Cry #2 "Make the Gospel Larger!"
In addition to the cry to make the gospel public is a second popular cry: “Make the gospel larger!” The point here is typically posed as, “Jesus didn’t simply come to save our souls, but our whole person along with the entire cosmos.”
In one sense, that’s true, particularly if the idea of “soul” is being used to mean something less than the whole person. Also, in seeking to apply the gospel to all of life, the people who make this cry are thinking through life with a Christian worldview, which is great!
The danger, however, is that the implications of the gospel are then sometimes referred to as part of the gospel (which is not great). When that happens, there is a real possibility that the unique message of Jesus’ reconciling death and resurrection for sinners will be confused or relativized. Furthermore, we run the risk of confusing the world about what it means to be a Christian.
There are many places in the New Testament where the implications of the gospel are explicitly set beside the gospel itself, not taken to be a part of it. For instance, we might be tempted to think that sharing our lives with other people is the gospel. Yet in 1 Thessalonians 2:8, Paul says: “We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well . . . ” Clearly, Paul’s sharing his life with the Thessalonians was something in addition to sharing the gospel with them. He could have shared the gospel without sharing his life with them.
Friends, I am in favor of thinking through the implications of the gospel. But I’m concerned that we not, in the process, misunderstand what a Christian is. We must always be clear to distinguish between the core of the gospel and its results or implications. The fruit of the Spirit and the transformation of our minds comes from our being a Christian; it does not effect our salvation. If we confuse this issue, we could actually begin tacking fruit onto dead fruit trees, looking at people’s good works and calling them Christians because we see them doing what we might identify as “gospel work” in the world.
On the other hand, what do we say about those people who agree with us about Christ, but not about particular implications? Can true Christians disagree on how best to care for the poor? Someone may be a supporter of monarchy or of taking away the religious liberties of Baptist preachers, and I would disagree with them vehemently. But can I say that because of these mistakes, such people could not be my brothers or sisters in Christ? Would I really say that we could not share the same gospel because we’ve not worked out the implications in the same way? If we say about Christianity, as one prominent leader did in 2007, that “Christianity is a worldview. . . . When Jesus Christ came He announced the kingdom . . . every aspect of life under the Lordship of Christ,” how then do we think about those who haven’t thought through all the implications of Christ’s Lordship? Is that person not a Christian? Can one genuinely be a Christian without participating in what this leader here calls “Christianity?” What is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian? Is it really here—over how thought through we are about the implications of our faith? Or is it simply whether or not we have faith only in Christ to save us from God’s wrath because of our sins?
This is a question that many African-American brothers and sisters have had to wrestle with for years, as they listen to Whites favorably quote the old writers who believed that racial slavery was morally defensible. Of course none of us agree with such defenses, but seminaries have even been named after these people who took what we all think were terrible positions! And yet can we say that these people still understood—and even appreciated—the gospel? I think we can.
We all live imperfectly and inconsistently with what we know to be true. That’s why we are saved by faith in Christ alone. To require us to include what we take to be implications of the gospel in the gospel itself can too easily confuse our message and compromise the radical and gracious sufficiency of faith in Christ alone for salvation. We want to have a Christian worldview, and we don’t want to confuse it with the gospel.
Brothers, don’t try to improve the gospel by making it larger. You’ll end up losing it. Preach the gospel we’ve received.
Mark,
Thanks for this post. This type of clear thinking is much needed today. Thank you.
Nick
Posted by: Nicholas Hill | Jun 2, 2008 10:31:31 PM
Is there any chance someone could get you in a room with Tim Keller to discuss this?
I can't help but feel this needs a more detailed treatment: much of what passes as gospel preaching in "traditional" churches seems to be the preaching a subset of gospel implications.
In Acts 2, the heart of Peter's preaching is setting the record straight about Jesus. The command to repent and baptized seems to be an implication in response to the truth about Jesus.
In Acts 3:18-21, the "message" is the truth about Jesus, the implications of the gospel (vs 19-21) are that we are to repent (and receive forgiveness and refreshing) and anticipate the return of Christ and the restoration of all that God promised through the prophets.
In 1 Corinthians 15, the message is again the truth about Jesus - the need for faith in Christ, the availability of forgiveness and our hope of resurrection are implications of the fact that Christ died for our sins rather than the core of the message.
In 1 John 4 & 2 John the test for true spirits and teachers is that they 'confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.' Forgiveness, adoption, eternal life are all implications that flow from his life and ministry on earth.
In Luke 23 the dying thief on the cross, it's not clear from the passage whether he had any concept of his sins being forgiven - but he did recognise that Jesus was the innocent king and that he was going to come into his kingdom. As in Romans 10:9, which describes belief in the lordship and resurrection of Christ as the criterion for salvation.
It would be helpful if you could define:
What is the gospel?
What implications of the gospel are essential to its faithful proclamation?
What would examplify a non-essential implication of the gospel?
Posted by: Geoff Youngs | Jun 3, 2008 7:26:43 AM
i completely agree with geoff.
I think that we are confusing the difference between the gospel which is an "announcement" or"message about Christ" and our human "actions" of receiving forgiveness or doing acts of compassion -which are the implications of the gospel.
i also think answering his 3 questions would be extremely helpful to the discussion
Posted by: dan | Jun 3, 2008 7:40:06 AM
To say that "receiving forgiveness" is an implication of the Gospel would be inaccurate, because the Gospel is not simply a message about Christ, but a message about Christ that has to do with sinners, with us. The good news of the Gospel is the fact that we can be reconciled to God through faith in Christ. In other words, receiving forgiveness is not an implication of the Gospel, but is the Gospel itself, and this only happens through repentance and faith. Apart from repentance and faith in the message about Jesus Christ, the Gospel brings no good to its hearer, but further condemnation. The Gospel is only good news when it is received by faith in Christ alone, and therefore, the Gospel must include this call to faith. Receiving forgiveness through faith in Christ is a part of the Gospel, not an implication of it.
So in Acts, in 1 Corinthians 15, in 1 John, and with the thief on the cross, the message about Christ always implies a Spirit-wrought faith with it, if it is to be of any good to the hearer. We see this clearly in Paul's argument in Galatians, as he seeks to defend his message justification by faith alone, and also in James, as he speaks of the necessity of true faith vs. a dead faith. In both these examples (and throughout the NT), without repentance and faith, the Gospel is of no value the hearer and is no good news at all.
Therefore, I don't think it would be right to speak of repentance and faith merely as an implication of the Gospel... most definitely not in the same way our obedience to God in every sphere of our lives is an implication of the Gospel. This would only serve to confuse the message of the Gospel. The Good News of Jesus Christ is only good news when it is received by the hearer by faith, and therefore, the call to repentance and faith is a part of the Gospel. The call to all-of-life obedience that comes to those who have this faith is then drawn out as an implication of the faith they have in the Gospel.
Posted by: Geoff Chang | Jun 3, 2008 9:13:43 AM
Geoff Chang, my dear friend,
I don't think I can express better the difference I am suggesting between the Gospel as "message" and the implication of the Gospel as "our action", whether faith or obedience better than Greg Gilbert's post in April. Hopefully his statements will provide more clarity to what I am thinking.
He writes:
http://blog.9marks.org/2008/04/on-the-meaning.html#comments
"Third, and relatedly, I agree with you that it’s a mistake and confusing and downright bad to say that a church or a Christian can “preach the gospel” by doing good works. I believe the Bible sometimes uses the word “gospel” in a broad sense to include everything God has promised to do in the world through Christ, but when Scripture talks about “preaching the gospel,” that is the proclamation, in words, of Jesus’ saving work on the cross, and the call, in words, to all men everywhere to repent and believe. “The Gospel” is a message, not an action. But it’s a big message that encompasses everything God has promised to do through Christ.
So I suppose my main point is that I just don’t want to limit the word "gospel" to include only "the announcement that God has provided a way for sinful human beings to be reconciled to God and his wrath removed," as Jonathan puts it below. Again, yes, that individual salvation, that divine-human reconciliation, is the fountainhead from which all the rest flows, but surely we don’t want to say that the resurrection of the body, the renewal of the world, etc are somehow not part of the "good news" of Christianity."
Posted by: dan chen | Jun 3, 2008 10:29:49 AM