What is "the Good News"?
Lamb Chopped
Shipmate
in Purgatory
The_Riv raised this question on the thread about Christianity without Christ, and I think it's a fascinating subject. What exactly would you say this is--the Gospel that Jesus taught, that he sent his disciples out to spread, both before and after his death and resurrection? Did the content change at all, and if so, why?
My personal opinion is that the Gospel was always centered on the coming, person and work of Christ, however it was phrased ("the kingdom of God is at hand"), but that this all became a heckuva lot clearer after his death and resurrection--and even more so as the early Christians developed their understanding of what he was up to.
My personal opinion is that the Gospel was always centered on the coming, person and work of Christ, however it was phrased ("the kingdom of God is at hand"), but that this all became a heckuva lot clearer after his death and resurrection--and even more so as the early Christians developed their understanding of what he was up to.
Comments
That is true - but for me that feels a bit like an 'oh, that's good...anyway, blah blah blah' kind of thing. (I am not at all saying it feels like that for you, I hasten to make clear!). For me, knowing first that 'no - I really am an arsehole' puts the Good in good news - because then that love is not just a 'whatever', but it arrives with real punch. Even when I am, still, an arsehole.
(This is so formulaic and unoriginal an explanation of the Christian experience, that I am rather embarrassed to have made it as a personal witness. But lo, it is my experience.)
Tangled up in the 'arsehole' bit is some sort of strange 'good' too - that it is Good that my arseholery means something. It was not just 'ugly' - it was 'Wrong'. That confers a dignity on me being an arsehole which I otherwise lack - and makes the fact of God's love that much more surprising, and powerful.
None of these are my ideas. Even typing that is probably vain
All we need to do is to accept the offer of relationship with God, leading to eternal life and to do our best to change our ways and to follow Christ.
That’s all! Ha!
But it’s good news nevertheless, as we are blessed richly with God’s good gifts along the way: love, hope, peace, etc.
This is in stark contrast to the "good news" one reads in most evangelical tracts, which invariably consists of some version of "believe what we tell you to believe, otherwise you'll spend eternity in the torment of hell."
The contrast being between someone who says to the lifeboat man who throws the ring-buoy 'thanks' rather than 'I'm not going in that direction you presumptuous bastard; and you're going to leave me to drown unless I come with you? You bastard!'. Or (this is better perhaps, because I used to teach whereas I've not had much to do with the RNLI) the contrast between someone being grateful that a teacher can explain a hard thing to them, rather than resentful that the teacher is somehow complicit in a setup where knowledge is a thing and lack of it has consequences (this latter is depressingly common, even in HE).
I'm not getting at you, whoever you are. I'm trying to honestly witness to something a bit subtle, where I can find myself on either side of the contrast (still, even as someone consciously trying to be a professing Christian) depending on what's happening in life and what side I got out of bed.
(Too late to explain - I mean, we have no idea who each other are, so there is no point in me getting at you, and I am not trying to in any way).
• Jesus is the Pre-existent Son of God
• Who was sent by God the Father
• Who became a human being fulfilling God’s promises to David
• Who died for sins in accordance with the Old Testament story
• Who was buried
• Who was raised on the third day in accordance with the Old Testament story
• Who then appeared to many witnesses
• Who is now seated at the right hand of God the Father as King
• Who sends God the Spirit to empower us
• And is waiting to come again to judge us all.
This is what was proclaimed by the Apostles in the evangelistic sermons in the book of Acts
The part that hasn’t yet been explained fully is why we would/should want the Kingdom of God in the first place. Calling its universal availability “good news” puts the cart before the horse.
Completely agree.
And yet, Jesus didn’t teach much, if any, of that. He did teach about the KoG, @Martin54!
YES! And I yearn for it. Secularly. The fact that He (or the priestly class who made Him up) naturally did is as good as it gets.
The first part is almost exactly what Paul says to the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 15:1-8, NRSV):
Yes, I tend to think that “the Good News” = Jesus, God-with-us, who said he—not a religion or a way of life, as such—is “the Way, the Truth and the Life.” The Kingdom of Heaven, forgiveness and redemption, resurrection, eternal/abundant life, are all wrapped up in the person of Jesus.
At least that’s how it makes sense to me.
I love this.
I'm going to go around in circles, because I'm tired as hell and can't think straight.
It seems to me clear that Jesus centered the kingdom of God on himself. Always did, and always will--whether that's at his first preaching, or just before his death, or after the resurrection, with the charge to his disciples to "Go and make disciples... teaching them everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:18-20).
I base this on his endless phrases like "Come to me, you who are heavy burdened, and I will give you rest." .... "You search the Scriptures, because you think in them you have eternal life. And the Scriptures speak of me... yet you refuse to come to me." To a random Samaritan woman, who said, "We know that Messiah is coming, and he will explain everything to us." He answers, "I that speak to you am he." And there are all his famous "I am the (door, light of the world, good shepherd, way, truth and life, etc. etc. etc.)" passages. He really sees himself as the narrow door through which we all pass to get to God--or um, not.
Now is this good news? Plenty of people will say no, and I can see why. But I've spent 50 years with him, and he got me out of a really terrible situation, and I have to say Yes, it is good news. He is who he says he is, the promises of life and rest and peace and hope are all true (though the promises of suffering and tribulation are ALSO true), and it's all worth it.
But it comes down to the "Taste and see" thing. Nobody's going to believe on the basis of what I say. The most I can do is point to him, and say, "Evaluate for yourself." And I think that's all anybody can say, really.
A phrase that has often inspired me is Luke in Acts 2: 47: “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” It’s a Good News vision (akin to the Sermon on the Mount) of those drawn to the early church, the city on a hill shining out over the plains, the salt that has not lost its savour, the light not hidden under a bushel. A community in which all are welcome and the Kingdom (already/not yet) is to be found. Utopian.
Evangelism by attraction is the work of the church. And if the church is destroyed or suppressed? When persecution broke out in Jerusalem and the church scattered, “Those who had been scattered preached the gospel wherever they went” (Acts 8:4). That was the way to spread the Good News two-by-two or in small groups, staying in touch with those leaders imprisoned, establishing new churches where possible.
One influence on my ecclesial understanding of evangelisation comes from a book written by Raymond E Brown in the late 1980s, called The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. Brown looked at the Community of the Beloved Disciple for models of what it meant to be church (the Way) and what leadership and continuity might mean. Brown argued that the strengths he found were (1) the priority of individual connectedness to Jesus, emphasising relationship with the present Christ brought about through the Holy Spirit, and (2) the egalitarian character of such an ethos.
Then he identified the weaknesses of this model: (1)) tendencies toward individualism, especially if separated from Jewish community and tradition, and (2) resulting questions of authority and accountability, how to ensure stability in a threatened and divided community. Within a generation the cracks were showing and the message risked being compromised by power struggles, dogmatism or too much polemic, 'unruly pneumatism' and individual revelations and appeals to the Spirit that defied church authority. Under increasing persecution a sectarian attitude developed that turned Manichean or gnostic, seeing the church and world as irreconcilable.
Against these very human ecclesial tensions though, it has always seemed to me that the primary witness of the Good News (then as now) was in the individual and collective Christian witness under persecution and martyrdom, those willing to be imprisoned, tortured or die for Christ. From when I was very young, we were taught about the Portuguese Jesuit, Fr Gonçalo da Silveira, who worked as a missionary among the Shona people at the court of the Mwenamutapa dynasty until he was martyred in 1561. He had been influenced by the travels of St Francois Xavier, had served with Ignatius of Loyola in Goa and longed "to share in the sufferings of Christ on the Cross in order to bring more souls to the Lord".
That’s appears more of a chronology. Seems to me the two big promises are that you can be forgiven and eternal life.
This allows room for interpretation but focusses on the divinity of Christ and his purpose. For me, the death and resurrection of Jesus are the way this reconciliation comes about.
The way to live in accordance with this is taught and exemplified by Jesus through his ministry.
Will God honour those who tried to taste, and tried to see, but ultimately concluded they tasted and saw nothing? Who evaluated for themselves and the equation returned a zero?
God knows we've got quite a few on this vessel.
If he is the narrow door through which we come to God, then either (a) we all go through it even if we can't see it or (b) God is a right mean sod who refuses to reveal himself to so many people and then blames them for not seeing what they couldn't see.
This is why the Christianity I sort of believe in in a tentative provisional way, as opposed to the one I am in my darker moments afraid of being true, is Universalist.
Good News for whom? Well for everyone, but especially the poor. Are we all the poor or is that too glib an assumption? Those for whom the Good News is intended are 'the poor' mentioned in the Beatitudes.
Loving God is easy and doesn't lead to more than marginal loving our neighbours as ourselves. If the Good News were that God is love, that nullifies 99.9% of the OT and 99% of the NT and 99% of Christianity.
1% worth having. Things happen at the margins.
With reference to your previous post, I think you're right about locating it in community, and wrong about it being Utopian. Utopia was an (intentionally) island community, with an ideology that did not care about those not of the island.
(Aligning with those who believe,) I don't think the Good News is for "us", it's for "them". And if it isn't good news for them, it isn't good news for us either.
And, thinking about persecution, martyrdom and suffering from a privileged protestant provenance, I would say that what applies to all who believe is self-sacrifice, and that suffering is sharing in the suffering of those who suffer.
Why is it Good News -but with caveats -you have to read the small print. Only moderately good news. Why not Good News to the uttermost?
And @Martin54 I'm sure Steve Chalke would agree that it boils down to God is Love -but he tries to argue that a lot less than 99% of the Bible has to be chucked out!
But Martin you love your church don't you?
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 [c]Because narrow is the gate and [d]difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
28 And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, 29 for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
The Good News has a few stipulations.
Yes I do. And it loves me.
If, at some point, Our Place decides to continue with its opposition to a certain Dead Horse issue, that donation will be withdrawn, and put to what IMHO would be better uses. Meanwhile, they are at least trying to keep the rumour of God alive, in a difficult situation...
The point I'm making is that it's still good news.
I'm answering here with the strong suggestion that anyone who wants to go on with it should start a new thread--as this is bound to consume the original thread otherwise, being a hot topic.
Screw it. I tried to answer here and realized that no amount of my pleading is going to prevent anyone, including myself, from going off on this tangent. So I've made another thread, it's thataway (points to Purg).
So to answer the only bits of this that belong on this thread as opposed to the Great Distractor:
As I'm sure everyone realizes, the "or, um, not" in my post is there to allow for the possibility that someone might NOT choose to go through that narrow door of Christ into the kingdom. Phrase that as you will, but it ultimately comes down to "Does God respect human free will or not? If someone says "No thank you" to Jesus' offer, in full knowledge of what they are doing yadda yadda yadda, will God respect that? Or will God force me into his kingdom, whether I want it or not?
I see it as a consent issue. And the God I've come to know, through the Scriptures and otherwise, is NOT someone who forces. He allures, pleads, asks a million times in the hope of a change, even begs--even lays down his life--but in the end, if I insist on staying outside, he respects that.
I find the idea of a God who overrides consent that way to be terrifying. A God who did that would not be "Good News to the uttermost" for me at all. And thank God, that's not what I find in the Bible or in my own experience of him.
The argument you're dying to have with me can go to the new thread, please.
If that end is the sum total of their existence, then the concept of Good is vacuous, whatever admirable people, of various beliefs, may do to try to alleviate the evil.
Actually, I do not think that the concept of Good is vacuous. Deduce what you will.
Which I think is an unconsidered truth about the gospel. Unselfish sharing is taught in the gospels via parables and discussions. It’s hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
The individualised gospel kind of glosses over that in favour of forgiveness of sins; the insurance policy version of the gospel. Too much prosperity gospel.
“Good news to the poor” is challenging.
Yes, this, and what @Nick Tamen posted.
Decontextualisation is what I found difficult earlier in the thread. In my usual Catholic discourse, we rarely use the phrase 'Good News' or speak about the'Great Commission'. I don't think I'd ever thought about 'Good News' in isolation and that was both a wake-up and a challenge because I don't feel comfortable using abstract or ahistorical definitions. But the context you give feels right. The Beatitudes are so clear and specific in Luke 6:
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh..."
I think that might be overstating things as in reality we're all of us in different situations and at different times and from different perspectives both sinners and sinned against, but then I am drawn to the parable of Lazarus and Dives. There's no "Lazarus repented and believed the gospel and accepted me as his personal saviour, and you didn’t". No, it's "Lazarus had a terrible time on earth which you could have done something about and you didn't" - which does I think give the two gospels model some legs, at least as a construct to guide our thinking.
Turning back to the fact we're both sinner and sinned against, in different contexts oppressor and oppressed, we can see that if God is for the oppressed and against the oppressor I can see a massive conflict in any thorough judgement of any of us. I wonder if we can see the playing out of that conflict within God themself* as God acts as Judge and in Christ's representative humanity both victim of oppression and oppressor, and so the judgement is turned back in on themself as the only place it can go without condemning us as oppressor despite also being the oppressed on whose behalf God is exacting justice.
Does that make any sense at all?
If it does, than can we not see ourselves as potentially both Dives and Lazarus, in different areas of our lives? And all this talk of Heaven and Hell is about how the Dives part of us ultimately must be utterly destroyed so that the blameless Lazarus can become the people who can inherit the Kingdom of God.
*grammatically disputed reflexive pronoun chosen on theological grounds so bite me.
Doing something about it is harder.
I think Jesus said something about it being impossible for man.
Interesting, @KarlLB , but I wish I could understand your third paragraph.
I'll try to elucidate.
The problem for a God trying to separate the oppressor from the oppressed is that so often we can be both. The world is not neatly divided into Good People and Death Eaters.
Consider a man from an oppressed population made to do back breaking work 18 hours a day, but who when he gets home regularly assaults his wife and beats his children, by way of an illustration.
This creates a conflict. On the one hand the burning love of God burns for the man and against those who oppress him for his labour, but also burns for his wife and children and against the man who is abusing them.
I suppose what I'm seeing in the Cross viewed from this perspective is God working out this conflict within themself, because there's no other place it can go without injustice also being done to those who are oppressed as well as oppessor, ironically in the name of justice.
Like any other metaphor, it would be a mistake to take it as anything else.