What do you think of the way in which James Choung illustrates the Gospel? (play video)What does this illustration highlight about the Gospel that other illustrations often miss?
Are there things about the Gospel that are failed to be communicated in this illustration?
1 comment:
So after having just watched that video I have a few things to add to the questions you asked, Dave.
Pros
1. I love the fresh imagery and metaphor the guy uses. The old paradigm of the "cross as bridge" to restore our relationship with God seems to grossly oversimplify the significance of the resurrection and places the emphasis on God just wanting our souls to be ok so we can overcome sin and go to heaven.
2. I enjoy his language. In the third picture he talks about the world being restored by Jesus. I like that it is described as an on going action. It is a new creation in process. I also appreciate that it is a much bigger picture. The sum total of the resurrection isn't so people could be restored but the entirety (sp?) of God's creation would be.
3. It is simple, clear, and in 3 minutes paints a new picture of what it looks like to be a part of God's kingdom.
4. I like that he doesn't mention accepting God and following him so we can go to Heaven. How damaging that mindset has been. There is work to do HERE and NOW and following Jesus is an invitation to participate in that.
Ok Con's (it these may be unfair to be so critical of something done in three minutes but Christians too often get by on lack luster language and cute imagery)
1. Starting with the end: I think it is too soft and cuddly to think that Jesus came to be a resource for us to heal the world. Ultimately, that is not our job nor is it wise to think that THAT should be our job. Believing in the new reality that was ushered in through the resurrection I believe a more accurate way to describe our mission/response is to build for the kingdom believing that God will ultimately usher in the new heaven/new earth. We are working toward something but is ultimately God's to bring to fruition.
2. He asks why we can't jump from sphere 2 to sphere 4 and answers that we would just be overwhelmed. It seems to come off like God needed to give us a boost and that boost is Jesus and so now we can do it because we have one. But I would respond to that question by saying that without Jesus, there isn't a future hope or a future promise of the restoration of all creation. Because Jesus inaugurated that new creation we are now called and invited to participate in the work of the present as we build for the future.
3. I still think the picture of sin in sphere 2 is too narrow. He again goes back to the classic picture that the ultimate result of sin was our broken relationship with God. While I think that's true to an extent, I still believe THAT perspective is too narrow. Sphere 2 exists because people turned (and continue to turn) from their worship of the creator to the creature throwing off the harmony of the created order in which God designed introducing death and entropy in all of creation. Again the resurrection is so crucial because Jesus inaugurated the new reality in which death and entropy no longer reign victorious where the world is being redeemed back to the order and beauty the God had originally designed.
So ultimately the resurrection is not about restoring our relationship with God but realizing the future hope in Jesus and allowing our entire beings to be rescued. This is so that we can participate in the rescue and redemption of all creation.
Can you tell I've been reading N.T. Wright?
Anyway, I like it. It needs work and revising but could have the potential to be a helpful picture. Thanks for sharing that duder.
Nagel
Post a Comment