Check out this video by James Choung, he explains the gospel in a way that makes much more sense than the traditional ‘Christ filling the Gap’ model. The focus is our part in “The Big Story” rather than personal salvation..
if you liked this, you’ll love part 2
I’m really impressed with this and can imagine doing it on a napkin or back of a business card!
Anyone come accross this before or read either of his books?
This video is better than a lot of the many incomprehensible interpretations of the Gospel, however it still falls short in my eyes.
The point seems to be to explain the apparent (although most people won’t see any evidence of this) solution to the world’s problems by Christianity/Jesus.
But this problem and it’s solution isn’t really a concern of most people, who are far too busy with their own problems to realistically consider what must appear to be an unrealistic answer to everything.
Call me contemporary, but I reckon this video is still in the old fashioned “modernist” mould of Christianity, with it’s “answers” and clockwork view of the universe.
mmm – yes it is interesting; but doesn’t it just move the “gap” (dysfunction/ dualism) into the centre of the four circles? It still starts off with an “ideal world” which has somehow “gone wrong” – and somehow we did it and it’s our fault. So was that ideal world physical-structurally different from the one we know now; and how did “all that crap” (as he puts it) just get “done away with” on the cross? Anyway, it might get some talk going?
For myself I think we need to move away from a model based on blame and see that the real question is “how do we respond when things go wrong?” – because they sure will!! Do we point the finger or extend the hand? And which does God do to us?
It seems to me that so much of Christianity as we know it is entirely conceptual – ie it’s ideas about this and that with no evidential base. The whole basic evangelical “gospel” (good news?) is about a God who is so far away in his “holiness” and so prudishly affronted by our “sin” that there is an impasse which can only be “bridged” by someone being put to death for it – on a legalistic offence-and-punishment basis. What kind of “Good News” is that? What kind of God is that? – Father?
The only “evidential base” we have is the life of Jesus whom we call “Son of God” because we claim that he shows us the true nature and heart of God. But what does Jesus do? he gets right in there with the “sinners” and the “traitors” and the “adulterers”, fellowshipping with them and defending them against the accusations of the “righteous” ones.
We need to grasp the fact that the life of Jesus is a deliberate denial of the “gap” theology Ally refers to. Even the birth stories proclaim him as “God (present) with us”. Ironically, the Church has moved to a theological position where they’ve simply “upgraded” the system and made Jesus the “sacrifice”. So it’s still about “holy” God and “unworthy” us but with a wonderful “cure” through the act of violence God perpetrated on his Son Jesus. This is decidedly not “good news” – and actually it’s not what was meant by sacrifice either!
I checked out the author guy’s website, and he seems to be quite at the forefront of a lot of new Christian stuff, which is great. I also checked out his video on Youtube, and there are lots of good comments, with some talking about how it helped them communicate the Gospel.
But in the wider picture of things the church still has a very limited appeal. This interpretation of the Gospel is, like others before it, still relying on ideas passed through generations of church-goers. It’s not really an interpretation of the Gospel, it’s more a re-working of a certain Christian worldview, that still (after over 100 years) requires a person to reduce understanding of the world to a series of logical steps.
I’m glad that this video is helping people. But there are millions of people out there who don’t need to ponder the origins of the universe, or think that there is something wrong with them to become a Christian.
Blimey you two… I guess you see what you look for
In your evaluation of this you have both focused on personal response – I liked the video because it seemed to me it didn’t have this ‘It’s MY fault, Jesus died to secure MY personal salvation.
1. It speaks of the global relevance of the gospel – and relates the personal response to the question of our part in the bigger picture
2. It is a great, short explanation from creation to the future. It’s a short, 3 minute explanation, nothing more. It’s a starting point NOT the full story.
@Ash – I agree that it is not appealing to everyone. I also think we need a new story and this is a great alternative to the ‘Jesus filling the gap and securing our eternal salvation’ model. This is a good start.
@Robin – I’m surprised by your comments. I didn’t see what you saw and I don’t recognise some of your comments in the video. You seem to have placed a personal interpretation that is not in the 1st two steps.
I like the steps:
1. It starts with a common ground that most people will recognise (Step 2)- the world is imperfect
2. It steps back (Step 1) to acknwledge that this is not the world as God intends it
3. It moves on to explain Jesus role in establishing the way to live to restore the world to be as it was originally intended
4. It concludes by explaining that christianity is about joining in and continuing the life that Jesus started
It is global and focuses on joining the revolution by following Jesus…
It’s interesting that we can’t explain things in the same (small) number of words without getting too complicated too quickly
Well, you did present the thing as an alternative to the previous “gap” thinking and I think it is merely a subtle reinforcement of that theory. I can only make a personal response according to the things that struck me, and what I heard was just the old evangelical run-around dressed up slightly more palatably.
I heard Point 1. we all can see the world’s a messed up place; Point 2. Christians believe that there was a time when the world was actually different and worked together in harmony. Point 3. It was us that destroyed the ideal world it by our selfishness. (no blame??) Point 4 God sent Jesus to teach us a different way. Point 5. All that crap got destroyed in Jesus death on the cross. (Wow, what’s not being made explicit there? Let’s unpack that one!) Point 6 Jesus is starting a revolution of blessing. Point 7. We can’t get there (from circle 2 to circle 4) by ourselves because there’s too many problems… so… Point 8. we need the ”resources of Jesus” to help us. And Point 9 – what’s your response?
My response is to say that the idea of a perfect realm which was physically and dynamically changed through human “sin” is mere fanciful concept with no evidential base whatsoever. The idea that Jesus somehow sorted it all out on the cross is another purely metaphysical fantasy. The good to bad transition is defined as impossible for humans, but possible by “drawing on the resources of Jesus” – but this is such a vague and idealistic concept that it defies understanding.
I would want to say that the “revolution” that Jesus came to bring starts with knocking that kind of thinking for six. The world was always as it is. How and why? Well, that’s just a silly question. The real question is how does God address our world – is it in judgement (we messed up) or is it in empathy identification with us? Let’s refuse the condemnation message and look to God who is “with us”.
Ally what bugged me about the video is the it demonstrates to me how church’s preoccupation with it’s own issues clouds it’s perception of the world, and the relevance of any message that it sends out.
Look at the video, forget about previous interpretations of the Gospel, put yourself in the shoes of one of your customers or the people you work with, and ask yourself “is this really the first thing that this person needs to hear about Christianity”?
There is no part of the life of Jesus where he even begins to attemp to say anything like what that video says. You may like it better than other messages, and you may think it’s progress, but that’s church business, pure and simple. I accept that it may be beneficial to some, but I don’t think anybody outside of the Church really needs to hear it.
Ash & Robin, Thanks for explaining your thoughts some more
How would you refine/change/replace this 4-step illustration or what short (4 step / 3 minute) overview would you give to someone who asked the question?
Christianity is irrelevant, I don’t know why you believe it?
@Ash: I agree that it is ‘church business’ to some degree. I also think it is worthy of open discussion.
@Robin: I wasn’t clear on ‘personal response’. I was refering to the emphasis of the story being focussed on the ‘Big Story’ rather than starting with ‘personal response’ Anyway, the conversation has moved on
I’ll think about your comments before replying as I need to process your comments ‘the world was always this way’ and ‘Jesus sorted sin on the cross is metaphysical nonsense’. To be honest, my 1st reaction to this is fear.
All in all I’m a little sad that we are making a simple, starting point explanation of the gospel very complicated.
Is it simple? Is that the starting point of the Gospel? I don’t think that it is, and that’s my point. There are some serious major assumptions that underly this video that, held by many Christians, make it appear simple. But without these assumptions it sounds nonsensicle. This is my point about perspective, we need to think about how it sounds to those outside the church.
Take the sentence about how all the “crap ” is done away with by the cross. Now that might sound simple to Christians who have heard many and various explainations of this over the years. But how must it sound to someone without any Church background at all? It must sound crazy.
Watch the video and try to imagine that you have never heard about Jesus or the cross or theologies of this and that. Is “simple” really the best word you could use to describe it?
In answer to your question, if anyone asked what I thought the origins of the world’s problems were, or how I would sum up Christianity in 3 minutes then my answers would be “I don’t know” and “I don’t think you can”.
I take your point Ash, thanks for explaining
I’m really keen to pursue this notion of how we might respond to the questions of how we explain our faith and it’s relevance.
Talking with friends a few Mondays ago, we realised that we had a common reason for being in our current jobs, that common reason was ‘to make a difference…’. We also agreed that this desire to make a difference is founded on our faith. In our work situations we can demonstrate the attitude and responses that Jesus had – acceptance, challenging, caring… showing an alternative way of relating to people. You know some of my stories and Bob has shared recently about some of his experiences.
For me, the last circle in the video explains this.
I find you last comment challenging – you can’t summerise Christianity in 3 mins.
Well, your right if you are seeking to cover (and sometimes undo) centuries of doctrine but this is not attempting to do that. I see these conversations happing in the context of an ongoing discussion and in response to a question that has been prompted by am observation of our lifestyle and corporate practice.
“Why did you ditch your high paid job to become a teacher?”
“It’s largely about how I live out my faith…”
I can see this video being part of the conversation that follows…
If it happens in context and is not contrived, then this explanation of the ‘big picture’ can be a much more accessible way of articulating the impact of our faith.
I understand that it is challenging to take a billion years of history and condense it into 3 mins – but as a quick overview of ‘The Big Story’, I think this is a great place to start.
@Robin – OK, let’s zoom out a little bit…
You take issue with the ‘perfect world destroyed by sin’. OK.. that’s just one angle. The video starts with the yearning that things are imperfect and there must either a) have been a better way in the past or b) will be a better way in the future. (NT Wright and CS Lewis are among the theologians who have expressed this view). If you are unhappy with the ‘in the past God created a perfect world’ view, then how about the yearning that ‘there must be a better way’? It is this yearning for a better way that motivates us rather than a yearning for the perfect past.
Would that help?
The second issue is with the fact the video introduces a disruption between the dysfunctional world ‘destroyed by evil’ and the fourth step of people joining the revolutionThis disruption forces the solution via Jesus. I know you have issues with the ‘disruption’ model. I am also unsettled by the fact that we have to introduce a disconnection between God and man for the purpose of offering the solution of Jesus dying on the cross. In this case, if we remove the ‘disprution’, we lose the purpose of the cross.
Our reason for following Jesus is NOT primarily to ‘bridge the gap’ but because he offered a unique example of what it is like to live a life as God intended. If we lived like he did, then we’d be more like circle 1 and less like circle 2.
The transition from circle 2 to circle 4 happens through Jesus (circle 3) because he offers the ‘perfect example’ of how to change the world.
Does this offer any insight?
Re the food and yearning thing: I don’t really see how hunger implies the existence of food nor how you can universalize that idea to say that the vision for something better implies that something better previously existed. (In any case, he says more than that. He explicitly says that “this is the Christian world-view”. I think, at best, Genesis 1-10 is a set of cultural stories with a deeper meaning (and they certainly do have a deeper meaning!) To literalise them is absurd . You can’t begin your story by telling people in the 21st Century that the universe used to be different and that “sin” altered its state.
However, yes, I think you can acknowledge that many, if not most, people have a vision for something better than the stuff we see in life at present. In fact, Id be prepared to go further and suggest that the idea of “God” is to a large extent the universalisation of such dreams and hopes. But then that must be an ongoing dream and it must not be limited to the aspirations of long-gone generations of people. The explanation of our “hope” in terms of a sacrificial system which belonged in ancient history (which, like it or not, is the underlying theology of the video clip) is largely meaningless to the modern and post-modern world. There must be other models which reflect the understanding and hopes of our generation.
Re the “disruption” thing; this only shows the inadequacy of the conventional description of the cross – exclusively as a sacrifice. The cross is, of course, primarily an act of political violence to dispose of a perceived rival. To speak of it as a “sacrifice” is to start from Jewish thinking about sacrifice and ask the question, “how could we, as a culture based on sacrifice interpret what happened to Jesus?”. The answer, “Well, he’s like the ultimate sacrifice – the one to end all sacrifice” (and then you go on to do point for point analogies to draw out the meaning (see the book of Hebrews for example)).
The problem we face is that Christianity has taken such analogies as factualites – so Jesus is not just “like a sacrifice” – he IS and must be seen as a sacrifice. So the cross is not just “like an altar” – it IS one. This again is to literalise what is fundamentally an allegorical explanation: something helpful to one culture and gobbledygook to another.
What the video clip is doing is building on the old-allegorical model and glossing over the unpalatable bits (like sin, wrath, judgment, substitutionary atonement) and making vague statements like “all that crap was dealt with on the cross”.
What we really need is a to negotiate an understanding of God which locks into where people are today.
Jesus as an agent of social reform is certainly intelligible if we work it through. So is the cross in that context. It’s what you get if you rock the boat too much!
Thanks Robin
I understand exactly where you are coming from and agree with much of what you say. I’m interested in working out how can we give a brief and accessible ‘Big Story’ summary when asked?
Rather than continuing to ssay what’s ‘wrong’ with this explanation – what would we say instead?
What would you suggest for the following situation that happened recently:
I’m at work and have got into a conversation with someone who’s interested in why I’m a Christian.
They see no relevance of Christianity to them. As far as they can tell, they are ‘Christians’ without the odd beliefs about virgin births and ressurrections and going to a cold boring church service every week.
It is this context that the ‘Big Story’ explanation would be a great tool because it starts with their knowledge that the world could be a better place and ends with an invitation to join in a different way of living through following Jesus.
How would you do this?
Ask them how they felt when they received the Holy Spirit. That should open a few doors on the productive side of theology and experience!