Once there were two brothers. You know their story, more than likely. One was wasteful, exploitative, wanton, licentious. One was rigid, moralistic, uptight, legalistic. Two brothers with two personalities and two sets of attendant sins. But their father loved them both and all that he had belonged to both of them equally.
This is how staggeringly awesome the gospel of Jesus is.
Two sisters. One is a busybody, the other kinda poky. One rarely Sabbaths; the other makes every day a Sabbath. The prescription for both is worship of Jesus.
Two Americans. One is a practicing homosexual and proud of it. The other is a practicing Baptist and proud of it. One trusts his feelings, the other trusts his actions. Both are in desperate need of Jesus for pretty much the same reason.
This is how wonderful the gospel of Jesus is. It’s the skeleton key for all of humanity.
Medicine doesn’t work this way. You don’t treat spina bifida with drugs for leukemia. (At least, I don’t think you do.) You don’t give a decongestant to a kid with athlete’s foot. For every condition, there is a specific treatment. Different symptoms, different fixes.
But the gospel isn’t like that. It fixes everything.
We all exhibit a multitude of symptoms for our conditions, running the gamut from self-indulgent immorality to self-satisfying morality. Opposite ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between. Whatever your symptoms, the gospel is the answer.
There is no problem, pain, or perniciousness outside the universe-spanning scope of the gospel.
The gospel carries with it resurrection power.
So Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, rich or poor, smart or dumb, well or sick, bad or good . . . the gospel is the power to save for all who believe.
The gospel is the antidote to everything.
Related posts:
November 4th, 2009 | 11:00 am | #1
The gospel is the antidote to everything.
I’m not saying that’s wrong, but it makes it sound like the Gospel is a can of WD-40. Got a problem? I got a solution—The Gospel!
Say I have a problem with athlete’s foot. How do I apply the Gospel to fix it?
Unless we can explain—in every situation—how the Gospel applies to a solution then its useless to use that as an catch-all answer. In fact, it may be worse than useless since it makes it sound like people’s problems are illusory.
November 4th, 2009 | 11:16 am | #2
When Jesus returns, there will be no athlete’s foot, so take that, Joe.
:-)
{High Five to Jared}
November 4th, 2009 | 11:16 am | #3
Unless we can explain—in every situation
Well, it’s a blog post, so I couldn’t explain how it applies in every situation. But I do over the course of conversations, counseling, and preaching. But the blog post does offer some brief in points in arguing that it does apply to all situations, specifically the universal dichotomy of fallenness the Bible illustrates throughout its story.
it makes it sound like people’s problems are illusory.
The opposite, in fact. The Gospel, which is news of a historical event and the ramification of the fleshly incarnation of God himself, is sufficient for all problems precisely because it is something realer than psychology (or what have you).
November 4th, 2009 | 11:49 am | #4
Well, it’s a blog post, so I couldn’t explain how it applies in every situation. But I do over the course of conversations, counseling, and preaching.
But I think that’s the problem. When we try to reduce a concept like the gospel to something that can fit into a blog post but that requires hours of explication to explain, then we are sowing the seeds of confusion.
You may understand what the concept means, your fellow pastor-theologians may understand, and even some more sophisticated laymen may understand. But most people will not understand it, feel dumb that they don’t, but try to use it in their own evangelistic efforts—sowing more confusion.
It reminds me of an old joke about a young Marine Corps private who gets assigned to a new platoon of old veterans. One day he sees them sitting in a circle spouting off numbers. “24″ a sergeant says, and everyone busts out laughing. “44″, says a corporal and everyone cracks up again.
“What’s that about,” the private asks. The gunnery sergeant explains, “We’ve all been together so long and heard the same jokes for so many years that we just use numbers for them now instead of having to recite the whole thing.”
“Let me give it a try,” says the private. “8″
Everyone sits in silence and stares at him.
“What’d I do wrong?,” he asks. “Why did no one laugh?”
The gunny looks at him blankly and says, “You told it wrong.”
That jokes reminds me of your statement. If everyone understands all the concepts involved then it makes sense (but doesn’t really need to be said). If they don’t then they aren’t going to be able to tell it in a way that people can understand.
November 4th, 2009 | 12:02 pm | #5
When we try to reduce a concept like the gospel to something that can fit into a blog post but that requires hours of explication to explain, then we are sowing the seeds of confusion.
Joe, but it doesn’t.
Do you want to ask the same question at the end of the parable of the Prodigal Son?
Yes, but HOW, Jesus is your message equally for both sons? You didn’t explain that. It’s a cliffhanger story there. Please finish it out.
If everyone understands all the concepts involved then it makes sense (but doesn’t really need to be said). If they don’t then they aren’t going to be able to tell it in a way that people can understand.
Well. Now. Maybe you can understand why it’s frustrating to get the wearying redundancy of politics on a blog named for the Gospel. We certainly wont’ get to familiarity with the core message of the good news that way.
(Don’t all our posts on politics, without reference to Jesus or his message, and without lengthy explanations of the Christian’s responsibility to culture and the state, have the same problem? They also assume core messages they don’t convey either.)
If you think the readers interested in an evangelical blog are reading and don’t know what “the Gospel” means, we have a huge problem, don’t we?
November 4th, 2009 | 12:05 pm | #6
In fact, I would argue that the insistence we define “the gospel” because it sounds so vague while at the same time assuming the Christian’s obligation to political engagement without repeated explanations proves all the stuff I’ve been saying about Christians and culture war is true.
November 4th, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #7
I’m a bit perplexed by the sentence, “The gospel is the antidote to everything.”
If the gospel fixes everything then why, after 2000 years of gospel proclamation, isn’t everything fixed? Why are things getting worse – whether in the world or in churches – instead of better?
This reminds me of the Pollyannaistic mantra of the Jesus Freaks: “Jesus is the Answer.” As though the question doesn’t matter.
God is the answer to everything (given sufficient time) and God’s love certainly changes lives, but a bumper-sticker prescription doesn’t seem to be having much of a positive effect for most people in the world – however you want to define or limit “world.”
November 4th, 2009 | 12:58 pm | #8
If the gospel fixes everything then why, after 2000 years of gospel proclamation, isn’t everything fixed?
Because the new heavens and the new earth aren’t here yet.
Why are things getting worse – whether in the world or in churches – instead of better?
This is a relative question, better or worse.
The mortality rate is better today than it was in Jesus’ day. Health is better. Literacy is better. Etc. etc.
I’m not a postmillennialist (or a Pollyanna :-), but I do believe the gospel is bearing fruit in all the world, as Paul said it already was in the opening lines of Colossians even back then.
a bumper-sticker prescription doesn’t seem to be having much of a positive effect for most people in the world
The gospel is not a bumpersticker prescription. Only someone who hasn’t experienced its power would think it is.
November 4th, 2009 | 1:00 pm | #9
Question for the poo-poo’ers: What do you say/think when you read things in the Bible like “The gospel is the power of salvation for all who believe” and “The gospel is bearing fruit in all the world” and “That which is of first importance”???
Do you think, “Oh those persecuted and imprisoned and martyred Pollyannas with their silly bumperstickers”?
November 4th, 2009 | 1:19 pm | #10
When I first read this post, I was ambivalent. My first impulse was to cheer, as I definitely believe that the gospel brings salvation to sinners and that this salvation affects the whole of life. But the difficulty with stating this in a blog post is that it necessarily skips some significant steps along the way.
If someone asks for my response, as a political scientist, to the widespread fraud in the recent Afghan election and how it can be fixed, and if I reply, “Jesus is the answer!”, I could hardly blame this person for being dissatisfied or regarding me as a bit of a kook.
There is, of course, a profound sense in which Jesus is the answer, but we need to do the hard work of sorting through the implications of the gospel for such troubling political dilemmas. I affirm with the great Dutch statesman and theologian, Abraham Kuyper, that there is not a square inch of the cosmos of which Christ does not say “mine!” But what are the implications of this confession for marriage, family, political life, ecclesiastical life, the sciences, the arts, &c.?
Too quickly drawing a straight line between the gospel and the dilemmas of life risks bypassing necessary theoretical reflection and concrete application.
November 4th, 2009 | 1:51 pm | #11
Jared:
I appreciate the attempted ad hominem attack but will try not to respond in kind.
It was clear (or so I thought) that I was referring specifically and only to the statement, “The gospel is the antidote for everything.” That is the bumper sticker, not the Person who gives power to the gospel. I think you know that but, as is your wont, you choose to attack rather than clarify. Well, it’s your playing field and I am but a guest.
But to return to a more civil discourse and one of your comments in particular: you said that the reason things weren’t fixed is because “the new heavens and the new earth aren’t here yet.” I agree. Doesn’t that imply that the antidote to everything is actually the new heavens and the new earth rather than the gospel?
If you had said, “The gospel is the antidote for everything of importance,” I would agree without reservation. But I don’t think the gospel is the antidote for the Colts lack of a running game.
Finally (”at last,” they sighed in relief!), you adduced Rom 1.16, Col 1.6, and 1 Co 15.3. I embrace them completely in all that they affirm. The gospel is the only answer to the problem of man’s separation from God – but I don’t think we can attribute improved mortality or literacy rates to the power of the gospel.
Certainly the gospel is bearing fruit, but what is the fruit it is producing in this context? Is it not the salvation of those who are lost without the gospel?
The gospel is without question of “first importance,” far more important than literacy or physical longevity. But to say it is the antidote for the broken tie rod in my truck is a bit of a misapplication of the gospel, at least to me.
But then I am, according to your judgment, one “who hasn’t experienced its power.” What do I know?
November 4th, 2009 | 2:14 pm | #12
Wow, Mike, sensitive much. as is your wont Really?
The gospel is the antidote for everything.” That is the bumper sticker
That is the title of the post. Should I not title my posts. I explained the title in the post.
Doesn’t that imply that the antidote to everything is actually the new heavens and the new earth rather than the gospel?
But the good news includes the provision that they are coming.
But I don’t think the gospel is the antidote for the Colts lack of a running game.
It makes the lack of a running game unimportant. Why is that not important? Because the good news is true, I think.
Because the lack of a running game is VERY important to some people. Just listen to sports talk radio sometime.
The gospel is the only answer to the problem of man’s separation from God – but I don’t think we can attribute improved mortality or literacy rates to the power of the gospel.
No, I don’t either. I was only meaning to challenge your assertion that things are getting worse.
I do agree we still have sin in the world (obviously), but I don’t think whether things are getting better or worse in the world really have any bearing on whether the good news is true or not, or good or not. It was a peripheral point, only trying to demonstrate the relativity of your claim. Things aren’t “all bad,” in other words.
But to say it is the antidote for the broken tie rod in my truck is a bit of a misapplication of the gospel, at least to me.
The reductionism is sillier than my “bumpersticker.” The examples I give in the post have to do with human fallenness. To take my “everything” line out of that context is really weird. But you and Joe are both doing that, arguing as if I didn’t set up the “everything” as the universal dichotomy of human fallenness in both wanton sin and legalistic self-righteousness.
But if pressed, I’d say the gospel doesn’t fix your broken tie-rod but it can fix how you respond to your tie-rod being broken.
But then I am, according to your judgment, one “who hasn’t experienced its power.” What do I know?
I don’t know. All I know is that I said the gospel is the antidote for a broken world and I have Christians going “Huh?”
November 4th, 2009 | 2:17 pm | #13
Certainly the gospel is bearing fruit, but what is the fruit it is producing in this context? Is it not the salvation of those who are lost without the gospel?
That’s the beginning, but it’s bigger than that. It is the arrival and spread of God’s kingdom too.
“The gospel is not just the ABC’s of the Christian life, it is the A to Z.” – Tim Keller
November 4th, 2009 | 2:20 pm | #14
David:
What implications would you like me to address?
I haven’t done anything in this post that isn’t itself just extrapolated from anything in Paul’s introductions to his epistles. The collective shrug to “Jesus is the answer!” (as if that’s all I said anyway: the post IS longer than one line, you know) is mind boggling.
November 4th, 2009 | 2:23 pm | #15
The gospel is the only answer to the problem of man’s separation from God – but I don’t think we can attribute improved mortality or literacy rates to the power of the gospel.
Btw, if THIS is true, Joe and John Mark and others need to address it as well, because the majority of posts on this blog are coming from the implicit assumption that cultural change and political change are results of the gospel.
November 4th, 2009 | 2:32 pm | #16
Great discussion guys,
If statements like “But to say it is the antidote for the broken tie rod in my truck is a bit of a misapplication of the gospel, at least to me” logically follow from the proposition that the Gospel is the antidote to everything, then the fault lies in the original statement, not the reduction.
Also it feels a bit artificial to claim it is the answer to everything, and then defend the claim by saying that the examples it doesn’t apply to are disqualified since they lack importance.
I think the power of the gospel is powerful because it fixes the big issues. It answers why there is suffering in the world. It doesn’t address each and every individual injustice and give it purpose, though it does tell us that this too shall be made right. Telling the starving that the gospel is the antidote to all their problems is simply not true. Economics and politics are problems that need to be fixed that are not taken care of by the gospel. It is the answer to the most important problem, but certainly not all.
November 4th, 2009 | 2:39 pm | #17
Also it feels a bit artificial to claim it is the answer to everything, and then defend the claim by saying that the examples it doesn’t apply to are disqualified since they lack importance.
Caleb, thanks. Michael said it applies only to “important” things, not me. I’m saying that it makes the unimportant things become unimportant. Because broken tie-rods and lack of football success can reveal idolatry in our hearts. Big time.
So the gospel may not of course fix the broken automobile but the problem of broken automobiles is absolutely not outside the scope of the gospel. As a personal testimony, I know that my angst over car trouble, which has plagued me for as long as . . . well, as long as I’ve been driving, as virtually disappeared since the gospel renaissance God worked in my life 4 years ago. My response to car trouble before I knew what I call “gospel wakefulness” revealed the idolatry in my heart, revealed where my true trust was and where my true treasure was.
Telling the starving that the gospel is the antidote to all their problems is simply not true.
Then Jesus is wrong in the Beatitudes to say it is.
Economics and politics are problems that need to be fixed that are not taken care of by the gospel.
Sure they are. One day all nations, tribes, and tongues will worship Christ the Lord in the new heavens and new earth. Every king will bow and confess he is Lord.
Btw, if that last statement of yours is true, you need to go post it on every political post on this site.
November 4th, 2009 | 3:01 pm | #18
Jared:
I think we agree in principle that the gospel is the only thing of importance when it comes to important things, i.e., restoring the earth and people to God’s original design.
As for my sensitivity, this is like sport to me. I don’t take anything personally and don’t mean anything personally. My apologies if I have come across otherwise.
My final statement is this: The gospel of Jesus Christ is the only antidote for anything that is truly important.
B.N. – I’m pretty sure I’ve experienced its power, but then there’s Mt 7.21-23. :(
November 4th, 2009 | 3:05 pm | #19
Mike, thanks. I appreciate that.
I would agree with your final statement, but add in that it makes the unimportant things unimportant.
—
Also: None of the responses to my post have pulled at all from the bulk of it. I explain the “everything” in about 6 paragraphs that nobody has quoted or responded to. It’s puzzling to get comments that speak as though “The gospel fixes everything” is all that is written there, as if I neither outline the everything or provide some basis for how the gospel fixes it (prodigal son parable, etc.)
In Ephesians, Paul extrapolates on this idea — the gospel as unifying and all-encompassing power — that runs through the whole NT (and is set up by the crappy older brothers throughout the OT) with his Jew and Gentile becoming one body business.
I really don’t believe I’m innovating anything here. I am pulling from what I see in Scripture — “All things were created through him and for him” — and basically just aping Tim Keller.
November 4th, 2009 | 3:32 pm | #20
About the starving… usually there are a litany of problems that cause them. Taking care of starving people is an application of the gospel, but the answers themselves do not necessarily flow from the gospel. (engineering and infrastructure, farming techniques, etc. all are problems that need specific answers. The gospel relates in that we are to help them, but does not provide the specific answers itself)
I really do enjoy the gospel-centrality that you present and defend, what I don’t like is saying that the gospel is the antidote to every specific problem. The fact that the gospel permeates all aspects of life does not mean all answers stem from it.
My primary beef comes not from the fact that you are emphasizing the influence of the gospel in all aspects of life, but rather you are saying it solves everything. I would say it solves the big things, and gives us hope and perspective on the rest of life’s problems.
“Sure they are. One day all nations, tribes, and tongues will worship Christ the Lord in the new heavens and new earth. Every king will bow and confess he is Lord.” -I fail to see how this is an antidote to a village that has no potable water. The gospel should drive us to get them water, but the answer itself is multi-faceted and will require political and civil engineering solutions that the gospel itself gives us no answer for. It also tells us that in the end it shall be made right, but they still need water, and its still a very real problem in need of resolution.
I actually don’t think we disagree much at all in principle. I’m just coming from the perspective that we need to be very cautious with blanket statements. The fact that the gospel relates to every human problem, is not the same as saying that it is the antidote to every problem, any more than going to a village to solve water problems without the necessary engineering, political, and other solutions is the antidote to thirst. While the content of your post is in fact in reference to the human condition, the statement is still unqualified, and makes me nervous. And while I know YOU don’t think this way at all, saying the gospel solves everything is going to cause parallels to the bumper-sticker theology like “Jesus is the answer” and prosperity gospel-esque theology.
November 4th, 2009 | 3:41 pm | #21
Taking care of starving people is an application of the gospel, but the answers themselves do not necessarily flow from the gospel.
I guess we disagree, then.
I draw a direct line from the good news that Jesus is Lord to what life is like in his kingdom. If Jesus is Lord, and in his kingdom those who are hungry are fed, then there is an implication of the gospel on the issue of starvation.
This doesn’t mean of course that all people who are starving will get food to eat. But the gospel is the answer to starvation, and I’ll try to explain that by responding to something else you wrote.
I fail to see how [the gospel] is an antidote to a village that has no potable water.
Two ways:
It tells the village that there is living water, so that even if they die, they really live.
It creates the advancement of the kingdom, which empowers Christians to work to bring potable water to the village.
I think one miscommunication in effect here is folks hearing that I’m saying that the gospel solving starvation means nobody will ever starve.
I’m not a universalist.
I’m saying that the answer to the problem of real (not hypothetical) starvation is the good news. Yes the embodiment of its implications, but also its proclamation. Nowhere is this more evident than Paul in prison writing to persecuted people. He offers them the hope of the gospel as an answer to their suffering, which is not the same thing as saying “You’re gonna stop hurting.”
I’m just coming from the perspective that we need to be very cautious with blanket statements.
Agreed. I don’t think they’re quite as blanket as everyone else seems to think (as they are elaborated on in the post from which they’re being decontextualized), but I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
Thanks, Caleb.
November 4th, 2009 | 4:35 pm | #22
Um, ‘kay…
At the point that someone says “Abortion is bad” and we all go “YAAAYY!” but someone says “the Gospel is the best thing ever” and we all go “Wait a minute, what about athlete’s foot?” we have a serious problem. Like a real serious one, that we need to repent of.
Maybe “evangelicals” isn’t a good name for us. Perhaps “Republicans with loosely interpreted Bible verses” suits us better.
November 4th, 2009 | 4:41 pm | #23
Maybe the gospel isn’t the answer or antidote to *anything*? What if the gospel was never a fix that came along after the problem, or an answer that came along after the question, but something that was always going to be *whatever*?
November 4th, 2009 | 4:44 pm | #24
Doug, Amen.
November 4th, 2009 | 5:26 pm | #25
The Gospel is the antidote to everything (and anything) that which matters.
The gospel will not fix my busted transmission. Only $2,500 will do that. But if I do not believe the gospel, the transmission is not my real problem.
Yet if I do believe the gospel, I still have the problem of the transmission. But if I am in the midst of a body of believers (I think they call that the church), those who truly do believe and act on the gospel, someone might give me a car (it happened), another may contribute to the cost of it’s repair (that’s happened) or another may help fix it (that happened too).
So the gospel is the solution to my real problem, and to all my other “problems” (which really are not problems, but simply opportunities for believers to live out the gospel)
November 4th, 2009 | 6:08 pm | #26
#1 problem with the blogsphere: people reading blog posts critically, trying to find places to misunderstand and disagree.
Solution? Well, I would say for people to be charitable and give the benefit of the doubt, but now I’m not so sure. I might have to say it’s the Gospel…
[insert wink face]
November 4th, 2009 | 6:12 pm | #27
And I don’t know about you guys, but the gospel I adhere to promises health, wealth, and good feelings, so I don’t know what “problems” y’all are talking about.
[insert I-hope-that-isn't-blasphemy face]
November 4th, 2009 | 10:36 pm | #28
[...] gospel, The Boar's Head Tavern, the Kingdom of God, Truly Reformed by Andrew Several blogs (Evangel, The Boar’s Head Tavern, and City of God, at least) have been discussing the meaning of the [...]
November 4th, 2009 | 11:01 pm | #29
“He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together” (except stuff like broken tie rods and athlete’s foot).
November 5th, 2009 | 12:10 am | #30
Perhaps, as has been previously intimated, we don’t even know what a problem is.
Take Wes R’s last post ““He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together” (except stuff like broken tie rods and athlete’s foot).”
In fact, He’s holding that tie rod together in it’s brokeness, and He’s holding that athletes foot together as well.
Dac mentioned that those are all opportunities to live out the gospel.
He’s right. In point of fact, those aren’t even real problems. They really are opportunities, after all, who decided that the tie rod should break and that you’d get athletes foot…why it was God all along.
So the only real problem, really is the problem of sin. And even that was always in God’s plan.
Sometimes we forget that I think, and so we miscontrue our mission. We live to demonstrate God’s love and grace to people, in hopes that, in delivering the gospel to them, they will repent and have their only real problem solved.
This whole thing comes down to the whole “felt needs” thing. If we preach to felt needs, we will miss the real need. If we preach to the real need, those felt needs become irrelevant.
November 5th, 2009 | 1:23 am | #31
Wes:
You’re almost right with that cutesy “Jesus is central” thing(where did you get that anyway?), but I stubbed my toe once, and it was PAINFUL. But hey, thanks for playing.
Remember to vote!
November 5th, 2009 | 2:30 am | #32
I read this first thing this morning and it did my heart so much good, so to see some of these comments is really disheartening.
An antidote is only effective for reversing a poison when it’s a. known to exist and b. taken off the shelf and applied, with a great deal of force, to the source of the poison.
And I think 2 Corinthians 5:21 is a lot shorter than this blog post. But maybe Paul was just being reductionistic and insufficiently nuanced too…
November 5th, 2009 | 8:16 am | #33
“We must know this article (the gospel) well and bang it into our heads repeatedly.” – Luther
November 5th, 2009 | 8:58 am | #34
Doug,
Colossians 1:17, NLT (commentary was mine). Sorry about your toe. I was going to vote but I misplaced my voter guide.
November 5th, 2009 | 2:00 pm | #35
Wes: Why do you need a voter guide? Just look for the “R” next to their name, and let your light shine!
Seriously though, I appreciated your post.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact