Yesterday was one of my Lutheran Sundays, and as such they were celebrating Christ the King Sunday.
The text the pastor preached on was Matthe25:31-46, the sheep and the goats. While I was listening I had a couple of thoughts.
The first is a result of a bunch of research I did on that chapter a few years ago. Simply put these parables are primarily about judgment. To boil it down, at some point Christ is going to judge us all and some are going to spend eternity with Him, and the rest are going to spend eternity in a decidedly less comfortable place.
The second is so simple I think most of us just look past it. Many will use the sheep and goats to justify what is called the "social gospel". Essentially, if you feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc, you'll get into heaven. Now, before the lynch mob comes out let me say that not only are these things good things that we are called to do, but I actually participate in them myself. Back to yesterday. As the pastor was preaching I was struck by a really simple thought. The judgment had already taken place. The sheep were separated from the goats first thing. The sheep weren't saved because the did certain things, the did certain things because they were saved. The first words Jesus says to the sheep are;
"34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."
Clearly these folks were "in" long before they actually did anything.
It doesn't seem like it should be this simple, and maybe it's not. But the more I thought about it the more it makes sense. Whatever we do is in response to God's grace in choosing the sheep, not as a means to get chosen.
Anyway, just some post sermon thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I remember Keith Green stating in his song about these two, "The only difference between the sheep and the goats was what they did and didn't do." I find the statement dumbfounding. The difference between the sheep and the goats was some were sheep and some were goats.
I agree, then, with your idea. The judgment already occurred. They were already divided first by sheep and by goat and second on His right and on His left. The justification (demonstration) of the judgment was in what they did and didn't do, but the suggestion is "sheep do this and goats don't", not "doing this makes you a sheep and not doing it makes you a goat."
Thanks for some confirmation. Sometimes these things hit and they seem too simple to be true, yet simplicity is not always a bad thing.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that these three parables are one of the most poorly interpreted sections of the NT.
It would help to understand the parable if you knew something about raising sheep and raising goats and knowing why it is that they should be separated in the first place.
Craig...
Many will use the sheep and goats to justify what is called the "social gospel". Essentially, if you feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc, you'll get into heaven.
It sounds like you're saying that social gospel advocates are advocating a works-based salvation (ie, feed the poor and you get into heaven). Is that what you're saying?
I don't know if you just aren't familiar with the social gospel or what, but it's not generally considered to be a Works-based salvation idea, I don't believe.
Definitions of social gospel include...
The Social Gospel was an early 20th century Protestant Christian movement which placed its emphasis on the application of Christian principles to society's problems...
Religious social-reform movement in the U.S., prominent from c. 1870 to 1920 among liberal Protestant groups. The movement focused on applying moral principles to the improvement of industrialized society...
the application of Christian principles to social problems...
That is, none of this is saying "This is what you do to get saved..." It's just the pointing out of the real teachings of Jesus and how they ought to be actually impacting the world here and now, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven...
I can't find anything from social gospel advocates that advocates a salvation by works. We tend to be ALL about Grace and hewing to the teachings of Jesus, by God's grace.
Here is Walter Rauschenbusch speaking of it at the turn of the last century...
The doctrine of the Kingdom of God was left undeveloped by individualistic theology and finally mislaid by it almost completely, because it did not support nor fit in with that scheme of doctrine. In the older handbooks of theology it is scarcely mentioned, except in the chapters on eschatology; in none of them does it dominate the table of contents.
What a spectacle, that the original teaching of our Lord has become an incongruous element in so-called evangelical theology, like a stranger with whom the other doctrines would not associate, and who was finally ejected because he had no wedding garment! In the same way the distinctive ethics of Jesus, which is part and parcel of his Kingdom doctrine, was long the hidden treasure of the suppressed democratic sects. Now, as soon as the social gospel began once more to be preached in our own time, the doctrine of the Kingdom was immediately loved and proclaimed afresh, and the ethical principles of Jesus are once more taught without reservation as the only alternative for the greedy ethics of capitalism and militarism.
[from, "A Theology for a Social Gospel"]
Jodie,
Your lack of knowledge about my knowledge of sheep and goats is staggering, and not really the point. But thanks for the comment.
Dan,
"It sounds like you're saying that social gospel advocates are advocating a works-based salvation (ie, feed the poor and you get into heaven). Is that what you're saying?"
No, what I'm actually saying is that there are those who interpret this parable to support a works based approach to salvation. Hence my use of the term "many" instead of other terms that would be more inclusive. This could have been a hint that I was not saying what you thought I was saying.
Further, (based on my experience)much of what passes for the "social gospel" nowadays is long on social and short on gospel. In short, I am using the term (hence the quotes around the term "social gospel") as more of a generic term, rather than specifically to describe a movement from roughly 100 years ago. I have addressed elsewhere the failings of the evangelical movement and it's focus on personal salvation almost to the exclusion of anything else. Since this post is not a comparison of the failings of the various streams of Protestant theologies, I didn't feel compelled to address these issues here.
So, while the ideals behind the "social gospel" movement may have been noble, there is no guarantee that these ideals are being followed today. So while, I appreciate the history lesson (minus the condescension), I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You might have read the part where I mentioned that I actually engage in the types of actions that seem to be identified with the "social gospel". Given that fact, you might understand why I don't see what your point is or why it has anything to do with the post.
Just a clarification, brother Craig, with no condescension intended. Apologies if it appeared that way to you.
I do read many people who comment on "the social gospel" as if they are unfamiliar with the term or as if they think it is a works-based approach to salvation. Perhaps you could see where I could glean that from what you said...
Many will use the sheep and goats to justify what is called the "social gospel". Essentially, if you feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc, you'll get into heaven.
Do you see how it might appear that you are saying "what is called the social gospel.. which is if you feed the poor, you'll be saved..."?
Glad to know you're familiar with the history. And yes, I am aware of your good works and certainly appreciate that about you.
Just a question, Craig: Did you read "In His Steps" growing up? Was it an influence upon you as it was me?
Craig...
there is no guarantee that these ideals are being followed today.
Well, that would depend upon where you look. I'm sure any philosophy you might look to would have some who practice it better and some not as well. But certainly there ARE places and people that practice the social gospel pretty well.
My only complaint with it is that modifier, "the SOCIAL gospel," as if it were something different than "the Normal Gospel." The social gospel IS the gospel, with it's concern for the least of these here and now.
I've posted a bit on it today, offering excerpts from Rauschenbusch's writings, for what it's worth.
"I do read many people who comment on "the social gospel" as if they are unfamiliar with the term or as if they think it is a works-based approach to salvation."
While I read many (as I said in the post) who treat the "social gospel" exactly as a works based salvation, using the Matt. parables as support.
"Do you see how it might appear that you are saying "what is called the social gospel.. which is if you feed the poor, you'll be saved..."?"
Actually no, I don't see how it would appear that way. Had I said "Folks who preach the social gospel" or words to that effect could have given that impression. However, my use of both quotes and the phrase "what is called" are intended to limit who I am referring to. I'm sorry that you missed this point so thoroughly. But I am clearly not using any sort of blanket statement.
"Did you read "In His Steps" growing up? Was it an influence upon you as it was me?."
Nope, I just grew up in an environment where folks just did stuff because that's how Christians lived.
"My only complaint with it is that modifier, "the SOCIAL gospel," as if it were something different than "the Normal Gospel." The social gospel IS the gospel, with it's concern for the least of these here and now."
As I mentioned earlier, my post is speaking of those for whom the "social gospel" is doing good works with the gospel part conveniently left out. I know a number of people who live this daily. I also know (and have read) folks who use the words, but mean something different.
For all of your criticism, it actually sounds like you agree with the actual point of the post. It's interesting that you haven't mentioned that.
Post a Comment