Friday, January 21, 2011

On the Gospel

This post presents a small break in the action, an interruption in a set of scheduled postings I've written over the past month or so. It has been a pretty prolific month here, as I'm sure any consistent reader has noticed. I'm usually a post-a-month kind of guy, and to be honest, it's hard for me to write much at all because of my work and teaching schedule. Grace in Practice provided a great deal of impetus to write a few posts on a favorite subject, and there are yet a couple posts written and in queue.

I expect my comments on the gospel itself to be relatively lengthy. They are inspired in part by a couple of recent blog posts by Scott at Theologica. He wrote a five-part series of blog posts entitled "What is the Gospel?" that summarize his position on the gospel. If I can summarize his summary, it is that the central theme of the gospel is the kingdom of God.

I am not very interested in polemics, although I recognize their value in discussion. I avoid engaging in them when writing blogs as a general rule, though I have done so occasionally. I make mention of Scott's writings because they are basically the inspiration of my own. I make no apologies for disagreeing with him in his basic premise, though I hope and pray that these are not received as an indictment of Scott as much as a positive reinforcement of what I believe the Scriptures say about the gospel.

I am not a scholar, or even a pretend scholar. I provide this kind of caveat on most blog postings, but here it is even more relevant, since we are treating the essential foundation of Christianity and the most important facts of history. I expect some scholars would agree with me, and others disagree. You are free, of course, to draw your own conclusions.


With these introductory comments aside, let me provide the ten-word summary of the gospel:

God revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Naturally, all formulations of the gospel are subject to clarification. This is why I hate ten-word summaries of anything. But I think this gives us a starting point to build on. The brief phrase "God revealed" speaks to how we know God, the relationship that we share. The final phrase, "person and work of Jesus Christ" comprehends not only the ultimate revelation of God in Christ but also his death, burial, and resurrection, the Old Old Story of our redemption. It does not treat the gospel as a Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free card we play in the Monopoly game of our existence.

With this summary in mind, I expect really to develop these thoughts primarily in two or three posts. In the first and (possibly) second, I'd like to develop the ideas behind the revelation of God. In the last posting, I'd like to look at the Old Testament gospel to see how it is fulfilled in the New.

6 comments:

  1. mem -

    First off, let me say I appreciate this statement: It does not treat the gospel as a Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free card we play in the Monopoly game of our existence.

    I think most Christians have move away from that kind of thinking. And I think you would also agree that the gospel is not simply an I-Get-To-Go-To-Heaven-When-I-Die card.

    I am not sure if you have read my 5-part series on 'what is the gospel', as it pretty much shares the complete thoughts of mine, as I can remember. So I might simply repeat myself in some sort or form.

    Your summary of the gospel was this: God revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

    While my posts and comments might have seem more closed to anything else, I don't have a problem with this. What God has done and revealed in Christ is gospel, that is, it is good news. I can even say it is THE good news.

    But, though I am sure you will, what I would ask is for you to interact with the gospel statements of Christ and the Gospels themselves in which we are told Christ came proclaiming the 'gospel of the kingdom'. Not the 'gospel of salvation' or the 'gospel of God's revelation in Christ'. It was simply the 'gospel of the kingdom'.

    Is this saying that the gospel, whatever it is, being 'of the kingdom' points out that it comes from the kingdom of God, is related to the kingdom of God, but not necessarily the good news about God's kingdom? Or is the good news centrally related to the reality that God reigns and His kingdom rule has come for His people, Israel, and all nations?

    Of course, I lean towards the latter statement. But I do ask that you please interact with those statements of Jesus (and statements connected with him that the Gospel writers record), since they are the capstone on the revelation of the gospel.

    Thanks my brother.
    Scott

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi, Scott.

    Thanks for the comment. There's plenty to digest here, and I hope further posts will aid the process.

    I knew that as formulated, you would agree with my summary of the gospel. My writing is really more intended to be affirmative (what I believe about the gospel), and I think as stated that any orthodox Christian would have a hard time disagreeing with the statement. That said, because it is so short, it lends itself to a lot of interpretation.

    I intended to write a post-script concerning the kingdom and how I think it fits in.

    I will say in preparation that I think emphasizing it from the outset is problematic because it really isn't good news to anyone who isn't a part of the kingdom. Certainly it is Bad News for anyone who does not accept the Messianic kingship—those who fail to "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry" (Ps 2). Paul's ministry was one of reconciliation, not imperialism; I'm not calling you an imperialist here, just saying that the kingdom rule of Christ is not always conciliatory.

    When evangelizing, then, it seems to me that we must first address the issue of how one is reconciled to a God who is revealed in creation and the law as a just judge rather than a suffering Savior. But I'll get to this in the third post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. mem -

    You said:
    I will say in preparation that I think emphasizing it from the outset is problematic because it really isn't good news to anyone who isn't a part of the kingdom. Certainly it is Bad News for anyone who does not accept the Messianic kingship—those who fail to "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry" (Ps 2).

    I think this statement is problematic because, for anyone who does not accept whatever we define as the good news, the result becomes bad news for them.

    If one defines the good news as reconciliation and forgiveness in Jesus Christ, and then another fails to accept that, the end result becomes bad news.

    The great thing is that the King of the universe, Jesus Christ, is one who still washes feet, liberates the oppressed, heals the broken hearted, etc. That is the King we are talking about. But His justice will come fully into the earth, and for those not recognising His lordship, it becomes bad news.

    Now, I don't doubt that the gospel of the kingdom is a very Jewish focus. That is why I recognise what happened with utilisation of different wordings in a lot of the NT (and the subsequent centuries). But it truly is good news, the good news, that Jesus Christ is reigning, because out of that reign flow all the blessings of the King and His kingdom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi, Scott.

    I'm developing this thought in the following posts, so I hope you'll stay tuned. It is true that those who don't accept the good news will find it bad news. I'll clarify this some in following posts and make a more special note of it in a post script to the series.

    I did read your posts, by the way, as well as some of Ladd's book that you recommended. I don't have regular access to the Internet at home, however, so my ability to read it online is relatively limited.

    ReplyDelete
  5. mem:

    I've not yet read your subsequent posts regarding the gospel but, since I'm pressed for time until the weekend, let me throw an idea or two into the mix.

    I've been studying the Gospel of John lately in preparation for teaching it tonight (having previously covered Mark and Matthew) and the following "definition" of the gospel comes to mind - thanks largely to the influence of Frank Thielman.

    The gospel, it seems to me, is "faith in Jesus the Messiah and Son of God as the provision for eternal life." Each of the critical words can be unpacked, of course, and the foregoing sentence is merely the shorthand version replete with theological jargon.

    The theme of the Bible, as I've stated elsewhere, is the Kingdom of God and it's re-establishment in the universe. The gospel is a necessary but not sufficient component of the message of the Kingdom.

    To those such as Scott who argue that such a gospel is not good news to the lost, it should be remembered that the gospel has come to all men under condemnation. The bad news has always been with us - well, since the Fall - and the gospel is truly good news whether people believe it or not. A cure for an eternally fatal condition is good news regardless of how many/if any avail themselves of what has been graciously provided.

    Or at least that's how it looks to me today. But who knows about tomorrow?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi, DM. Thanks for the comments. I hope to deal with some of the issues related to the kingdom vis-a-vis the gospel in a later post, and probably as a postscript.

    I will say that I think God's dominion is generally self-evident. This at least is something I see in Romans. As far as I can see, the kingdom is something to resist apart from the saving work of Christ—by itself not good news at all.

    In any case, hopefully I can pump out posts quickly enough to keep pace with the comments and thoughts.

    ReplyDelete