What's Wrong With Our Gospel?

Really? We’re looking around at “The Church” of the last 50 years and we’re seeing people over-focused on Jesus’ earthly life, not enough on the centrality of Jesus to our salvation and not enough on G-d’s plan for our lives? Really? That’s what we see?

When I look at “The Chruch” around me I see people completely obsessed with their personal salvation and personal relationship with a divine-Jesus-who-died-for-their-sins-and-rose-again-on-the-third-day and a big Daddy G-d, with little or no regard whatsoever for the world around them or what their faith in G-d means about how they are supposed to behave in the world around them aside from getting as many people as possible to also find this same personal salvation and relationship.

jhimm (hello, friend!) I think what Frank is alluding to here is the fact that there is a lot of conversation in certain circles about being like Jesus, doing what he would do, focusing on living the way he did. Not that that is bad, but it is misguided in that, in these circles, it is nearly never presented as something one does as part of an inter-connected, in-dwelling relational experience. For instance, I just attended Transforming Theology with Tony Jones, an event in which (first night) a panel of ten progressive theologians came together promising to use common language (they tried) and listen to the voices of the common people, in order to discuss the changes in the Church and our responses according to our beliefs. (Theology being what we believe about God, should be shaping what we do.) Anyway, I stood at the mic and presented a case similar to what Frank is presenting here: the indwelling of God as opposed to a group of people seeking to be like him apart from that indwelling. All were polite and respectful, and many thanked me, but my husband overheard comments after the event to the effect that I was a sensationalist just experiencing auto-suggest (psycho-somatic, self made feelings of his presence). The concept was laughable to this certain group of theologians at the end of this event. Of course, one of the scoffers admitted that he had, once, back in college long ago, had a similar experience, but he conveyed his as a relevant, valid experience as opposed to my self-made spirituality. So, although I was not offended (since if that is what they think I am glad to have caused them to ponder this form of spirituality), I was made to see that there is a difference between living a purposefully indwelt life, and living a life of God on our own merits.
Wow, that was a mouthful. :-)

Great article! I agree that these themes aren’t presented much today. I’ve never heard about God’s eternal purpose in all the years I’ve been a Christian. God’s plan for “my” life is what’s talked about, and like you say, it’s all about salvation or getting saved, or trying to be like Jesus (without going into the indwelling part that you mentioned) and nothing about God’s eternal purpose. I went to the book site and I’m really interested to read your new book now. Thanks.

I agree with much of this. I heard someone say several months ago that for too many of us, our discipleship is rooted on the wrong side of the cross. Jesus lived as a sinless example, but He did not stop there – he died, was buried, resurrected and sent the Holy Spirit to live in us and inform all aspects of our life. He is our example. He is our savior. But, He must also functionally serve as Lord. Thanks Frank.

In response to jhimm: what you describe as “the church” looks to me as a good description of most evangelical churches that I’m familiar with. I get the impression from Frank’s post that his use of the term “the church” is inclusive of mainline protestant and catholic traditions. I appreciate his focus on the indwelling Christ. This perspective reminds me of one of my old time favorite christian authors, Watchman Nee. Now I’m going to have to get Frank’s book.

Frank is truly on to something with God’s eternal purpose. It’s an age-old messaged that has been ignored and forgotten over the years. What’s disappointing is that folks react to Frank’s message as if it is completely new.

I recently had a brother respond to a discussion on house churches with, “puzzling to say the least.” This points to our problem, indeed. We have wandered so far from the Center of our faith that the New Testament is “puzzling” to us.

I recommend Frank’s book along with Wright’s “Surprised by Hope.” Although I don’t think the last chapter of SH is very helpful to those within organic Christianity… it is a phenomenal book.

Christ in you, the hope of glory!

Frank is truly on to something with God’s eternal purpose. It’s an age-old message that has been ignored and forgotten over the years. What’s disappointing is that folks react to Frank’s message as if it is completely new.

I recently had a brother respond to a discussion on house churches with, “puzzling to say the least.” This points to our problem, indeed. We have wandered so far from the Center of our faith that the New Testament is “puzzling” to us.

I recommend Frank’s book along with Wright’s “Surprised by Hope.” Although I don’t think the last chapter of SH is very helpful to those within organic Christianity… it is a phenomenal book.

Christ in you, the hope of glory!

Great article. Very thought provoking. I think that you are largely on target, not that I have any specific issues.

Agree that I don’t hear a lot about Christ’s indwelling. Curious how you differntiate Christ’s indwelling with the Holy Spirit’s role in our lives.

I will definitely share this with others. Thank you.

What an older church would say- and I realize I’m likely out of step with you folks- is that in leading a Sacramental Life, you become Christ to Others- you fulfill the return of Christ in your own life, for other people. Do that, and you’ll have the trinity- Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, directing your life. Far too often, in abandoning the seven sacraments, younger Christian Sects have abandoned the practices Christ gave us before we had scripture.

I see a lot of need for points 1 and 2 to be reemphasized in my church. I hear a lot of people talking about Jesus as a moral example, which is true but, as Frank says, the message is incomplete. I’d argue that it’s possibly so incomplete that it’s no longer the gospel but another form of legalism—more of Paul’s “filthy rags.”

I think one word of caution is called for here: the phrase, ‘God’s eternal purpose,’ is not at all precise.

We might talk about God’s intention or purpose in creating, and especially in creating humanity, but to speak about this as God’s eternal purpose is at least misleading and at most even dangerous.

Since so many of the Christological debates of the early Church were debates about which side of the Creator / creation dichotomy Christ belongs to, it would be unwise to squander this doctrinal and creedal inheritance by elevating the creation to the level of the Creator Himself.

The doctrine of creation ex nihilo, or out of nothing, means first and foremost that there is a difference between God the Father, as well as the Son of God who is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit who eternally proceeds from the Father, and the creation. God creates us to share in the divine life of the Trinity, which is a life of personal love, but this does not occur from eternity.

To talk about the eternal purpose of God in creating is to collapse this important distinction. It is to fail to understand that there is a difference between the begottenness of the Son and the procession of the Spirit and the creation of the world in general, and of humanity more specifically.

By all means, let us talk about God’s original purpose. But let us not call it God’s eternal purpose.

‘Jesus Christ lived His life by an indwelling Father. In the same way, we as believers can only live the Christian life by an indwelling Christ. This is not peripheral; it’s a central part of the gospel.’

I think this is in some way’s a turn of phrase more than a meaning, that is then easy to beat the emergent over the head with.

In other words emergent missionals have talked a fair amount of being in christ (John 14) something which is a favourite phrase of Paul. Is being in christ so different to an indwelling of christ, or a participation in God’s way for me it’s easy to see the weaving the same patterns.

I wonder if we’re just talking different words and world-views/paradigms about the same basic diving Truth. And I just don’t believe it is as absent as Frank might have us belive, sure if may have been overshadowed in place or easy to miss as a point, but not their in christian tradtions over the last 2000 years, i just don’t think so.

Todd, I will have to ponder your comments further. I often marvel at the fact that although God has his purpose in creating us and the universe, he also surely has purposes aside from us and the universe. I mean, what was already in place before the creation of all we know? One day we will find out just how broad his purposes really are, but for now we can’t even begin to grasp his purposes for us fully. Amazing.

PS, meet my husband’s cousin above, Ted Seeber. Thank you for joining the conversation, Ted. Ted is not an emergent Christian, nor even a Protestant one, and he brings variety and flavor to the conversation.

God has an eternal purpose,”according to the eternal purpose,which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Eph 3:11. God does not have many eternal purposes. As one man said” there may be many purposes He has in time, but He has only one ETERNAL Purpose. Yet every single one of God’s purposes in time are all related to this one eternal purpose. Paul prayed for the Ephesians 1:17-19 that the Father would give them a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of Him…that you may know what is the hope of His calling…”. The calling is not to be saved, the calling is because you are saved. The calling of God is to do with the eternal purpose of God. We are redeemed in order that we might know that calling of God. The calling of the Lord is that He by the Spirit may lead us, energize us, train us and most of all indwell us until we become conformed to the image of His Son and become the Lord’s wife(Bride).

I would like to know what chapter and verse Frank got this quote
Note Jesus’ own words:

As the living Father has sent Me and I live by the Father, so He who partakes of Me shall live by Me.

Thats ok I found it. Its John 6:57

“A proper theology would therefore have to be constructed in the light of its future goal. Eschatology should not be its end, but its beginning.” Jurgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope.

I agree with Todd that we need to be careful with claims that we understand God’s Eternal Purpose. What makes us so sure that God’s Eternal Purpose is all about me.

Jesus told us the first and greatest commandment is to love God with all our might, mind and strength. That might require us to put God above our own selfish interests and delusions of human grandeur preached by the humanists.

Humans are so small and finite. God is so grand and infinite. A little humility here would be helpful if we are to find the indwelling Christ. Jesus said that only those with the humility of a little child will enter the kingdom of God.

The way Frank has unfolded the eternal purpose of God in Christ in From Eternity to Here is quite striking, and rooted in the biblical narrative. When Todd T. said, “let us not call it God’s eternal purpose,” I was reminded of Ephesians 3:11 that does specifically speak of “the eternal purpose which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord.” When Heidi H. asked, “What makes us so sure that God’s Eternal Purpose is all about me?” it is important to recall that His purpose is primarily and ultimately corporate, not individualistic. His purpose is about securing a bride for the Son and a place of habitation for the Father. This He accomplishes by creating a “new humanity” through the Lord’s death, burial and resurrection. It’s not about “me,” but about the Bride comprised of people from all over the world. It seems to me that once we read scripture in light of the grand themes covered in From Eternity to Here, the revelation of the Lord Jesus will be heightened in our personal life and in our fellowship with other believers!

Oswald Chambers, in his lesser known book “Not Knowing Whither – The Steps of Abraham’s Faith” says ”...therefore to ask ‘What would Jesus do?’ is not the question of faith, but of Pharisaism. The question to ask is – ‘What would Jesus have me do?’” Written in 1933, I think Chambers sums up the issue. We’re so caught up in conforming our actions to our perception of what Christ was like that we miss having His indwelling act through us.

Thanks for this article, very poignant.

For people attending this conference mentioned on the website, 10 most important questions to ask Catholics by ron rhodes and reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by ron rhodes would be a good resource for everyone here. Hebrews chapters 8 – 12 are good to explain and it says Jesus offered Himself “once” for all and then sat down at the Right Hand of the Father in Heaven, His Work being finished – not being offered, again, and again, and again in the mass. Communion / Remembering the Lord Jesus and His Sacrifice at Calvary is a holy thing as the Lord instituted, but the Sacrifice was complete when He died and all of us who are Saved are Saved through Him and His Death and Resurrection alone, forever, thanks be to God. Read those couple books and it will clear up a lot of confusion for the Catholic wanting to find God and His Son’s Salvation and Forgiveness. Jesus bless you.

I have to respond to Alan: God is timeless, therefore the Mass isn’t “Christ being offered again and again” but as the Eucharistic Prayer says, is the “eternal sacrifice”. The Eucharist is participation in the eternal sacrifice of Christ- as John Chapter 6 claims, not as Ron Rhodes claims. I think I’d rather go with the Apostle John than a modern writer on that one. Oh, and if I’m looking for God’s salvation and forgiveness- it’s no further away than the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which was also instituted by Christ.

A few more words to follow my initial word of caution.

I had not realized when I commented on this post that the language “God’s eternal purpose” is scriptural. Given that it is scriptural, we can and must use it if we are to be faithful to the scriptural witness to God.

But, I stand by my initial unease at the way that the language is being used here.

In Ephesians 3:11 it speaks of God’s eternal purpose as something that He has accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Genesis 1 and 2 are thus not the proper places to look to get a handle on what God’s eternal purpose is all about, rather we must look squarely at Christ, who is God the Word (Logos – the divine ordering or rational principle), and the very icon of God.

To speak of God’s eternal purpose is to speak of God himself. Whatever else we include within God’s eternal purpose we include within God. I am not at all comfortable including the creation within God’s eternal purpose since to do so is to collapse the distinction between Creator and creation.

When we identify any part of creation (even the Church) with God’s eternal purpose we must either include the creation within the being or essence of God the Father (along with the Son and the Spirit) or we must posit an emptiness or incompleteness within God that needs the creation in order to be completed. The first option puts us in danger of pantheism, while the second makes God something less than God – a being who creates out of a fundamental lack rather than out of fullness and for the sake of blessing and gifting.

I appreciate John Zens’ comments about the corporate nature of salvation in order to combat the individualism of the past few hundred years, but am uncomfortable about the language of God’s eternal purpose being to raise up a bride for His Son. Does this mean that the creation of the world is necessitated from eternity? That as soon (the language here is temporal and thus imprecise) as the Son is begotten from the Father, the idea of the Church emerges as the bride who will complete the person of the Son?

It seems to me that it is exactly the opposite that we want to proclaim. There is hope because God has redeemed us. Christ has made us a part of his body, and we are healthy and whole because he is whole. If Christ himself is incomplete and needs us, His bride, then what real hope do we have?

I think that if we stick closer to the text we will be better off. The eternal purpose of the Father is accomplished in the Son – who is eternally begotten of the Father. If the eternal purpose of the Father is accomplished in the Son then there is strong evidence for the fact that His purpose is the interpersonal relationship of love, which can only occur between persons and is what scripture tells us that God is, namely love). Thus the Father freely wills that the person of the Son be begotten and the person of the Spirit proceed so that a relationship of mutual and interpersonal love is possible. That the Church, and indeed all of creation is invited into this, after the fact, is indeed the very source of our dignity (we are persons like He is personal – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

We still do not want to say that God’s eternal purpose is to create. To do so is to prematurely deify us (we are then God by nature rather than grace), or to anthropomorfy (?) God (to make God like us, imperfect, incomplete, and subject to lack or need).

God’s eternal purpose (yes, I use this phrase because Paul used it!)is not about “me”. It’s all about Christ. If you read Ephesians chapters one and three, you will see that. The problem is with our concept or understanding of who Christ is.

Christ, according to Paul, is a corporate Person made up of Head AND Body (I Cor.12:12). He is a many membered Person. And God’s eternal purpose is to make Him the center and sum of all things in the universe (Eph. 1:9-11).

Now, let me ask you, how many times have you heard this message preached?

Thank you,

Food for thought. I too, more and more, I am seeking His presence within me not out there “somewhere”.

Ancient Hebrew has only a handful of words in comparison to English. We have translated the Hebrew word composed of two smaller Hebrew words “Age-During” to the word “Eternity.”

If you were a translator you would have to decide what “age-during” means. It is amazing how we depend on the translator to give the correct message when we seem to leave them out of the equation when discussing an English Bible.

The old Latin bible used during the middle ages said that Moses had horns when he returned from the mountain with the ten commands. Michael Angelo even sculpted a statue of Moses with horns. The Hebrew text said Moses’s face shone.

I use three balancing ideas in deciding spiritual truth: Scripture, Tradition and REASON.

Christians have been waiting for the Second Coming of Christ for over 2,000 years. We are still in a sinful world that kills everyone eventually.

It is time for humility here. Reason tells me that until enough of us finite human beings make the here and now better we are not going to see eternity. Whatever eternity is. Since I am not God, I will have to wait and see.

Could you help me. When you close your doors, and make darkness within, remember never to say that you are alone, for you are not alone; nay, God is within, and your genius is within. And what need have they of light to see what you are doing? Help me! I can not find sites on the: Pay for stock picks. I found only this – kramer stock picks. Host that the stock relative front together claims to the economics of a money in surname to its number or the quantitative leniency. With love :mad:, Jocosa from Bahrain.