A Hole in the Gospel

When I first read the article there was (I thought) a comment about coconuts, utilizing them for economic stability of poor I think was the main idea....but when I came back to the article to read in depth
it was gone! Where did it go and how could I find it.

I am really stoked to read this book. I need to get on that.

I think the biblical gospel is totally about justice for the world. It took me a while to realize it, but now it is so evident to me.

The way I see it, it's all about redemption. Yes, personal salvation is important, but that is just a part of the big picture. We are redeemed through Jesus as people, but God is out to redeem all of creation. As it groans in expectation, we know it will not be complete till Jesus returns again but we should do all we can to fight for that redemption everywhere we can.

And justice is all about redemption. Redeeming people, redeeming physical creation. That is our call as Christians.

I guess I don't really see personal salvation or justice as first or second in a line, but that personal salvation is a part of justice and it is all intertwined together. And I think we can glean that from the entirety of the Bible, not even just picking Jesus' kingdom message or Paul's message of personal salvation, although those definitely "big stones" in the big story of redemption.

Sounds like a book I need to read next; right after I get done reading the Blue Parakeet (absolutely love this book)! We can and must do more for this world around us; not because it is on a checklist of ways to get into heaven, but because of who God is and the sacrifice He made for all of us.

Sometimes we get stuck in a rut of thinking "the bible says it is going to be like this" and we figure we can't do anything to stop it. Maybe that's the case, but does that mean that we shouldn't do anything about it? Should we just sit idly by while people suffer - when we have the opportunity to help? Hmmm... I think NOT!

The book is on the way to me now by mail. Very interested in reading it. I appreciate the review and comments. I was raised to believe that just an affirmation of Jesus as God's Son and that He died for me was enough. And as have read various books there are others that share Jesus with someone, receive the affirmation they want, and then move on leaving the believer to fend for himself but affirming that he is now saved.

Over time I have come to believe that the the Gospel is more than that. He must be the Lord of our lives and we must seek to right social justice and care for those in need. This may be just a reaction to my work as a social worker. Or maybe I'm a social worker because of my Christian beliefs. I can't separate the two.

Anyway, as an avid reader I await the arrival of the book and hope it is very thought provoking.

Dan @ 7,

I think the problem is that although evangelicals frequently do things involved with social justice (about which you are quite right), many times there is simply no theology or teaching about it at all. Your church sounds like it's up to some really good stuff, but despite growing up in a similar milieu (as a minister's kid, no less) I didn't learn about God's concern for the poor until I took classes on Judaism at a secular university. That is a problem. And it's not one of emphasis. Many do fairly explicitly teach "a complete separation between eternal salvation and present-tense charity". Or (worse), charitable acts are a bait-and-switch tactic to get people to listen to a sermon or read a tract. To even see a separation between "eternal matters" and "temporal matters", between telling a person God loves them and giving them a sandwich, is, I believe, unfaithful to the Bible.

And I don't mind if that is accusatory. That's the point.

Scot, what fascinates me is that this is coming from a practitioner and a businessman, Robert Stearns, not a professional theologian (not that there is anything wrong with being a professional theologian).

Your question--"Do you know any gospel tract that summons a person to commitment to peace, justice, and compassion as inherent to the response to Jesus Christ?"-- brings it down to the nitty-gritty. Those who have championed "the-gospel-is-only-about-me-getting-to-heaven" are going to have to come to grips with the biblical, robust gospel.

Thanks for pointing out to Dan that this discussion is not about evangelicals avoiding compassion and justice ministries. The record as Dan points out is commendable. The issue is: are these ministries an embedded element of the gospel of the kingdom of God as preached by Jesus and Paul et al? I am aware that there is still a large segment of evangelicals who think "the gospel" is essentially about getting "souls saved."

Scot,

I think that is the wrong question. The right question is did it preach the faith as a total life commitment that included justice and compassion along with everything else. There is no "salvation" without total life commitment.

And..."total life commitment" did not mean separation - it meant engagement and involvement.

RJS at #16 amd 17 -- indeed it is.

Now my question: Who has heard an evangelistic sermon that summoned the people to not only faith in Christ for salvation but also saw salvation as justice and therefore summoned folks into commitment to the kingdom?

[I'm using some of these words in less-than-fully-accurate but typical ways.]

I haven't read the book but I've put it on my list. A big question here is what do you mean by "justice?"

"Justice" is a heavily loaded term in my Mainline PCUSA world. "Justice" is not far from a being a liberationist quasi-socialist ideology wrapped up in religious lingo.

I have experiences similar Dan's and RJS' but I'd suggest most Evangelical efforts until the recent past have been more about aid to the poor rather than a more comprehensive view of creating a just world.

Travis @ 19, nice... :-)

Scot, I would have to agree with your criticism of the generalized evangelical definition of the gospel. Most churches I am networked with (and the one I am on staff at) would define the Gospel as a call to personal salvation (get-out-of-hell-free card), not an invitation into a different way of living, a different way of seeing the world, a different kingdom to pledge allegiance to.

This is an important distinction. One that truly embodies GOOD NEWS.

#21 ChrisB

Your second question seems to equate "gospel" with "personal salvation." The gospel, "good news," was about the Kingdom coming. Personal salvation is a part of that message that is important to each of us individually but that does not sum up the gospel. As I wrote recently on another thread, we are not only saved from sin; we are saved to God, into a community, to give witness to the coming Kingdom. "Giving witness" includes the call to personal salvation but it is much more.

The person who does not exhibit the Kingdom of God testifies that they are not saved, or they have not understood the nature of their salvation. (Read James.) That is not salvation by works.

Bill @ 23,

Why should the entrance to the kingdom be unlike the actual kingdom? If we invite people to follow Jesus based on self-interest alone (of course, not all do this), why should we be surprised when they end up with a shallow, self-interested faith?

Evangelism speak to not just the stain of (original) sin with the offer of God's forgiveness, but the (even more original) God-sculpted human being who longs to do what he or she was created for, to live with purpose and in reconciliation with God and the world, carrying out God's mission. Our being transformed must be connected with being a transforming presence in the world. Not as an afterthought, not as an implication, but as the very good news itself.

Scot,

You win on this one ... the language used was to summon people to faith in Christ for salvation - it didn't see "salvation as justice" but it did see faith as life commitment to the kingdom.

But I think that while this may indicate a need for a change in focus in how we preach the gospel to the next generation, it doesn't really change the end result of how we are to live.

Bill Crawford: You are right that part of the gospel is the good news that one can enter into the kingdom of God. However, this isn't the only thing that the gospel offers. In the gospels Jesus is announcing the Kingdom of God. When we move on to Acts we find that the early church is announcing Jesus himself. They are announcing that Jesus is the Messiah, the long awaited King, and true Lord of the world. They declare that forgiveness is available through this man because of his death on the cross but they equally announce that he has been appointed as Lord and Christ through his resurrection from the dead. So the question we need to be asking is, "Why is it good news that Jesus is the messiah, the king and the world's true Lord?" Well part of that answer is that, as Jesus own mother knew, when the Messiah came he would establish his kingdom of peace and justice. Jesus is the messiah who brings God's gracious rule to earth and dies to make that kingdom possible.

Michael Kruse & Scot:

"Your second question seems to equate 'gospel' with 'personal salvation.'"

...like 90% of evangelicals. Having a conversation where everyone uses the same words in different ways is not constructive. (Knowing how most people use the term "gospel," how might you rephrase today's idea?)

Hence my question about "justice." The term "social justice" has little resemblance to justice before the law. If we're talking about feeding the hungry, freeing the prisoners, and healing the sick, that's not the same as making sure rich and poor are treated the same under the law (the OT meaning of "justice").

"the moment one wonders if Jesus or James are teaching salvation by works, I get nervous."

Why?

And you never answered my question: Are you preaching a works salvation?

Why must we think of the gospel in terms of helping the poor, etc? Why can we not view that as part of sanctification and the natural -- and telling -- result of justification?

Isn't it inherently selfish to even think about salvation? The point of the gospels should not be what happens after you die, but what happens right here and now.

I'd argue we have not truly died to sin until we have stopped concerning ourselves with our personal concerns, if that makes any sense.

Perhaps doubt about whether one is truly destined for heaven or not is a good thing. My daughter is taking her finals this week, and I sure don't want her convinced she's made an A, even though that's her average to date. I want her worried, so she'll work harder -- and learn more.

(I was struck the other day by a post on a Calvinist blog that stated just the opposite: doubt is bad, because it means we're doubting the sovereignty of God, which then might imply we're not among the elect.)

This is why I tend to fall on the side of infant baptism, with the expectation that the baby is going to grow up working every day on being a better Christian, not be assured of salvation simply because they were saved at some point later in life. If someone comes to Christ on their deathbed, is that really Christianity?

I remember being in a bible study with my pastor who, after I'd made a comment about us all going to heaven, remarked that it was our *hope*.

Good comments and conversation today, and I'm glad to be home so I can interact more.

We make a colossal mistake when we fall for the radical distinction between Jesus' gospel of the kingdom and the early gospeling in Acts by suggesting "the proclaimer became the proclaimed." That is, that Jesus preached kingdom but Peter and Paul preached Jesus.

I have for two years now pushed hard for connecting "kingdom" to "Jesus" and not letting "kingdom" be a code-word for simply "justice." No one can read the Gospels and miss the connection of kingdom to Jesus, and this leads to a huge and major point about the gospel:

The gospel Jesus preached was about himself and a kingdom that revolved around himself.

This means the gospeling of Peter only "expanded" the "me-reference" of Jesus to include an enhanced version of what Jesus already predicted -- his death and his resurrection and his vindication. That is, Peter and Paul expanded the significance of the death and resurrection, but his gospel and their gospel are centered in Jesus himself. To gospel for Jesus was to summon people to himself as the core of what kingdom is all about.

We do have a problem with definitions, specifically “justice” and “gospel”. Scot, I think what bothers me remains the dichotomy between Romans and Luke 4:18-19. You seem to be saying that the gospel is about advancing the Kingdom of God in the here and now and not just salvation in a future life. Can you clarify in what ways your view differs from the social gospel of the old religious left? Here’s my answer to the “gospel” question.

Luke 4:18,19 is a Jesus claiming to be the fulfillment of a messianic prophecy, not a statement about the gospel. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."

There are five items here.
1. Proclaim good news to the poor
2. Heal the broken hearted (only found in the KJV)
3. Proclaim liberty to the captives
4. Recovering of sight to the blind,
5. Set at liberty those who are oppressed

If the meaning of the gospel is about advancing the "kingdom here and now" (presented as an antithesis of the gospel of personal salvation) then there seem to be a number of questions that come up.

What portion of the "gospel" we should practice in 2009 is proclaiming good news to the poor in the sense of freeing them from poverty as opposed to preaching repentance? 60%? 90%? What portion of our time is to be spent proclaiming liberty to captives? What portion of our ministry is meant to be spent healing those who are physically blind? What portion of our work of the gospel is setting free the oppressed? And what portion then is to be spent calling men to repentance from moral autonomy?

And these become very open-ended questions. How do we set free the oppressed? By protesting the unjust social structure of capitalism? By resisting the corrupt government of Zimbabwe? Do we heal the blind through annointed charismatic prayer or medicine? Which captives are we to free? Captured by whom and for what reason? Does this mean we jump on the “close Gitmo” bandwagon? Are all "here and now" prisoners imprisoned unjustly? How then is the "gospel" about "justice"?

If that is what the "gospel" is there are additional questions. How many captives did Jesus set free from earthly slavery? Where was his political action committee? How did he organize to resist earthly slavery? How many did Jesus loose from the bonds of earthly oppression? How much of Jesus' ministry was about raising money for charities and feeding the poor? If it is not about personal salvation, where is the evidence of Jesus organizing a collective movement to correct the unjust social structures of the Roman empire? On the other hand, how many blind people did Jesus not get around to healing of physical blindness? If we don't have solid answers to these questions, was Jesus insufficient in his exercise of the proclamation of "gospel"?

The alternative is: does the more traditional understanding of Gospel make more sense, that the "poor" Jesus comes to proclaim the gospel to are the "poor in spirit" who are to be freed from the bondage and oppression of slavery to moral guilt before God? That the physical healing of the blind, sick and lame pointed not to what the "gospel" is, but to who Jesus is? That the care for the poor and the oppressed in this life is a vital extension of the eternal gospel and not the gospel itself? Dare we confuse the fruits of the gospel (real, but partial benefits in this world) with the gospel itself (the promise of a New Heaven and a New Earth where every tear is wiped away and death itself is destroyed)?

I’m all in favor of mercy and compassion in this world, don’t get me wrong. But in answer to the question, “what is the gospel?”, the gospel is decidedly not about earthly social justice. I think that is reading into the text and not exegeting it. His Kingdom is not of this world, though we as citizens of a more permanent country can certainly do much good in this one. Can Western Christians be challenged to do more for the impoverished? Absolutely! Is the gospel of salvation from sin and a hope for a more lasting kingdom somehow in opposition to compassion in the here and now? Absolutely not. Is the gospel primarily about earthly justice? No.

I know so many people who simply do not want to listen to the words of the gospel, and will shut anyone down who tries to speak about their personal faith. The only response we can have to these people is to live lives that proclaim our faith in family, community and world-transforming ways. We, the church, need to look at ourselves squarely from the non-believers' POV and ask whether our "words" have become flesh, or not.

On this question: "if one thinks the gospel entails justice, how is that gospel to be preached? What does evangelism look like for a gospel without the hole?"

I think we always set our gospel presentations within some kind of context, generally it's whatever we conclude God's chief aim is. I think the context of evangelicalism's gospel has been the conclusion that God's chief aim is getting people, eternal souls, to heaven when they die. To follow ChriB's point, that's the "salvation" God offers (again despite how much more broadly the term is used in the NT. God isn't as focused on how lives actually go here--this world will all burn with the devil. It's a rescue operation into a burning building which is beyond putting out. Then the 'gospel' we see in the scriptures and present to others is oriented around that central goal of God. Our conclusion about the Big Story has shaped our gospel.

If, though, we become pursuaded that a complete remaking and reclaiming of the creation is the goal, a new, functional creation, growing out of and taking over the old like a good cancer (starting as the size of a mustard seed), which is led, powered by, and shaped like the Trinity in all ways, which will eventually result in the complete removal from the creation of all evil, death, and all who remain loyal to such things, etc. Then the 'gospel' we see in the scriptures and present to others is oriented around that central goal of God. This becomes "the salvation" God is offering--to the whole world. This gospel will focus on letting our prior selves and way of life die, and learning, as apprentices of Jesus, to be part of God's healing work and cease our destructive cooperation with the Enemy. It is still a rescue operation, but of a larger scope, and with more hope for the cosmos. The building is burning, but God's people aren't just firemen, paramedics & emergency workers, but also carpenters, architects, physical therapists, etc., both literally and figuratively, who are fixing what's broken, not just preparing to jump ship. This is part of the good news itself, at least if we honestly attempt to give Jesus' announcement, teachings & actions a place at the table.

Dan @ 38, "If the meaning of the gospel is about advancing the "kingdom here and now" (presented as an antithesis of the gospel of personal salvation) then there seem to be a number of questions that come up."

There are infinite questions that come up, and we as the church are tasked with figuring them out by the power of the Holy Spirit. But the "kingdom here and now" is absolutely not an antithesis of the gospel of personal salvation. It isn't the old social gospel, because it's not just any kingdom. As Scot says, it's a kingdom centered around Jesus.

To quote the missionary E. Stanley Jones, "An individual gospel is a soul without a body; a social gospel is a body without a soul. One’s a ghost and the other’s a corpse, you can take your choice. I don’t want either one. I want both."

Scot,

I think my wording was poor. I was not suggesting that Jesus and the apostles preached a different gospel. What I was trying to get across was exactly your point, namely, that part of the content of Jesus' kingdom proclamation was himself, the king. I think your language of a 'society' is very helpful as it implies that there are people who are gathered around this great king and experience his gracious reign.

Dan,

I don't think that the gospel is about "social justice." But part of the gospel message is that each and every human being is of equal value before God. Probably Scot disagrees, but this is the way I read the beatitudes - blessed are those who are "out of favor" woe to those who give themselves airs and count themselves superior. This is integral to the way I read James and John as well.

God through his action in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus saves us from our sins and restores our relationships with him and with each other. The life and teaching of Jesus demonstrates that our biggest sins are manifest in our relationships to each other. If we do not love our fellow man, we do not love God. If we do not forgive, we are not forgiven. God enables us to live the greatest commandment - Love God, Love others. But this means that compassion, concern, abhorrence of systemic injustice are not simply "fruits" of the gospel - they are inseparable parts of the whole. Of course we won't carry through perfectly in this life, but if we are not aiming for the ideal and teaching the ideal we are not part of God's people.

Parallel to all this is the concept of the church. Every individual Christian is of course not called to single-handedly work on the problems of Darfur, peace in the Middle East, human trafficking, abortion and euthanasia, poverty, hunger, healthcare, calling nominal Christians to repentance and deeper commitment, the elderly, cancer, racial reconciliation, converting non-Christians, political engagement, crime and violence, the pornography industry, mental health, scholarly study of the Bible...

But the whole church is, by the power of the Spirit that dwells in us, which we are promised we receive when we repent (turn from sin) because we hear the good news that the kingdom is near.

Edmund Smith,
with all due respect, I would suggest that you read a little more deeply into the discussion here and the various posts on Justification and the New Perspective. Most of us here would probably disagree with your presentation of the gospel and your understanding of justification from a biblical perspective. In fact, this whole discussion is really about whether the presentation of the gospel which you just presented has a big hole in the middle of it. If you read through what Scot wrote and the responses, you'll find many explanations for why many of us would say that yes, in fact there is a big hole in the middle of it. If you disagree with the thinking behind that argument, that would be interesting to hear. All of us are familiar with the version of the gospel you are presenting and have probably made a similar one in the past. However, the argument is that this presentation of personal salvation from the wages of sin gives a much needed body for the gospel to inhabit, but misses the heart of that body when it comes to what God was about when He came to live among His people. If we provide the body without the heart which desires the restoration of all of creation - including this world - then we have a gospel with a big old hole in the middle of it, I would say.

Dan #38

"Luke 4:18-19"

This passage is referring to Isaiah which is in turn referring back to the Jubilee. As with many quotes, a portion is quoted in order to bring mind the larger context. The Jubilee was exceedlingly practical concerning justice: land returned to its rightful owners, debts canceled, indentured servants set free. The Luke passage was not about the "poor in spirit" but the actual "poor." Go back and read Mary's song about the lowly being lifted up and the powerful being brought down. Justice elements are elsewhere throughout the NT.

No we will not usher in the fulfilled Kingdom but one of the ways we give witness to the coming New Creation is by living according to its future reality in the present. We pray "Thy Kingdom come thy will be done one earth as it is in heaven," and seek to see a measure of the Kingdom realized as a witness to what is to come. Only when Jesus returns will we be bodily resurrected into a new material world where justice will reign.

The gospel is that this decaying earth is not all there is and we need not go down with it. A new creation is coming. We invite people into relationship with God who saves them from sin and decay, and then makes them a part of the witness bearing Kingdom in the present that works for justice and thereby gives witness of the Kingdom to come.

Scot. No deconstruction of my own post. I was digging deeper into your suggested disconnect between evangelicals basing the definition of the Gospel in Romans and your centering it on Luke and the "Kingdom". While care of the poor and the captive are good things, calling them "gospel" does sound a lot like and echo of the social gospel to me. And I still think it paints the "hole in the gospel" with too broad a brush.

Your Name 54. As I stated in my long post, I don't think that the Luke passage is saying "earthly justice" EQUALS "gospel". I am saying that earthly justice is certainly in keeping with the character of God and certainly is an outworking of righteousness. No question about that. But I do object to the suggestion in Scot's initial post that evangelicals who pay a lot of attention to Paul's long exposition in Romans regarding sin, judgment, and culminating in "no condemnation" are somehow wrong about the true meaning of gospel while those who emphasize the "Kingdom of God on earth" have corrected their error. Many who see the Gospel through the lens of Romans and Hebrews do seek to alleviate earthly suffering. They just see that as an effect of the gospel and not the gospel itself.

The gospel is first and foremost about Christ dying as an atonement for sin, "he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." This can and should lead us in response to acts of righteousness, charity and justice. But practicing "kingdom" principles and failing to emphasize the moral guilt that separates from God is getting the cart before the horse. And I fear that shift in emphasis will lead to seeking "structural" solutions to spiritual problems without addressing the rebellion against God that leads to the injustice in the first place.

I am just very uncomfortable with anything that sounds like the equating of "gospel" with earthly justice.

Dan (#56), If I can give my two cents, when the 4 gospels say that Jesus preached the gospel, as in Luke 20:1, what exactly was he preaching? Often there is no elaboration, but nowehere in the gospels do you find Jesus preaching substitutionary atonement, or telling people that they must "ask him into their heart" or "pray to receive him as their Lord and Savior" in order to to avoid hell and go to heaven.

That was not the thrust of the good news Jesus preached. Rather, as in Matthew 24:14 (also Matt. 4:23 and many other places), Jesus preached "the gospel of the kingdom" - a kingdom that He said is near you (Luke 10:9), has come to you (Luke 11:20), and is within you (Luke 17:21). Jesus' gospel message was not primarily focused on where we go when we die, but whose Lordship we are living under now.

Dan,

I agree with you - practicing "kingdom" principles and failing to emphasize the moral guilt that separates from God is getting the cart before the horse.

But I lose you when you say things like This can and should lead us in response to acts of righteousness, charity and justice.

or Many who see the Gospel through the lens of Romans and Hebrews do seek to alleviate earthly suffering.

I think that we must be much more firm - I think both Jesus and Paul (if you read all of his letters, even all of Romans) teach that words like "can" and "many" are inappropriate here. This isn't an optional outworking of righteousness - this is how we are to live period. So it is not that this can lead us to in response to acts of righteousness, charity and justice - if it does not lead to such something is wrong. No one can do everything - but love must govern all choices.

Frankly I don't care what we call "gospel" and what is consequence of gospel as long as it is realized that the consequence is not optional. Romans 12:9-21 is not Paul giving a suggestion, nor is 13:8-10 and I could continue marching through the NT.

The problem with many expressions of the gospel in my opinion is that they don't actually require even an attempt to transform one's live in the direction of the clear NT teachings toward justice and compassion and love. And this is a perversion of all that is taught by Paul, not to mention Jesus, James, Peter, and John.

Furthermore...

I find this to be important because Paul is the only NT writer who stresses the guilt/sin issue to the extent that he does. That is not to say it is not stressed/important/part of the Gospel.

However, to Jesus, James, Peter, and John...

The life of the Christian lived in love, justice, and compassion for this world of larger importance (in terms of their writing/speaking about it).

Even Paul is HUGE on the issue... but he just seems to stress other things more than others. This is a good thing because we need it. However, since the reformation it seems that Paul's writing has become first place in establishing "Gospel." I feel the whole of the New Testament should speak to what "Gospel" is.

Too many reformed don't do this.

Thank you so much for pointing this book out, Scot! I have long seen and felt what you have, that many have made the transformed life of the believer some secondary, optional matter. It's not! If anyone is in Christ, they are a new creature! No, its not perfected in this life, we know, but it should reorient our aims, goals, purposes, and intentions.

This book is now on my wish list! Thanks!

Hi Scott,

Great review - I'll definitely check it out.

We've just completed work on a DVD called:

"A Question of Mercy: Gospel Application to Issues of Justice and Mercy".

The DVD is aimed to help churches work through some of these issues. In our interactions with churches over such themes we tend to see them either lean hard to the left or hard to the right - but we're quite sure the issue is NOT "justice versus gospel"!