The Evangelical Untouchables 1: What is the Gospel?

76 thoughts on “The Evangelical Untouchables 1: What is the Gospel?”

1. Interesting to see how many of these ministers draw from the actual four Gospels, what they chose to say about them, and the degree to which they chose to refer to them (some not so much; others, not too bad).

   I think the statement: “a conspiracy of religious leaders put Him to death” is misleading/inaccurate (Tony Kummer) by what it leaves out—particularly the Romans—but also others who could have defended Jesus but chose not to do so. This is dangerous rhetoric historically, so special care need to be taken to convey the fullness of what the Gospels have to say about the events surrounding Jesus’ death.

   LikeLike

2. Just two paragraphs? 🙂 no ‘Godspeak’ required.

   Whatever we humans profess to believe about Evolution and the apparent absence of a Creator, we consistenly act as if we live within a moral universe. We habitually express surprise at the Universe because It Seems So Evil; i.e. Wy Do So Many Bad Things (earthquakes, floods, miscarriages, genetic deformities…) Happen? And why are People So Bad? (mothers microwaving babies, fathers pushing their own young children off 50′ highway overpasses… etc.) Our thought-life and our reactions to perceived wrongs done to us by others is evidence that we think there must be some ultimate Idea of good and evil, right and wrong, somewhere within the warp and woof of the Universe. This fact would be laughable if we actually were the product of random forces which accidentally produced life from inanimate matter. This may be the best ‘internal’ evidence we have that there just might be a hidden ‘Someone’ responsible for this sense of good and evil within us. For a ‘Someone’ rather than a ‘something’ IS necessary to explain a Universe with living beings who possess a pervasive sense of ‘good and evil’. Just as a lower mountain lake cannot empty itself into a higher mountain lake, so an impersonal universe logically could not have produced creatures with natures ‘higher’ than it is itself. Only a ‘personal being’ – having the power to choose, able to make decisions, to plan among possible courses of action – can be the source of the very concepts of ‘good’ or ‘evil’. An impersonal Universe, like any impersonal thing, cannot in and of itself, be ‘good’ or ‘evil’. A stone, or a sunset, or an earthquake can only be granted moral value by an observer – a ‘personal’ third party with the power and ability to be pleased and to judge. So we have this sense of good and evil that we cannot shake, (and we know that society would be much worse off if we could shake it) and if the Universe really is an accident, then we are in the position of a fish complaining that the water is wet. But it gets worse. We see ‘evil’ and ‘bad’ things in others, but the rub is that those very things that we ‘know’ to be wrong in others, we find ourselves doing, more times than we would like to admit. And we are powerless to do much at all about this. Even after strenuous efforts, we find ourselves powerless to live up to this very mysterious but unshakable good-and-evil standard.

   The Good News as written about in scripture, is that there IS a moral Creator behind this Universe of ours, which explains this good and evil guilt feeling we can’t shake. There is a ‘missing’ third party observer with the power to grant moral value to things. This Creator is the embodiment of all that we hope for when we imagine a better, perfect, world/person/place/thing. He would need to be, to have come up with all that is. He is utterly good and utterly powerful, and utterly radiant and wholly complete in his being. AND He possesses the power of Self-Existence, placing him beyond the restrictions of time and space. And this creator originally made us in his image – as finite, but perfect reflections of his own nature, which explains where we get our unshakable good-and-evil feeling. But the bad news is, as the Genesis narrative tells us, that the original man and woman, during a simple test, turned away from a relationship of trust and obedience with this Creator, falling from their original high position and relationship with Him. They tried to cover it up, but found themselves naked and ashamed. Sadly, what occured in them amounted to spiritual death, as well as (later) physical death. And those deadly attributes were passed on to all their offspring. They lost their internal connection with their creator; their thoughts, emotions, desires were darkened and clouded. Yet they and their offspring still retained a racial memory of what paradise (goodness) was like, along with memories of good and evil that (as we know) cannot be forgotten to this day. Many of us would do anything to shake those memories. And there are many distractions today that would help us do so. But the consequences of their rebellion weren’t simply personal. The natural world was also affected by that fall; death passed on to all creatures; the perfect order within nature became altered and misshappen. (If we could ‘remember’ with perfect knowledge how things were before the Fall, we would probably be horrified by even the best life here on earth as we know it) But the scriptures also tell us that the Creator would send a person into the world who would be able to undo the horrible things that happened to us and the world back in the garden. This person would be both God and man; he would be both a priest (mediator) between mankind and his creator, and a king with authority to wisely rule over those who follow him. Isaiah tells us that he would be one who was not beautiful or handsome in outward appearance, nor would it be immediately obvious to humanity that he was the one spoken of. Apparently he was to enjoy no special privileges or advantages simply because of who he was. In fact he would suffer greatly to accomplish his work. Isaiah also says that the ‘government would be upon his shoulders’ – in the good sense of caring for us and bearing responsibility for us, as well as hinting that earthly governments would perceive him to be a threat. But he would give himself up for us, paying a ransom with his life to buy us back from our fallen state.

   All this was alluded to in what we know of as the Old Testament. In the New Testament, this person is fully revealed as the very Son of the Creator, Jesus, born to a human mother, and – since his father was not a fallen man – not born into the spiritual death inherited from Adam by every other person born. He lived the life that only a truly perfect human being can live. He performed miracles, even raising the dead. He was at odds with the religious leaders of the day, who had turned faith into a moral ball-and-chain and a ritual of works, rather than a joyous relationship with the Creator. He broke the rules by healing on the Sabbath, and eating and hanging out with those who were perceived to be the scum of society of those days. He taught that he was the perfect representative of his Father (the Creator), and that anyone who saw him and heard him, saw and heard his Father. His words were simple but they consistently shut the mouths of his critics. He revealed to us that the relationship between God and man was to be the same love relationship that he enjoyed with his Father. He said that his followers would also do the good works that he did. And he taught that those who would be greatest in his Kingdom were those who were the greatest servants. But it was only after his death and resurrection that it became apparent what his full work was. Because we are inheritors of the rebellion of Adam against God, we are consequently living in a state of opposition to our Creator, and the penalty for that is… death of every kind. And there is nothing that any of us can do to undo that. Our own best efforts to ‘be good’, fall far short of God’s original high standard for us. (Trying to please an infinite creator with your own imperfect works is like trying to offer a 5-star chef an omelet made from 11 good eggs and one rotten egg – would you partake?) The Catch-22 is that our falleness has also blinded us to the depth of our falleness and helplessness. (One of the many consequences of our moral fall was a subtle but fierce tendency to self-righteousness and pride – both anathema to our being receptive to the only solution) Only someone who was both man and God could possible pay the price to ransom us back from our terrible fallen state. Only someone who combined both natures together could become a substitute for us. Only a man could die; and only a God-man possessing an infinite/divine nature could die a death that would pay the price-of-death for a huge but finite number of humans who would put their trust in him. And only a God-man could come back from death (having conquered it) with sufficient power to pass that resurrection life on to that same number of humans who put their trust in him. Thus undoing the spiritual death that befell us in Adam. How do we ‘put our trust’ in Him? By admitting our own inability to meet His high standard for ourselves, and that our best boot-strap efforts have repeatedly failed and will never work. As well, we make a commitment to turn away from what we know, and whatever he points out to be evil in our own actions, thoughts, motivations, emotions. This is called repentance. And we then throw ourselves upon his mercies; requesting that, because of his status as payer-of-ransom, he graciously apply his death as payment for our sin, and that he then grant to us his own resurrection life, that we may no longer live under the shadow of Adam’s sin. In this transaction we give him our failures and sin and guilt, in return for his perfection and wholeness and Life. And we then request him to teach us about the new relationship he wants to have with us, to guide us and sustain us and grow us into the full glowing humanity he envisioned from the beginning. And that is just the beginning.

   It’s no use asking why it had to happen this way. Of course we would like to know why, but I have a feeling that that knowledge may be reserved for those who do the hard work of living through this process. There may be something about what we eventually come to understand as the ‘reason(s)’ it had to happen this way – something that would be incomprehensible to anyone who stands on the outside looking in. There are things about people that we can only comprehend by spending time with them. And there are things – like sex and skydiving – that we only ‘understand’ fully once we have done them.

   Grace and Peace.

   LikeLike

3. Michael…Driscoll 🙂

   Thank you for the opportunity to do this. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to participate in this thread I’ve been out of town and away from an internet connection.

   Just speaking for myself I don’t really see how it’s “Christianese” or would be difficult for any person to understand.

   It would be helpful to know exactly what would fall under the heading of “Christianese”

   -ryan

   LikeLike

4. I am reminded of the time I witnessed a couple of very sincere Christians in a very secular setting trying to convince a fellow to believe in Jesus – by expounding the finer points of the doctrine of the Trinity! The episode belonged on Failblog.org.
   Perhaps we are not supposed to communicate the gospel to 20-something seculars in two paragraphs. I laud the effort of the Untouchables. Good gospel in any church. But it seems a little too much like singing to the choir.
   On the Resurgence Blog in his “Two Kinds of Simple Church, Part One” (http://theresurgence.com/Dodson_TwoKindsofSimpleChurch_Part1) Jonathon Dodson talks about “simplicity [that] ignores the complexity of biblical theology, revelation embedded in history, and culture that alternately affirms and contradicts its historical-cultural context. This kind of simplicity is not what we seek.”
   Then in Part two he hints at the simplicity we are seeking: “Whatever you make of the incarnation, it communicates a single, simple reality. God is translatable, just as the Bible is translatable. God was touchable in Jesus… In many respects, he communicated the complexity of divinity in simplicity, so that even common fishermen could catch on.”
   We see Jesus himself doing this in John 4 with the Samaritan lady at Jacob’s well. He read her heart and spoke to what she knew about herself. Probably in less than two paragraphs.
   The point I make is that while we must strive for simple statements of the gospel, no matter how accurate the simple statement you offer if you haven’t read the sinner’s heart and spoken to that very current existential issue you’ve struck out before getting to the plate.
   And it is just simply so that while a thousand 20-somethings’ heads may be captivated by group-think focused on sex, success, Twitter and Facebook, not two of their hearts will be on the page at the same time.
   “Come Holy Spirit, we need thee, come sweet Spirit I pray…”
   Jesus incarnate in his Spirit-empowered church touching people in a tangible way with the gospel requires less than two paragraphs to hit a homerun. It requires that you and I get close enough to seculars – who by the way, like the Samaritan woman are not unspiritual even if irreligious – to touch them in an intimate enough way to know their hearts. Speak to that and the secular 20-something will invite you into an ongoing conversation and you may eventually fill their heads with tons of good solid theology. But the handful of words that opens the door of the heart will never be the same few words again. Formulas belong in laboratories not in life.
   Then again, I am just a bit prejudiced toward a Pentecostal perspective.
   Good job. Great discussion.

   LikeLike

5. I really enjoyed reading these. Thank you everyone.
   I especially like any paragraph with Jesus at the centre of it and what He did for us and why.

   The secular world can feel a happy, positive & purposeful place to be. The sinful worthlessness of my life without God wasn’t something some one *else* could have told me. I wouldn’t have listened.

   After 2 years in an evangelical fellowship I have still to reconcile my BSc and PhD with teaching on Genesis. I am comfortable being a work-in-progress. But if Genesis had been part of my initial re-introduction to the Gospel, I wouldn’t have listened.

   Different voices and approaches are essential and all have value. For *me*, what seemed most important at the time was to hear that Jesus was recognised as a real and historical figure by sensible people and to register that he had actually died for me. That was impossible to ignore.

   LikeLike

6. I don’t know if Bruce will answer, but I have to second what he said: “Huh?” and “Maybe you could give this to the Liturgical Gangstas” as I found most of these answers … erm … I’m trying to stay tactful so I’d best not say anything more.

   Take care & God bless
   Anne / WF

   LikeLike

7. Thanks for doing this guys. I just spent 3 weeks with my people on wednesday night discussing “What is the gospel?” At the end the homework assignment was to write out a definition that was easy to remember and could be shared with someone in 20 seconds. The idea was that this was your one and only shot. It needed to capture the essence of the gospel, as well as try and engage in further conversation. It was well worth the time and effort we took.

   LikeLike

8. Hear! Hear!

   I was at a Relay for Life event about a year ago where they were trying to hold a rally for a cure for cancer. In itself a good thing.

   But they had this weird quasi Easter celebration. The theme was “we’re staying up all night waiting for the light of the Cure to dawn.” And they had a celebration where they put faces of people who had died of cancer up so we could see how much Hope there must be in the Cure.

   I wanted to go up front, grab the mike and tell them “Yes, hope for a cure. But even with a cure, these people remain in the grave. And even with a cure, cancer won’t get people, something else will. Death still wins. But the sunrise from on high has visited us. Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing Life.” But I didn’t think I’d say much before security tackled me, so I just paced around in the back praying Hail Mary’s and Jesus Prayers. (Hail Mary’s because as they lost their only hope, so she lost her only hope. But she has received hers back.)

   LikeLike

9. I hope this does not come accross wrong, but are we supposed to present the Gospel in a way that does not offend, picking and choosing those elements that are pleasing to each generation and discarding the rest (at least for a time)?

   Quick aside–I have a newborn in NICU at the moment (he’s out of the woods and progressing well, though), and I can’t keep up with the conversation as much as I would like. But I did want to come back to this one.

   I understand (I think) what you are saying about the offensiveness of the gospel, but if what we are preaching isn’t good news, then by definition it’s not gospel. The good news is that God, through Jesus, is setting everything right. (I’m with N.T. Wright on this point.) Since everything is being set right, it makes sense to me to focus on what my audience already knows is wrong. Too often what happens is we’ve only practiced telling one kind of good news (forgiveness of sins) and we wind up first having to convince people that they are guilty before they are set up to hear the facet of the good news that we know how to tell.

   Jesus is able to begin at different starting points. For many, it’s healing. For others, it’s relationship. His first point in the Sermon on the Mount is “All of you, just as you are, hungry, poor and oppressed, are blessed by God.” That’s good news!

   The gospel is huge! God is renewing heaven and earth! With so much that is wonderful to tell, I don’t see the point of starting with the facet of the good news that is most likely to alienate my audience from the start. There’s no reason to do that unless “through the cross God offers forgiveness of your individual sins” is the primary gospel to which all else is secondary. I don’t think it is.

   LikeLike

10. Andy D,

    I’m not sure if I’m allowed to answer you as it’s kinda off topic. If you want an answer, follow my name to my blog and leave a question on the top post. I’ll answer it there. (Though my answer in short is “I don’t think we can know why God created. All we can know is the God who has created. And He saves us from death, and destroys our evil because he yearns for us. Jeremiah 31:21, Hebrews 12:2, Song of Songs 4:9, 6:4-5, etc.”)

    LikeLike

11. Thanks, Matthew Peterson and Michael Patton, for taking taking the time and effort to respond to my question that could come from a secular twenty-something. You both make valid, good points.

    LikeLike

12. Woofus:

    RE: “Does it bother anybody that the religious claims made here–besides being totally unsupported–have no clear connection to the problems they are supposed to address? How does believing in Jesus make life less of a bitch? What difference does going to church make? Because it’s easy to see God (if he exists) and religion as just part of the system. And Christians’ lives suck just as much as everybody else’s.”

    One of the things that brought me back to faith (at least a measure of it) is that attitude makes a difference. People with hope a) live happier lives, and have a sense of empowerment that is necessary to overcome or thrive in adversity. I give you, for example, the African-American spiritual–expressions of full joy and abundant life from the worst conditions I could imagine. The ability to hope and trust in Christ brought about the ability to sing and live. Even those who had no hope of escape knew moments of freedom and joy that they might otherwise never had known. And eventually, faithful Christians (and other righteous people) started the abolition and Civil Rights movements.

    I can’t always explain why, but faith is not tangential. The narrative and meaning it provides pervades and changes everything. I’ve been a Christian and I’ve been an atheist, and now I have a little faith if God. My life sucked way worse as an atheist than it does now.

    LikeLike

13. bruce:

    Could you be more specific about what you find inadequate, given the question?

    ms

    LikeLike

14. All I can say is, “huh?” How ’bout the The Liturgical Gangstas getting a shot at this one. I think they might put a little more meat on the bones.

    LikeLike

15. Mark, exactly!

    LikeLike

16. “Is there a word for bad news? Like ‘bospel’ or something?” …

    I hope you’re a Tolkien fan, ’cause he seemed to have gone out of his way to research the answer to that one. Or as he had Grima say to Gandalf: “Lathspell I name you, Ill-news. And ill news is an ill guest they say.”

    He worked for a dictionary company researching word origins at one point in his life …

    Take care & God bless
    Anne / WF

    LikeLike

17. Mark Nikirk:
    “Its hard but didn’t someone say that if you can’t explain something in simple terms, you probably don’t understand it?”

    I think C. S. Lewis talked about something like that. But simple terms and short are often quite different. In C. S. Lewis’s discussion, he specifically talked about the fact that to explain things in simple terms, you often have to make things a lot longer than they would be otherwise, because you can’t use a lot of technical/insider vocabulary that acts as shorthand for complex concepts, so you need to use longer phrases and whole sentences to explain what one technical word might capture.

    LikeLike

18. Micheal Patton,

    “Really, the entire Christian message is the Gospel, but there are certain elements that are essential to what Paul calls issues of “first importance.”

    I’ve been listening to your Theology program on podcast for a bit now. This is what you’ve been referring to as the circle of essentials. Outside that is the circle of orthodoxy, and beyond that is non-essentials. Have I got this right?

    Pomo,

    “I think perhaps we did a disservice 😛 trying to compress into two paragraphs”

    Its hard but didn’t someone say that if you can’t explain something in simple terms, you probably don’t understand it? Maybe that doesn’t apply to things that are intrinsically supernatural, though. Been enjoying your comments.

    Mark Nikirk

    LikeLike

19. Gotcha’. Thanks for facilitating these conversations.

    LikeLike

20. I think the evangelicals were supposed to have historic unity on much of the Gospel. I wanted to see if it would show up. I know that there are historic divisions among the Gangstas, and I really don’t want to revisit those directly. Plus my wife is entering the RCC in a month and I don’t want to lose whatever serenity I’ve achieved recently.

    But you’ll like the question they are working on.

    ms

    LikeLike

21. Imonk,

    I’d like to see you ask this same question of the Liturgical Gangsta’s. I would be particularly interested in Fr. Ernesto’s response (sorry to refer to you in the 3rd person, Fr. I think you’re awesome) as I assume he would not be operating within an Augustinian anthropology. That would totally shake things up.

    LikeLike

22. I appreciate the untouchables trying to explain the gospel. Matt Edwards mentioned he was doing an article here, and I told him his paragraph should look like this…

    “Hi, My name is…let’s do lunch or coffee or something and have a conversation.”

    But all in all, they did great. One thing I would like to know from all of you scholars…if the good news is translated from “gospel,” is there a word for bad news? Like “bospel” or something?

    LikeLike

23. Please take the atheist-Christian debate off this thread. Thank you.

    LikeLike

24. And yes, in a broader since, original sin is part of the Gospel, but so is predestination, sanctification, and our understanding of the new nature. Really, the entire Christian message is the Gospel, but there are certian elements that are essential to what Paul calls issues of “first importance.” This is what we tried to deal with in our two paragraphs.

    LikeLike

25. I am sure that you can deny the Evangelical version of original sin and still be saved. Really, all one has to do is recognize that they are a sinner (personal sin) and ask God for mercy through his Son.

    But you are going to have a lot of trouble if you reject original sin (infection, imputation, or otherwise). You would not even be able to begin to deal with the problem of natural evil and universal mortality.

    LikeLike

26. I think perhaps we did a diservice 😛 trying to compress into two paragraphs.

    It is certainly more about godspeak. If it was just about language then we could change sin to ‘stress’ and everyone would understand what we mean, but in reality language of ‘Christenese’ is only part of the issue.

    Speaking to another colleague in a different city we both agreed the responses could be better, but rather than criticize we should try our kick at the can yea?!

    My sense is that language is dependent on who you’re talking with, everyone is unique so you provide responses based on your audience. (imonk: yes i DO believe communicating the gospel in a language people can understand is crucial).

    Exceptional leaders will be capable to identify the unique context of each person they deal with (from listening extensively first I surmise.)

    What your church is doing to connect with the never churched, (probably parents never churched), generation must exceed beyond program or strategy. My sense is it’s stuck in a 4-7 year model of relationship….actually, models and relationships shouldn’t be used in the same sentence.

    There is no two paragraph or single sinner’s prayer that encompasses the new ‘blue jeans’ method of communicating the gospel.

    What’s interesting with the whole exercise is that everyone had unique ways to speak to their audience, but we need to break down audience and change that into friends.

    Somewhere in that relationship journey the gospel will come up, some sooner rather than later.

    Admittedly, being from Canada, in a big city and not a small town, we have to literally rewrite what it means to communicate the gospel message because all bets are off, everything we used to take for granted (language, stories, choices) is lost.

    I suppose we’re missionaries in our own cities translating the gospel message in a way people can understand using the community that’s explicitly pointed towards God’s reign on earth while simultaneously looking very little like any church that’s been around in the past 40 years.

    LikeLike

27. @C Michael,
    But there is already so much picking and choosing from the Bible. Would you condone stoning people on the Sabbath? The Bible does. In fact you can justify a whole lot of disgusting acts based on the Bible.

    @Rev McCain. What proof do you have other then a book that this man even exists? I’m sure you feel him in your heart, and that’s great for you. But I feel strongly in my heart that he is not there.

    @Matthew Peterson. Why then did he even bother creating us? Strictly so he can suffer? Did he not know he was going to suffer from us?

    LikeLike

28. Sorry Michael, I was referring to my own short-short Gospel on the resurrection, not the Untouchable version.

    I’ll stand by “repent!”. 🙂

    LikeLike

29. Or maybe I misunderstood your question:

    “I deny original sin, am I still saved.”

    To that, I’d reply:

    I don’t like talking about living people being “saved.” Perhaps living people are indeed saved, or perhaps salvation is the resurrection of the Body. But either way–who shall be resurrected, and who has been saved–is the secret council of God. I don’t have access to it. Be baptized, receive the Body of Christ. Be washed in His blood. Trust Christ.

    Shall Christ save you, even if you don’t change your belief before you die? I have no idea what this means. Christ is still saving you, but I can’t understand Christ, or put Him into a box. He is all and in all. But be joined to His Body–for she is His fullness–and receive His Body and Blood. Shall He resurrect you even if you aren’t baptized and even if you don’t eat the Sacrament? I don’t know. It would be wrong to presume He would, but it would be wrong for me to presume He wouldn’t.

    As to what original sin is: There’s a whole lot of technicalities that I can’t understand. They may be true. This much I know: Genesis says that Seth was in the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3). But Adam–like all of us–tended to sin as water flows down hill. So so did Seth. God of course made Seth righteous, but Seth was born with at least as slight tendency to sin. Whereas Adam had not been created with a tendency to sin, and had Adam not fallen, his children would not have had that tendency to sin. Is this just a myth? Perhaps, but I think it contains an important truth. If we had not been fallen, our children would not tend to sin. But we are fallen, and our children are in our image. So they tend to sin. There may be important issues beyond that, but I can’t make heads or tails of them.

    LikeLike

30. JoanieD

    I’m not sure if that is addressed to me. If it is, I’d say:

    Perhaps you’re right. I don’t know. There’s concepts in all that that I don’t really understand. Calvinists mean “original sin” one way, Lutherans another Catholics yet another and Orthodox deny it entirely in favor of something slightly different. And I don’t think that I could even explain the differences between the views, let alone argue for one of them.

    What I do know is that even infants die. Perhaps this is wrong, perhaps this is right, but it is true. At least in this much Adam’s sin affects them. Their death too must die. Their death too must be united to Christ’s death and resurrection that their death may not be death but life. Perhaps Christ will raise up all infants, I don’t know. But I don’t want to presume on Him. I do know “as many of you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” So baptize the infant in the name of the Father and the Son and the Spirit, that He too may be seated at the Right Hand of the Father, and (if possible) feed him on the Body and Blood of Christ–for we are what we eat, and here, he tastes the fountain of immortality.

    Likewise, you [to the secular interlocutor] be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and thus enter into the garden and eat from the Tree of Life. Eat the Body and Blood of Christ. Receive immortality.

    Christ can figure out what “original sin” means.

    LikeLike

31. I just want the Untouchables to know that I was taking notes and am planning to plagirize from each one of you. Let’s see, a tablespoon of Ryan, two teaspoons of Darrell, a smidgen of . . .

    LikeLike

32. >Jesus died on a Roman cross for our sin, and three days later He rose from the dead.- Matt Edwards

    >Then Jesus rose back to life and proved himself to be the Son of God. His resurrection was a real historical event witnessed by hundreds of 1st century people. -Tony Kummer

    >was then raised from the dead three days later. -Ryan Couch

    Uh……are we reading these things before we comment?

    LikeLike

33. Matthew, true. Technically, that is just “grace” (which is a big part of all of God’s great Good News).

    Given enough space, I’d want to include the nature of God (the trinity, attributes of God, creation, etc.).

    Plus, any Gospel presentation should definitely include the resurrection (our hope).

    There should also be a call to repent. None of the responders use that word. Maybe for fear of “God talk”? It is a simple word, that can be expanded on if there is any confusion.

    LikeLike

34. nedbrek,

    Technically speaking, that isn’t the gospel. The gospel is the good news. We may have to hear bad news before we can understand the good, but the gospel itself isn’t the bad stuff. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” That’s the gospel.

    LikeLike

35. And what would you say to the “secular twenty-something” who says, “OK, I can believe that God was born as a human being to show us what his love was like and that by becoming human, humans now had the capacity to become united with God and able to live out God’s will. Love overcame all evil and death as we saw by Jesus being resurrected. BUT…I don’t understand this concept of “original sin” in the sense of Adam and Eve being the first two humans who were created and then who chose to disobey God. I think that Adam and Eve are allegorical and that we ALL choose to disobey God and then we all need the grace that Jesus brings us. Am I still saved if I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were two real people with one of them made out of the rib of the other?”

    LikeLike

36. iMonk,

    Maybe “God-speak” wasn’t the right term. I meant “I think his point was that there’s too much Christian jargon that the unbeliever wouldn’t understand.”

    Andy,

    For what it’s worth, I’m a Christian, and I find discussion of “God demanding worship” repellant. And I’m not sure that I have any trouble putting human intentions on God. He is human.

    I do think there is perhaps something to the notion of God demanding our worship, but to understand it, we must remember that God has taken us as His bride, and yet we keep sleeping with trailer trash. He’s Hoseah, and we’re His prostitute wife.

    That said, even there I don’t think that God “needs to be appeased.” Sin kills. “And when sin was full grown it gave birth to death.” The Cross is God pouring Himself out for us that dying we might life. The Gospel, in one sentence, is: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.”

    LikeLike

37. Andy D, if my hope for the life to come was based on a book, I would join you in choosing to rot for all eternity.

    Fortunately, is hope in a person, not a book.

    I pray you too may come to know the peace that goes beyond what humans can possibly imagine that comes when you know Him. He loves you and welcomes you.

    LikeLike

38. Andy,

    You said, “If everyone here presented their view of the gospel to me personally, I would have been offended by everyone except for Kirk.”

    I hope this does not come accross wrong, but are we supposed to present the Gospel in a way that does not offend, picking and choosing those elements that are pleasing to each generation and discarding the rest (at least for a time)?

    What happened to Paul’s belief that the Gospel is an offence?

    Certianly I don’t want to make it any more offensive and it already is, but to say that original sin is offensive so leave it out seems to be a bit of a compromise to me.

    LikeLike

39. I am surprised no one mentioned Hell in their Gospel presentation (I see “wrath” and “final justice”…

    Andy, I think you are putting human intentions on God. For a human to desire himself to be worshiped is narcissistic, but for a perfect and beautiful God – it is only natural.

    Instead of the worship that God is due; we give Him disobedience, pain and grief. Instead of the punishment (Hell) we are due – He gave us Jesus.

    That is the Gospel 🙂

    LikeLike

40. Thanks for this Michael. This is exactly the question I’m been trying to formulate an answer for in my own mind lately. I found helpful stuff in the answers of every one of them.

    LikeLike

41. Michael, this is not for pubication.

    Coming back this morning, I see how dreadfully long my comment is. Feel free to delete. If you want to put some of it up, you can cut everything after “jumping-off points for further conversation”.

    Thanks for your patience.
    Dana

    LikeLike

42. Thanks for the thoughts, Andy D.

    LikeLike

43. As a secular in his twenties I’d like to give you guys some perspective on your methods of spreading the gospel. If everyone here presented their view of the gospel to me personally, I would have been offended by everyone except for Kirk.

    I will not accept a God who made me strictly to worship him. That is a jealous, narcissistic God who I refuse to believe in.

    I am purely disgusted at the story of original sin. Before original sin humans were ignorant fools. They did not know labor, love, intelligence, everything that makes us human. Furthermore if God didn’t know that we would fall is he omnipotent. If he did know why bother creating us in the first place?

    I try to live a good life. I give much of my salary to charity. I do not crave material goods. I get pleasures from simple things like reading books from the library. I live with the idea that I should leave the world better then when I got here. I learned much of these things from my grandmother who is also a secularist. If she is doomed to hell because she didn’t accept a God whose only proof is a shoddily put together book that is thousands of years old, then I want to rot with her.

    LikeLike

44. I am personally glad that none of the comments seemed “innovative”, because often times another word for “innovative” is “heresy”. That being said, I think a number of the comments regarding “christianese” is a very fair complaint in regards to most gospel presentations. That being said, I wonder if someone could come to faith merely by reading the bible for itself, which certainly doesn’t come across as innovative in this age? (Isaiah 55:11) While I am all for innovation and presenting the gospel clearly (Colossians 4:4), I do think there can be a danger in placing so much emphasis on one’s ability to communicate the gospel with so much innovation or trendiness, that we end up forgetting that maybe the holy spirit has a little to do with someone’s conversion. I probably took issue with a number of Woofus comments (which imonk addressed well), but the whole thing about our presentations being “totally unsupported” seems a little ridiculous when constrained by a two paragraph format. Furthermore, in our culture where “authenticity” is such a high value, the support for our gospel is shown forth not by an additional paragraph or two (unless if you might be talking to a true modernist), but simply by living it out John 13:35 style. Peace out.

    LikeLike

45. And, yeah, the “two paragraphs” constraint was a challenge. All I felt I could do is a preliminary gloss pointing toward a fuller answer. But it’s an interesting exercise to try to distill a message into a package that brief.

    I think it would be easier if we were starting with a blank slate, but when I speak with secular folks I typically hear a lot of frustration with the church. More and more often, I’m not starting out at zero. I’m at -5 with a skeptical eye cast my way. Standard evango-talk isn’t cutting it.

    LikeLike

46. I did not really read anything, precisely, about what the Gospel of Christ is in the Church of Christ pastor’s comments.

    In my view, the gospel is that God is restoring the world and we are invited and empowered to participate. Because the bad news of sin is manifested in a variety of ways, the good news of restoration will be manifest in a variety of ways as well. I agree with much of the current thinking that says a too-narrow definition on penal substitutionary atonement for individual people actually served to distort our focus from the fullness of the gospel. My general tendency is to try to identify what kind of sin the people I am speaking to is most impacted by (or most troubled by) and show that Jesus answers that. It’s not always going to look like a tradition gospel presentation. Although forgiveness of my own sins is certainly part of God’s restoration project, it’s not the whole story, and I don’t think most secular folks are desperately crying out for someone to forgive them. It’s not the need they feel most acutely.

    LikeLike

47. Imonk,
    have you seen these:
    
    

    James doesn’t use “god-speak”. I think he does an exceptionally good job of describing the good news. It’s not exhaustive, but there are lots of jumping-off points for further conversation.

    The question that sent me on my odyssey 11 years ago now was precisely: What is the Gospel? I decided to find out what Jesus said the Gospel is; I figure he should know, and if there ended up being a discrepancy between Jesus and Paul, it was Paul who needed to be interpreted through Jesus, not the other way around. I read through the Gospels again, and I was shocked. Everywhere in the Synoptics, Jesus said that the “good news” was about the Kingdom of God (“Heaven” in Matt). Luke 4: Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing, the scripture that talks about him who brings good news, announcing peace and proclaiming Good News (the Isaiah passage uses the same word twice) that Our God Reigns. Jesus seems to be saying that the Reign/Kingdom of God is arriving with him.

    John Wimber is the only Protestant pastor I ever heard who actually tried to deal with Jesus’ words about the Kingdom of God. He did not have the training -nor, alas, the time- to expand on what the Kingdom meant beyond it being somehow connected with Jesus’ miracles. But at the opportune moment I found Willard’s “Divine Conspiracy” and NT Wright. Both of them elucidate quite well what “Kingdom of God” would have meant to Jesus’ hearers. It had to do with how the 1st century Jews understood the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham to bless the whole world through A’s offspring. And that is where we need to start, before we determine what we are to be proclaiming as “the gospel”.

    Paul doesn’t use the word “Kingdom”, but every time he names Jesus as Lord, he is saying “our God reigns”. And this is connected what Wright says is Paul’s summation of the Good News in Rom 1:3-4: it is the good news about: God’s Son, Jesus our Lord (not the Roman emperor), who was descended from David (explicitly Jewish, and a royal family older than Rome) and declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness By The Resurrection From The Dead (the proof that Jesus is more powerful than the emperor, the current “son of God”; and that Jesus has defeated death, which no emperor can do; and that Jesus is already reigning). Paul is not at cross-purposes with Jesus; he’s just using different vocabulary to express the same thing to people in the wider Roman Empire.

    The breaking into history of the Kingdom had to do with the whole “Christ event”: Jesus’ incarnation, life/teaching, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and sending the Spirit. Now nothing stands in the way of humans being united with/under God the Lord, and with one another, so that God’s purposes for the healing of each person and the restoration of all creation will be carried forward: the Original Blessing through Abraham. James’ presentation links Jesus with this very big picture. Kirk’s and Lindsay’s paragraphs above come closest to this.

    Yes, God dealt with sin:
    he forgave it.
    He also dealt with death, which sin feeds: (Heb 2:14-15.)
    by the Cross and Resurrection, Jesus trampled down death by death.
    God is all about life. The news has to be *Good* news about a God who is good and gives life.

    I don’t believe God is mad at us, that He demands perfection, that Jesus’ purpose was only to live up to that perfection, that we can assume that because someone is not a Christian that that person has ignored God, that God punished Jesus, that the Father separated Himself from Jesus on the cross, that Adam’s sin/guilt passed to us (his legacy to us was death, Rom 5.12), that God’s wrath needs to be assuaged- or that Romans is clear and concise! Yes, it’s possible to interpret scripture that way, and that interpretation worked for me for 20 years- and then it fell apart. God’s story is so much bigger. I’m grateful to have found Willard, and especially Wright, who gave me 1) a story that is big enough to be worthy of the Trinitarian Godhead, 2) a truly good God, and 3) a Jesus I can worship as true God and true Man. That is where the Gospel must lead.

    Dana

    LikeLike

48. K.W. Leslie

    Was the purpose of the first post to present how these folks really preach to twenty-somethings, or for these folks to establish their Evangelical credentials?
    Thanks for bringing this up. I was actually very conscious of the “Evangelical credentials” aspect. I even showed my response to another pastor on staff at my church and asked, “Am I going to get in trouble for what I didn’t say?”

    And the more I wondered how often some of these fellas really interact with unchurched, pagan twenty-somethings… who, in my experience, are a lot more skeptical than I am.
    I confess I had more exposure to unchurched twenty-somethings four years ago when I was a bartender in Dallas than now that I am a preacher in Gig Harbor. But before January 2009 I was a twenty-something. “Unchurched, pagan twenty-something” means different things in different places. Certainly they look different in downtown Dallas than in suburban Tacoma. The culture is not monolithic.

    LikeLike

49. iMonk,
    Thanks for the assignment.

    I was surprised at how difficult it was to do in two paragraphs. I am certain you are an excellent teaching in your real world too!

    LikeLike

50. K.W. Leslie,

    You raise a interesting question if “we eliminate all” Christian vocabulary is it really talking about God. Its late and I may write more later if you or anyone’s interested. I believe the short answer is no. It is important to remember that Christian theology is not Christianese. Some ideas are heavy ideas that have been wrongly translated into a few Christianese words or phrases. Take the word Trinity it is a a Christianese word. Trinity is a good (and more or less accurate) explanation of the relationship of the persons of God but it is not as full as the ideas packed into the Christian word Godhead. It may be helpful but it is not the full complete concept. Perhaps we need during evangelism to use more milk and later clarify with the meat but it depends on each person. The main thing must be are we faithfully preaching God in Spirit and Truth and relying on God to move in this persons life as he wills?

    LikeLike

51. Thanks imonk,

    I’m with you here: “the message of the Kingdom isn’t feeding crowds in Galilee or overturning thrones in Jerusalem. It’s ruling the world as the exalted, resurrected, crucified Lord and God.”

    Yes, I read that as the same gospel Jesus was preaching “The reign of God is here, repent”.

    “Jesus is Lord – of my life, and of all. I’m a son in His Kingdom.” – that’s good news to me 🙂

    I see the gospel according to Jesus fitting well with the gospel according to Paul. I just don’t get why it is often overlooked.

    thanks,
    Jonathan

    LikeLike

52. Jonathan,

    Jesus meant the same thing, but the cross/rez were not in view until Mark 8. The disciples did not see the Kingdom as a “cross centered” Kingdom until the rez and after.

    When Jesus made that announcement, he was fulfilling messianic expectation the “standard way:” God is here, and the Kingdom of God is arriving. He then made it progressively clear that the actual nature of the Kingdom couldn’t be seen until the cross rez.

    Note that in Mark 8 when Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, he tells them to tell no one. Why? Because the message of the Kingdom isn’t feeding crowds in Galilee or overturning thrones in Jerusalem. It’s ruling the world as the exalted, resurrected, crucified Lord and God.

    peace

    ms

    LikeLike

53. Thanks C Michael Patton for your response. I think this helps clarify why the good news that Jesus came preaching is often overlooked. The progressive revelation does make sense.

    I’m just struggling with trying to place more of a focus on the messages Jesus came preaching.

    It also seems a bit dangerous to believe that Paul’s teachings regarding salvation are superior to Christ’s own words. Jesus declared a number of people ‘saved’ before His work on the cross was fulfilled. Sometimes based on faith, other times based on actions (faith in action). I would hope Pauls words regarding salvation would not contradict but complement Jesus’ teachings. As for the meaning of ‘gospel’. I don’t see a problem with including “The reign of God is here, repent”. Claiming that God is Lord fits well with the the entire Scriptures.

    A question to consider, did Jesus mean the same thing when he said ‘good news’ in these two parts of Mark?

    Mark 1:15 (NIV)
    “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!”

    Mark 16:15-16 (NIV)
    “He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

    God bless!

    LikeLike

54. Woofus:

    >You know what would impress me? Helping the poor.

    So….I ask what is the Christian message a guy would present to a room of twenty-somethings, and your answer would be…”Let’s go help the poor.”

    That’s great. Now tell me that’s not just as valid when Scientologists, Mormons and Amway salesmen do it.

    I’m impressed by helping the poor too. It’s not the Gospel, but it’s a good thing.

    Your judgment that announcing the evangel is salesmanship is a problem you need to take up with the head of the company. You can find him in Matthew 28:18-20.

    peace

    ms

    LikeLike

55. The general trend here seems to be to begin by establishing common ground with the evangelee, for example with the fact that of suffering. (“The world is a messed-up place”; “There is something wrong with our world”; “Life’s a real bitch”; “power structures…harm and dehumanize”; “pain, depravity and alienation”) The transition from this to Jesus is better salesmanship than logic. In most cases, the second paragraph could be replaced with an encomium to Scientology, Amway, or the flat tax, and the patter would flow equally well.

    Young and Williams would begin by listening, but at some point would steer the conversation towards the unsupported claims on which their religion depends. It’s a bit like the issue of at what point in a relationship to bring up the issue of any fetishes one may have! Right away comes across as a bit creepy (see Kummer).

    Does it bother anybody that the religious claims made here–besides being totally unsupported–have no clear connection to the problems they are supposed to address? How does believing in Jesus make life less of a bitch? What difference does going to church make? Because it’s easy to see God (if he exists) and religion as just part of the system. And Christians’ lives suck just as much as everybody else’s.

    You know what would impress me? Helping the poor. Not just as a marketing thing–a “loss leader”–but as a major focus. A little more intellectual honesty (to the extent this is possible among evangelicals) would be welcome as well.

    I think the trouble lies with the “evangelical” concept itself. It basically assumes a sales model of religion–missionaries going out and persuading people, etc. And it works–at least for a time. Emotional appeals do attract followers. Again, say hi to your colleagues from Scientology and Amway.

    LikeLike

56. First: I liked all the answers. Particularly Matt Edwards’s parable of the Guerilla Gardener.

    But: Was the purpose of the first post to present how these folks really preach to twenty-somethings, or for these folks to establish their Evangelical credentials?

    See, the longer the answers got, and the more Christianese was embedded in the answer, the less they sounded like a conversation with a twenty-something, and the more they sounded like a self-introduction to Michael Spencer’s audience. And the more I wondered how often some of these fellas really interact with unchurched, pagan twenty-somethings… who, in my experience, are a lot more skeptical than I am.

    I think we Christians regularly forget that communication is more important than being comprehensively orthodox. If I wrote two paragraphs that actually speak to the needs of the lost, concisely, in language they understand, they’ll give me two more paragraphs. If my two paragraphs sound like sermons, they’ll tune me out halfway through the first one, and God help me if my point is in the second one.

    Michael: I know quite a few Christians who attempt to avoid Christianese, but not necessarily God-speak. The difference is basically the words we can substitute and the words we can’t.

    We have to use certain Christian vocabulary words, like Messiah and miracle, and we need to define them as we go, and not assume people know what we’re talking about. At the same time, we have to remember that it’s not the word, but its meaning, that carries the message—and sometimes it saves time to use a word with a familiar meaning (the definition, or a familiar synonym) rather than the unfamiliar word. “Ransom-payer” doesn’t need the defining “redeemer” does.

    The more often we insist on using words that pagans don’t know, the more likely it is that we don’t know how to define them. I get into trouble whenever I use “life-force” instead of “soul,” despite “life-force” being the proper definition of nefesh and psiche. People love that word “soul,” but don’t entirely know what it means, and regularly confuse it with spirit or joie de vivre—and prefer it untranslated, the better to hide their shaky understanding.

    Anyway, I have been eliminating any superfluous vocabulary from my evangelism, and I know a few others who do likewise, but I still can’t avoid using many Christian vocabulary words. I wonder whether anyone who eliminates all of them is really talking about God anymore.

    LikeLike

57. Pomo, you said: “Secondly, none of these responses were particularly innovative which was disappointing.”

    That was actually very encouraging to me as I look at the other lads’ responses. While I do believe that the Gospel can be contextualized, the substance remains the same. Two paragraphs is quite a small space to get to anything but the essence.

    Jonathan, (speaking for myself), I agree with iMonk very much. Christ’s Gospel was indeed unique in some sense being that it occurred before his death and resurrection. He did not give the Gospel in its fullness being such that he was living it and therefore living under what some would call the “Messianic Secret.” You could ask why we did not give the Gospel as Isaiah or Abraham knew it. As for myself, I believe very much in progressive revelation. This progression is intra-canonical meaning that there is a development in the understanding of the Gospel even within the New Testament itself. Just look how the Apostles (mis)understood it even in Acts chapter 1 (“Is it at this time you are restoring your kingdom?”).

    I believe that Paul is the primary person to look to for a clear and concise understanding of the Gospel. After all, he was the Apostle chosen to write 13 books of the NT. Romans it his best attempt to put the entire Gospel in one book. He did not even know the Romans, making it the most objective presentation of the Gospel that we have.

    Therefore, I think we are all justified and obligated to present the Gospel according to its canonical whole.

    Good job guys.

    LikeLike

58. The Good News to me:

    The Kingdom Of God Is Near.

    We live in a really messed up world. We mess up each other, we mess up our own lives, and we mess up our magnificent planet. Life can be painful and tragic and profoundly confusing.

    Yet the Kingdom of God is near.

    Jesus lived among us so that we could understand how close God’s Kingdom is. He was brutally crucified but he defeated death. Like the grain of wheat that is buried, he rose and became a great field of wheat so that the truth could never be hidden. God loves every single one of us but He wants so much more for us. He wants us to come nearer to Him, but we must be willing to honestly face the messes that we have made of our lives, because only then can we begin to understand how desperately we need His guidance. When we come closer he works a new creation in us, which we often call forgiveness, but I think is considerably more.

    His Spirit is close, but we must be willing to listen.

    LikeLike

59. IWTT

    Mark Driscoll has stirred some controversy in his sermons with his word choices. Most people would not say he ever “cussed.” He simply used some words that other preachers wouldn’t use, but I’ve listened to him for a couple of years and I think he does a great job with the Gospel. I don’t agree with all he’s about, but the accusation that he’s a “cusser” in the pulpit is an exaggeration in my opinion.

    Since the Bible talks about…

    Broken families.
    Suicidal feelings.
    Failure.
    Alienation.
    Rejection.
    Fear.
    Confusion.
    Grief.
    Worry.
    Addiction.
    Abuse….

    then I believe we can to, as long as they are ways to get to the Gospel.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “purpose driven style” ministry.

    peace

    ms

    LikeLike

60. iMonk,

    Thanks, a joke, ok.

    I know a little about Driscoll and have not read much on him. Is he the fellow that cuss’ alot in his sermons?

    Whether I come in a by way of a felt need, cultural issue, etc, we are going to talk about God, sin, Jesus, faith.

    Does this elude to Purpose Driven style ministry? … many of the words (adjectives) have been used in that type of style.

    LikeLike

61. imonk, thanks for the response. I agree with you that there is more to the story of Jesus than the ministry and miracles. In my process of trying to re-read the ‘gospels’ I’m amazed at how much of Jesus teachings often become secondary and overlooked.

    The term gospels is used in a variety of ways. Some call the whole Bible the ‘gospel’. Good News is even a translation of the whole bible. Gospel sometimes refers to four of the books. Then there are the definitions above.

    But I’m afraid we often overlook the way Jesus used the term. That was my point here… I’m not disagreeing that the rest is also good news.

    God bless!

    LikeLike

62. Since we’re speaking about God what actually does this mean?

    I talk to dozens of atheists and other religions about Jesus every day. Avoiding the central issues is, uh, irresponsible. Whether I come in a by way of a felt need, cultural issue, etc, we are going to talk about God, sin, Jesus, faith.

    I’d like an example of an effective Christian communicator that avoids “God speak.” Not one tauted as effective, but one who is evidentially effective.

    peace

    ms

    LikeLike

63. Michael,

    I think his point was that there’s too much “God-speak”.

    LikeLike

64. Pomo:

    What is your Biblical support for saying the Gospel should not be put in language people are familiar with?

    peace

    ms

    LikeLike

65. Firstly, hats off for the attempt, appreciate the dialogue you’ve created.

    Secondly, none of these responses were particularly innovative which was disappointing. Perhaps innovative is the wrong of word, but laden within each response was the same language that we assume people know but in reality they know little to nothing about. One line explanations don’t cut it, so perhaps, we can’t do it in two paragraphs alone :P.

    As a 20 something who deals with normal folks more than church folks, there are bits and pieces in each which are compelling, however, in themselves it’s the same old stuff.

    Yet, maybe that’s what we need, the same old stuff, just changes in expectations.

    perhaps we need to take the two paragraphs from any of these contributors, then apply it to their context, yet add 5-7 years per individual they deal with, and then we’ll have our convert for which we work so hard to count.

    LikeLike

66. Natus est nobis, Deus de Deo,
    lumen de lumine,
    quod erat in principio,
    Virgo verbo concipit,
    Virgo permansit,
    Virgo peperit regem omnium regnum.

    He is born for us, God of God,
    Light of light,
    What was in the beginning.
    The Virgin conceived through a word,
    She remains a virgin,
    The Virgin bore the king of all kings.

    Eine Magd gebar uns Gott

    A maid bore God for us.

    “Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.” “For as by man came death, by Man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive….The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit…And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly…Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    LikeLike

67. Jonathan:

    Given that Jesus starts out with a Kingdom message, the Gospels all make clear that the meaning of the Kingdom is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

    This is the preaching in Acts and in the Epistles. It is the clear message of Revelation.

    Mark 8 makes it clear that Jesus led the disciples to affirm him as Messiah and then turned Messianic (Kingdom) expectations upside down with the announcement of his death and resurrection.

    The idea that Jesus spent “a lot of time” discussing the Kingdom without reference to the cross is true, but if you take the Gospels as a whole, there is no question that the King is revealed in the Cross and Rez not in the ministry and the miracles.

    peace

    ms

    LikeLike

68. I’ve spent my life in evangelical circles, and I appreciate this dialog. I’m wondering why I don’t see anyone hear emphasizing what Jesus meant when he used the word gospel or good news. Jesus spent a lot of time preaching the good news of the kingdom of God, and this was done without any discussion of his death and resurrection.

    There are a number of references of Jesus talking about the good news, and the Kingdom of God (or Heaven). Mark 1:14-15 I think best describes what this good news or gospel message was that Jesus came to tell us.

    Mark 1:14-15 (YLT)
    “And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of the reign of God,and saying — `Fulfilled hath been the time, and the reign of God hath come nigh, reform ye, and believe in the good news.”

    God’s kingdom is here!

    The reign of God is here!

    Change your life, believe this message!

    LikeLike

69. >How did you get the pastor from Crook County on this? You know him? And why do you say he is a disciple of Mark Driscoll?

    It was a wee bit o’ humor. You have to know a bit of the controversy around Driscoll to get it.

    And he volunteered.

    LikeLike

70. It was interesting reading these various definitions of the Gospel. I did not really read anything, precisely, about what the Gospel of Christ is in the Church of Christ pastor’s comments.

    Also, just interesting to notice that the word “forgiveness” did not appear very often, in fact, only once, when it appeared in one of the Bible verses quotes. Interesting.

    Thanks for this window on various perspectives.

    LikeLike

71. Hey folks, this guy named Alan Adams has hit the nail on the head. Expect he has preached the Gospel as it should be taught.

    Let’s teach the sinner what Jesus would: Without me you can do nothing! OK, the Gospel is Christ Jeus came into the world to save sinners……In that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for our sins. Now explain that in simple terms and you have some very good news. Unless you do not know how to explain that Christ died for our sins before we were born.

    And that is Evangelisam as it should be. Stop the window dressing, playing to the galleries, and looking to get your name somewhere, someplace and often. Just love the lost and see what happens.

    LikeLike

72. Good job, gentlemen!

    LikeLike

73. Or, how about this.

    LikeLike

74. It strikes me now, after attempting to preach the Gospel for the last 50-plus years, that the Good News is really more about God and His Son and the Divine Drama, than about sinful us and the sinful others we’re supposed to convert.

    LikeLike

75. How did you get the pastor from Crook County on this? You know him? And why do you say he is a disciple of Mark Driscoll? I am just curious. I have been to Calvary in my town of Bend Oregon. I live 50 miles away from Crook County location.

    LikeLike

76. Remarkable answers. I actually feel good about evangelicalism. I think we’ll end the series right here. 🙂

    LikeLike