I get inspired sitting in church listening to sermons, and yesterday I got this idea about the gospel. I guess my mind has been reflecting on it of late since a recent SEATS class with Dr. Jason Hallig about how our gospel is often too small. An idea came to me of the gospel as being dialogic.

So I posted, “The gospel is dialogical. No one single voice has priority. It is shaped as we dialogue with one another. Note we aren’t seeking some kind of uniformity but rather unity through diversity.” Not all understood this very short paragraph so I thought I’d write a longer explanation of what was behind my thoughts in this brief statement.

Mikhail Bakhtin developed the idea of dialogic and heteroglossia. Bakhtin observed is that truth is formed through a multiplicity of voices. One aspect to remember about heteroglossia is that it never arrives at a universal definition. Rather these multiple voices are more a unity in diversity rather than a uniformity.

We all have our own Favourite Theologies, don’t we?

Rei Lemuel Crizaldo posted something a few days ago that referred to universalisation in the context of theology. A good example of one of these universalisations is in the debate between human agency and determinism. These are commonly connected to theologians such as Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius, whose theologies are named after them (or at least the theologies we identify with them are named after them even if they themselves wouldn’t recognise them). They basically approach the relationship of God’s sovereignty with human free will, when it comes to salvation.

Crizaldo’s point was that adhering uncritically to these universalisms is an identity issue, given that universalisms suppress individual identity. Others have pointed this out, particularly Lila Abu Lughod, who wrote against culture saying that generalising something into a “culture” erodes the particularity of individual cultures and sub cultures.

Both Rei and Abu Lughod are correct in their rejection of generalizations or universalisms. That’s not to say that there is no truth associated with these generalizations or universalisms, but rather these very truths are themselves particular, contextual, local, and not indeed, universal! If I am, for example, saved by grace through faith, I also have choices to make in my life as to whether to follow God or not. On the other hand, repentance is real, but that doesn’t mean that God is not sovereign in the world.

What contribution does this voice make to the gospel? It shows me that each person, tribe, nation, and language, has their own particularities that allow the gospel to be understood in particular ways. Awareness of these particularities makes the gospel richer.

The Voice of the Question of WWJD?

A number of years ago an idea was revisited that used the initials WWJD? This stands for What Would Jesus Do? and relates to how Jesus-followers can shape their lives with a simple question of “how can I imitate Jesus in what I am doing today?” There was push back against this largely from people who have set aside an idea of good works and focused on salvation through God alone. They said the proper question should be “What did Jesus do?” implying that he’s already saved us, and that’s all that there is to the story. The problem is that while it’s true we aren’t saved through good works, we are still supposed to do good works as Christians. We have to both except that Jesus saves us not through our works, but continue to do good works for him.

What contribution does this voice make to the gospel? It shows us that Jesus is not only our Saviour, he is also our Lord. That means that we should work at imitating him in our lives and not merely anticipating his presence once we die.

The Voice of Honour-Shame

Another idea that has taken root lately is commonly referred to as honour-shame. It tries to approach the gospel from the framework of different cultures. One idea that it pushes against it the idea that the guilt-righteousness motif is universal. While often present in gospel presentations it works best in some cultures but not so well in others. At least two other motifs are presented: Shame-Honour and Fear-Power. What’s the difference? Here’s something I have written elsewhere:

Guilt to Innocence is the most common understanding of personal evil, largely due to the predominance of western Bible interpretations. It uses a courtroom as its motif. This understanding has led to popular gospel presentations such as the Four Spiritual Laws, Evangelism Explosion, and the Roman Road to salvation. The emphasis to this approach is that all are guilty of sin and are thus in need of righteousness. This perspective is common among individualistic societies.
Shame to Honour is another perspective on personal evil. In recent years, students of culture have seen that many peoples on the earth do not see things in light of guilt and innocence. Some people better understand a proper relationship with God through concepts of honour and shame. Shame to Honour emphasises relationships and how they can be restored. This perspective is common in communal societies.
A third approach to understanding personal evil is Fear to Power. In recent years, students of culture have seen that many peoples on the earth do not see things in light of guilt and innocence. Some people better understand a proper relationship with God through concepts of Power and Fear. Jesus overcame the power of Satan and death on the cross and gives power to those who are afraid.

What contribution does this voice make to the gospel? It allows us to see beyond the gospel as a mere courtroom transaction and expand into the realm of relationships and power. God didn’t merely remove our guilt, he also restored our relationship with him, and freed us from the power of sin and death.

I could go on with Frost and Hirsch’s shift from Church as Worship toward the Church as Mission, or Joash Thomas’ shift from championing slaveholders’ theologies toward identification of slaveholders’ theologies as suspect and seeking voices that are more balanced, or hearing the voices of indigenous peoples and First Nations who didn’t find a whole lot of good in the way the Good News was presented (event though many found good in the Good News itself) towards working on reconciliation, or shifting from “David and Bathsheba committed adultery” toward “David raped Bathsheba,” and so on.

How does all of this relate to the title of this post?

Thus, the truth of the gospel can only be understood in community. Truth doesn’t emerge in any practical form in isolation. It’s only through engaging with others with their own backgrounds, languages, cultures, ideas, genders, roles, values, etc. that I can begin to understand truth in its fullest form. But even though what I continually discover may approach the truth, it is by no means the only way that truth may be approached.

Jesus-followers are uniform in their relationship with Jesus — the main test of orthodoxy after all is believing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. That’s it. There is no more to it. Knowing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead allows me to reflect on what that means for me — how I can treat him as Lord of my life — and shape a life that gives glory to him. It is unity not uniformity.

Dialoging about the good news of Jesus Christ gives me a richer understanding of the gospel. Recognising that I don’t always agree with my siblings in the Lord gives me a greater understanding of the power of God’s grace in the world.

Like what you just read? Please click Like or Subscribe to make sure you don’t miss the next instalment.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Akson on Unsplash.