The Secondary Gospels
This year I have made it a goal to intensely study at least two books of Scripture alongside my regular devotional reading of the Scriptures. For whatever reason the Gospel of Mark was the first book I choose to do this with this year and it has been wonderful. I feel like an archeologist and each time I work at the text a little harder more and more glorious truth gets unraveled before my eyes. It's been a real joy for me this year. But it has got me thinking about the church traditions I was raised in and the engagement I have previously had with the Gospels.What I have concluded is that my church traditions don't know what to do with the four Gospels and Acts at the beginning of the New Testament, or categorically the narrative portions of the New Testament.
Why is it that most of my upbringing and life in Scripture has been centered around the Epistles of Paul and other Apostles? Is it because they are easier to "preach" because of their sermonic exhortations and style? I happen to think that is a big part of the reason why but I wonder if there is something more to our avoidance of the Gospels. Could it be that we don't have a good handle on how to preach narrative text? Do we not comprehend the writer's (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) purpose or intention in writing the Gospel? Could it be that we are too lazy to do the hard work of singularly working through the text of one book and letting its message stand on its own? Or maybe we don't know what to do with the Person of the Gospels, Jesus? Maybe His life and Words are too much for us to handle and so we try and hide behind the safety of the Apostle Paul or the Psalmist?
I'm not trying to point fingers here or belittle the ecclesiastical traditions I was raised in. Yet if the Person central to our faith is revealed and proclaimed in the Gospels why do we treat them as secondary in our preaching, studies, and worship?
Comment (1)
I think the archaeological experience of the gospels is the revelation that is commonly achieved when the investment is made, but like any archaeologist, you really have to dig and you really have to be careful if you want to find the really good stuff, while still protecting the integrity of Scripture. It's hard work to do it well, but it's entirely rewarding.
It's incredibly tough to go through the Gospel though. Especially if you want to preserve the original themes and motives throughout. For instance, you can tell the story of Jesus: His life, His death, His purpose, and His character, and that would make a good sermon, but it's also just scratching the surface of the Gospel, let alone how it all lines up with the New Testament.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that people are lazy, there's so much great stuff there, and sometimes it's hard to compress it into a sermon or even a series, and I think that's why you see the Gospels so irregularly.
I also think the church has become overly infatuated with Paul, and that causes him to be quoted so often. I've been thinking a lot about that lately too. I wonder what he would say about the Church if he visited today? I think that question is for another blog post.
Add a Comment