May I ask what I suspect many readers are thinking? Are you saying that Tim Keller has a) lost the gospel, b) is in danger of obscuring the gospel, c) is in danger of losing focus on the true mission of the church, d) all of the above, or e) none of the above?

I have benefited immensely from both your ministry and his, so please don't think I'm trying to take sides or pit you against the other, but I'd just like to get things clear here. Are you just speaking out against Wright and some Liberal, postmillennial, and/or Emergent views of the kingdom, or are you trying to prod a few cohorts who may, to you, seem fuzzy here?

I appreciate your attempt to be careful and nuanced in your post. I hear you saying that it's not that mercy ministry is wrong, but it's not the gospel, and it's not the mission. I agree completely. However, more often than not, I see this argument used to justify no mercy ministry at all, because it is not the focus, priority, primary concern, etc.

I hear your distinction between individual responsibility and that of the church, but I would think that that leaves us with churches focused on evangelism and "personal" holiness, while compassionate service is left to parachurch groups. I'd rather see a measure of congregation-based service as a corporate witness under deacon management and elder oversight rather than say that it's not for the church.

I believe we could take a significant step forward by seeing mercy ministry not simply as good works that smooth the way for the gospel, but that are foretastes of the kingdom (though not establishing it in any way) that make the gospel more attractive because it demonstrates that Christians really believe in a king and a coming kingdom, and we don't just mouth the words, "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." In fact, we're willing to live, love, and serve sacrificially here and now in a way that our hearts, hands, and feet are in the same place. Yes, the kingdom is future in its fullness, but those who recognize Christ as king now will live under his kingship now, even though his reign is not fully present in our earthly experience.

I think an awareness of the kingdom is very much part of the gospel as presented in the Scriptures. Though references to the kingdom are rarer in Acts than in the Gospels, they are there, and when you note how often the apostles are presenting, proclaiming, and arguing for Jesus as "the Christ," you see that this is just as strong a theme in Acts and beyond. To be “the Christ” is to be Messiah, the coming king and judge of the nations who will restore creation as the perfect realm for the covenant people of God.

Thus, a person being evangelized should know about Jesus as the coming king who will judge all men, just as Paul preached in Athens. What should the response be to this message? The same response when John the Baptist preached it, when Jesus preached it, and when Peter preached it: Repent and cast yourself on the mercy of the king. The difference from Pentecost on was that the cross had been revealed to be the means by which rebels could be forgiven and reconciled to the king. So, by all means, let us preach forgiveness and reconciliation by the penal substitionary death of Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice. We must proclaim of the objective work of Christ that demands a subjective response of repentance and faith.

All I'm arguing for is that we see how living in righteousness and justice now is in anticipation of the perfect reign of Christ, not a pathetic attempt to bring in the kingdom when only Christ can do so. It need not be in competition with evangelism when evangelism is understood as gaining citizens for the kingdom, and mercy ministry is living now in a way that is consistent with our message. We will be frustrated in our attempts to live rightly and justly in this world, but that is not a reason not to abandon this work. We suffer for doing good (not just doing evangelism) in the name of Christ, because the kingdom is not yet here in its fullness, because the king is not yet here, because sin has yet to be eradicated.

Must... stop... now...

It's late...

That last line should read:
"...the king is not yet here, and thus sin has yet to be eradicated."

As originally written, it sounds like I'm saying we must eradicate sin, and then Christ will come. I mean just the opposite.

I agree with Bruce's comments and hopefully Mark will clarify.

Most of these types of discussions I have found directly decrease evangelism, missions, and prayer in the life of the church.

The original post should be entitled, "The Gospel Accoring to Mark (Dever."

Nobody takes the gospel to be poverty/injustice issues... Mark, you're a pastor. Please stop trying to critique academics that you simply don't understand, as shown by your writing... what's funny, is that when scholars are asked about your nuances raised against them, they constantly come back with, "he's missed the point" or "he hasn't read X,Y,Z"... buddy, you're speaking as a pastor... Read Piper's book, but change the title to fit you, so that it reads "Brothers, we are not Scholars."

Mark- find a scholar that you agree with, and ask them about how they think about these issues... you'll do yourself and many, many others much good... maybe even just have a conversation with those you disagree with, rather than trying go constantly poke holes behind the door.

Is it not possible to preach the gospel while being in compassionate service? Wasn't Christ often filled with compassion? I agree our service should never replace the gospel but why cant our service be a great mean to help get the gospel out?

Last week Tom Wright answered Mark's very objection in an interview On Mark Dever’s critique of Wright’s notion of a “public gospel”

http://trevinwax.com/2008/04/24/trevin-wax-interview-with-nt-wright-on-surprised-by-hope/#section3

N.T. Wright: “The gospel is public truth” is an idea I’ve found in many writings, particularly Lesslie Newbigin. Newbigin’s work is well-known. He was a missionary in India and then came back and claimed to be a missionary in darkest Birmingham in the middle of England. Throughout his career, he articulated the truth that the gospel is not merely a private truth about how I feel or about my own personal knowledge of God. The gospel is something which is true about the way that the world is because of the resurrection of Jesus. The world is a different place as a result of the resurrection."

He continued: "The New Testament paints a picture of God’s kingdom coming on earth as in heaven, which is about something that is publicly true in the real world and not merely inside the church doors or inside Christians’ hearts."

It seems to me that Wright does not actually answer the particular question that Dever has raised. Don't we all agree that the natural outworking of the gospel in the life of a believer results in biblical responses and actions that will effect society around them? Dever, himself says;
Once [the gospel] is received, then—of course, yes—we will begin to work out the implications of this message. But those implications aren’t the gospel itself. If you say they are, confusion will result."
There are certainly many implications that follow the work of the gospel in a believer's life and those are one of the ways in which the gospel is made public. This is something that I believe my church and many others could mature in. Christians in a particular location can work together to solve a problem.

The issue that Dever is addressing, however, is when those works get tied to the gospel message itself. When the focus and message of the church is on saving structures of society (that will not last into eternity i.e. sandcastles)instead of focusing on proclaiming the redeeming message of the cross to individuals. Anyone can change structures, but only the church can and will proclaim the offense of the Cross. I think this is a helpful qualification that keeps pastors and churches from placing their focus on the wrong priorities.

Pastor Rick, it is always easier to argue ad hominem than to address the issues at hand but it only causes more heat than light. And though I think it is a false dichotomy to draw a distinction between the academic world and the pastoral world (maybe that's partly to blame for this current discussion and confusion), Dever has his scholarly credentials in order.

I agree that we need to be careful in distinguishing the 'gospel' message as the good news about what God has done and that the priority of the church is the preaching of that good news. But I would argue (and I think Dever would agree) that mercy ministry is an implication of Gospel love and that there is a feedback loop from deeds of compassion and mercy.

The question for Christians today in a post-Christian culture is not just preaching the Gospel but gaining a hearing for the Gospel. The church today is operating in a position of weakness with regards to popular culture. The bias of the culture is against even giving a hearing to the Gospel.

But the love of Christians and churches exercised in good deeds undercuts that bias and gains a hearing.

This is of course how Jesus himself ministered. People came to him - not primarily to hear preaching, but because they were sick; they were hurting; they were lonely; they were confused - and Jesus ministered to their felt needs (not accommodated the message to their felt needs, but showing compassion). He did also address the injustices of the ruling class. But this loving compassion served to add power to what was primary in Jesus' mind - the message. The same feed-back loop between word and deeds is seen throughout the book of Acts and must be modeled and taught in the church.

Did Jesus do miracles "to gain a hearing"? I don't see that in Scripture, and it is speculative in regards to his motives. To say that he did miracles to demonstrate his deity is too simplistic as well.

His healing, feeding, and exorcism miracles were done out of genuine compassion (not as a tool or technique), but they also served uniquely to demonstrate the arrival of the promised messiah, and the inbreaking of the kingdom.

Jesus was not giving away vacations in order to make a presentation about condos, and neither should we treat service and evangelism in that way.

Sorry for not being clear. I do not want to imply that Jesus did miracles to "gain a hearing" - that it was a strategy. No, it was an outflow of genuine compassion and love. But there was and is a feedback loop. Mercy Ministry is an implication of the Gospel - it is simply genuine Christianity. But it also demonstrates and adds weight to the power of the Gospel - it opens doors to the ministry of the word and "gains a hearing". See Acts 4:32-33, 6:1-7.

I'm a Dever fan, own most of the books, and attended T4G--so this is coming from the friendly side of the fence. But if I could ask Mark one question about this point in his talk, I suppose it would be, "How is this different from run-of-the-mill pietism?"

Reformed theology has always taken seriously the cultural mandate. Undoubtedly, the resurrection (which IS part of the gospel) is a major factor in this. While I would fully agree that the cultural mandate is not the gospel itself (or, to use Dever's language, not the primary focus of the gospel), a narrow focus on "saving souls" like the one Mark seems to be advocating often leads to spiritual and ecclesiastical impoverishment as well.

When I hear someone using language like, "...repairing the world’s passing structures distracts us from the work of preaching the gospel," it sounds to me like standard D.L. Moody lifeboat theology, which lacks much eschatalogical reflection or seriousness about the resurrection. This is the sort of idea that has led millions of pietistic Christians to believe that their life's work is an utter waste of time unless they become full-time ministers or missionaries.

Far better, it seems to me, is the Reformers solid balance between piety and action, based on their recognition that not all human structures and activities are "sand castles" to be washed away at the return of Christ. In the judgment, some things are burned away and others are NOT. What we do here matters and really does have an eternal dimension. While I share Dever's concerns about the social gospel movements that have gutted mainline Christianity in the past, I'm not convinced that the solution is a reversion to a man-the-lifeboats-because-the-ship's-going-down theology better left behind (pun intended) with dispensationalism.

So what did I miss? How would Dever (if he cares to) avoid the charge of pietism? Where is the value in plumbing or carpentry or dentistry done to the glory of God? Where does the resurrection fit in? Are people only doing their secular work well when they find an opportunity to witness to somebody during the lunch break? Is work outside the church (while we may throw a sop to it or posit some heavenly rewards for well-intentioned efforts) essentially worthless?

I'm always a little confused and a little disappointed when I read posts like this. I really wonder if anyone who takes issue with N.T. Wright has actually read him. Case in point, he devotes the majority of his latest book to the implications and importance of the resurrection... its brilliant and beautiful stuff. The last two chapters or so are devoted to practical things... some of which are a little polarizing. Yet people jump on line and question his orthodoxy and even his salvation. Hello? Is it any wonder that conferences like T4G are attracting only fanboys who already agree and believe the same things, while Wright's speaking engagements are drawing thousands of unbelievers and he's presenting the gospel to them at every turn? Maybe it's because his gospel message actually has some meat to it. Maybe its because the gospel really is about faith and works, not faith and words.

"Maybe its because the gospel really is about faith and works, not faith and words."

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God"

Sound familiar? Words mean something and it is the words of the Word that mean everything as it pertains to faith and salvation. Even in sharing the Gospel message, it really is about the words. Do I believe that this means we are or should be exempt from "works" toward or for our fellow-man? No. But let's not forget that simple verse that says, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the WORD of God."
I would also ask you, if Wright is "drawing thousands of unbelievers" and he is presenting an inaccurate and unorthodox view of the Gospel, what actual "good" is being done? You seem to be measuring success by how many unbelievers attend as opposed to faithfulness to God and Scripture. That's a pretty big mistake.

You're reading in a little too deep friend. The faith & works vs. faith & words in the context of the current discussion. No one's denying the necessity of the preached word. My point is that guys sit on a blog or at a conference debating or lecturing how certain people have the gospel wrong, while those people are actually out in world speaking the truth to unbelievers. I said nothing about success.
To answer your question, well, that's a pretty big "IF." Obviously if he was preaching a false gospel then I agree with you... but he's not. That's the point of my post. Wright is as orthodox as anyone at T4G (and more so in my opinion). Accusing someone who is orthodox of not being so.... now that's a pretty big mistake.

"I said nothing about success."

Though you didn't use the word "success" you seemed to be indicating that Wright was engaging people and the T4G crowd was not. The point, however is that obedience does not come only in the engaging of people, but the engaging of people with the Truth of the Gospel. Leaving one of these steps out, either not engaging people with the Gospel, or engaging people, but with something other than the gospel results in disobedience. What you fail to realize is that Wright, with his subtle changes to Orthodoxy and Reformed Theology has swept away the very issues that were at the heart of the Reformation. According to your opinion, you state Wright is more orthodox than anyone at T4G. That's a pretty big statement! In addition, your opinion (or mine for that matter) mean very little when determining whether a teaching is orthodox or not. That, simply, is determined by matching up the teaching with the Word of God. As in Wright's case (at least in a few areas, though not minor ones) there are some of his currently held teachings that do not measure up to Scripture. Orthodoxy is not determined simply by whether or not you or I agree with, or like someone.

"Orthodoxy is not determined simply by whether or not you or I agree with, or like someone."

I agree. I would also add that orthodoxy is not determined by how certain people want to define it. You can disagree with Wright all you want... I suggest you read him first if you haven't, though. Also, I'm not so sure that Reformed Theology = Orthodoxy... and this is coming from someone who is reformed.

Yes, I believe that Wright is more orthodox than the some of the T4G guys because 1) Wright's understanding of gospel is not outside the bounds of orthodoxy, nor his view of justification by faith if you want to go there, too - although I don't agree with every little point of what he says, and 2)Denying the table to other Christians is outside the bounds of orthodoxy - which most of the T4G guys do - and which renders any critical analysis of the gospel (i.e., this article) mute.