospel without references to God is like trying to describe marriage without references to husbands or wives, or like trying to describe parenting without references to children.

The gospel is about restoring broken relations between humanity and God. Impossible to describe an interaction between two parties if you have to leave one of the parties out of it.

those are good examples. I agree it's pretty basic. yet check out my blog on Monday. i return from blog vacation with this very topic as a lead off.

[Metacrock]

Dave doesn't buy my attempt. First he said it was a good try, then got kind of surely.

Dave said...

Your obfuscating does no good. ) You can be technical and analytical all day, but you haven't answered the question directly.

Do you think Jesus is Jesus is Jesus? Do you think Jesus means and represents nothing beyond himself, and therefore there is no purpose or point beyond him or any message contained therein.

To be clear, when I say Jesus here I mean the standard description of "Jesus, son of God and Mary, crucified savior the world." When I talk about what this means or represents, I am referring to what these are pointing to and how they relate to the typical human experience.

But everything in Christianity has become self-referential, so that Jesus means nothing except Jesus, which of course points to Jesus, because Jesus. Jesus what I mean? It's quite Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Jesus Jesus, Jesus. Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus.

Jesus becomes just a slogan, and so are the Gospels, for the the sake of their own perpetuation. It's very lazy and formulaic. It's very 1+1=2, and of course 2 is the point, so 1+1 pointing to 2 is the answer to its own question. No explanation needed. Why we should care whether 1+1=2 or about 2 is irrelevant, because 2 is already presumed to be the point and the goal.

This is the trap I am asking people to get outside of. Can't anyone say what Jesus/Christ means, why it matters, without such circular framing? This is still the challenge.



6:44 AM
Metacrock said...

Dave I'm just being honest. I'm not obfuscating. things are not as simple as they seem. Theology requires thought and reflection. I'm not done with the exercise but it can't bad to set up perimeters and be sure what it means and what we expect to find.

I have to get to these two comments tomorrow. I don't have time now. I will answer them.

10:08 AM
Metacrock said...

Do you think Jesus is Jesus is Jesus? Do you think Jesus means and represents nothing beyond himself, and therefore there is no purpose or point beyond him or any message contained therein.

Jesus is beyond himself. Saying he's the incarnate logos is going beyond himself. There's vast potential for describing there.

To be clear, when I say Jesus here I mean the standard description of "Jesus, son of God and Mary, crucified savior the world." When I talk about what this means or represents, I am referring to what these are pointing to and how they relate to the typical human experience.

I've already demonstrated how one might expand upon God talk without referring to God per se, there is nothing limited or literalistic about those concepts.

But everything in Christianity has become self-referential, so that Jesus means nothing except Jesus, which of course points to Jesus, because Jesus. Jesus what I mean? It's quite Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Jesus Jesus, Jesus. Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus.

Sorry, I think that's silly. It's become limited by the socio-political context to which it's limited. You are not reading Moltmann, you are not breading Balthasar or Pannenberg. There's so much in any of them you could spend your life studying it.

Jesus becomes just a slogan, and so are the Gospels, for the the sake of their own perpetuation. It's very lazy and formulaic. It's very 1+1=2, and of course 2 is the point, so 1+1 pointing to 2 is the answer to its own question. No explanation needed. Why we should care whether 1+1=2 or about 2 is irrelevant, because 2 is already presumed to be the point and the goal.

This is the trap I am asking people to get outside of. Can't anyone say what Jesus/Christ means, why it matters, without such circular framing? This is still the challenge.

that's what the language I used is breaking out of. It's moving into the liberal orbit, which is totally different. If the liberal theological thing is stale it is stale in that it's rooted in the enlightenment and seeks to please the secular crowd. It big shot in the arm in the 60s then again in the 90s with Jean-Luc Marion and Panickor.
6:31 AM
Dave said...

"Jesus is beyond himself. Saying he's the incarnate logos is going beyond himself. There's vast potential for describing there."

And yet all of the language typically used is still self-referential. To use a different example, if one wanted to say God is love, then if they wanted to talk about God without using theism they could talk about love. Not "eternal love" or "the universe is love", just love. If Jesus is supposed to represent or point to something, then that same method can be applied.

"I've already demonstrated how one might expand upon God talk without referring to God per se."

You've touched on the edges of how one might do so, but still firmly rooted in a heavily theological framework and philosophical perspective. There's still the issue of Christianity.

"Sorry, I think that's silly. It's become limited by the socio-political context to which it's limited. You are not reading Moltmann, you are not breading Balthasar or Pannenberg. There's so much in any of them you could spend your life studying it."

No, it's not silly. It's simply blunt as well as accurate. This is how Christians speak and think, they just don't recognize it because they are inside it, like trying to see your own culture that you take for granted.

Your references again suggest you think you can sit comfortably in theological philosophy for the duration of this challenge, but that's still located in another variety of the same old perspective.

If you want to break orbit, go for it, but it means really stretching out and continually asking, "So what's the point? What does this really mean?" And each answer must then be subjected to the same scrutiny, over and over. It's an very difficult exercise, but it keeps one from simply falling back and into established patterns of thought.

My goal here isn't to trip you up, but to make sure you push yourself past your comfort zone. The challenge will require something different, something new, and once anyone is comfortable in taking certain assumptions and methods/means of expression for granted, getting out of them is hard.

Here's something that can help. Take the word Gospel or Jesus and try to list 20-30 words that come to mind when you think of that word. If they are forbidden jargon (like crucifixion), do the same exercise with them, maybe trying to get 10 words from each. So let's say you come up with 20 words for Jesus, and three are jargon, so you break those down into 5 words, 8 words, and 7 words, for a total of 40. One of those 5 is also jargon, but taking out duplicates from the other lists you only get 3 new words from that, for a total of 43. See how that works?

Maybe you will end up with less (20 some) or more (50 some). Look at those words, see what comes to mind when you see them all together.
10:34 AM
Metacrock said...

you always make me push myself Dave. We should be on a message board. This is so flowing and you have a lot to say it shouldn't be confined to the slow pace of a blog. I have other things to put up too.

I'm not dune with the topic but it going to have to wave in and out of my perset agenda.

come to the boards!
6:23 AM
Dave said...

No rush. It's a really hard challenge, and anyone who gave a quick answer probably hasn't invested much.

As for message boards, I wouldn't have anything to say.
10:42 AM


he wouldn't have anything to say on a message board but he has no trouble finding stuff to say on the blog.

[met]

Simple. The gospel is proof that our lives have purpose and our deaths are not the end. That the good guys ultimately win.

[KR Wordgazer]

Simple. The gospel is proof that our lives have purpose and our deaths are not the end. That the good guys ultimately win.

Too simple, perhaps? I mean, all three of those phrases are actually still cliches, right?

As I read the conversation with Dave above, I'm getting a better idea of what he's talking about. I still think you can't talk about the gospel without mentioning both God and humanity-- but it would be possible to unpack what we mean by "God." But if Dave is going to insist that we can't use any descriptors from theology or philosophy, then it gets much harder. Part of the problem is that words themselves are so limited. That's why Jesus used word-pictures and stories so much.

[Metacrock]

Simple. The gospel is proof that our lives have purpose and our deaths are not the end. That the good guys ultimately win.

that's good but I think we can get a bit more specific.

[Metacrock]

Simple. The gospel is proof that our lives have purpose and our deaths are not the end. That the good guys ultimately win.

Too simple, perhaps? I mean, all three of those phrases are actually still cliches, right?

As I read the conversation with Dave above, I'm getting a better idea of what he's talking about. I still think you can't talk about the gospel without mentioning both God and humanity-- but it would be possible to unpack what we mean by "God." But if Dave is going to insist that we can't use any descriptors from theology or philosophy, then it gets much harder. Part of the problem is that words themselves are so limited. That's why Jesus used word-pictures and stories so much.

I want to take the opposite appraoch to Dave's. I think that's the other alternative that he's avoiding. That is instead of describe it in totally new language redefine the old terms. Now maybe they are too worn out to be stick in new definitions. But I think I learned to think of them in new ways in seminary and it can be done if talk about it enough. If you read enough theology the new meanings sink in.

the "new" meanings are not contradictions to the old meaning.