Question 1: What is the gospel?
Thank you for participating in the first question, “What is the gospel?” I think it turned out about as good as I was hoping – there were many different views shared, some conversation, and hopefully it made you stop and think for a few minutes about the good news of the gospel.
Like my mother pointed out, the gospel is the good news. But that begs the question, “who’s good news?” What is good news for the upperclass Buckhead businessman, will not be the same good news for the underpaid, migrant worker. And neither of those versions of the good news will be the same as the good news for a young, 15 year old girl who has been abducted and forced into prostitution. The gospel, the good news, is contextual. When we believe that the gospel is not contextual, when we come to our definition of gospel and say, “THIS is the gospel…” we are often guilty of the very kind of reductionistic thinking that Rodger warns us of.
Gospel reductionism is something that missiologist (and Princeton Seminary Academic Dean) Darrell Guder writes about in his book, “The Continuing Conversion of the Church.” Guder writes:
“In the exploration of the missiological implications of reductionism, I have stressed that the reduction of the gospel to individual salvation…is the gravest and most influential expression of the human drive for control…A reduced gospel trivializes God as it makes God into a manageable deity.”
(Guder, The Continuing Conversion of the Church, 131)
I was surprised…and not so surprised…by the fact that so many of the responses were so Christocentric. Reading through the responses, it seemed that the gospel was solely about Jesus, Jesus on the cross and atonement. In response to that, I liked what “fg” had to say when he wrote: “The good news, the gospel, predates him [Jesus].” This was something new for me to chew on – definitely not something I had heard before. But I like that. Of course there had to have been “good news”/gospel before Jesus. The exodus out of slavery for the Israelites was certainly good news. To say that the good news solely exists post-Christ and solely relates to Christ is another way in which we may have Christocentrized (that’s a word, right?) the gospel.
So what is the gospel? Well, it’s a good question. And that’s why I asked it. I am intimidated by the question itself, because in some ways, I believe that any answer we give to the question will simply be a form of gospel reductionism. When I say that the gospel is about Jesus Christ and our forgiveness of sins — I have reduced the gospel to being Christocentric and focused solely on a debt that had to be paid. When I say the gospel is liberation from oppression — I have reduced the gospel to something focused primarily on this world and primarily focused on those who are experiencing active oppression. That is not to say that the gospel is not about Jesus, nor that the gospel is not about liberation from oppression – because I believe it is about both things – and so much more. But to choose one over the other isn’t a valid option.
In many ways, I think Dave got it right: “God is for you.” No matter your race, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, class…no matter what: God is for you. But it’s also important to remember that we don’t believe in just God the Creator, not simply Jesus, but in the Triune God. So any response to the question, “What is the gospel” must take into account God the Creator, God the Redeemer and the God the Spirit (the often neglected person of the Trinity). So it’s not heretical, nor is it just me trying to rock the boat when I say that the gospel is not just about Jesus. The gospel is about the work of the Triune God – and the Spirit of God is every bit as much as involved in the work of God in the world today as Jesus and God the Creator are at work.
In many ways, I’d say the gospel is undefinable. And, I have to admit that with any response I give, I too will be guilty of gospel reductionism. However, I did ask the question. So, what is the gospel? The gospel is the uncontrollable & uncontainable inbreaking of God’s hopes and dreams for this world, and beyond. Through the gospel, God the Creator, God the Redeemer and God the Spirit, bring peace, love and hope into the world, while also presenting an alternative way of life, challenging the powers & principalities that be in the world today.
Is it too academic? Probably. How would I take that definition and explain it to a 6-yr old? I’m not sure – but at least that gives me something to work with…
i think i like it… i’m still mulling over the individual parts so i can’t say for certain yet. could you explain to me what you mean about “God’s hopes and dreams”? thanks!
But is God always “for” us? I put this question out there to raise the matter of sin. Is God “for” us when we participate in injustice and radical evil? I remember nonchalantly throwing off a “God bless them,” in a conversation one time, referring to some people who did something that seemed to have good intentions, but was just plain wrong in a lot of other respects. And I remember so strongly the person I was talking to responding, “No way! There’s no way God could possibly ‘bless’ that kind of crap!” Sometimes we who happen to be Christians are also sickly involved with the “principalities and powers” that set themselves up against God’s peace.
I took my friend’s vehemence to mean that while God doesn’t support/enjoy/encourage our ridiculousness. So, in one way, God cannot be said to be always “for” us. Yet, the Lord still holds out divine mercy and love. THAT, to me, is good news.
Maybe God is more *for* us, even in those dark times, than we can even know. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I get you when you talk about it being an intimidating question — probably not a bad stance to approach it with. Leaves perhaps enough ambiguity to keep us away from reducing it? And with the “inbreaking of God’s hopes and dreams for this world…” Add the word “aspirations” and I can hear the Pagitt influence at work! (And yea, it’s pretty good!)
RPS
There’s no way to say this without sounding like a fundamentalist, but here goes. Currently my faith is being purged through what I’m finding in scripture. I have spent my Christian life rationalizing, thinking through, guessing at, and confusing the gospel. I have spent much less time over the years subjecting my beliefs to the filter of scripture. This is something that I am learning, even painfully and at the expense of some of my dearest beliefs.
I think that no matter what time, or what place, or what circumstance we live in, the central truth of the gospel is Jesus, his atonement, our salvation, and how we use that gift to affect the world around us. I disagree with the assumption that the “good news” looks different to people in different places and circumstances. I think when you’re saying that, you’re saying it without defining “good news”. There are all kinds of good news. But as long as you’re referring to the good news of salvation through Christ, we can all respond to that the same, no matter our circumstance. If we believe that salvation is true, then at its core, it means the same to all. It’s immediate effects on our physical, emotional, and spiritual environments may differ from person to person, but the meaning and joy of that one truth must be universal.
just a couple of questions, i am assuming you are using the scriptures as an authority for whatever you believe and state, if not, then one can ask is God really triune, does God really exist etc?
a) what about the bad news? Isnt this why we have the good news? If so, how come no one mentions it to put the gospel in proper context?
b)why does God have to dream and hope, hasnt he ordained all things beforehand?
c)if you arent sure of what to believe in order to be saved, what are you going to share with others and why would others believe you?
d)isnt 1Cor15:1-4 enuf?
e)How can God be for everyone, when Psalm7:11 states that he is against the wicked and every sinner is called wicked in the bible.
Lauren — well, I wouldn’t know all of the hopes and dreams of God (that would be a *little* presumptuous…) ;) – but I think that part of those hopes and dreams can be found in Luke 4.18-19:
I think part of God’s hopes and dreams probably has to do with peace among all, taking care of the Others in our lives and living in such a way that we are constantly trying to bring about God’s Kingdom in the here-and-the-now.
Abe, I appreciate your comments and questions…I think that we have far too much focused on the “bad news” – if by bad news I am guessing you’re talking about “Hell.” I just don’t think that’s something that we need to be talking about.
Depending on your belief about providence and God’s sovereignty – you’ll have different ideas about whether God has everything ordained already. I think there is plenty of room to believe that God is sovereign but that God still changes and that God has hopes and dreams for how God’s creation might interact and work with God to bring about God’s purposes on earth.
What am I going to share with others? Well…you’re jumping the gun a bit – we’ll be asking “What is evangelism” in a few weeks.
1 Cor 15.1-4 is good news as well – that death could not hold Christ. And I’m impressed that perhaps you think that perhaps the resurrection is good enough news…because for many conservative Christians, Jesus’ death is all that matters. I just read Mark Driscoll’s chapter in Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, and Mark wrote that, “…it is the death of Jesus and what it accomplished that is the most controversial aspect of Jesus’ life and ministry, because it is the most important” (Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, 29).
Finally, I don’t think God is for evil, sin (both personal and systemic) – but I think that God is able to be for us in ways that go beyond our comprehension, similar to what Matthew was saying above.
Well, by bad news i meant the wrath of God that we justly deserve because we have sinned against Him. Hell is just the consequence of that wrath. Hell isnt going to punish you because you sinned, but God is.
But doesnt the bad news put the good news in proper context? And if your goal is to understand what the good news is, the context surely would help, wudnt it? Because there is the bad news, we need the good news. And supposing as you said Israel in bondage in egypt is the bad news then what does it matter to me? I am only concerned with the the bad news that relates to me and i want the good news also that relates to me. The bad and good news is in romans3. You really think people would give up everything, take up their cross and follow Christ just by telling them that God loves them?
Couple of reasons why i disagree with you when you said that God changes
1. if he did change then it would mean that something about him wasnt perfect, that wouldnt make him God in the first place
2. malachi 3:6 says that God doesnt change, i wud assume that verse is talking to us as well as the jews.
3. God is omniscient, knows all things even in the future, so why would he hope and dream
“because for many conservative Christians, Jesus’ death is all that matters” – i think you got that wrong. Without Christs resurrection we have no hope at all, thats what 1cor 15 is all about and thats what conservative christians atleast most of them believe. Because He was raised from the dead, we will also be raised from the dead. As for mark driscoll being a representative of conservative Christianity, i havent made up my mind on that, but maybe you should first ask couple of other conservative christians whether Christs death or resurrection is most important. i am not downplaying what Christ did on the cross, but without the ressurection it would have meant nothing.
I notice that most of the time you try to be as broad as possible to be inclusive of everyone (maybe to please everyone?) but do you ever compare your opinions against scripture to check if they are right or wrong. Afterall, without scripture as a guide we have nothing concrete to talk about, we can question everything and anything.
Yawn.
Ha! So, “rndaniel” – how do you really feel?
One of my own faith struggles has been balancing Jesus’ death and resurrection.
On one hand, traditional atonement theologies, especially those falling into the category of “satisfaction” (think Anselm, Aquinas, and their derivatives), place the entire emphasis of Christ’s work on his death. That is to say, it is through Christ’s death that the debt of sin is paid to God. There are some strains of “Christus Victor” atonement theologies that emphasize Christ’s death more than his resurrection, for instance, victory theolgies that emphasize Christ’s victory over sin and the devil (as opposed to those that emphasize Christ’s victory over death). And atonement theologies that focus on the “moral influence” of Christ’s life and work, emphasizing the atoning nature of Christ’s faithfulness and love, even unto death, again tend to see his death as the crux (no pun intended) of Christ’s work. Given the prominence of these influential theologies, it is sometimes hard for me to simply assert that the resurrection is necessary, crucial, or the sole element that makes worthwhile Christ’s life, ministry, and death. I don’t know that I am ready to render Christ’s work meaningless if there had been no resurrection.
And yet I know that the resurrection is still a key element in the entirety of Christ’s work. This is where I have struggled. The question raised for me is that, given the emphasis in my own faith formation on the salvific work of Christ on the cross, if the cross is where Christ conquers sin/evil/estrangement/etc., then what is the meaning of the resurrection? If the cross saves me (and not the resurrection), then what makes the resurrection so key in Christian theology? What meaning does the resurrection have for my faith?
N.T. Wright gave me an important way to think about the necessity of Christ’s resurrection:
“The deepest meanings of the resurrection have to do with new creation. If the stories are metaphors for anything, they are metaphors for the belief that God’s new world had been brought to birth. When Jesus emerged, transformed, from the tomb on Easter morning, the event was heavy with symbolic significance, to which the evangelists drew attention, without wishing to detract from the historical nature of what they were talking about. It was the first day of God’s new week, the moment of sunrise after the long night, the time of new meetings, new meals, of reconciliation and new commissioning. It was the beginning of the new creation. It was, therefore, the sign of hope for the future, not only for individuals but for the whole world….The resurrection thus opens the door to a new world: a new mode of life for the whole cosmos and for all who dwell in it here and hereafter.”
So perhaps resurrection is less about validating Christ’s work on the cross and more about validating the effects of that work in the salvation – the re-creating – of the world as we look toward the fulfillment of God’s kingdom.
I think that there are probably many answers to the question on the resurrection, and I can only touch the surface here briefly. But I think that conquering death was a very important part of what Christ accomplished in the cross and resurrection together. If he had only bore our sins and died, we would not have the beautiful picture of hope and life that the resurrection gives us; we would have a savior who could take our punishment, but who did not have the strength to overpower and defeat sin.
Also, Luke tells us that when Jesus appeared to the disciples, he sent them the Holy Spirit, which would empower them in their ministry, “I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (24:49). The resurrection was the closing of the deal, so to speak, and from then on believers were able to be empowered by the Spirit.
I think it’s all very complicated, and my incomplete answer won’t do, but in short I think that the resurrection is vital in, if nothing else, our understanding of Christ’s true power.
Your question challenged me. Thank you for asking it. Your definition of the gospel is one of the most beautiful ones I have heard to date; and although I don’t think it can be defined in so few words; it was a brilliant start.
-thank you for sharing your thoughts
I don’t believe the Gospel can ever be reduced to just propositions. It is the real story in which we all live. We have lived in smaller stories; the Gospel brings us the full story.
I like what Ron Martoia says in his new book “Static”:
I realize that when we remove the abbreviated and skewed version of God’s story from our minds, we all feel like we’re floundering a bit. But what we have in its place is a much fuller and richer story, a far more beautiful, elegant, and powerful story we can invite people into. For so long we have communicated things with such static…We have made unclear what should be crystal clear.
(seen on )
Adam, a number of things you have said concern me. Surprise, surprise. Below I quote from you:
“The gospel, the good news, is contextual.” The context of the gospel is the sin of Adam (both yours and that of the First Man). Don’t confuse gospel contextualization with gospel application. The business person may have a different application of the gospel in the particulars of his life situation than does a homeless peasant in California. Nonetheless, they are responding to the same gospel — grace and mercy through faith in Christ alone.
“The good news, the gospel, predates him [Jesus].” Yes, this is true in a sense. The gospel originates in Genesis, but it does not originate outside of or apart from the Bible. However, it does not predate Jesus through the power of the Trinity because God consulted Jesus (in the Trinity) before and during the creation of the world.
The “God is for you” response is particularly inadequate. Dave did not explain what he meant, but you did: “No matter your race, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, class … no matter what: God is for you.” That, Adam, is a classic, Liberal, Universalistic understanding. You are certainly free to hold such a belief, but you need to do so honestly, understanding its historical context. A number of comments here have dealt correctly with this response.
Note that your definition — “The gospel is the uncontrollable & uncontainable inbreaking of God’s hopes and dreams for this world, and beyond. Through the gospel, God the Creator, God the Redeemer and God the Spirit, bring peace, love and hope into the world, while also presenting an alternative way of life, challenging the powers & principalities that be in the world today.” — not only does not cite Scripture, but contradicts Scripture at several points.
The gospel is not God’s hopes and dreams for the world, but is God’s proclamation for and judgment of the world. God does not “hope” that something will come to pass, He ordains it and His Word will not return void (Isaiah 55:11). God’s judgment is the gospel, mediated through Jesus Christ. God does bring peace, but not merely peace: Matthew 10:34-6 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be those of his own household.”
The gospel does not present “an alternative way of life.” Rather, the gospel presents an authentic way of life. The alternative is sin. Which one of these things does not belong to the same category: race, gender, socio-economic status, SEXUAL ORIENTATION? Sexual orientation has been insinuated into — even smuggled into — the list. The Bible does not speak of sexual orientation because it is a false concern. The Bible does speak of idolatry, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and a host of other things (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10) as belonging to the category of things that do not belong to God’s kingdom.
The problem is not that your definition is “too academic,” but that it is not sufficiently biblical. Your mother was right. The gospel is THE good news. Whose good news? GOD’S, that’s whose. It is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of regeneration.
Phil
Adam – I’ve got to break in with two important points here based on your comment about the gospel.
1) You’ve completely taken our dear Dr. Guder way out of context when you quote him above as you have. To continue in the vein he was writing we gain a clearer picture of both what he’s talking about as gospel reductionism to “individual salvation.” He continues:
It produces in turn a reductionist understanding of the church and its mission, and of the relationship of the faith community to its context. This is the situation that calls for the continuing conversion of the church, which will result in the wholehearted committement to evangelization as the heart of ministry. The evidence of this conversion will be teh incarnational witness to the gospel, that is, the being, doing, and saying of the good news of God’s love in Jesus Christ.
Guder is here talking about reducing the gospel to fire insurance from hell. He is NOT saying that the gospel is somehow undefinable. He has no problem defining it Christocentric terms. His whole book centers on the fact that we need to convert the church to be witnesses to the gospel, God’s good news of love in Jesus Christ.
2) Piggy-backing on #1, I’ve got to say that claiming the gospel is somehow undefinable makes us as witnesses a moot point. We cannot bear witness to that which we do not know. If we don’t know what the gospel is, then how can we say anything about it?
I’ve got to quote a little Barth here, who uses the African tale of a little boy who played delightfully with little wooden lions but was frightened when confronted with a real one:
If we have never seen the Gospel approaching as a real and living lion, we must not even imagine that we can ever point others to, or prepare them for, that astounding light, that two-edged sword, the decsion which is forced on them or the unequivocal way in which it must be made. How can they be expected to take seriously what we ourselves have not taken serioulsy, or have done so only in the form of a lion which, however savagely it speaks and acts, is only carved out of wood? And if we have not taken it serioulsy, how can we be usable in the service of Jesus Christ?CD IV.3.2 (p.660)
I’m not saying that the gospel is somehow a fixed-in-stone commodity that can be bartered and sold. It is always necessarily translated in any given context. But that does not then mean that there is not something that is being translated, something that does not “change” amidst those aspects which do, which appropriate it for the given contexts which you so eloquently described above, and all those which you didn’t. And something that does not change about the gospel is Christ at the center.
I hope you don’t feel attacked by this, but I do hope in future when you bring out quotes from our dear Dr. Guder that you’ll remember to include both his words and the meaning that he assigns to them, and be unafraid to go also to his guy Karl, whom he gains most of his work from…
Thank you, Don, for that helpful corrective. I, too, would like to place some question marks after Adam’s strange appropriation of Guder’s book on missional theology (not to mention his curious ambivalence in general toward the worth of definitions of a theological nature). Darrell Guder would not agree that christocentrism is a kind of reductionism of the Gospel! He might agree that there is more to the Gospel than saying the name Jesus over and over, but who — aside, perhaps, from one-ness Pentacostals — wouldn’t agree with that??
Adam, I love this from Eugene Peterson’s Message, Colossians 1:18-20…
15-18We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen. We look at this Son and see God’s original purpose in everything created. For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it all together right up to this moment. And when it comes to the church, he organizes and holds it together, like a head does a body.
18-20He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he’s there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.
I love the imagination of God, being roomy, and spacious that everything of God finds its proper place in him. All the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe…people and things, animals and atoms…get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies…
You get a sense, no matter what formula you use…this can not be reduced.
But, I think there might be a bit of a danger of thinking ” the good news ” predates Jesus. When one reflects that Jesus, ” the Word ” speaks creation into being…then in the New Testament comes as the ” living Word ” made flesh pitches his tent in the midst of humanity speaking the new creation.
Maybe the gospel, Jesus…being the very imagination of God. The sad thing is we have reduced this into something we can cleverly sell, and market.
I see it was mentioned above but I just thought to include the verses…
This is the gospel that Paul received, and that he preached. It seems no wonder the gospel is viewed by many as being “Christocentrized”
The message of the Way to be saved from the penalty of all sins is clearly definable, but according to Jesus only a few people find it. Since about three thousand people were added to the church through the real gospel message preached on Pentecost. It would seem to me that we need to wisely make every effort to save ourselves by using this same small narrow reduced gate which Jesus has perfected by his crucifixion. After all he says “make every effort to use it.”
The crucifixion of Jesus according to God’s set purpose is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed in regard to God’s oath, Gen. 9:5b, to perfect the Way for each man to give God the accounting he designates. For no man’s life can be taken by bloodshed and God not require an accounting for this action. The only Way the command in Acts 2:38 can be obeyed is by the faith of repenting of the one sin of Jesus murder in order to be forgiven of all sins. For this reason the law, Repent, has been added to God’s law, Rom. 5:20 & Heb. 7:12, but only in regard to the sin of Jesus’ crucifixion, to make it impossible to escape death by any other way.