I am writing a lot now. Several individual articles are due between now and the end of the year. It has slowed down my blogging other than responding to comments. The first is an article on Discussing Christianity in a Non-Theocentric World. Here is a sample that discusses how we talk about the gospel in much preaching.
It is common to preach the gospel with the concept that Jesus died for our sins. This is accurate (1 Cor 15:3–5) but incomplete. The gospel is not about avoiding something or simply having sins forgiven. All that does is set the stage for what is really the good news, namely, that God has taken the initiative to restore a broken relationship with Him that we cannot fix on our own.
Christianity emerged out of Judaism. Thinking as Jews for a minute might help us picture the gospel. In Judaism, we have the idea of unclean-clean people. When someone was unclean in the Judaism of Jesus’ time, they could not come into God’s presence at the temple. First they needed to be washed or offer a sacrifice. This cleansing enables restitution for fellowship. This is what forgiveness of sins does. It cleans the slate. After someone became clean, then they could go into the temple and fellowship with God. The gospel reflects this plus one more idea. Jesus’ death for sin covers our sin and enables us as clean vessels to enter into God’s presence, but then the gospel adds that God takes the initiative and gives us new life in His Spirit to cement the newly reestablished relationship. In sum, Romans 3:21–4:25 pictures what forgiveness of sins brings, while Romans 5–8 pictures the entry of the Spirit into the life. This is why Paul said at the start of Romans in 1:16–17 that he was not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation. The power he emphasizes here is the power of renewed life and relationship with God.
So the gospel is not about avoiding hell or getting to heaven; it is about coming back into a healthy relationship with the living God, on His initiative and grace. It is not about going or not going somewhere; it is about someone. Frankly, when we share the gospel, we often leave out this personal dimension that involves God directly. Rather we tell it so that it is about us and where we go. When we do this we suggest the gospel is about a single moment and where we stand. However, the gospel is about what God does to bring us to Himself. He is the subject of the action and we respond to His kind initiative as the beneficiaries of His grace. The good news is about what God has done for us. So when we discuss it or present it, we should make the ongoing relationship the key topic. Otherwise people think a decision is all there is to the gospel, when it is far more.
I enjoyed the short piece from the article you are writing. Will we be able to get it when it is done?
Larry
I live in the Middle East and work in a church planting/evangelism ministry with unreached Arab Muslims. I am trying to figure out how to share the gospel Biblically and culturally.
A current trend I'm hearing these days is that your presentation of the gospel above is a "Western Salvation Message." It works for highly individualistic cultures like ours that are built on the assumption that the prevailing way we view the gospel is guilt vs. innocence. We were guilty, now we are innocent because of Christ.
The first century Mediterranean world (and the ME today) is not as concerned about guilt/innocence as it is with honor/shame. I.e. Adam and Eve were naked and ashamed first- the gospel covers our shame by clothing us with the righteousness of Christ.
My question is- to what extent do you believe the "personal relationship" paradigm is "Western," and what other paradigms could you put the gospel into? (I assume you have heard about the angle I am coming from before.) Muslims have a high view of the transcendence of God, and the personal relationship idea doesn’t bridge to their worldview effectively. I understand the gospel offends and confronts, but I am searching for another paradigm. “Relationship” is not explicit in Scripture.
I am not convinced that the personal relationship is so "western." 2 Cor 5:16-21 speaks of being reconciled to God. The child of God is adopted, which is certainly a relational metaphor (Gal 3-4). So the imagery and idea is fromthe Bibel (John 1:12- the right ot be called a child of God, certainly a relational familial theme). Islam has God so distant from us that these categories are difficult convey initially. This personal level of relationship with God is a shock of sorts to many muslims, but is part of the point of God relating to us in an incarnation (Heb 2:14-16).
Hope these brief remarks help.
dlb
Yes your remarks help, but I am searching for another paradigm other than the "relational" one which we seem to latch onto easily. Or maybe a "personal relationship with God through Christ" is the ONLY paradigm?
I am trying to find a different, overarching way to think of Biblical faith.
A message that makes one a "child of God" adopted into his family as an heir is pretty relational (John 1:12; Romans 8; "Father" of the Lord's Prayer).
dlb
Thank you for this post!!!
Here is where I think ‘Decision Theology’ has become so incredibly short-sighted. It is not just about getting to heaven; getting ‘saved’; or simply having a ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus. Jesus is not some container of sugar on the top shelf (heaven) that we pull down to ‘accept’ as our own. Immanuel means God comes to US! And not just for us...but for all creation.
Darrell,
The excerpt sounds great. I can't wait to read the entire article.
I wonder if you'd comment on this for me. I think the idea people have of "if you are bad" you go to hell, and "if you are good" you go to heaven comes from the false idea that personal sins (doing bad things) is what condemns us. Associating personal sins with our being condemned seems to put the gospel in a moral context, not a relationship one.
I have never mentioned "sin" when giving the gospel. Christ has "taken away the sins of the world," so why make those an issue? If one wants to "go to heaven" s/he need only 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and s/he will be saved.'
Do you think evangelists and pastors have created the right portrait of what separates us from God and therefore what reconciles us to Him?
Mitch L.
Mitch: I do not think you can quite separate those issues so completely. A person does need to have a sense that their relationship with God is something they have lost the ability to fix on their own. Sin is the reason. One needs to appreciate why Jesus died. As Luke 7:36-50 puts it, the one who thinks they are forgiven little, loves little. I do think it is importat to state the gospel in a manner where the stress is on whatis gained (relationship with God) versus what is avoided (judgment). But an appreciation of grace is important to its dynamic. That does mean facing sin and our involvement with it.
dlb
Dr. Bock:
When I was 15, I trusted Christ as Savior. My ONLY reason was to avoid hell. It has taken quite awhile for me to really realize that I was wrong in my motives to embrace Him. Though He was gracious in accepting me, inspite of my wrong understanding at the time, it has taken a beating in my Christian life ... I was self-oriented even as a Christian. Relating to God as a child was very difficult for me to fathom. (Perhaps my poor relationship with my father contributed to that as well). For me, I was content on my way to Heaven that I really didn't take my relationship with God that seriously, I admit.
Thank you for reminding me once again about the preciousness of the Gospel.
Leslie:
You are quite welcome.
dlb
Are you familiar with "lecto divino" and the theology behind it? I hope I have the Words right?
"Lectio divino" has to do with a certain type of devotional readsing that goes back into the Middle Ages. That is really about all I know about it.
dlb
Dr. Bock:
Thank you for your work! I wonder if you might assess John Piper's presentation of the gospel, specifically his emphasis in recent years (e.g. "God is the Gospel"). If I correctly understand him, he presents a goal of the gospel that is even higher than our adoption through Christ into God's family. He seems to be saying that seeing "the light" (2 Cor 4:6) or "glory" (John 17:24,26) with a love for Christ that is imputed to us from the Father is "the" ultimately satisfying goal. Is this "seeing & savoring gospel" distinct from the "personal relationship gospel," or is it simply the same reality looked at from different angles? (My apologies if I am butchering Piper's intended message ). I look forward to your response!
Jeff.
Jeff:
I do not see these as either/or. Glorifying God in part means lifting up His goodness and grace. Participating in the gospel does this. Living as He calls us to live also does this. What one must be careful about is splitting this relationship. To talk about God without lifting up His work with us can abstract out God's work apart from the context it has, if we are not careful.
dlb
Post new comment