"What is the Gospel?" he asked.
Geoff asked some great questions under Mark’s post below, and got a good conversation going there, too. Let me take a stab at answering his questions:
1. What is the Gospel?
Reading the New Testament, I would say the Gospel is:
i. The message that Jesus the Christ, by his life, death, and resurrection, has won forgiveness and salvation from sin for sinners.
ii. The message that great blessings flow from His work---including sanctification, glorification, consummation, renewal, reconciliation, the coming of the kingdom, etc.
iii. The message that God commands all people everywhere to repent and believe in Jesus.
Important point: Everything I mention there is message. The Gospel is news, and therefore no action is part of the Gospel itself, even our action of repenting and believing. Actions may flow from the Gospel and be in response to the Gospel, which is exactly the case when someone repents and believes, but no action can itself be part of the Gospel. The Gospel is a message.
Another important point: There are many other messages that are or may be implications of the gospel, but are not the Gospel itself. Take other commands, for instance. There are lots of things Christians are commanded to do that are not part of the central Gospel message. Again, those commands flow from the Gospel, but they are not part of the Gospel itself. Only one command, I think, is constituent of the Gospel itself---the command to repent and believe.
2. What implications of the Gospel are necessary for its faithful proclamation?
Well, understanding what I said above, there are lots of implications of the Gospel that are necessary for faithfully proclaiming the whole counsel of God. But to the question at hand, I think you faithfully proclaim the Gospel itself when you proclaim the message of Jesus' work, the promises of the blessings that flow from it, and the command to repent and believe.
3. What’s an example of a non-essential implication of the Gospel?
If by “essential” you mean “of the essence of the Gospel itself," then I’d say: Defining things as I have above, no implication of the Gospel is of the Gospel’s essence. In other words, if it’s an implication of the Gospel, it’s not part of the Gospel, however immediately it may flow from it.
But if by “essential”—or “non-essential,” as it is—you mean “things we can take or leave, do or not do,” then I’d say this: There are many things which are held out by the inspired New Testament itself as necessary implications of the Gospel, things like love, purity, holiness, etc. Those we have to do. If we believe the Gospel, we will do them. And because they are demanded of us by Scripture, we are under obligation to them. They are essential, meaning necessary, for us as Christians.
But there are other things that are often held out by people as unquestionable implications of the Gospel that really are not. Forgiving third-world debt comes to mind. And you could list more. These are the kinds of things where Christians can have some good conversations: Do you think forgiving third-world debt is something we ought to do in light of the Gospel? What about cleaning up parks? What about adopting schools? Have those arguments. But don’t make the mistake of saying that forgiving debt or cleaning up parks is the Gospel. It’s not; it’s not even an implication of the Gospel explicitly commanded in Scripture; it’s just a thing about which we can argue and discuss whether or not it might be an implication of the Gospel.
Any of that helpful?
Greg,
Thanks for this. it's really helpful
blessings,
dan
Posted by: dan chen | Jun 3, 2008 12:43:06 PM
In saying, both from Mark and Greg, that no implication is part of the Gospel I have a question. Please correct my thinking here, but I seem to recall that Mark at T4G stated that the church was part of the Gospel. However, that collected body of believers seems to be an implication of the Gospel, not a necessary component in the proclamation based on his definition here.
Am I misunderstanding the point that Mark and Greg have made? Did is misunderstand Mark's point at T4G?
What was Mark's main point (point 4 at T4G) on "Make the Gospel Personal"? What does he mean by "the church is not an optional extra" of the Gospel? How does that fit with this point?
Obviously I don't discount the church, but it does not seem to coherently fit together. Thanks.
Posted by: Chad | Jun 3, 2008 12:56:45 PM
Chad--I think I'd say that the promise of a redeemed community (the church) is constituent of the Gospel; it's one of those great blessings that flows from Christ's work (ii above).
And I'd say that a Christian's obligation to be a part of a local church is one of those inspired, necessary, and unquestionable implications of the gospel. If you believe it, you'll do it.
Posted by: Greg G | Jun 3, 2008 1:33:09 PM
Greg--thanks for the response. And I believe I would agree with you that the church naturally is a result of the Gospel--there is a community that the redeemed are a part of. But, am I hearing Mark correctly from the conference that being a part of a church is "the" Gospel? I understand that Mark was saying things to an extreme at times, but I'm just not sure about that.
We should definitely be part of the church, but is it the Gospel in the way that Mark seemed to portray it at the conference? I'm hoping I just heard Mark wrong, because it sounded like (and maybe this is my individualistic background coming out) that proclaiming the church (and involvement therein) is necessary in Gospel proclamation so that it doesn't become a "me and Jesus" type of thing. Was that Mark's point (and I know you can't speak for Mark)?
Posted by: Chad | Jun 3, 2008 2:12:23 PM
I had exactly the same question as Chad; Dever clearly said that we ought not include implications of the Gospels as part of the Gospel, no matter how important or necessary they are for Christian life. It then seemed that in Cry: Make the Gospel Personal, he argued that involvement in a church is such a necessary implication of the Gospel that it *must* be included in the Gospel. I couldn't quite make sense of it.
Posted by: Ryan B | Jun 3, 2008 2:15:30 PM
how about when the gospel is at the center of one's life, wouldn't his or her life be a reflection of the message? then, isn't a godly/holy living essential in which may be expressed on a practical level of one's life such as kind deeds or mindfulness of stewardship in environment or etc.? i agree that deeds are not the gospel message, but i wonder if it could be a natural overflow of a gospel-centered life.
Posted by: joe lee | Jun 3, 2008 4:19:18 PM
Deacon & Usher were here....
deaconandusher.wordpress.com
Posted by: Deacon & Usher | Jun 3, 2008 6:57:06 PM
Hi guys,
A thought here: we need to distinguish between the gospel and its "implications" - that is, the ethical and other imperatives that flow from EMBRACING the gospel... but perhaps we also need to distinguish between the gospel and its "product" - the results that NECESSARILY FLOW from the gospel doing its work. What are the "products" of the gospel? First, a new creation - the individual who receives the gospel through repentance and faith becomes a NEW CREATURE IN CHRIST. That's not an "implication" in terms of something we MUST DO: it's what we inevitably BECOME. (The implications that then flow from that? Live what you've become - bear fruit in keeping with repentance, etc).
The church, likewise, is a PRODUCT of the gospel (keep going, you could probably tease out further 'products', but this'll do me for now!). Church is not something we MUST DO in the first instance (how do you "do church" anyway?!) - it's something we're GRAFTED INTO.
I think Dever said this - or does memory fail me? - that becoming part of the church (universal) is not an OPTION, it's an OUTCOME because it's something God DOES in us when He draws us to Himself. We don't have a choice in the matter, because it's an INVETABLE outworking of the gospel of Christ. Nowhere does Paul say 'BECOME part of the body of Christ', he says 'You (corporately) ARE the body of Christ.
Once again, implications flow from this product of the gospel. Because you ARE (part of) the body of Christ, because you DO BELONG to the church (universal) if you've been saved, therefore LIVE in fellowship with God's people, as part of a local expresssion of that universal reality...
I dunno, is that a helpful distinction? Product and implications - what God does and what we must do. The gospel IS NEITHER its product NOR its implications - but both are fruits the gospel bears as it's proclaimed and takes root in the hearts of those who believe.
Gordon Coleman
Albion Park-Shellharbour Presbyterian Church
NSW, Australia
Posted by: Gordon Coleman | Jun 3, 2008 8:06:51 PM
Thanks Greg - that is helpful.
Part of my concern was that Mark seemed to be implying in Cry #2, paragraph 6 that the lordship of Christ was a non-essential part of the gospel, but belief in your own forgiveness was essential. Which doesn't seem to fit Romans 10:9.
The NT doesn't teach that a fully fleshed out christian worldview is essential for salvation - but I believe it does teach that accepting the gospel does require us to recognize that Jesus is Lord. The acid test for the apostles seems to be what we believe and confess about the person and work of Christ - not what we believe about our state of forgiveness.
Likewise the apostles (and the early creeds of the church) seem to lay a stronger emphasis on the eschatological hope of the gospel - the return of Christ, resurrection of the dead, final judgement, prophetic fulfillment etc. Without this future hope, justification makes little or no sense - and to treat eschatology[1] as non-essential is to neuter the gospel, not protect it. (Unless there is an end to the age at which all sin will be forever dealt with, God is giving eternal license for sin - which stands in contradiction with the message of the gospel).
My third concern was that Mark seemed to be confusing understanding the gospel and accepting the gospel in his terminology. In paragraph #7 he suggests that there were supporters of racial slavery who understood and appreciated the gospel. I would suggest that in a very profound sense they misunderstood the gospel - even where they they had not only saving faith in Christ, but deep insight into aspects of the gospel which we still find exceedingly helpful.
I completely agree that doing social justice is implied by the gospel, will result from the embrace of the gospel and will adorn the proclamation of the gospel, but is not the gospel. Likewise I am in full agreement that unless we understand that Jesus bore God's wrath at our sin on the cross we will not understand the gospel.
[1] By which I mean we need to believe that Jesus is coming back to reign, not that Revelation talks about helicopters.
Posted by: Geoff Youngs | Jun 4, 2008 4:50:57 AM