Jonathan Leeman and Matt Schmucker visited the Brazilian Conference last year

Greg, helpful and provocative follow-up on RE: the Gospel.  I'm thankful for the piercing clarity you conclude with.  So good I'll copy them here just to be more closely associated with them:

You can see, therefore, why it's so jaw-droppingly ironic when people point to passages like that and say, "I'm going to preach the gospel like that!"  What they're so boldly and courageously declaring is, really, "I’m proudly going to preach the gospel as if I've never fully understood it!  I’m going to preach Jesus' Messiahship as an empty category, void of the content that Jesus himself poured into it through the course of his ministry!  I’m going to preach the gospel in ignorance!”

The four Gospels tell a story, and a significant theme in that story is how the disciples gradually came to understand what Jesus meant when he said, “The kingdom of God is at hand; therefore repent and believe.”  Every phrase of that tightly packed sentence was filled up with meaning as Jesus taught.  And through the course of the story, the disciples moved from ignorance to understanding.  Now, understanding that, I have to ask:  Why would anyone want to go to the part of the story where the disciples are still plainly ignorant and say, “Right there.  That’s my model for my preaching”? 

This is just entirely helpful, along with your exposition of how the developing understanding of the gospels and gospel should help us read briefer statements more fully.

A couple of reasons why someone would look at the disciples in their ignorance and say, "Right there, that's my model for preaching."

1.  Ignorance of our own.  How many have thought about the development of the gospels and the disciples' understanding as clearly as you state it here?  Statements about the disciples' ignorance and unbelief are clear enough in the gospels (John 2:22; 12:16; 14:26; Luke 24:5-8), but I don't knoww that we keep the original disciples' ignorance in mind as we read of their lives with the Lord.  So, an ignorance--benign in intent if not in effect--afflicts our reading of the Scripture, and subsequently our teaching of the Scripture.  And this basic ignorance gets compounded with a more serious ignorance of the Scriptures, of biblical, systematic and historical theology, and of the real needs of our people.  So we tend toward the adoption of messages consistent with our not knowing, our ignorance.

2.  Red letter Bibles and the authority of words.  This is a variation on the ignorance theme, but perhaps some people look to the words of Jesus and the words of the apostles in the gospels as somehow more authentic and paradigmatic.  We see this all the time in "scholarly" circles where critical analysis is king, and effort to get behind the text to the "real" words and meanings.  Red letter Bibles have become the layman's version of this same striving to get "behind" the words to the real or true words with authority.  I remember the first time I heard a Christian co-worker say to me when discussing something in Romans, "Yeah, but we're really just supposed to pay attention to the words in red.  Those are Jesus' words.  The rest don't count as much" or something like that.  That's one way you end up with "jaw-droppingly ironic" preaching methods and messages that leave a lot to be desired.  And among certain pastors, there is an attraction to "authenticity" and ancient forms.  In unsophisticated terms, that attraction tends toward  the simplistic (not simple).

3.  Laziness.  It doesn't require much to preach a gospel empty of the meaning that's placed into it by the whole of scripture.  It's easier to reduce it to an outline.  But to meditate on and preach the riches of the gospel in all their diamond-like light-refracting glory takes work.  How do you get to the gospel from 2 Samuel 18 without tacking on a little outline or plea at the end?  Work.  Application of the whole counsel of God.  Biblical theology.  Systematic theology.  Careful exegesis.  Work.

4.  Trendiness.  Not everyone who takes the approach we lament is lazy or ignorant.  Some are trendy.  It's trendy right now to speak as though this or that camp i ssomehow the theological and methodological descendants of the original apostles and practicing just as they did.  Church buildings are out.  Candles are in.  Done with any liturgy or structure; let's get on with community ambiguously construed.  Reading our NTs or church history for "what the early church did" is fashionable.  Now, that examination has its place and is necessary to our understanding.  But, there exists a kind of "really old is kool" trendiness and shallowness about some of this.  A disdain or indifference toward the contemporary church prompts an odd anti-church reading of the Scripture, and all of that is labeled en vogue, cool, trendy, and a host of other phrases.

5.  Social concern.  A lot of social justice concern is poured into the broader definitions of the gospel and the way it's preached.  The formulation you insist on at bottom, seems to disallow such concerns.  Some think insistence on personal repentance and faith, sin and wrath, and forgiveness and eternal life creates an other-worldly perspective that weakens this-worldly mission.  And to be fair, for too many preachers and Christians this biblical definition and essential message has at least limited social concern to this or that favorite issue, if not removed it altogether.  So the broader kingdom emphasis, with simplicity and ambiguity as handmaidens, opens for some a door for ensuring these important things are included. 

6.  Fear of man.  One can't help but think that some of this attempt to redefine the gospel in terms that downplay substitution, sin, wrath, and the call to repentance and faith finds its impetus in the fear of man.  Let's face it: preaching the gospel has always been and will always be wildly unpopular with sinners and with many professing Christians who love the Lord but who've never thought long about such issues.  If the preacher's soul tires of staring into unhappy and indifferent faces, cowers at offending, or finds resistance to the gospel discouraging, he'll not be long in preaching the gospel with application to individuals.  He'll find "the kingdom" or something called "the gospel" with no personal demands safer ground for his feet.  And he'll stand there rather than outside the camp, at the flaming hot gates of hell, where there is opposition, persecution, slander, reviling, and suffering.

An encouraging interview with our friends Josh and C.J. about the changing and growing work of Sovereign Grace Ministries for the Kingdom of our Lord.

From my devotional reading this morning:

We must always remember that: The Gospel is not admired in Scripture primarily because of the social transformation it effects, but because it reconciles men and women to a holy God.  Its purpose is not that we might feel fulfilled, but that we might be reconciled to the living and holy God.  The consummation is delightful to the transformed people of God, not simply because the environment of the new heaven and the new earth is pleasing, but because we forever live and work and worship in the unshielded radiance of the presence of our holy Maker and Redeemer.  That prospect must shape how the church lives and serves, and determine the pulse of its ministry.  The only alternative is high-sounding but self-serving idolatry.

Come Lord Jesus!

Matt and Jonathan,

Thank you so much for your updates from South Africa.  I greatly appreciated living vicariously and learning about the saints in that part of the world.  It sounds like it was a fruitful and tremendously important trip given the need there in South Africa.

Jonathan, your last post left me musing on something, then Mike's mystery quote sealed it for me.

How different is the United States from the Union of South Africa when it comes to the needs and threats against the church?  Particularly, Jonathan, I was thinking about this summary point you shared:

According to one pastor with whom we spoke, that battle for the gospel is on two completely different fronts. Among much of the White population, the battle is against secularism, post-modernism, epistemological authority, and the same things we're battling in the West. Among much of the Black population, Scripture is treated as authoritative among many. The battle is against (i) ATR (African Traditional Religion, e.g. ancestor worship) and (ii) Charismatics a la Trinity Broadcasting Network (called "The God Channel" in S.A.) and prosperity gospel. Talk about two different battles--both post-modernism and TBN!

For several days I was thinking, "But isn't that a fair description of what occupies the attention of Black and White churches in the U.S.?"  Aren't we battling various forms of superstition and false religion (not much ancestor worship, to be sure, but other claims for the supremacy and essentialness of "culture," etc.) and TBN and prosperity gospel here?  "Both post-modernism and TBN?"

You made mention of the tendency to nod or give signs of approval to a speaker, even when you don't necessarily agree with what's being said.  That's been part of how many (myself included) have tried to explain how it is thousands of people could listen to Jeremiah Wright Sunday-to-Sunday and not hold his political views.  In the U.S., that was seen as somehow excusing the inexcusable.  In South Africa, perhaps the visitor sees that as some curious aspect of "indigenous culture."  But I think it's the same thing.

And McKinley's quote underscores why it's important that we see this dynamic right here where we live, not just "over there."  Folks on TBN sound a lot like us at times.  They use similar words and ideas, and yet mean something far, far different with different and sometimes disastrous consequences.  The hocus pocus in Creflo Dollar's teaching is no less disastrous, imo, than the syncretism that combines ancestor worship and Christian practice.  I think it's the same thing.  Both having a cultic, controlling influence over people... damning some and hindering others.

So, let me plead for something that I'm sure Jonathan would agree with.  Let's confront at home the things that we find odd, curious, wrong, shameful, ignorant and unfortunate abroad.  For my money, TBN is a much bigger (popular) problem than the New Perspective and post-modernism.  Maybe 10% of my folks know anything about these things.  Maybe 10%.  But nearly the entire congregation dips into TBN on occasion or has someone who appears on that channel that they appreciate, but who is less than sound on critically important issues.  Can we please prime the book and article publishing machine and YouTube and web and every other medium to counter the paganism that masquerades as "church" and "Christianity" right here where we live?

Without hesitation, I could point to a dozen books that I think would be helpful on post-modernism, emerging/emergent, and so on.  But I can't recommend more than 2-3 that address prosperity errors or other falsehoods frequently viewed on TBN.  And that's where too many American Christians live.  I think the USA is much the same as the USA.  We need to work on that.   

Hey Greg,

Thanks for stirring the pot. Shouldn't my WTS degree give me street cred with the PCA guys? Man....

It doesn't seem like Matt (we've never met, but he seems like a pleasant enough guy if his blog is any indication) and I disagree. Obviously, the gospel is the most important thing in considering a church. But it's possible to imagine a scenario in which more could be done to advance the gospel by going into an unhealthy church and trying to erect a faithful gospel witness there. You may not think that's pastorally wise, but I don't think you can say that it betrays a preference on my part for factionalism over the gospel.

So, recently some members from our church moved out west. They are a strong family; we were going to nominate the husband to be an elder before the military relocated them. I hope that they land in a Baptist church out there, even if it's not as strong. They could do a lot of good in that kind of situation.

On the other hand, we have a member who is not doing well spiritually at all. Lately, he's become involved in a high church, evangelical Episcopalian church in the area. It seems like a really good place for him, he's actually more engaged with the gospel than I've ever seen him. As his pastor, I'm thrilled. Do I disagree with the Episcopalian church on a lot of matters? Yes. Do I think those things don't matter? No. Is the progress in this guy's life paramount? Yes.

Hope that clarifies things.

Hey Thabiti,

Yeah, I totally agree with that statement that you culled from the comments. I think oftentimes we get our theological ducks so carefully in a line that we wind up creating excuses for our failure to actually do something. So I think it's wise to make sure that we're living out the implications before we start pointing out the fact that they are not essential to the gospel.

That being said, I don't agree with the way you described in-car DVD players as "optional". The in-car DVD is a key to our children's theological education.

Okay... new rule....  A comment in response to a post cannot be longer and more involved than the original post.  I don't know... let's call it the Leeman rule :-).

Mike, you're the funniest man in the blogosphere--hands down!  Love the caveman pastor.

But at lease one person leaving a comment raised a critique that I've often thought as well.  It seems that many folks/churches who oppose "making the gospel public" in favor (legitimately) of keeping a solid focus on the message of the gospel itself end up not following the gospel to its social implications.  So, protecting the gospel turns into neglecting the implications of the gospel... as though calling certain things "implications" makes those things optional... like a sunroof or rear seat dvd players for the kids.

How would you brothers respond to that critique?

Upon my return from T4G 08, that's the question I was asked to answer in a random national poll of pastors for a leading Christian magazine. They wanted to know how I would rate myself and my church on seven different questions, both now and ten years ago. Here are the questions:

1. I (my church) focus more on the Epistles or the Gospels.
2. I (my church) believe the mission of the Gospel is advanced by proclamation or demonstration.
3. I (my church) believe the goal of local evangelism is to grow my church of to grow the church.
4. I (my church) see the Kingdom of God as a future heavenly reality or a present reality on earth.
5. I (my church) believe conversion is a singular decision or a journey over time.
6. I (my church) believe the Gospel is more exclusive or more inclusive.
7. I (my church) believe partnering with other local churches is essential to our mission or not important to our mission.

So what are your answers?

In my head when I am thinking about the content of the gospel, I usually have the 6 frames from two ways to live in mind. These cover

1) Creation of man to live under God's loving rule
2) Sin as rebellion against God's rule.
3) Judgment
4) Penal Substitution
5) Resurrection & Enthronement of Christ
6) Response of Repentance & Faith.

Webb touched on only 1/2 out of 6 (he affirms the resurrection) on this score.

If this had been the answer that someone had given during a membership interview I was conducting, it would have sparked at least two major lines of questioning.

1) Why did Jesus have to die?

I would ask various follow up questions until I had heard several things
a) Human beings are sinful
b) God will punish all sin - we all therefore deserve hell.
c) Jesus died, taking the punishment that sinners deserve, so that all who trust in him will not be punished  for their own sin.

2) Will EVERYONE receive the benefits of Jesus' death and resurrection?

Again, I would ask follow up questions until I had heard that salvation is granted only to those who repent and believe.

Unless I heard clear answers in that direction, I would probably encourage someone to go over the gospel through a one on one bible study with a church member before recommending to the elders that we recommend this person to the congregation for membership.

One only has to read book reviews on the 9-Marks website to see that there is an epidemic among popular ‘evangelical’ books that say some true things about Christianity but fail to articulate the gospel clearly. They say a great deal about Jesus but fail to say that his penal substitutionary atonement is the only hope for sinners under God’s just and holy wrath.

Take just three quotes from the reviews in the latest 9Marks e-journal:

Most pointedly, I do not believe Simply Christian tenderly and clearly warns individual sinners of their peril or calls upon them to flee to Christ and to his cross as the only remedy for personal guilt and sin before a holy God. (Andy Davis on NT Wright)

But you still haven’t told the non-believer what exactly he’s beholding on the cross. He is, in fact, beholding the Son of God taking upon himself the wrath of God for the sins of all who repent and believe. That picture is amazing. But it’s more. It’s actually doing something, like paying for sin. (Jonathan Leeman on Erwin McManus)

The fact is, McLaren does not sufficiently call human beings to grapple with and exult in what God did for us in Christ. Put another way, he does not place concern for the here-and-now in the context of the eternal. That is a grievous error, for it is only when we have a deep understanding of our eternal relationship with God, won by Jesus Christ, that concern for the present world is placed in its proper perspective. The Bible could not be clearer about this. Good works apart from Christ’s saving work are nothing. But good works springing from a heart that has been changed by God’s regenerating power are the sweetest of fruit. (Greg Gilbert on Brian McLaren) 

My question is this: could the same be said about any of the sermons that we preach from the pulpit? I fear that I have preached several sermons which were Christian in what they said, but failed to get to the heart of Christianity in failing to articulate the gospel. 

Preachers, remember that you have not adequately taught any Christian truth until you have shown how that truth relates to the center of Christian truth the gospel. Thus we cannot claim to have preached a Christian sermon if it does not call sinners to depend entirely upon the penal substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Will the gospel be clear in your next sermon?