Comments on: What is the Central Message of the Gospel?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 May 2005 01:14:55 +0000

Just another little comment on Joe's comment: If people understood hell and their own sin, salvation from hell would most certainly be good news for them. A friend of mine was recently in jail, and when he came out with a new understanding of the consequences of sin and his own need for forgiveness and change, he wanted to talk to me about Jesus. So I think the answer for reaching this generation is *not* to stop talking about saving souls out of hell but to help others come to this same realization.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 May 2005 01:12:06 +0000

Thanks for the article, Tyler. I think we're closer than maybe you were thinking. This essay, which says that the gospel is “the message that God acted in and through Jesus Messiah, God's anointed one, to effect God's promise of shalom–God's reign” through the cross is not opposed to what I'm saying here, as far as I can tell. Within that gospel, there is still something “of first importance” for us to communicate to others as a starting point for entering the Kingdom. The question is, is the “first importance” caring for God's creation, or communicating the message of salvation?
What I'm responding to is the statement that the heart of the message of the gospel is “God's will being done on earth” (which I take to mean “living out Kingdom values” through social justice, etc.) and the claim that we should not be so “preoccupied with getting individual souls out of hell after death.”
I don't think the word “gospel” is used the same exact way every time it's used in the Bible. The question of the definition of “the gospel” (broadly, the good news of how God has acted in history to redeem His creation) is somewhat different from the question of what the focus of, and driving force behind, our ministry ought to be. Even within that broad definition of the gospel, I think the heart of the good news is forgiveness and reconciliation through Jesus–the crowning point of God's plan and the way by which people enter into a participation in the Kingdom both now and in heaven.
Joe's comment, “”To most broken people, good news does not involve telling them how to avoid hell. It involves loving them, building them up, caring for them” illustrates the perspective that our main task is to care for people. However, I think that even in the gospels, the focus was on bringing people into the Kingdom though the acceptance of Jesus. I think Jesus was preoccupied with bringing people into the Kingdom, and I think we should be as well.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 May 2005 22:21:54 +0000

Amy, not to put more noise in your head as you think about this issue (which I applaud you for doing - oh that all churches would ask themselves these questions every few years!), but I remember finding an article by Robert Guelich helpful. Go to this page and click on "What is the Gospel?" It's dense and a bit technical, but really helpful.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 May 2005 22:13:36 +0000

Timbo said: “My understanding of what salvation is is that we are saved from sin, by grace, through faith, unto good works.”
As a side note, I think only Christians keep the word “unto” alive. It's such a funny word…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 May 2005 16:21:10 +0000

Tyler, this is a good challenge. I'm writing a response to you about the gospel in the Gospels, but it seems to be getting a little long, so I'll post it as a new post within the next couple of days. I look forward to your response!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 May 2005 16:09:37 +0000

Tyler, I appreciate much of what you've said here, and I agree that the gospel is Jesus Christ. My understanding of what salvation is is that we are saved from sin, by grace, through faith, unto good works. To say, however, that good works are the gospel, as some seem to be saying, is to put the cart before the horse. Yes, there are many “moderns” who have denied the cart (good works), but there is an equal & opposite error in denying the horse (the work of Jesus in saving us from our sins). To focus on the cart or the horse over and against the other is to miss the unity in the gospel. It is, as I have said before, not an either/or but a both/and. But it is essential that our both/and begins with the horse. 1 John 4:19 states that “We love because he first loved us” (emphasis added). Like Amy said, the point is that horizontal reconciliation follows vertical reconciliation.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 18:44:22 +0000

I like reading this discussion. I'm going to throw a bit of a wrench in it, however.
The issue of salvation is more than life after death matters. I think salvation includes the here and now. Therefore, acts of kindness and justice aren't just fruits of the gospel, they are the gospel themselves. I don't think we can have a ministry of reconciliation that focuses only on reconciling an individual with God. That “vertical reconciliation” is of absolute, paramount importance. But when I read about reconciliation, justice, and shalom in the Bible, there is a large human element (for lack of a better term) to these discussions. That is, I don't think we can truly be ministering in reconciliation if we do not also work towards reconciling humans and human systems to each other. Not to prooftext, but Jesus told us that if our brother or sister has something against us, we need to reconcile with them before entering into worship. That is, I think how we live our lives is part of the gospel message.
I appreciated the exposition in the main post. I don't mean to get into an argument regarding epistles vs. Gospels (because I think it is in the end fruitless), but how would you read the Gospels exposition of the gospel? When Jesus told his disciples to go around the countryside announcing the good news of the kingdom of God, what was the message he sent them to preach? (I believe that it is something in line with Isaiah saying that God is reigning.)
Personally I like N.T. Wright's view of Paul's understanding of the gospel. It's not Jesus died for our sins or salvation by grace through faith. The gospel for Paul is Jesus Christ, period. Everything that he embodies is also included since these aspects are part of who he is: the sinless life, a picture of servanthood, sacrifice for sins, salvation by grace through faith, reconciliation, etc.
I haven't mentioned Hell, but however much I want to believe in a Barth or Lewis vision of the afterlife, I don't think the Bible necessarily supports it. There is something key about eternal damnation…at least there was to the author of Hebrews.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 10 May 2005 23:13:07 +0000

Victor, you said, “Hell is not central, but an integral part of the message.” I think this is a great way to put it. I also think that's an insightful statement that a denial of hell lessens God and Christ's sacrifice. Reading all of the comments to McLaren, I get the sense that people just don't understand how serious it is to slap the creator of the universe in the face–even if you do it lightly. If they tried slapping the president sometime, they might get a taste of how the severity of the punishment depends on the authority of the person you sin against. A sin against an infinitely good, infinitely powerful God with infinite authority leads to an everlasting punishment, according to Jesus. McLaren says that Jesus was only using the “language of hell” to point the people to His own message, but I really don't see any reason to not just take Him at His word.
Many also seem to not understand that justice is good and righteous, and necessary for a perfect being to demonstrate.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 10 May 2005 18:59:22 +0000

“I've also found that sometimes it comes down to the fact that many think the words of the epistles are not as authoritative as the words of the gospels.”
I assume this means they have no analogia de fide?
“Regardless of the question of hell, though, I think this does show that Paul saw our main task as bringing the message of reconciliation to others rather than “loving all creation in this life.” The second, of course, follows from the first and shouldn't be separated from it, but the point is that it *follows.*”
The idea I get from McLaren's posts is that he doesn't even want to mention hell at all. I agree that the Gospel is the good news of reconciliation, but if there is no bad news, then what is there to be reconciled? Hell is not central, but an integral part of the message. McLaren's “displeased” God barely conjures up any fear and reverance, without which there cannot be true wisdom and knowledge of Him. Without the message of wrath and condemnation, Christ's sacrifice loses so much significance since He suffered in our place what we deserve. Can you imagine a Christ who bore our sins so that He would receive God's “displeasure” in our place? Quite a ho hum gospel, which isn't a gospel at all.
McLaren is right in saying that “our view of hell has a lot to say about our view of God.” Unfortunately, his apparent treatment of hell lessens God and Christ, not exalts Them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 10 May 2005 17:49:06 +0000

I did think there were problems with the summary of McLaren's ideas on hell. But I honestly don't know how much he and the others would disagree with what I've written here. They might accept it, but question the meaning of the word “salvation.” I think the texts I discussed show that Paul was primarily concerned with reconciling people to God through forgiveness of sins so they could gain “eternal glory” in the future with God, but Paul doesn't specifically mention “being saved from hell” here, so I imagine they could argue that “salvation” means something else. I've also found that sometimes it comes down to the fact that many think the words of the epistles are not as authoritative as the words of the gospels.
Regardless of the question of hell, though, I think this does show that Paul saw our main task as bringing the message of reconciliation to others rather than “loving all creation in this life.” The second, of course, follows from the first and shouldn't be separated from it, but the point is that it *follows.*
I did send a trackback to Tall Skinny Kiwi, and I would be interested in hearing their thoughts.