For those of you who aren't familiar with Christian theology, the "Gospel," or the Good News of Christianity, is the central aspect of the faith. It is the fundamental message that forms the core of Christianity and distinguishes it from all other religions. To many, it is the litmus test of Christianity: If you affirm the Gospel, then you are a Christian; if you don't, then you're not. Such an important concept, however, ends up getting caught up in a few different tangles.
For example, the Gospel tends to be understood in two different ways by two different groups (and bear in mind that in exploring these two different perspectives, the liberal and conservative perspectives, I can't help but generalize. No doubt there will be many people in either camp who disagree with the way I portray their Gospel, but I think the way I show it here lines up with the majority viewpoint).
To many liberal Christians, the Good News of Christianity is that Jesus came to earth, giving us instruction for how to live our lives and love one another. He taught us about sacrificial living, serving others, and turning the other cheek. The Good News of Christianity, to many liberals, is that we now have the perfect example to follow, in order for us to become better people and truly fulfill our potential.
I theorize that this Gospel arose out of a reaction to trends in more orthodox Christianity. Liberals might see more traditional Christianity as being too silent and apathetic on issues of social justice and too hateful in their preaching of a fire-and-brimstone "believe or go to hell" message. In all honesty, these criticisms seem just. After all, while conservative Christianity has, overall, done a great deal to assist the poor and hurting, in recent years especially it can often be guilty of being too internally-focused. The wants and needs of church members can often take priority over those outside the church, and accepting doctrine can seem more important than reaching others.
Similarly, the charge of conservative Christianity being too absorbed in talk of hell is also poignant. This is perhaps more forgiveable - it is certainly more understandable. After all, if there were a place of eternal damnation, would this not seem to be of the utmost importance? Should we not be warning everyone of it, so that they might escape it? Certainly such an approach could be considered fear-mongering, but would not such a label be worth it to rescue others? And yet, when one examines the Gospel shared by the Apostles and the first Christians, the afterlife seems to have been mentioned rarely, if ever (though, to be clear, they affirm its existence). The earliest Christians seemed to be drawn to Christ by neither promises of heaven nor threats of hell, but something different (but perhaps not entirely different. More on this later). So, then, if not preaching hell at every opportunity makes me a poor Christian, then at the very least I am in good company.
However, while this liberal Gospel is not necessarily wrong in its criticisms, it nonetheless falls flat on its face and ends up being utterly impotent. Ironically, in an attempt to re-interpret Scripture in light of existentialism, it fails to address the deepest existential despairs of Man. Instead, it ends up serving a thin, moralistic soup of little consequence: In the end, it promises little, if anything, that cannot be found elsewhere. Moral teachers, life coaches, social clubs; each of these things can be easily obtained without having to drag religion into the picture. As the so-called "New Atheists" have been so eager to point out, it is quite possible for a person to live a good life and to love others without believing in God for a minute. What purpose, then, has such a Gospel? It is an antiquated ritual that has been made redundant by secular humanism. Again, there is an overwhelming irony: It was this accessible moralism that once caused the social elite to praise liberal Christianity as being the future of religion in a secular world, and yet it is this same moralism that has caused it to become utterly irrelevant; one of the fastest shrinking religious groups.
The conservative Gospel, however, isn't all that much better off. Conservative Christianity tends to make the Good News of Jesus primarily about eternal destiny. It is about God sending His Son down to earth on a rescue mission so that His creation might be able to join Him in heaven. It often leads off with questions such as: "Do you know where you're going to go when you die?" or "Are you a good person?" or "If you died today, what do you think God would say to you?"
Again, this approach has its positives. First, it captures the immediacy and urgency brought about by our species' tragic lack of longevity. Life could be cut short at any moment, and no one can say for sure how long they'll last. One could take perfect care of themselves only to suffer an unavoidable accident. The majority of people have lost loved ones and so know how sudden and how devastating this can be. And in such a world, would it not make sense to get directly to the point - that is, eternal destiny - as quickly as possible? If someone could die the next day without having heard the Gospel, is it not imperative that they be told as soon as possible, no matter the consequences?
This also gives lie to a bigger issue: We may talk all we like about love and self-sacrifice, but when the topic of the afterlife, a final resting place in which one might spend the rest of eternity, ears tend to perk up. After all, to wager against there being any sort of hell is a hefty gamble, even if one doesn't believe in that sort of thing at all. And so it is perhaps in response to this and the above that the conservative Gospel has become so distinctly focused upon one issue.
However, as I implied earlier, it too is not without its flaws. Some are relatively minor; for example, it connotes a rather self-centered view of the universe, as though it all revolves around us and our desires. That being said, as nearly every worldview is rather self-centered in one way or another, this is forgiveable. Much more egregious is its emphasis upon eternal destiny at the expense of all else. Converts are often told that all there is to Christianity is believing that Jesus died for their sins on the cross and now they are forgiven. However, any Gospel that begins and ends with the cross will be woefully lacking - such a Gospel brings about Christ-believers, but not Christ-followers. In other words, it is, to reference Matthew 28:18-20, baptising without making disciples.
Let us examine the book of Acts a bit deeper in this. Acts, as its name implies, is the account of the acts of the Apostles immediately following Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, specifically focusing on two men: Peter and Paul. What's interesting about this book is that while the message of the Gospel takes a central role as the Apostles and other church leaders share it with many, the Gospel message they seem to share is very different from the one that conservative Christians are putting forth today. For one thing, the notion of any sort of afterlife is only mentioned once, and that's in Acts 4:2, where it says that the Apostles Peter and John were proclaiming though Jesus the resurrection of the dead. The Gospel is shared many times throughout the book of Acts, so the fact that the afterlife is only mentioned once is significant. It shows, as mentioned above, that fearmongering was never a part of the early Christian message, that there was no part of it that said "Believe this or you will go to hell!" Nor is heaven ever used as a sort of bribe to attempt to goad people into accepting their beliefs. Interestingly enough, the cross is rarely brought up, as well. The cross is the centre of the conservative Gospel, and yet it seemed to play a very minor role in the message shared by the Apostles - when it is spoken of, it is shared as being the way through which Jesus died, rather than due to its power for salvation. Indeed, even forgetting the Gospel for a brief moment, as soteriology alone (soteriology meaning the study of the understanding of salvation) the cross is woefully insufficient as it omits some of the most important aspects of salvation, including the resurrection. Despite all this, how many of you who are from conservative Christian circles believed while growing up (and perhaps even still believe now) that the Gospel is: "Jesus died on the cross for your sins so that you can go to heaven?"
It's important to stop here and clarify one thing, however. We know from their epistles (letters) that the Apostles Peter and Paul affirmed the existence of the afterlife and the importance of the cross in Christian soteriology. I am not attempting to undermine either of those teachings - they are important. But a Gospel consisting of those two elements alone is sorely lacking, bereft of the majority of the Good News that Scripture attempts to convey.
And of course, there is the matter of the "sinner's prayer," this bizarre notion that if you pray the words "God, I am a sinner, but you have forgiven me, amen" or something similar, you are a Christian, regardless of what you actually believe or how you act, etc.
The problem I have with both of these Gospels, astute readers may have noticed, is not that they're wrong, but rather that they're incomplete. Both the statements "The Gospel is that Jesus came to exemplify love" and "The Gospel is that Jesus came to die for your sins" contain a great deal of truth to them. If they both contain truth, one might then wonder, would not a more acceptable Gospel message simply be the marriage of the two? To suggest that Jesus came teaching us how to love, and eventually exemplified this love in the utmost by dying on the cross for us? Surely that would be a satisfactory summary of the Christian message? It's not. But it's getting there.
Here's how I would frame the Gospel. Bear in mind that I am still working through this myself, and that if the Gospel is as transcendent a truth as we Christians believe it is, then by definition it is something that we will not fully grasp and something that we will continue to grow in our understanding of with each passing day.
The Good News of Christ is that God became man and walked among us in fulfilment of the covenants God made with Israel, establishing His kingdom here on Earth, a kingdom not of political power or of geographical boundaries, but one of love and grace, justice and peace. The seeds of this Kingdom were planted in the Old Covenant; the Kingdom was birthed when Christ came to Earth, showing us through word and action how a member of this Kingdom ought to live, through loving others and living good and upright lives; the Kingdom was legitimized when Christ was killed on the cross, was buried in the ground, and rose again three days later, signifying the end of the harsh slavery sin, darkness and death maintained over the human race; and the Kingdom will one day be consummated, or fulfilled, in which all darkness and evil and death will finally be fully defeated and the peace and love glimpsed briefly today will become a universal reality. Membership to the kingdom is extended to all who would desire it, that they might believe in the person and actions of Christ and enter in, experiencing powerful and transformational relationship with the Triune God, living lives that mimic the example laid out by Christ as best they can while partaking in the defeat of sin from Christ's death and resurrection, being fully forgiven by the mercy of God the Father.
(And of course, it is important to note, the example of Christ is showing love to everyone, not just those others who believe what you believe. It is not about blockading yourself in a community of people who are like you, but rather extending yourself to show love to people of all kinds)
I would consider this to be a working, albeit still slightly incomplete, understanding of the Good News of Christianity, the truths that bind all Christians together, and the truths that, should one embrace, makes one a Christian. Our understanding of things is always limited, and we should always be seeking to question our beliefs and develop our comprehension of our truth-claims. I think that this Gospel message validates that: For example, is the consummation of the Kingdom the literal end of the world, or something symbolic? Does the cross work through penal substitutionary atonement? Is it a matter of single imputation, double imputation or no imputation at all? Do we choose the Kingdom, or does the Kingdom choose us? (If you don't know what any of that means, don't worry). A person might take any position on any number of those issues and still affirm the statement above. Faith, like all other things in this world, needs to be subject to constant questioning in order to remain authentic, and as the Gospel is the centre of our faith, it is something that needs to be put under constant scrutiny.
More importantly, however, I believe that the above Gospel message is faithful to all aspects of Christ's live, rather than focusing exclusively on His ministry or His death. It attempts to articulate the Gospel message as expressed by the entirety of Scripture. Most importantly, I believe, it frames the Gospel as something tat both promises freedom from the great existential darkness of mankind as well as pushing for the necessity of Christians to emulate Christ in all that they do. Of course, we fall short on a regular basis. But it's a process of picking yourself up off the floor every time you're a jerk or unloving, and growing from it, trying harder next time. That's part of what the forgiveness mentioned above is all about.
If you desire freedom from the darkness within, if you seek deliverance from the meaninglessness of existence, if this message stirs anything within you, then I sincerely encourage you to explore the truth-claims it makes. If you are a Christian who feels that the message you have believed in is lacking, then again, I encourage you to explore the Gospel that I have posited here. You are, of course, free to message me, and I'm more than happy to talk to anyone about this (including if you're a conservative/liberal Christian who thinks that what I'm saying is bunk).
If you want to read more about what I'm saying, I've arrived at my own understanding of the Gospel through reading the works of theologians like N.T. Wright, Dallas Willard and Scot McKnight. McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel is a good place to start.
Let us examine the book of Acts a bit deeper in this. Acts, as its name implies, is the account of the acts of the Apostles immediately following Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, specifically focusing on two men: Peter and Paul. What's interesting about this book is that while the message of the Gospel takes a central role as the Apostles and other church leaders share it with many, the Gospel message they seem to share is very different from the one that conservative Christians are putting forth today. For one thing, the notion of any sort of afterlife is only mentioned once, and that's in Acts 4:2, where it says that the Apostles Peter and John were proclaiming though Jesus the resurrection of the dead. The Gospel is shared many times throughout the book of Acts, so the fact that the afterlife is only mentioned once is significant. It shows, as mentioned above, that fearmongering was never a part of the early Christian message, that there was no part of it that said "Believe this or you will go to hell!" Nor is heaven ever used as a sort of bribe to attempt to goad people into accepting their beliefs. Interestingly enough, the cross is rarely brought up, as well. The cross is the centre of the conservative Gospel, and yet it seemed to play a very minor role in the message shared by the Apostles - when it is spoken of, it is shared as being the way through which Jesus died, rather than due to its power for salvation. Indeed, even forgetting the Gospel for a brief moment, as soteriology alone (soteriology meaning the study of the understanding of salvation) the cross is woefully insufficient as it omits some of the most important aspects of salvation, including the resurrection. Despite all this, how many of you who are from conservative Christian circles believed while growing up (and perhaps even still believe now) that the Gospel is: "Jesus died on the cross for your sins so that you can go to heaven?"
It's important to stop here and clarify one thing, however. We know from their epistles (letters) that the Apostles Peter and Paul affirmed the existence of the afterlife and the importance of the cross in Christian soteriology. I am not attempting to undermine either of those teachings - they are important. But a Gospel consisting of those two elements alone is sorely lacking, bereft of the majority of the Good News that Scripture attempts to convey.
And of course, there is the matter of the "sinner's prayer," this bizarre notion that if you pray the words "God, I am a sinner, but you have forgiven me, amen" or something similar, you are a Christian, regardless of what you actually believe or how you act, etc.
The problem I have with both of these Gospels, astute readers may have noticed, is not that they're wrong, but rather that they're incomplete. Both the statements "The Gospel is that Jesus came to exemplify love" and "The Gospel is that Jesus came to die for your sins" contain a great deal of truth to them. If they both contain truth, one might then wonder, would not a more acceptable Gospel message simply be the marriage of the two? To suggest that Jesus came teaching us how to love, and eventually exemplified this love in the utmost by dying on the cross for us? Surely that would be a satisfactory summary of the Christian message? It's not. But it's getting there.
Here's how I would frame the Gospel. Bear in mind that I am still working through this myself, and that if the Gospel is as transcendent a truth as we Christians believe it is, then by definition it is something that we will not fully grasp and something that we will continue to grow in our understanding of with each passing day.
The Good News of Christ is that God became man and walked among us in fulfilment of the covenants God made with Israel, establishing His kingdom here on Earth, a kingdom not of political power or of geographical boundaries, but one of love and grace, justice and peace. The seeds of this Kingdom were planted in the Old Covenant; the Kingdom was birthed when Christ came to Earth, showing us through word and action how a member of this Kingdom ought to live, through loving others and living good and upright lives; the Kingdom was legitimized when Christ was killed on the cross, was buried in the ground, and rose again three days later, signifying the end of the harsh slavery sin, darkness and death maintained over the human race; and the Kingdom will one day be consummated, or fulfilled, in which all darkness and evil and death will finally be fully defeated and the peace and love glimpsed briefly today will become a universal reality. Membership to the kingdom is extended to all who would desire it, that they might believe in the person and actions of Christ and enter in, experiencing powerful and transformational relationship with the Triune God, living lives that mimic the example laid out by Christ as best they can while partaking in the defeat of sin from Christ's death and resurrection, being fully forgiven by the mercy of God the Father.
(And of course, it is important to note, the example of Christ is showing love to everyone, not just those others who believe what you believe. It is not about blockading yourself in a community of people who are like you, but rather extending yourself to show love to people of all kinds)
I would consider this to be a working, albeit still slightly incomplete, understanding of the Good News of Christianity, the truths that bind all Christians together, and the truths that, should one embrace, makes one a Christian. Our understanding of things is always limited, and we should always be seeking to question our beliefs and develop our comprehension of our truth-claims. I think that this Gospel message validates that: For example, is the consummation of the Kingdom the literal end of the world, or something symbolic? Does the cross work through penal substitutionary atonement? Is it a matter of single imputation, double imputation or no imputation at all? Do we choose the Kingdom, or does the Kingdom choose us? (If you don't know what any of that means, don't worry). A person might take any position on any number of those issues and still affirm the statement above. Faith, like all other things in this world, needs to be subject to constant questioning in order to remain authentic, and as the Gospel is the centre of our faith, it is something that needs to be put under constant scrutiny.
More importantly, however, I believe that the above Gospel message is faithful to all aspects of Christ's live, rather than focusing exclusively on His ministry or His death. It attempts to articulate the Gospel message as expressed by the entirety of Scripture. Most importantly, I believe, it frames the Gospel as something tat both promises freedom from the great existential darkness of mankind as well as pushing for the necessity of Christians to emulate Christ in all that they do. Of course, we fall short on a regular basis. But it's a process of picking yourself up off the floor every time you're a jerk or unloving, and growing from it, trying harder next time. That's part of what the forgiveness mentioned above is all about.
If you desire freedom from the darkness within, if you seek deliverance from the meaninglessness of existence, if this message stirs anything within you, then I sincerely encourage you to explore the truth-claims it makes. If you are a Christian who feels that the message you have believed in is lacking, then again, I encourage you to explore the Gospel that I have posited here. You are, of course, free to message me, and I'm more than happy to talk to anyone about this (including if you're a conservative/liberal Christian who thinks that what I'm saying is bunk).
If you want to read more about what I'm saying, I've arrived at my own understanding of the Gospel through reading the works of theologians like N.T. Wright, Dallas Willard and Scot McKnight. McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel is a good place to start.
