Fred Sanders makes an important point about the dangers of assumed evangelicalism and the drift we all have to guard against, not only in movements but in our own life. We do have to keep the gospel central in order to guard against this, and although I am glad for the current emphasis upon a “Gospel-Centered” life (and everything else) that is taking place in evangelicalism, I am also worried. There is an important distinction that must be made and maintained between the gospel, the good news regarding the life and death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, the historical event never to be repeated, and the “work” of the Christian life that flows out of it. When everything becomes the gospel (gospel life, gospel work, gospel parenting, gospel speech, gospel this and that, etc…..), then at some point, nothing is the gospel.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 10:57 PM
October 22nd, 2009 | 8:03 am | #1
Depends on which gospel you are centering in on.
So what is the good news or gospel message that Jesus came to tell us?
Mark 1:14-15 (The Message)
“After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee preaching the Message of God: “Time’s up! God’s kingdom is here. Change your life and believe the Message.”
Or… Young’s Literal Translation
“And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of the reign of God,and saying — `Fulfilled hath been the time, and the reign of God hath come nigh, reform ye, and believe in the good news.”
God’s kingdom is here!
The reign of God is here!
Change your life, believe this message!
I see no problem with this gospel being central to all we do.
October 22nd, 2009 | 8:10 am | #2
I’d ask a clarifier to James, maybe Fred if he’s reading:
Is the distinction you’re trying to make here analogous to the difference between God being everywhere (omnipresent) and God actually being everything (pantheism)?
October 22nd, 2009 | 10:37 am | #3
James,
I think I hear what you’re concern is. Much like in my younger days when we had “Christian” everything (t-shirts, diets, aerobics, music, yoga), we face the same danger of “gospelizing,” using the word without the reality. Is this not akin to taking the Lord’s name in vain? However, if one is truly living out the gospel or has the Christ of the gospel living in and through them (much like Horton suggests in “The Gospel-Driven Life”), then I think we are centered both in message and life, word and deed.
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:07 pm | #4
Frank: Not sure…I haven’t considered it that way before, but yeah, maybe.
However, I do think I need to clarify it a bit based on the other comments. I agree that the gospel is central to all we do. I agree that we should be centered on it for all of life. I agree that our life should be driven by the gospel (which is why Horton called his book “gospel-drive life” and not the “gospel life;” he is drawing the same distinction). In fact, that is why I titled my blog “in light of the gospel.”
What I am talking about is the distinction between living the gospel and living in light of the gospel. We do not live the gospel. The gospel is the good news that is outside of me, rooted in the redemptive historical event centered upon Jesus Christ. I live in light of it.
My concern is that we actually make good distinctions. Work and vocation are just that, work and vocation. Sanctification is just that, sanctification. The gospel shapes those things, but those acts are different than the gospel and must be distinguished from it.
In talking about evangelicalism and the gospel, D. A. Carson once said, “I’d like to underscore another distinction that is still worth making. It was understood better in the past than it is today. It is this: one must distinguish between, on the one hand, the gospel as what God has done and what is the message to be announced and, on the other, what is demanded by God or effected by the gospel in assorted human responses.”
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:41 pm | #5
I agree that Carson’s distinction is a good clarifier, and useful to get a lot of little things bundled up the right way.
However, I am always drawn back to the matter of Paul saying plainly, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.” That is, in some way Paul is living the Gospel as a context or a platform for proclaiming the Gospel. He was being like Christ, or following Christ’s example, or completeing what Christ had done, in some palpable way.
Does that help?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact