So as we are sitting around our virtual table, drinking our hot steaming coffee...I am going to brings to the table a question that has been brewing for the last week. The question is the title: "Is the Gospel always the answer"?
So, what do I mean by this? Well...at Relay 1, we were given great teaching that had the foundations of - The Gospel is the answer to everything, keep pointing to the Cross, to Jesus and to Grace. Hopefully all of us will be nodding in agreement! But how do we do that in a way that is relevant to our culture today? How do you say that to your best friend whos mum is dying of cancer or when someone you know is deeply depressed?
Should the Gospel be the answer we give straight away?
It's really easy for us to say, the Gospel is the answer...but not so easy when your looking into the eyes of someone that is experiencing deep pain.
Please discuss this, I would love to read your replies and thoughts! I think this is quite an important issue in today's culture where we dress up as beautiful, successful people and yet very broken inside.
Is the Gospel always the answer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
I think you're possibly talking about the difference between doctrine and pastoral practice. A depressed person needs pastoral practice, not someone constantly trying to shove doctrine down their throat.
In my own family, I have seen someone very effectively immunized against Christianity by Christians who didn't have a clue about being pastoral. Someone in pain and need knows darn well if I am walking with them out of deep respect for what it means to suffer as a human. They also know darn well if I am taking advantage of their pain to get them to believe as I do.
Cat, thanks for posing the question. I wish we'd had more time to go into the practicalities in our seminar track: we certainly discussed it a lot afterwards! To remind of a few points we did cover: the gospel is the answer to our biggest need, of which the presenting issue will be just a symptom. So like a doctor, we will want to provide comfort and support to aleviate the immediate pain: such as being a faithful friend for the person with depression to counteract the feeling that they're deserted. But what awful heart doctors we would be if we didn't treat the deeper, more serious problem beneath. It's not nice news to tell someone who's come in with a slight headache that actually they have a brain tumour: but it is loving. In a loving way, we support and care - always seeing through gospel eyes and speaking what comes from a knowledge of the truth, because our ultimate aim is not for a better marriage, a happier friend, a more fulfilled work colleague, etc., but that they know the Father through the Son: eternal life. That's not just responding with 2 Ways to Live when they open up to you about their struggles. So for a trivial example, when I'm getting impatient and annoyed stuck in traffic, how is the gospel the answer? Well, I don't just need someone to tell me to set off earlier (useful immediate alieviation of circumstances) but to remind me of the truth - that perhaps I'm making a god of being in control (therefore frustrated by ppl getting in my way!), so have wrong attitudes to other ppl (drivers) and to my Father God who works in providence. Or perhaps I'm making a god of others (wanting ppl to know that I'm reliable to be on time!) - same effect. That's how the gospel addresses it, and that's how I'd want someone to love me: to do open heart surgery with a gospel knife, not just stick a plaster on. I know it's harder when someone's not a Christian, so they don't want the deeper problem dealt with, but that's the idea...
The title of the post is interesting. Because yes, the Gospel is always 'the answer'.
In the case of a depressed person, I think the appropriate question is: 'Is this the appropriate time to be giving answers'?
Anyone who has intimate involvement with a depressed person knows the frustration that telling them good news (any good news, not just the Gospel) often drives them deeper into depression.
Why can't we trust the Holy Spirit to help us discern when it is appropriate to speak the truth and when it isn't? The 'heart surgery' analogy says to me 'Tell that person the truth even if hearing it will do more damage.' Is this really concern for the other person's need or concern for our own needs?
I agree that the Gospel is always 'the answer'. As etrangere said, I don't think that necessarily means giving someone a 2 Ways to Live talk.
Sometimes (particularly when someone is struggling with depression) it may be much more appropriate to provide the Gospel as ‘the answer’ by showing them the Gospel rather than telling them. By this I mean loving them faithfully (as mentioned above) and by this showing them the love that Jesus has for them.
I’m not saying that the Gospel never needs to be explained verbally to someone in such a situation, but that a verbal explanation unaccompanied by an active demonstration will be meaningless to them and often very hurtful. It will cost us a lot more to come alongside someone who’s struggling like that, but isn’t that the point?
There is surely no other answer to our deepest needs and problems than the gospel. And yet, without factoring in the way that the gospel deals with the "now" and the "not yet" it is possible to deal with "bruised reeds" and "smouldering wicks" unrealistically and harshly.
The gospel does not promise that all our troubles and sorrows will be lifted in this life, but it does hold out solid hope in the new creation, guaranteed for us in the obedience, blood, and glorious resurrection of Christ.
Questions 1, 26-28, of the Heidelberg Catechism are full of pastoral wisdom and help on this one. Plus God is very gracious to us when he causes our own struggles, sorrows, and weaknesses to be the means by which he makes us into sympathetic counselors.
So, just to make things clear. The Gospel IS the answer overall, its the umbrella of our life, but when we zoom in onto more direct and personal things then the Gospel isn't necessary the answer straight away, but we can use other means to minister to people?
Is that what people are saying?
Cat: Yes, I think that's a good summary of what I mean.
Being pastoral is as important as 'getting the message right'. Or as the Epistle of James would have it: faith without works is dead.
Can we also add that there's a bit more to "the gospel" than Two Ways To Live...
very strange.
is doctrine the kind of answer you'd find in an encyclopaedia?
is faith what you think?
if "the gospel is the answer" then
what's the question?
who's asking?
who's in question?
who cares?
I think I'd be dissatisfied with saying 'yes the gospel is the answer' when I feel like the question has been 'is a gospel summary an answer?'.
The Gospel, as Dave has pointed out, is not any summary - we summarise the gospel only to help ourselves memorise and understand it in overview rather than in depth.
Two ways to live, the four spiritual laws, the bridge analogy can not be 'the answer' but they can point us to the truth.
The question really is, "is the gospel true in the face of suffering on a global and a personal scale?" The answer is yes.
The answer is yes because of Jesus divinity - he is the Son of God who has come to 'finish' the work of saving humans from the just condemnation of God's Holiness on our utter sinfulness; He is the firstborn over all creation, in whom and for whom all things (seen and unseen) exist, he who knew no sin came under the curse of sin so that we, who should rightly bear that mantle, can rather be given the right to be the Children of God, and so as the Firstborn of all Creation he has now become the Firstfruits of the Resurrection.
Jesus is also the answer because of his humanity - he became one of us so that he might be perfected in his humanity through obedience to the Father, obedience in sinlessness all the way to an undeserved death on the cross. He understands our grief, sorrow, struggle, he is not ashamed to call his own brothers and sisters, he understands us from the inside out.
Is there a circumstance where the truth is unspeakable because it is irrelevant? Is there a level of suffering that is remote from the power and presence of the Holy Spirit? Are we left speechless, actionless and powerless in the face of any situation? No. Therein the gospel is the answer. Jesus knew this - his first public declaration of his ministry is in a universal and pastoral application of the gospel.
He stands in the synagogue of his 'home town' and preaches Isaiah 61 - the gospel as the answer to all sin and suffering. He does it without using two ways to live or laws or bridges. His summary of it
"today in your hearing it is fulfilled". Jesus IS the gospel. He is always the answer.
answer to who/what/which question?
Chris, I think Cat outlined two questions as examples quite well.
How is Jesus (the gospel) the answer to the friend whose mother is dying of cancer. If they are a Christian I guess I'd want to talk about Jesus understanding the pain of loss and grief: that even as the Resurrection and the Life - he weeps at a funeral of his friend, he knows the loss and feels the pain. I guess I'd want to talk to the friend about the response of Martha and Mary - 'you could have done something about this' - and how we can face the same feelings in the reality of our own powerlessness. I'd also want to talk about how in the midst of facing the inevitiblity of death we are confident of God's compassion, justice and love. How (even if the parent isn't Christian) we can still be confident that God will judge and save on the last day and there will be no room to complain of unfairness or injustice. How in the midst of great sadness and loss the gospel is as true as it is in the midst of strength, joy and excitement.
To the friend who is deeply depressed there is much to say of help. There is a helpful website on thinking mental ill-health through from a Christian perspective (applying the gospel to the issues) at http://www.mindandsoul.info it's written by Christian phsychiatrists and other health professionals. I think it is one of the best resources on this thing.
Again, Jesus IS the answer - regardless of the who, what and where question. The challenge is to express the truth about him in ways that actually answer/respond to the questions people are asking and facing. The answer is not simply words alone, it is life lived in accordance with the words we speak.
thanks, that's wonderfully true, but in which case the original post was asking "what does the gospel have to say to someone in these particular situations"
I guess my confusion comes at a more basic level. If we say things like "Jesus IS the answer, regardless of the who/what/where question"
To my mind, evangelical evangelism suffers because we are all too aware that Jesus is THE answer, we're just not sure what the problem/question is.
By calling Jesus not just "news", or "revelation", but "THE answer", it sounds like we're saying there is a kind of universal question, of which various "who/what/where" are all particular instances.
If so, then what kind of question is it, and who's asking? Is every single situation life throws up just an instance of a universal person asking the universal question (of which the who/what/where are just details to be ironed out), to which there is a universal answer?
Chris:
I don't know if I'll communicate this well. But I think that Christ is 'The Answer' to the problem of human alienation from God. Not being a hard-core penal-substitionary type person, I'd invoke John 1:1 along with the rest of the Gospels and say something like: 'God created the universe with hope built in'. That hope was won / affected /achieved (however you want to express it) as an ontological reality by the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
Now, is Jesus 'the answer' to depression or to theodicy? Well, yes, in an ultimate ontological sense. For most depressed and grieving individuals, though, giving a simplistic answer like 'Accept Jesus and you won't be depressed any more' is nonesense. It also suggests to me that the Christian who offers such 'solutions' is both simplistic and probably unwilling to accompany the individual in their suffering.
I'm not sure what question is being asked or answered here because we've explored many dimensions. Is Jesus an instant answer for depression or for grief or for anger? No. Is God with a depressed or grieving person, whether they know it or not? Yes. And the Christian faith affirms that (which is 'The Answer' in this case). Christians can be of best service by walking with their hurting friends and reminding them of the truth of the love of God. Sometimes this requires an enormous amount of patience, forbearance and strength of the Spirit.
Finally, I just want to say that I'm appreciating this conversation.
Whether or not God is "with" a depressed or grieving person is a good point. Having God with us, in the Bible's use of that phrase, is covenant language, and not the language of mere omnipresence.
I guess you could say that God was with grieving Pharoah but that was an expression of judgment not blessing, so we must be careful when and how we want to assure someone that God is with them.
Martin: In what sort of cases do you think it would be advisable to tell the depressed person or the person struggling with the death of a loved one that God was there to judge them? I'm trying to understand what you mean. Thanks.
Pam,
I wouldn't tell them that. My previous comment was about the applicability of the comfort that comes from knowing that God is "with us" in the midst of suffering.
The crucial distinction, on which our ability to affirm that God is with someone in their trials (depression or grieving), is whether they are reconciled to God through the death of his Son. If they are not reconciled to him then we cannot speak of God being with them. What they need is the offer of that, not the assurance that they somehow have it already in an unconscious way.
Does that make sense?
Martin,
From my Methodist perspective it doesn't really make sense, no; although I obviously understand what you are saying.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the practical outworking of what you're saying is that God offers judgement and not comfort to a hurting person who hasn't accepted Christ?
Do we really want to 'go there' theologically? I don't think I do.
No Pam, you've got the wrong end of the stick. I am, after all, a minister of the New Covenant.
God offers Christ and all his benefits to the those who haven't accepted Christ. Christ alone will be their only comfort in life and in death, and they must trust in him, and rest and rely on his work. Only then, when someone has received Christ by faith alone, can we speak of God being with them.
If we affirm that God is with someone when they suffer (because they are suffering?), without them having faith in Christ, then we are affirming something that isn't true, and that isn't helpful. If they are not reconciled to God then God isn't with them in the covenantal sense, which is where all our comfort comes from.
Hi Martin:
Last post for a hours but I'm not understanding you, then.
You said: God offers Christ and all his benefits to the those who haven't accepted Christ. Christ alone will be their only comfort in life ...etc....
Which is what I thought we were saying when we said 'Christ is the Answer'.
Then you said: If we affirm that God is with someone when they suffer (because they are suffering?), without them having faith in Christ, then we are affirming something that isn't true.
Which, to me, contradicts your statement that God offers his benefits to those who haven't accepted Christ?
To me, 'God is with' someone does not mean that they are saved. Is that where the confusion lies? If not, then I don't understand how God comforts someone without being 'with' them?
OK. We're getting somewhere.
If we affirm that God is with someone I take it that we mean something more than merely stating that he is omnipresent ("God is present with them as he is present to the rocks, trees, distant stars, and even to those in hell" sort of thing). Am I right?
Are we intending to affirm something relationally positive by the statement?
Can we do so without being clear that the Bible uses "with us" language in covenantal ways that we only benefit from by faith in Christ, and in fact are only true once we have trusted in Christ?
Otherwise why would Paul describe the Ephesians as being, at one time, without God in the world and having no hope (Eph. 2:12)?
Are we intending to affirm something relationally positive by the statement?
I am. I take it from your subsequent writing that you aren't. However, I don't think I mean what you are rejecting.
I also suspect we're talking across theological traditions (I looked at your Against Heresy blog) and that the theological language we are using needs some translation.
I guess, my question would be a really down-to-earth question: Does God make himself available to a non-Christian in distress when they call about his name? This is less than a covenant relationship but also more 'relational' than 'simple' omnipresence.
Can we do so without being clear that the Bible uses "with us" language in covenantal ways that we only benefit from by faith in Christ, and in fact are only true once we have trusted in Christ?
At a pastoral level, I certainly can. In this neighbourhood, most people are unchurched, functionally illiterate and it's a mark of adulthood to be arrested. In all honesty, I'm very happy to say 'God is there for you if you call on his name.' I really don't think I'd say 'Well, technically no, you are not in a covenantal relationship with God and so he's not with you in the same sense that he is "with" me.' This is exactly what they expect me to say: 'God's not going to have anything to do with you because you're trash. Your parents didn't want you around, did they? And who else in society wants to have anything to do with you? I'm church and I'm better than you, so you can't expect that God is going to care about your soul as much as he cares about mine.'
This post seems to be switching between a pastoral level and a pure-theology level. Pure theology is important so we know what our standards are. But at the end of the day, I'm a lot more worried about the pastoral level because I think that's how the vast majority of people are going to meet God. In my opinion, anyway.
Hi Pam,
"Against Heresies" has a real air of theological menace about it does it not? Kind of obscures the fact that I am a pastor in a very working class town in North East Wales.
I'll try to keep this brief. Paul states in Ephesians 2:12 that at one time the Ephesians were without God and without hope, not that God was with them. However they were brought near to the Father by the cross.
That means that I can look the lowlife of Deeside in the eye and tell them that whatever they have been, and however far from God they have lived, they can be forgiven and brought near, adopted into God's family and know that God is now with them. Pastoral theology doesn't get any better than that.
Martin - It seems we agree more than we disagree.
The sort of language you use isn't really a feature of Arminian theology. I appreciate what you're saying but I can't say that I've heard the expression 'God is with you' to have been used in such a technical sense. It would not steer me away from saying that God wants to be with us in our troubles.
I think the pastoral element in this particular question is really important. Some Christians - and I come out of such a tradition - err on the side of 'knowing objectively correct answers about God'. For some people 'having the correct answers' can be really helpful, but for many others it can be unhelpful in the extreme.
The reason I emphasise this is because I think it's an important aspect of the original, not because I suspect you of being 'unpastoral'.
correction:
'The reason I emphasise this is because I think it's an important aspect of the original post, not because I suspect you of being 'unpastoral'.
Pam,
If it helps I'm a Calvinistic Methodist (being Welsh and all that).
Not sure it helps at all, Martin. :-)
I've only ever met one Calvinistic Methodist theologian and she was fairly liberal.
I have no notion of the tenets of Calvinistic Methodism. Does that qualify as the subject of a new post?
Oh well!
The 1823 CM confession is available online. In Wales when people talked about "Methodism" they meant Calvinistic Methodism as opposed to Wesleyanism.
The 1823 CM confession is available online.
Yep, it's online and an awful lot to wade through!
I grew up Lutheran, got a BA at a Catholic University and went to theology college in an ecumenical programme (Anglican, Methodist, URC and Catholic).
In conversing with Calvinists online, I often notice a huge gap in vocabulary but I really have zero background in Calvinism and I don't know when we are talking at cross-purposes.
In Wales when people talked about "Methodism" they meant Calvinistic Methodism as opposed to Wesleyanism.
Yes, I knew that. I believe it's now the Presbyterian Church in Wales?
Yes it is now the Presbyterian Church of Wales but the glory has long departed.
Hi, I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading all your comments! Good thoughts. --Tim
Post a Comment