I asked this question in a thread in a different section but was later told that I couldn't post there. So I figured I'd re-post it here.
I want to address a common claim that I see among Christians (especially evangelicals, it seems):
Here I'll note a few things. First of all, are we sure that the gospel itself is actually "offensive," per se? After all, as I'm sure we've all been told, the word "gospel" means "good news." Good news itself is generally not thought of as being offensive. And perhaps I'm blanking and forgetting an obvious verse, but I can't actually remember any passage in the Bible that explicitly says "the gospel is offensive." In 1 Corinthians 1:18, we're told that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing," but is foolishness actually the same thing as offensiveness? I'm not so sure. Galatians 5:11 does use the phrase "the offense of the cross," which I guess is the closest, but it still doesn't actually say the gospel itself is offensive. People may consider "the cross" or "the message of the cross" to be a synecdoche of "the gospel," but if we interpret it as literally "the message pertaining to the aspect of the cross," the relevant passages make more sense. One of the main takeaways from JP Holding's essay "The Impossible Faith" is that in the ancient world, crucifixion was seen as a method of shaming people, a way of absolutely humiliating and reducing the victim's honor status down to zero. This was significant because the societies were characterized by an honor-shame culture, in which obtaining honor was of utmost concern. Consequently, the idea that the one true deity--the most honorable being in existence, and in fact the ultimate source of all honor--would humble himself enough to become a man and be killed by his enemies in the most shameful way possible was seen as utter foolishness. It offended the ancient world's most deeply-held sensibilities. Thus, under this reading, it indeed makes sense why the message of the cross would be called "foolish" and "an offense."
However, the modern West is not an honor-shame culture. The idea that an honorable being would undergo utter shame is not something that runs contrary to the cultural fabric of the West, because whether something is honorable or shameful isn't held in nearly as high regard as it was on the other side of the world back then. So while it might be true that the gospel or aspects of the gospel is/are still found offensive today in our culture, it isn't quite for the same reasons as it was almost 2000 years ago. So at the very least, I believe one should be wary about so quickly applying that Biblical statement to today's world.
Now, we can focus on some of Jesus' teachings/actions, and those indeed seemed to be considered offensive by many people back then. But in this regard, a few things must also be noted. First of all, what the Pharisees found offensive seems to have been, if anything, the inclusivity of Jesus' teaching and actions. This is ironic, because ordinarily when I see the "gospel is offensive" claim, it's in the context of the perceived exclusivity of Christianity. The Pharisees arrogantly, hypocritically and unlovingly believed that they were superior to "gluttons and drunkards" and lepers and women and Samaritans. Instead, Jesus reversed those preconceptions by healing those outcasts and dining with them and allowing them to be among his disciples. It seems, then, that what the Pharisees found offensive was essentially the message that the kingdom was open to far more people than they'd initially believed--which was then heightened when Jesus told them that THEY, in fact, were the ones who would be excluded mainly because of their arrogance, hypocrisy and lack of love.
It's on this point that we start to approach what I suspect people mean when they say the gospel is offensive. Just as the Pharisees were offended when they were told that they weren't superior, but were instead deeply flawed and would die in their sins unless they repented, people in the modern West may feel offended by the message that they're broken and face potential consequences of an eternity of torment. But again, the word "gospel" literally means "good news." The "offensive" message that "You're a sinful being who's separated yourself from God because of said sins, and you'll face eternal punishment if you don't humble yourself and repent" is not good news. That's the bad news. The good news, it seems, is technically that Jesus died via crucifixion to pay for those sins, then rose from the dead, and because of that all people can have forgiveness and life. Indeed, when Paul explicitly writes in 1 Corinthians 15 that he'll remind people of "the gospel that was preached to them," he doesn't say anything "offensive" like that. Instead, he says that the gospel is "That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures..." And when Mark writes in chapter 1:14 that Jesus went into Galilee proclaiming "the good news" of God, what Jesus actually says is "The time has come! The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news." The main aspect of this message is that "the kingdom of God has come near"--a message that is not offensive.
So in conclusion, it seems to me that the common claim "the gospel is offensive" is technically incorrect and misleading. If the gospel is literally what its name means--"good news"--it shouldn't be offensive at all. What might be deemed offensive is actually the bad news. In fact, to say that the good news is offensive might if anything be akin to unnecessarily placing burdens on people.
What (if anything) might I be missing here?
I want to address a common claim that I see among Christians (especially evangelicals, it seems):
Originally posted by mossrose
However, the modern West is not an honor-shame culture. The idea that an honorable being would undergo utter shame is not something that runs contrary to the cultural fabric of the West, because whether something is honorable or shameful isn't held in nearly as high regard as it was on the other side of the world back then. So while it might be true that the gospel or aspects of the gospel is/are still found offensive today in our culture, it isn't quite for the same reasons as it was almost 2000 years ago. So at the very least, I believe one should be wary about so quickly applying that Biblical statement to today's world.
Now, we can focus on some of Jesus' teachings/actions, and those indeed seemed to be considered offensive by many people back then. But in this regard, a few things must also be noted. First of all, what the Pharisees found offensive seems to have been, if anything, the inclusivity of Jesus' teaching and actions. This is ironic, because ordinarily when I see the "gospel is offensive" claim, it's in the context of the perceived exclusivity of Christianity. The Pharisees arrogantly, hypocritically and unlovingly believed that they were superior to "gluttons and drunkards" and lepers and women and Samaritans. Instead, Jesus reversed those preconceptions by healing those outcasts and dining with them and allowing them to be among his disciples. It seems, then, that what the Pharisees found offensive was essentially the message that the kingdom was open to far more people than they'd initially believed--which was then heightened when Jesus told them that THEY, in fact, were the ones who would be excluded mainly because of their arrogance, hypocrisy and lack of love.
It's on this point that we start to approach what I suspect people mean when they say the gospel is offensive. Just as the Pharisees were offended when they were told that they weren't superior, but were instead deeply flawed and would die in their sins unless they repented, people in the modern West may feel offended by the message that they're broken and face potential consequences of an eternity of torment. But again, the word "gospel" literally means "good news." The "offensive" message that "You're a sinful being who's separated yourself from God because of said sins, and you'll face eternal punishment if you don't humble yourself and repent" is not good news. That's the bad news. The good news, it seems, is technically that Jesus died via crucifixion to pay for those sins, then rose from the dead, and because of that all people can have forgiveness and life. Indeed, when Paul explicitly writes in 1 Corinthians 15 that he'll remind people of "the gospel that was preached to them," he doesn't say anything "offensive" like that. Instead, he says that the gospel is "That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures..." And when Mark writes in chapter 1:14 that Jesus went into Galilee proclaiming "the good news" of God, what Jesus actually says is "The time has come! The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news." The main aspect of this message is that "the kingdom of God has come near"--a message that is not offensive.
So in conclusion, it seems to me that the common claim "the gospel is offensive" is technically incorrect and misleading. If the gospel is literally what its name means--"good news"--it shouldn't be offensive at all. What might be deemed offensive is actually the bad news. In fact, to say that the good news is offensive might if anything be akin to unnecessarily placing burdens on people.
What (if anything) might I be missing here?
Comment