Marginal Christianity

March 11, 2013 by Scot McKnight 29 Comments Over the years my own thinking about legalism has become more nuanced but I want to map out what legalism is in the context of the New Testament. After years of teaching Galatians and pondering legalism in Paul’s mind, I’m convinced many get confused about what the word “legalism” means. Thus, folks say “That’s legalism!” So some rubble needs to be cleared out first. Recently I’ve seen the word “legalism” referred to the commands of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount as if giving a commandment is tantamount to legalism, and on top of that as if the Torah of Moses is just a big bold case of legalism itself. Far from the truth. Time to think about legalism again. How do you define legalism? What is a good illustration of legalism for you? Legalism is not believing in the importance of law or rules or authorities; it is not rules themselves; legalism is not even following kosher laws. More often than not, this sort of definition...

Jesus impresses a scribe during these controversies with the religious leaders and he tries to cut to the heart of the matter: “Which commandment is the first of all” (v.28). Jews of Jesus’ day believed that if they kept the Torah for one day the kingdom of God would come. So this scribe honestly presses Jesus for what finally and fully matters to God for humankind. Jesus’ answer comes as a two-sided revelation. The first side, the Godward side, comes from Dt.6, the famous Shema: “ ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” This is not doctrine or philosophy, it’s life and ethics. To confess the oneness of God is not an intellectual conviction. It is a battle cry – there’s only one God, whatever any other peoples or nations may claim. This God we trust and live for! Then, from Lev.19 Jesus spells out the humanward side of this great commandment: “ You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” This “commandment” (singular!) is greater than all the others (v.31). ...

Love is sometimes seen as simplistic and preliminary and the ABCs of the Christian life, and it is sometimes defined by looking at American English dictionaries — deep affection, etc — but Christian theology knows (1) that God is love and that therefore (2) love is defined  by how God loves .  I contend if we look at God-is-love and how God loves, we can see four elements in love. The application of this is the most challenging dimension of the Christian life for it is simple to say one loves another but actually loving is profoundly challenging. So, let’s begin with this: name your enemy and ask if you love that enemy, and ask if you want to turn your enemy into your neighbor as Jesus taught . Or name the person with whom you are struggling, the person with whom you are out of reconciliation, the neighbor you don’t like, the pastor you can’t stomach, the teenager in your household you now can’t speak to or with… the church person, the work person, the neighbor, the ...

I begin with a confession.   I have not read Scot McKnight’s Kingdom Conspiracy .   I have followed the summaries and discussions (esp. David Fitch’s several-part blog posts) but I confess I may miss some nuance to Scot’s argument. As I understand it, Scot is arguing that the old divide between “soul-winning” and “social action” (which I grew up with) has morphed into a similar divide in the key of “kingdom.” This leads to a situation in which some wear Skinny Jeans (the social justice crowd) and others wear Pleated Pants (the redemption crowd).   The former work for God’s kingdom outside the church in the world while the latter equate kingdom work with personal salvation and growth in the church. McKnight sees both sartorial choices as inadequate.   The whole debate needs to be reframed. He’s clearly right.    He asserts that there is “no kingdom outside the church”; therefore, “all true kingdom mission is church mission” (115). McKnight is trying...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/12/17/freedom-bites-back/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PatheosJesusCreed+%28Blog+-+Jesus+Creed%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher Dec 17, 2012 @ 16:25 By scotmcknight 18 Comments We Americans value freedom, we value our freedoms, we value freedom — each one of us — to do what we want and to do what we think is right. We don’t want anyone confining us. What we earn is ours. What we do is our responsibility. We err on the side of freedom. Even knowing it may come back to bite us. We side with freedom when it comes to abortion, an action I consider murderous; we side with freedom when it comes to money, a commitment to free enterprise that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We side with freedom when it comes to guns, a freedom that emerges out of our Second Amendment and then developed in ways that many consider way too far. But we value our freedom. I support substantial ...

I watched a rerun of “The Lion King” on TV the other night.   It struck me that this film is a parable of the gospel as the “King Jesus” gospel (hereafter KJG), to use Scot McKnight’s term, in contrast to what McKnight dubs the “Soterian” gospel (hereafter SG) of much traditional western theology.     The latter version of the gospel focuses on the cross of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins appropriated by the individual through faith thus assuring that person of their eternal security.   The “King Jesus” gospel, on the other hand, focuses on the act of God in Jesus Christ to defeat the powers of sin, evil, and death to secure God’s eternal purpose of having a world of creatures with whom he will live in loving communication, communion, and community through the ages on this earth.   God calls fallen humanity back to relationship with him through the cross and the resurrection of Jesus so that, forgiven, we might take up the delight and duty of our...