I’ve got a beef with the Great Commission. An axe to grind. A soapbox. I’ve got a fever- and the only prescription is more cowbell. I’ve got a problem. I take issue with great commission… and this isn’t one of those things where i fake left/juke right and by the end you realise i don’t really have a problem with the GC and I just used that phrase to get your attention. I’ve really had a hard time with it over the years- and it’s only in the last few weeks or so that i’ve begun to be able to put it into words.
There are a lot of arguments both for and against the idea of the GC- for fun reading, just wikipedia it. It’s probably worth pointing out that i don’t have a problem with Jesus’ words and I don’t have a problem with Jesus’ intentions; I do have a problem with what we’ve done with Jesus’ words and intentions.
Let’s say- just for fun- that Jesus really did mean that His disciples (all thru the ages and not just the eleven) were to go throughout the earth and proclaim His message everywhere they went- which would be everywhere, so long as they got the first part right; and that it’s not yet completed.
Somewhere along the way, we seem to have gotten the idea that the gospel we’re supposed to be spreading to the entire world is about “pointing out the truth of our way of thinking and the untruth of the other’s way of thinking”- if the GC is about converting people to your way of thinking, it’s easy to imagine how it got so popular in the church. Who wouldn’t want the divine mandate of convincing people to think like you?
There appears to be a shift (rather than an encompassing, embracing evolution of thought) from Mysticism to Scholasticism during the 12th century- leading up to, incidentally, the use of chaper and verse in our scriptures, beginning 1205 or so. And, it seems to me, that our surprisingly modern notion of the GC also comes from this academic shift- giving us our pass/fail ideas of gospel, salvation and discipleship and no one gets to see anybody else’s report cards until we get (or don’t get) to heaven.
The DIY: reflect on these questions for a bit. Write down your answers. Post your reflections in the comments. For fun: spend time reflecting on these questions. Answer each question with a question- if you feel an answer coming on, rephrase it into a question (does that bring up more questions?) and move on.
1. What does the de-academified mystical GC look like?
2. Is/Was the the gospel, in mystic form, sufficient and all that it needed to be?
3. Is the gospel meant to be static or dynamic? Does it change and adapt or is it unchanging?
4. What does the academic gospel look like? Is it less than complete this way or better suited to the here and now?
5. Does the mystical or academic gospel make more sense in light of Jesus and His speaking about the gospel?
6. Should the gospel have both mystic and academic elements in it?
7. In this context, are ‘mystical’ and ’scholastic’ mutually exclusive or can they co-exist?
8. What is your view/understanding of the gospel and the great commision? Is it like or unlike the view of the local church you are a part of? How does that alignment/disparity play out in pratical terms?
9. Do you agree/disagree/why(?) with the idea that the gospel (or, at least our understanding of it) shifted from mystical to scholastic? What would you add or take away from this theory?
1. Are people so intent on believing that the gifts, signs and wonders died away with the first apostles because they hardened their hearts against the written Word, and believed their own experience of lifelessness instead? Did the Puritans focus on the Old Testament so much because of pride, or unbelief in the Holy Spirit’s ability or desire to show His power through demonstration?
How can they think people in the present not need to see God at work, as in Romans 15:17-19?? Why does Paul spend so much time teaching the proper use of tongues, and other gifts, in the church if they were to end so abruptly? It is clear that the Spirit’s power is being seen in other countries, how can anyone think scripture alone can fully take the place of wonders , especially without the Spirit interpreting the words? Who but the Holy Spirit can change a whole person, without touching the whole person, and that takes a whole gospel.
3. Is God Himself static or dynamic? Is He static or dynamic in a person’s life? Does God work as if a person is off an assembly line, or as if each person is a uniquely loved individual? Does God work with a person just where they are, within their society, culture, individual habits and beliefs?
4. Why did the strict Puritans create a joyless, fearing society, and the Quakers attract those who yearned to know God more intimately. Would a combination satisfy both yearnings of the heart? And how are we, in the US, really any different than our ancestors?
6,7. How can one have full meaning without the other? Aren’t both from the mouth of God, each having it’s own portion of Life to give? Can one alone entirely answer all the desires in the heart? But then, what of those who have only one, does one fulfill the other?