Evangelism and the Gospel
Evangelism and the Gospel
Today at the Leadership Track Keith Davy, the Campus Ministry's head of research and development, to talk about our ministry's evangelism model. Keith has produced a lot of quality stuff over the past decade or more for the campus ministry and also teaches the Intro. to Missions and Evangelism Class for the MA Transformational Leadership Program at Bethel Seminary. I ended up taking that class with a different professor though.
He began by referencing some current ideas and thoughts that I have engaged recently, primarily through blogs and my friend Mike Goldsworthy in particular. I've told Mike I'm a smarter person because of him and the way he thinks about church and the ministry. We had a blog discussion on this issue a month or so ago which you can visit here. The topic of that discussion as well as of Keith's intro today had to do with current views of evangelism. He referenced a book as well as a related blog that you can visit here to get a fuller sense of what the discussion is about. Keith wasn't attacking such views, but was emphasizing that given the breadth of ideas related to evangelism today it is that much more important that we have a solid theology of evangelism.
In the link to the blog summarizing some thoughts by Scot McKnight that I included here, there is an obvious criticism of an outlined gospel presentation that stresses the responsibility of the individual to repent of their sins to be restored into relationship with God. The criticism is that the presentation at large emphasizes individuality too much as well as "post-death" eternity as opposed to more of a Kingdom paradigm where our embracing of Jesus as King involves so much more than just our eternal destiny. I live in a world in which I can sympathize with both sides. I work in a culture in which the 4-laws in its various forms were produced and are the primary witnessing tool. I am of a personal persuasion that the Kingdom paradigm is more of where it is at in terms of the biblical narrative view of salvation.
I don't have super clear solutions to some of this tension, but while I am in many ways "emergent" I can't quite jump on the bandwagon in dumping some of the classical approaches to evangelism wholesale. There is an individualized element to people's salvation and it does have a lot to do with their eternal destiny. Yet I would agree that the Scriptures do not reinforce an individualized view of the Kingdom and a fire insurance brand of Christian spirituality. This tension is becoming more pronounced in ministry. I think it is a good thing because I've never heard more conversations about the gospel and evangelism than I've heard in the past couple of years. I think it's cool and should result in a more transformative message and community for this generation. I just happen to believe that tools are not as much the issue as is the overall assumptions and philosophy of the one who is seeking to communicate the gospel behind the tool. So even modern tools like the 4-laws could still be very fruitful even in various post-modern or post-Christian settings. I also believe we need to find more ways to communicate the message because this generation may only be able to take in the gospel through other non-propositional forms.
We spent most of the morning going through 3 passages: John 1:40-51; Acts 8:26-40 (Ethiopian Eunich); Acts 17:16-34 (Paul at the Areopogus). It was cool looking at the different evangelistic settings and actions and messages even. From these 3 passages and others Keith shared 5 foundational principles for evangelism.
1. Master: Evangelism is first and foremost the work of God.
2. Masses: The audience is the defining context
3. Messengers: Believers are the primary initiators (though not always)
4. Message: The gospel is always about Jesus
5. Methods: Methods vary according to the situation
I found these very helpful. These principles reinforce the significance of God's role and action, the importance of culture and context to meaning and communication, as well as the importance of the centrality of Christ. I see more and more definitions of the gospel today that do not have Jesus as the focal point or as primary.
Anyway, Keith is a sharp dude and that was the first time I had heard him in person so that was cool. There's plenty here to keep me wrestling with things for a while. Keith's got a blog where he engages a lot of stuff related to evangelism and innovation in ministry. You can find it at:
http://cojourner.blogspot.com.
Mike on 12 Jun 2007 09:01 am
Are We Teaching the Wrong Gospel?
I haven’t put anything a little bit controversial on here in a little while…
On Leadership Journal’s Blog (Out of Ur), Skye provides a great summary of some of the things that Scot McKnight has been saying about the gospel that we preach.
Is the gospel that’s presented in the Scriptures - God has a wonderful plan for your life, you have sinned, Jesus deals with your sin problem, have faith in Jesus to get into Heaven?
Here’s a few of the problems that McKnight has with that definition of the gospel…
- No one in the New Testament ever preaches that gospel (that one alone should be problem enough to allow it to be questioned)
- This creates an individualistic Christian life and an individual gospel
Go here to read the rest. It’s a great, easy to read and succinct discussion of what we’ve done to the gospel…
By the way, in his book, Embracing Grace, McKnight offers this great definition of the gospel…
The gospel is the work of God to restore humans to union with God and communion with others, in the context of a community, for the good of others and the world.
Are we teaching the wrong gospel?
11 Responses to “Are We Teaching the Wrong Gospel?”
1. on 12 Jun 2007 at 2:39 pm # BVirtue
Mike,
I’ve been in multiple conversations on this issue of late. While I come from “4-Laws Mecca” I actually have more of a problem with McKnight’s definition than I do the 4-laws (though I do agree on some level that it reinforces a bit more of an individual orientation than what the “good news” really intends). My reason being is that McKnight doesn’t include the person and work of Jesus in his definition.
The good news is much more than Jesus’ atonement for the individual, but the Old Testament points forward towards Jesus’ victory of death and the powers and the New Testament (and everything after) looks back to Jesus. From my vantage point right now any definition of the gospel that doesn’t include Jesus is probably a bit more reactionary against other definitions instead of a new, substantive definition based on a more holistic theology.
I do like the emphasis on redemption, re-creation, and community. But that definition seems a bit soft and empty to me. I concede though I don’t know the context of that or his broader arguments so my position is in response to his statement of the gospel alone.
2. on 12 Jun 2007 at 2:47 pm # Mike
Brian -
i think you’re assessment of the lack of Jesus is definitely the biggest thing missing from McKnight’s definition. i don’t remember who i was talking with a few months ago, but we were talking about his definition, and needing to change the beginning to “the work of God through Jesus…” to make it more complete.
but i do like it better than 4 propositional statements that assumes that the point of the gospel is getting into heaven
3. on 12 Jun 2007 at 2:52 pm # Mike
by the way…on that blog from Out of Ur, McKnight’s 7th point of what a more “robust gospel presentation” would include is…
7. The “problem” is finally resolved in “four atoning moments”: the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The blog doesn’t include his definition from Embracing Grace…i just threw that in because i thought it helped to see where he’s coming from.
4. on 12 Jun 2007 at 6:43 pm # BVirtue
Dude, the 4-laws is not just 4 propositional statements - there’s circles too!
The 4-laws in blatantly modern. I like the more contemporary version, but where I diverge in critiquing them is that I believe more of the problem is what people do with them than the general flow. I think they can be used in a very narrative or kingdom context without having “heaven only” connotations.
Ultimately I do believe the structure is solid if it’s kept in a creation - sin/corruption - atonement/recreation/redemption through Jesus - repentance and faith in Christ for forgiveness, redemption, and recreation (inward and for the world). That’s not propositional at its core, I see that as narrative.
I can very much appreciate the reaction against the summary statements (i.e. God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life). Like most tools, the people using them can take them a variety of directions.
Here’s a question:
How long would it take to get someone to understand all of what is involved in McKnight’s definition? One of the tensions I’m wrestling with, especially in light of reading N.T. Wright’s stuff is how to provide a greater narrative scope in the Scriptures in evangelism, but without overwhelming people with more than they can handle or is necessary.
I think this is a huge tension that is represented by the issue you presented - how do you present a holistic and historically accurate gospel in a clear and concise manner that people can engage and respond to without having to read more books or go to seminary to understand?
5. on 13 Jun 2007 at 8:42 am # Miss Paula
Is there a Good News Translation for this conversation!!!
6. on 13 Jun 2007 at 9:14 am # Mike
Paula…you did tell me i needed to write more… :)
i’d say the cliff notes of the discussion is:
is the gospel - you’ve sinned, believe in Jesus so you can be forgiven and can go to heaven…or is that selling it short?
the gospel is centralized on the person of jesus, but is it just about him forgiving sins so we can get into heaven? and is that what the New Testament teaches?
Brian -
McKnight kind of talks about this a bit today on his blog
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2463
i like what he’s saying…not necesarrily need to present the whole narrative of the scriptutre, but a call to the kingdom of God. probably the more practical question is what do we say, what language is involved…but it is a starting point
7. on 14 Jun 2007 at 8:39 am # Miss Paula
Robert and I went on Date Night last night and we discussed this topic. I told Robert we would have to invite Mike on Date Night next time!!!
Anyway my Dear Hubbie posted a question to me that he had been thinking about so I will throw it out there!
If God created everything, did he create evil?
8. on 14 Jun 2007 at 4:20 pm # Mike
Hey Paula -
without oversimplizing it, I’d say that God hasn’t created everything, but has created the possibility for things to exist.
In other words, he didn’t directly create your car, but created the mental capacity for it to be thought about and the original earth elements that have eventually been turned by someone into the metal, plastics, etc. on your car.
So, while God doesn’t directly create everything, he creates the ability for them to happen.
So, God didn’t create evil, but allowed for it to happen. He had to allow for it as a possibility in order for free will to exist.
9. on 14 Jun 2007 at 4:39 pm # Miss Paula
We talked about the free will thing last night and this was a good explanation!
10. on 14 Jun 2007 at 8:03 pm # BVirtue
Greetings from Fruita, CO! Finally found a hotel that had free wireless.
Mike - liked your succinct response on the God creating evil thing.
On the gospel thing - you know where I stand on this. We’re probably very close in how we see it. My main point though is that we can’t minimize the individual nature of the gospel just to make sure we are maximizing the full scope of the gospel for community, culture and society. I’m not saying that’s what McKnight (or you) are saying. But there are those out there that I think have swung the pendulum a bit too far.
A couple days ago I started thinking about the question from the rich young ruler - what must I do to inherit eternal life? I don’t think it’s a bad question and I don’t think we should discourage people from asking it. Though I think we can learn from Jesus in how he responds to him. He doesn’t drop 4 or any other number of propositional or logical statements with proof-texts from the Hebrew Scriptures, he tells him to sell everything he has and give it to the poor and follow Him. This is just one example of how Jesus responds to one who is seeking to “cover his basis.”
For the record, I have to argue that while I believe the “4-laws” or classic evangelical presentation of the gospel has limitations, they can still be used by people who are grounded in a deeper and more kingdom based knowledge of the gospel than most people today seem to have. As I write this I wonder if I could get fired from Campus Crusade by knocking the 4-laws :) Not really, but I still keep the basic framework in my more informal presentation though I try to keep a broader scope in mind than just trying to get someone to hop on the eternal gravy train.
I love that more than ever (at least in my lifetime) people are wrestling with the nature of the gospel and what that means for the church’s mission and community.
You know I’m probably down with that dude’s thinking and writing. Just had to argue the point about leaving out Jesus.
11. on 14 Jun 2007 at 8:16 pm # Mike
Brian,
word
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/06/is_your_gospel.html
June 12, 2007
Is Your Gospel Robust?
A few weeks ago Scot McKnight shared how the gospel we preach is having an adverse impact on the church. Last week at the Spiritual Formation Forum he spoke in greater detail about this problem. He called the standard evangelical gospel, outlined below, “right, but not right enough.” Essentially, we’ve watered down the good news in a way that has marginalized the church in God’s plan of redemption.
This fact was driven home recently by a friend of mine who teaches at a Christian college. He said a hand in the class went up in the middle of his lecture about the church and culture. The student, in all sincerity, asked, “Do we really need the church?” My friend was struck by the question, and by the fact that the classroom was filled with future church leaders. Something is amiss when even Christian leaders are questioning the necessity of the church. That something, according to McKnight, is the gospel we’ve been preaching.
Scot McKnight summarized the “Standard Gospel Presentation” this way:
God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.
Your problem is that you are sinful; God can’t admit sinners into his presence.
Jesus died for you to deal with your “sin-problem.”
If you trust in Christ, you can be admitted into God’s presence.
He went on to say that the problems with this popular evangelical gospel include:
1. No one in the New Testament really preaches this gospel.
2. This gospel is about one thing: humans gaining access to God’s presence.
3. This gospel creates an individualist Christian life.
4. This gospel sets the tone for the entire evangelical movement.
5. This gospel leads to spiritual formation being entirely about “me and God.”
6. The evangelical gospel has created a need for evangelical monasteries.
7. The evangelical gospels turns the local church into a volunteer society that is unnecessary.
8. The evangelical gospel is rooted in Theism or Deism, but not the Trinity.
In contrast to this anemic gospel, McKnight believes a more accurate and “robust” gospel presentation would include the following features:
1. A robust gospel cannot be “tractified” (meaning, reduced to a formula).
2. God made you as an eikon (Greek for “image”) to relate in love to God, to self, to others, and to the world.
3. The “fall” cracked the eikon in all directions.
4. Bible readers cannot skip from Genesis 3 to Romans 3.
5. Genesis 4-11 reveals the “problem” of sin: the climax is a society of eikons trying to build their way to God.
6. Genesis 12 begins to restore the eikon by a covenantal commitment and forming the family of faith. The rest of the Bible is about this elected family of faith.
7. The “problem” is finally resolved in “four atoning moments”: the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
8. The “locus” of resolution is the family of faith: three big words in the Bible that describe this family of faith are Israel, the Kingdom, and the Church.
This understanding of the gospel does not marginalize the church, but instead makes the community the heart of God’s work in the world. Is McKnight’s more robust gospel better than the pervasive "4 spiritual laws" version? Is the tract gospel the source of our diminished ecclesiology and individualism? Are we even open to a wider discussion about the nature of the gospel, or is such a thing taboo—to only be permitted in “emerging” circles?
Posted by Skye Jethani on June 12, 2007