Friday, August 27, 2010
reductio ad surdium
It seems to me that the term "gospel" has been discussed to the point of being absurd - hence the title of this post. Justin Taylor links to another discussion of it. I happen to like the point that the pullquote Taylor cites is trying to make, I really do, but why do we have to discuss the term "gospel" one more time?
The term has been used, misused, abused, and otherwise misshapen to the point of lacking definition altogether - or at least only being definable in the context of a specific conversation.
Anytime we spend this much time and mental energy on anything, I become concerned that that thing is being fetishized. We do not worship the gospel - we do not minister in the name of gospel - Jesus did not sacrifice for the gospel. No, we do thee things for an unto the Lord God Almighty.
Frankly, the good news offered by the triune God and His action in history cannot be synopsized. When we do try to make it short and sweet, we place boundaries on the boundless and try to contain the infinite, and therefore the uncontainable.
MAybe we'd be better off dropping the term?
The term has been used, misused, abused, and otherwise misshapen to the point of lacking definition altogether - or at least only being definable in the context of a specific conversation.
Anytime we spend this much time and mental energy on anything, I become concerned that that thing is being fetishized. We do not worship the gospel - we do not minister in the name of gospel - Jesus did not sacrifice for the gospel. No, we do thee things for an unto the Lord God Almighty.
Frankly, the good news offered by the triune God and His action in history cannot be synopsized. When we do try to make it short and sweet, we place boundaries on the boundless and try to contain the infinite, and therefore the uncontainable.
MAybe we'd be better off dropping the term?
Technorati Tags:gospel
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
