Thanks for the link Brad, a lot of that article resonated with how I feel about many evangelical’s view of the gospel, particularly relating to the book of Romans. I totally agree that the “sin-trust-forgiveness (the roman road plan) tends to ‘objectify’ things”. I think this is perhaps more so the way some read Paul then Paul himself; regardless the focus of this paradigm is often the misplaced emphasis on overcoming the obstacle of sin. It is not that sin isn’t an obstacle to having relationships with God and our neighbor, it is just that sometimes those that embrace the Roman Road paradigm get so caught up in overcoming the “sin problem” that they forget that the purpose of it all is to have a reconciled relationship with God and others.
I think that is what McKnight means by “objectifying things”, in which sin is viewed as a “thing” or “object” in of itself that God removes and it is too easy to forget and separate ourselves from the context of that sin which is our broken relationships. I think McKnight is right in reminding us that Paul’s letter to Roman’s is just one image or metaphor that gives us another perspective of the gospel and not the whole gospel in of itself. I also think that it would be wiser to read Paul’s writings in Romans through the context of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels instead of reading the teachings of Jesus in the gospels through the context of Romans.
Thanks for the link and sharing with us McKnight’s thoughts.
I have had plenty of conversations about this issue with those in our tradition. It is interesting to me that it seems to me that there is some correlation with what one believes about this issue and the “American holiness” verses ”Wesleyan holiness” debate. Those who are more of an American holiness mindset seem more likely to objectify sin; especially in the context of “second blessing holiness”. Sin becomes a “thing” to “eradicate” under this model, and holiness become more about personal piety that about love and relationships. I think most of our “sanctification” language falls under this trap in our denomination; especially those with an American holiness leaning.
Is this something you’re finding yourself up against lately?
i've got plenty rolling around in my head right now. i think that our tradition especially obsess too much on the objectification, as you mentioned. i'm putting together a post on a some of my thoughts. i'll get it out there soon.
4 comments:
Thanks for the link Brad, a lot of that article resonated with how I feel about many evangelical’s view of the gospel, particularly relating to the book of Romans. I totally agree that the “sin-trust-forgiveness (the roman road plan) tends to ‘objectify’ things”. I think this is perhaps more so the way some read Paul then Paul himself; regardless the focus of this paradigm is often the misplaced emphasis on overcoming the obstacle of sin. It is not that sin isn’t an obstacle to having relationships with God and our neighbor, it is just that sometimes those that embrace the Roman Road paradigm get so caught up in overcoming the “sin problem” that they forget that the purpose of it all is to have a reconciled relationship with God and others.
I think that is what McKnight means by “objectifying things”, in which sin is viewed as a “thing” or “object” in of itself that God removes and it is too easy to forget and separate ourselves from the context of that sin which is our broken relationships. I think McKnight is right in reminding us that Paul’s letter to Roman’s is just one image or metaphor that gives us another perspective of the gospel and not the whole gospel in of itself. I also think that it would be wiser to read Paul’s writings in Romans through the context of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels instead of reading the teachings of Jesus in the gospels through the context of Romans.
Thanks for the link and sharing with us McKnight’s thoughts.
Peace,
James
hey james!
i'm with you on this. i think you're dead on in your assessment both of the embracing of the objectification of sin and on mcknight's post.
i'm interested if you have spent much time laboring with folks from our tradition in regards to this issue?
brad
Yea Brad,
I have had plenty of conversations about this issue with those in our tradition. It is interesting to me that it seems to me that there is some correlation with what one believes about this issue and the “American holiness” verses ”Wesleyan holiness” debate. Those who are more of an American holiness mindset seem more likely to objectify sin; especially in the context of “second blessing holiness”. Sin becomes a “thing” to “eradicate” under this model, and holiness become more about personal piety that about love and relationships. I think most of our “sanctification” language falls under this trap in our denomination; especially those with an American holiness leaning.
Is this something you’re finding yourself up against lately?
James
james,
i've got plenty rolling around in my head right now. i think that our tradition especially obsess too much on the objectification, as you mentioned. i'm putting together a post on a some of my thoughts. i'll get it out there soon.
brad
Post a Comment