Dan at City of God has is weary of evangelicalism’s newest buzz phrase:
Can we just stop people in the church from using terms like “gospel-focused” or “gospel-centered” for the next couple of years? It seems this has been the terminology du jour much in the same way that there used to be “Christ-centered” or “Bible-based” as these good-sounding but ill-defined adjectives that various strains of evangelicals have applied to themselves, their churches, or whatever for no real reasons other than the terms sound good and give people good feelings.
What do you think? Has the phrase become less useful as it has become more ubiquitous?
December 15th, 2009 | 12:52 am | #1
Joe – I understand the inclination since I grew up in a church where “Bible-believing” was simply a synonym for “dispensational, fundamentalistic.” So not only can these labels used as you’re describing (fluid, hard to nail down, ends up meaning nothing), they can also be used to privilege one theological system over another. (IE the difference between framing a debate as Calvinist vs. Arminian or, as I’ve seen some Calvinists unfairly frame it, “God-centered” vs. “man-centered.)
Anyway, the tension we’re seeing here is similar to the tension we have with any set of labels. On the one hand, they’re never perfect. There are always exceptions and there is always the potential for the label to harm rather than help the discussion, either by creating more heat than light or through misleading people with poorly-conceived labels.
That said, the solution isn’t (despite what our post-modern brethren like to think) simply discarding labels or embracing all of them. What we need to be able to do is use them in ways that are accurate and can clarify the discussion by functioning as theological short-hand.
So in the case of “gospel-centered,” the danger is the same as with “bible-believing.” Most people that use “gospel-centered” are referring to a model of ministry that is missional in outlook, Christocentric in preaching philosophy, and likely Reformed in soteriology. Because of the Christocentric aspect of that label, “gospel-centered” is an understandable label. Rather than preaching a sanctification built on the strength of the human will or a specific method of ministry, every aspect of the Christian life is related back to the Gospel. So in that sense it is more gospel-centered than other models. That said, I’m not a huge fan of the label because I don’t want to suggest our brothers and sisters from other traditions aren’t gospel-centered, though I understand why some missional reformed types like the phrase.
And that turned into an entirely-too-long blog comment. Thanks for posting the question though Joe, I’ll be curious to see what others say.
peace
December 15th, 2009 | 1:49 am | #2
Gospel-Centered Moratorium?
Too bad it didn’t start a month ago. Would’ve knocked the hot wind out of the sails of the vehement anti-MD Protestants.
December 15th, 2009 | 2:05 am | #3
Related Posts: The Danger of “Gospel-Centered” Everything
Why Brian Signed the Manhattan Declaration:
“It seems the controversy is not in the statement itself, but in the idea that it includes Catholics, Evangelicals, Anglicans, and Orthodox under the same banner and definition of “the gospel.”
This may be a testimony to my discernment skills, but when I read the Manhattan Declaration, my mind really didn’t go to the place where I thought that this was an attempt to redefine the gospel. I believe that when it comes to the gospel that many groups who fly the Christian banner have it wrong, but when it comes to the Manhattan Declaration and its statements on marriage, life, and religious liberty, I believe that the groups included have it right. When I signed the statement I did not feel that I was being strong armed into doctrinal compromise. After signing the statement I do not feel that I was duped into doing the same.
My prayer in all of this is that The Manhattan Declaration would accomplish what I believe it was intended to do, to make a strong statement from the Christian community to the culture. Furthermore, I pray it makes a strong statement to lawmakers and to our President that there are a significant number of voters in our Democracy who believe our leaders are headed down the wrong path on these issues. I could only hope that this controversy does not do what usually happens in Christendom, and this is we end up with 4, or 7, or 40 different documents that essentially say the same thing, but demonstrate that we have no sense of agreement or unity.
I signed the Manhattan Declaration. I believe that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God. I believe that salvation is received by grace, through faith alone, in the risen Son of God. I also believe that when I signed the Manhattan Declaration I did not make a mistake.”
December 15th, 2009 | 2:50 am | #4
MD derangement syndrome aside, I think that Dan @ City of God could have given us an example or two of what he meant. There’s a certain circle of Christians who are using the phrase often, but I haven’t seen a lot of abuse of the phrase. Yet.
December 15th, 2009 | 6:29 am | #5
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Keith Jones, Apostle Gwendolyn. Apostle Gwendolyn said: GospelCentered Moratorium » Evangel | A First Things Blog http://bit.ly/7wCVNp [...]
December 15th, 2009 | 9:08 am | #6
Frank,
I suppose it would have been illustrative of me to lay out a whole set of examples. In part it’s something that I’ve heard at least as often informally (face-to-face discussions, listening to sermons et cetera) as anywhere else. Certainly the meme is out there though.
I don’t know that I’ve heard it abused per se, but my sense of it is that it will merely become ubiquitous and therefore increasingly meaningless. Perhaps “gospel” will become more misused than abused if that’s not too fine a distinction.
December 15th, 2009 | 10:15 am | #7
What do you think? Has the phrase become less useful as it has become more ubiquitous?
Thanks for asking. The answer is yes.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:29 am | #8
When do we get to stop using the word “missional”? I’m waiting for the memo on that.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:36 am | #9
What do you think? Has the phrase become less useful as it has become more ubiquitous?
Yes, it is very overused. I think it is the neo-Calvinist interpretation of what post-whatevers wanted to say with the word “missional.” It has the emphasis on an evangelistic mission that seeks conversion through the good news, but can be rather fuzzy on what that conversion entails. The problem I’ve noticed is that it is hard to decipher what exactly is bound up in the term “gospel.” Are they talking about Calvinism? Is it a worldview? Is it about penal substitution? Justification via imputed righteousness? Or is it a short and sweet message contained in the verses from 1 Cor 15? There doesn’t seem to be anything distinctly Protestant about being “gospel-centered” but the people that use that term very much think there is.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:40 am | #10
If nothing else, this post surely demonstrates the need for us to define terms more often than we’d sometimes like.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:59 am | #11
Gospel driven is better than this Purpose driven nonsense that compromises the Gospel.
http://whyimnotademocrat.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-macarthur-takes-on-rick-warrens.html
December 15th, 2009 | 12:51 pm | #12
Adam Omelianchuk: ‘The problem I’ve noticed is that it is hard to decipher what exactly is bound up in the term “gospel.” Are they talking about Calvinism? Is it a worldview? Is it about penal substitution? Justification via imputed righteousness? Or is it a short and sweet message contained in the verses from 1 Cor 15? There doesn’t seem to be anything distinctly Protestant about being “gospel-centered” but the people that use that term very much think there is.”
An excellent comment. Applicable to the Protestant Sanhedrin with anti-Manhattan Declaration Derangement Syndrome.
December 15th, 2009 | 1:25 pm | #13
Yes, I think so.
Also, sometimes IP banning is the loving thing to do.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:37 pm | #14
I propose we coin a new term: “gospelicious”.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:46 pm | #15
Jake Meador said:
the difference between framing a debate as Calvinist vs. Arminian or, as I’ve seen some Calvinists unfairly frame it, “God-centered” vs. “man-centered.
This is not unfair, just an accurate description.
December 15th, 2009 | 5:50 pm | #16
We must be careful about the term neo-Calvinist too. See discussion at Kevin De Young’s blog at Gospel Coalition site. Yesterday I think.
December 15th, 2009 | 6:40 pm | #17
Just to be clear, I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I already explained my views on the MD on a post elsewhere on this blog, and I think whether to sign or not sign is a matter of conscience.
December 15th, 2009 | 9:27 pm | #18
Adam Omelianchuk: “I think whether to sign or not sign is a matter of conscience.”
I agree.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact