A Sermon on the Gospel

I was very blessed and fortunate to be a guest speaker at Richmond Alliance Church this past weekend. The lead pastor, Jon, specifically asked me to preach on the gospel because we had some conversations about my study on it last year and he thought it would be great for the church to hear. I was glad to do it and it gave me the opportunity to review and rethink it further as well as communicate it better. I based my sermon on Paul's definition of the gospel given in Romans 1:1-7. You can listen to it by clicking the link below. Leave a comment if you have any comments, questions, or thoughts. Also be sure to 'share' it below if you like it. Thanks.

http://www.richmondalliancechurch.com/www/media/metaudio/20130728.mp3

Would John Piper give a 'nod' to my gospel definition?

I had a series of amazing conversations this past week while on a new workers retreat for recently hired pastors and staff. The most significant was about rocking church structures to resemble the people with faith in a gospel for all nations by reflecting it in a way that isn't dysfunctional. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the implications and questioning how much or what to change, why, and how. The important thing is that I'm committed to pursuing it.

Another interesting one was on the car ride home with two new friends. I had several conversations about my journey to changing what I believe the gospel is on retreat and this was the last one. After giving a decent overview of the need for change, reasoning through various passages, and pointing to the extensive use of the titles of 'Christ' and 'Lord' I gave my medium length definition of the gospel:

"The story of Jesus; Israel's Messiah crucified and risen to be Lord over everything (according to the Scriptures) who saves and will judge."

Part of the explanation involved discussions about the Gospel Coalition because they have influence in North American churches and have published extensively over the last few years on the subject, not to mention that it is their name and basis of existence! After answering questions to clarify my definition I recited the definition so it could be typed into their phone. After re-reading it, I was asked whether or not the Gospel Coalition, and specifically John Piper, would approve it, adding that they didn't think TGC would have any problem with it.

I said that I was unsure about the whole group, but that it didn't line up with their statement on the gospel, which has no mention of Israel, uses 'Christ' as a name 5x's, and no mention of 'Lord' at all. I said that their definition has a lot going for it, such as being based on part of 1 Cor 15, but that it ignores central dimensions and focuses on the saving of individuals rather than God's people as a whole and creation itself.

I also added that John Piper, at least, would definitely not approve. Of course I was asked why and the reason is that there is no explicit mention of the payment for sin. Immediately my definition was reviewed for confirmation. I explained that for John Piper, the gospel is even narrower than TGC's and that he essentially defines it as Justification (Righteousness) by faith in order to put in a 'right relationship' with God. Sometimes he includes that Jesus defeated of the devil who can no longer damn us to hell. Sometimes it is to remove the wrath of God from us. He does write more thoroughly in his book "God is the Gospel," but the basic definition is the same with God himself being a positive benefit in addition to being saved from something. Consequently he would not approve of my definition, even though dealing with sin is implied twice by saying Jesus was 'crucified' and 'saves'. I am confident that my standard definition would not be good enough for Piper (despite my disagreement with Piper in this blog post, I do have respect for him. He has impacted many lives for Jesus).

I explained that I don't deny that payment for sin is part of the gospel. It is in my long definition, but it goes along side of the defeat of death and the disarming of every evil power. These are equally important in my opinion and God's victory in Jesus is multifaceted and integrated. I also reiterated how I view the result of faith in the gospel to be different than the gospel itself. What I mean is that Jesus' work on the cross applied to sinners is what happens when you put faith in the work he did.

Unfortunately, I made a big mistake at this point because I failed to say that the central reason why I do not push our sin problem to the forefront is because the gospel is about Jesus, not sin. The message is about the good news of who Jesus is and what he has done to fulfill the promises of God to Israel. If we follow Piper, we get a gospel about Jesus' death to cover my sin for my 'salvation' from God (or is it the devil?) who would have sent me to hell. It also means we have a gospel without Israel, Jesus as Messiah and Lord, or a robust understanding of the cross, etc. What Piper is actually saying is that the gospel isn't good news unless I am saved. Not only does Piper ignore some central themes, he makes the "good news" conditional. How many people need to be saved for it to be good news, exactly? I think this is a major error and that the gospel is always 'good news' or, as some like to say, 'a royal announcement' concerning God's son, Jesus.

The gospel is about Jesus, the saving Messiah of Israel, who died for the whole world.

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Jonathan Pennington's definition of the gospel

I got this definition of the gospel in my inbox this morning. It's from Jonathan Pennington in his book "Reading the gospels wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction" (pg 5, 16-17):

"Consistently throughout the New Testament Epistles the 'gospel' refers to the oral proclamation about Jesus the Christ (meaning the anointed Davidic King) - who he was; what he accomplished through his life, death, and resurrection; the promise of his future return to establish God's reign; and the concomitant call to repent and have faith. This is not a message of moralism or a call to greater religious obedience but rather is a proclamation of God's grace and the invitation to hope. This is why it is rightly called 'good news.'"

"The New Testament authors, building especially on the Isaianic vision, define the 'gospel' as Jesus' effecting the long-awaited return of God himself as King, in the power of the Spirit bringing his people back from exile and into the true promised land of a new creation, forgiving their sins, and fulfilling all the promises of God and the hopes of his people. This Isaianic vision is itself based on God's work at the exodus, which the prophets take up and reappropriate to describe God's future work. Because of this vision, described as the proclamation of good news, the apostles call their kerygma 'gospel,' and it is why the evangelists likewise describe the work of Jesus and the narratives about him as euangelion. In this there is univocality; Paul and the Gospel writers all understand their message to be one of God's reign coming in the person of Jesus through the power of the Spirit. The 'gospel,' whether in oral or written form, is the message of God's comprehensively restorative kingdom."

Thanks to Trevin Wax for his diligent work on this subject.
Check out his blog for more on this and other subjects:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Gal 1:18-24

Continuing the trend of the verb 'gospel' is Gal 1:18-24 (NRSV):

18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days; ¹⁹but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. ²⁰In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! ²¹Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,²²and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; ²³they only heard it said, ‘The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.’ ²⁴And they glorified God because of me.

 Verse 23 is also translated "proclaiming the good news"(NET); "preaching the faith"(NIV and most other translations),;"preaching the very message"(Msg). In one sense, this is merely reiterating the same thing as the last post: Paul is 'gospelling' about Jesus. However, we should also note that in addition to Jesus being identified as God's son, he is identified as the Messiah/Christ, which the people are 'in'. What Paul tried to destroy was the announcement of Jesus as Messiah, Son of Man at the right hand of the Father, the righteous one, the Prophet promised by Moses, and Lord (Acts 7). Also, I'm sure I'll repeat myself many times, but the first thing Paul proclaimed after his conversion was Jesus as the Son of God; the Messiah (Acts 9). One whole chapter of Galatians and so far no hint of Justification, sin, or the cross, but there will be plenty of that to sort out in the coming chapters.

Deliberately ignoring details of the biblical gospel

Yesterday I said I would write about the subject of knowingly ignoring details of the gospel according to Scripture. The person I'm going to bring up as a case in point is D. A. Carson. He is a renowned scholar and an advocate of drawing out the whole of what Scripture says the gospel is. In fact, he has even written at length surveying the use of the word and its variants in the Old and New Testament. The problem is that while he can survey the usage and mention nearly every bit of the gospel in an essay his definition and explanation reduces the gospel to the common, universalized message of salvation.

I want to be clear that Carson defines the gospel with precision that can often be lacking. For example, he clearly explains that the gospel is the message about Jesus, that the effect is not the gospel itself, and that there is only one gospel in the New testament and therefore we don't need to pit the various authors against one another because they are talking about the same thing. Carson misses at least three of the five points I wrote about a few days ago: Jesus as the Messiah, his present reign as Lord, and the framing story of Israel. Please show me if I'm wrong, but in my reading, these are ignored or backgrounded (or perhaps worse - merely more 'effects' of the gospel) in Carson's understanding even after a lengthy survey.

Starting later this week, I will begin to go through each use of the word 'gospel' in the New Testament. That's part of what this blog is really about. This is where I really need some comments and push back. Anything you give me will be helpful and appreciated.

For now, what do you think about Carson's essay (if you read it)?
Are there aspects of the gospel according to Scripture that you are unsure about?
Have you heard anything so far that you didn't know was part of the gospel?
Why do you think these things are not commonly spoken about?

Group 'C' and the 3rd 'J'

If you are at all familiar with the discussions on defining the gospel over the last few years, you'll know that it can often be polarizing and the two groups usually pitted against one another are labelled group 'A' and group 'B'.

Group 'A' are the ones who define the gospel of salvation; forgiveness of sin, getting right with God, being 'born again', or avoiding hell to 'get to heaven when you die'. That sort of thing. Think Billy Graham.

Group 'B' are the ones who define the gospel of the kingdom; justice, feeding the hungry, making the sick well, cancelling 3rd world debt, providing equality and clean drinking water for all. That sort of thing. Think Bono.

Classically, both accuse one another of ignoring their 'camp'. What are we to do with this? Both use important biblical points and concepts. Some (especially the Gospel Coalition - get used to me bringing them up) suggest group 'A' is essentially right (or at least more important) and that the values of 'B' naturally flow from following the 'A' version of the gospel. I'm skeptical of this since it doesn't happen as widespread as it ought to. However, I don't deny that it does happen with many who hold that view. I haven't heard enough from group 'B' in this discussion so I can't comment on their take, but I would think many of them would not deny 'A' values.

I think the answer is actually in group 'C' which is why I've started this blog in the first place. I believe this group is growing all the time or that people are cautiously drifting over to it. Some of my friends and acquaintances are struggling to get their head around it as I have since February this year! Essentially it involves getting back to Scripture and looking at how it defines the gospel, which changes everything. I'm not saying it's all sorted out, but the 'A' and 'B' camps talk past one another and the supposed mediators often ignore the whole of what Scripture says. I'll post on that one tomorrow.

One way to help grasp the essence of this group 'C' is how we frame the gospel and what we say the heart of it is. And yes, I do think it is a real group and largely unified at that. I found an old post by Scot McKnight (I known it's a lot from him early on, but he's written a lot of online posts on this and I think he's nailed it pretty well). He says there are three 'J' ways to frame the gospel: Justification, Justice, or Jesus. You can read it here.

Any thoughts?