I forgot to get this in the Chris Seay post! I was going to go back and edit but I think this idea is worth its own post.
Anyway it has to do with criticism given to churches like Ecclesia, the one Chris leads, from those who think they focus too much on the "social gospel" and too little on "getting folks saved." Ah, the age old debate. Which is more important?
And the answer? Yes.
Both And! Jesus both healed the body, eg serving the poor, and the soul, eg directing the people toward a relationship with their heavenly father. So I've been all about this BOTH AND understanding for some time, however Chris's comments took it to a new level.
Basically he compared focusing on people's souls as more important than addressing felt needs to the recurring heresy of gnosticism. Essentially, gnostics view the Spirit realm as separate and distinct from physical realm. The spirit is good, while the physical is evil. They went so far as to deny the suffering of the Christ in his physical body as this was detesable to them.
The Bible clearly refutes gnostic claims in certain passages an themes, not the least of which is that Jesus lived in human flesh, and while here, both addressed physical needs and exhorted others to do the same.
So that was my aha! The Gospel is holistic. Serving the physical is a means of serving the should. They are one and the same. I'd be welcome to any comments, but does this sound right? That placing the proclaimed Gospel above the social Gospel leans toward gnosticism?
No comments:
Post a Comment