Matt Adair wrestled a little with it and I think is coming from the same place I am. Below are Adair's comments (emphasis mine).
Now I really like and completely agree with Dever's take on the gospel. I'm not sure he'd agree with mine. And I don't think the difference has to do ultimately with the brevity of my defintion, which is really just a way to remember what I believe is the overarching story of the gospel and hopefully opens up the door for follow-up and clarifying questions and conversations. Everything that Dever states falls underneath the umbrella of what I'm saying - but I'm not sure that everything I'm saying falls into the definition he states in his book.
My struggle for awhile now has been that while I wholeheartedly and emphatically agree with the standard Reformed definition of the gospel (which is what I take Dever's take to be), I'm not sure it's broad enough to encompass everything that the Scriptures put into the basket of the gospel. For instance, much of Jesus' description of the gospel refers to a 'gospel of the kingdom' in which the individual is a part, but seems to be broader than the individualized message found in Dever's book.
When our friends at 9 Marks Ministries questioned Derek Webb's understanding of the gospel in an online interview he did a couple of months ago because he took a broader, kingdom perspective, I wondered then - and still wonder now - if we're not seeing something that Tim Keller has talked about on occasion. If our definition of the gospel refers only to 'God-sin-Jesus-saving faith' (such as Dever), then how do we reconcile the biblical story of God's working to 'make all things new' (Revelation 21:5)? And if our definition of the gospel refers only to the narrative of 'creation-fall-redemption-restoration', are we not in danger of forgetting the centrality of Christ and the cross? Both are good questions, and in a day in which guys like McLaren set aside the relationship of Christ and the cross to sin and God's wrath, and Doug Pagitt talks about different stories of the gospel, they are questions that need to be asked.
In my mind both the systematic and the narrative perspectives must be woven together to reveal a tapesty as rich as the Scriptures intends. We can even agree with the message of I Corinthians 15 that the salvation of individuals is 'of first importance' - but I'm concerned that we're making that the only important thing while ignoring what appears to be the biblical picture of my individual salvation serving as a means to the end of God's work of a new heaven and a new earth where life will be as it should be and God is made much of.
I think the issue is that we are defining the Gospel by too quickly jumping into the detail. As Adair noted, I have no issue with any of the elements Dever points to. But while Dever's statement is the most common offered, I think it is too narrow. I don't know if Dever purposed to make it such but I know many who definitely do and thereby miss the 'full Gospel'.
So back to Hantla's question, what is the Gospel? It is what Jesus proclaimed and demonstrated. He proclaimed the good news of the Kingdom. He demonstrated the good news of the Kingdom. What was it He proclaimed about the Kingdom? He proclaimed that it is here now. What was it He demonstrated about the Kingdom? He demonstrated its power here now. The Kingdom of God is here now and it is coming in fullness later (with certainty). The Gospel in short is that the Kingdom of God is here and is coming.
Now that needs a lot of unpacking. Jesus did that over the course of 3 years or so with many parables, with many miracles, with many direct teachings, with His life, etc.. I don't think I could do as well and therefore I don't think I could unpack it in a good way in a single paragraph and do any better than Dever. Dever's statement dealt with the individual's call and ultimate salvation. It lacks the community of believers now, it lacks the abundant life that we can experience now, etc.. If I tried to fix that I would probably miss something else.
Net - the Gospel is that the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.
Technorati Tags: Kingdom of God
4 comments:
Ok, so I repent and believe that the kingdom of God is here. What do I have to do I ask?
Let me have a crack at it:
The kingdom of God is here, God has come to earth...to reconcile the earth to Himself. He will reign, but because of His sons reconciling work on the cross that atoned for sins and imputed righteousness, that reign can be one of love, one of forgiveness, one of healing, one of feeding, and most importantly one where He is worshiped by those who have trusted in Christ alone as their righteousness and for forgiveness of sins. But for those who trust in their own righteousness, God will judge them according to their own righteousness. Apart from Jesus' death in mankind's place, the coming of the kingdom of God would mean nothing but judgment, but because Jesus died to reconcile us to Himself, the coming of the kingdom is gospel, good news, because we will be treated as sons and not as enemies.
I recognize there is more I could say and I'm sure I could tighten it up a bit, but does this do better in your mind?
Jacob - not bad ... but then neither was Dever's statement. :-)
I like the elements you have incorporated. One other piece comes to mind and that is our reconciliation to each other, i.e., the community of believers - jew and gentile, etc. - living in a bond of love that would otherwise be impossible.
Ok...I'll take that, and so would Dever, I'm sure.
Have you read Piper's God Is the Gospel? I cannot recommend it highly enough, both for shepherding your heart to love God and for understanding the message of the whole Bible on what exactly the gospel is. What he writes particularly on how we fall short when we speak only of sin and salvation is excellent and probably has affected me and my worldview and theology like no other work has.
jacob - ah, so you knew the answer all along ... you were just testing, sorry, I mean coaching me.
:-)
Post a Comment