There’s a big discussion about “what is the gospel?” And a lot of people who talk about this, think their gospel is the real gospel. The reason I wrote my new book is because I think many people who think they understand the gospel really don’t understand the gospel. I’m calling their gospel the “soterian” gospel (see below).
In fact, some who are reading The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited are convinced they can “tweak” their soterian gospel by adding “story” to their gospel. I’m not entirely sure how they think they are going to do this, but it appears to me they want the “story” to be the creation-fall-redemption story, and just like that they’ve escaped the “soterian” net.
Not so. The creation-fall-redemption story, even if it adds “consummation” to it, remains a soterian and individual-shaped gospel. This won’t do.
As Tom Wright made clear in the preface to my book when he said the proposals here are “massive,” what King Jesus Gospel is proposing is not about tweaking our already-existing (soterian) gospel or just tweaking our already existing (soterian) evangelism or adding story to the soterian gospel. Folks, everything’s affected when the gospel shifts from the soterian approach to the Story approach. Again, here’s the chart I posted the other day.
What I’m suggesting then is not making the soterian gospel better. We’ve tried that and it doesn’t help.
The soterian gospel is not the gospel of Jesus, of Peter or Paul.
The issue here is do you want to live with the original gospel or do you want to make the gospel according to your salvation theology?
Tell me what each of the above approaches to the gospel (soterian, Story) assumes and teaches about God?
What I’m suggesting is that the soterian gospel is not the gospel. It is a way of ordering various bits of what the Bible says about salvation into the plan of salvation. I want to make this clear: the soterian gospel is not what the NT is declaring when it is gospeling. (Look at 1Cor 15, the sermons in Acts or the Gospels.)
I hear lots today about the gospel-centered preaching, and gospel-centered theology, and gospel-centered worship, and gospel-centered missions, and then I look to see what they mean by gospel … and, frankly, it is nothing but a soterian gospel amped up by a robust Calvinist theology. Some in fact think they are being “gospel-centered” if they are being Calvinist. That is, some find a deeper gospel in the so-called doctrines of grace, but those doctrines are only a deepening of soteriology; in other words, yet more of the soterian gospel.
But gospel is not about the so-called “doctrines of grace,” or about Calvinism or about double imputation. The gospel is the announcement that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Mary, is in fact the long-awaited King (Messiah), the Lord of all, the one who alone brings the kingdom and those who order their lives under him are the true kingdom people. Anyone connected to that Jesus by faith, by repentance, by baptism, etc, will find the forgiveness of sins and will be summoned into a new creation life.
Now I want to press this harder: the fundamental orientation of the soterian gospel is about the benefits “I” get if I respond. The fundamental orientation of the Story gospel is not about “my” benefits but about Jesus. Embracing the Story gospel brings benefits, to be sure, but we embrace this Story because we embrace Jesus, not because we get something. The entire soterian approach is shaped by benefits.
I press harder: the God of the soterian gospel is formed around two features about God: God is judge, and God is wrathful (and will send folks to hell). Or, in some forms, the soterian gospel is framed about this: God is judge, but God loves us and wants a better life for us but God will judge if we don’t respond aright. The operating idea then is “How can I escape God’s wrath or God’s judgment against me?”
The God of the Story gospel is formed around these: God is creator, God is director of history, God is incarnate in Jesus, and God calls humans to live in God’s ordered kingdom world by living under Jesus. The operating idea here is “Who rules the world and do I live under that rule?” The Gods of these two “gospels” are framed differently.
I press harder: the God of the soterian gospel is formed around two features about God: God is judge, and God is wrathful (and will send folks to hell). Or, in some forms, the soterian gospel is framed about this: God is judge, but God loves us and wants a better life for us but God will judge if we don’t respond aright. The operating idea then is “How can I escape God’s wrath or God’s judgment against me?”
Yet there are aspects of the apostles’ and Jesus’ teaching that stress the need to be saved from the coming wrath. Does the Gospel have to be either σωτηρίαν or story? Can it not be both? ISTM the urgency to be saved from the coming wrath seems to color and explain a lot of what is written in the NT. (Note: I haven’t read your book, nor all of the earlier posts about it.)
Comment by EricW — October 12, 2011 @ 5:44 am
Scot,
I think you’ve always had a slightly uncomfortable place within mainstream Evangelical Christianity. I wonder if you had been raised in a Methodist community (perhaps on the evangelically-oriented, moderately conservative side) you would have felt more at home.
Your gospel view and Kingdom theology, as articulated in this thread and your book, your overall Narrative view of Scripture, and your acceptance of most consensus critical scholarship, I think place you more comfortably within the intellectual and spiritual climate of the more conservative mainstream Protestant denominations.
What do you think?
Comment by Tim — October 12, 2011 @ 6:05 am
EricW,
My contention is it can’t be both because these are two alternative ways of framing the gospel. You can frame the gospel by soteriology, the soterian approach, but if you do you will not be in line with the apostolic gospel of the New Testament. Or you can frame the gospel by the Story approach, and be consistent with the New Testament. As I have written in the book and on a previous post, I am not contrasting salvation vs. Story, but a soteriological re-framing without the Bible’s Story vs. a Story framing that entails salvation.
Comment by Scot McKnight — October 12, 2011 @ 6:08 am
Great post.
It seems to me that there is something missing in the Story Gospel as you have it framed in the the table.
The story needs to start earlier than Israel. God created the world for a purpose and has a mission in the world. Israel’s story comes out of this purpose and mission. The gospel story of Jesus is the peak of this entire mission and story.
It is all kingdom, God’s mission, and it is personal and corporate.
Comment by rjs — October 12, 2011 @ 6:12 am
I teach a small group and we have begun studying the book of Romans. After unpacking the first 5 verses, I could tell there was some uneasiness regarding how I believed Paul described the Gospel. Essentially, it is about Jesus being the promised Messiah-King of Israel(for the Jew) and Lord/Savior of the world(for the Gentiles) and the things that flow from that proclaimation (adoption, reconciliation, etc) are fruits of the Gospel not necessarily the good news in and of themselves. It seems that if we frame the gospel from a soterian standpoint where it becomes about ‘us’ anything that doesn’t directly benefit us is not–well, good news. Is that a fair statement?
Comment by Samuel — October 12, 2011 @ 6:23 am
RJS #4-
Ben Witherington asked Scot the same thing:
“I guess my question is, why subsume the story of Adam and humanity under the heading of the story of Israel? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Scot Responds:
This is a good and important question, and is of benefit for all of us to ponder. A few thoughts:
When I say Story of Israel, I have colonized and incorporated the story of humanity into it. I don’t do this by way of violence but by way of precedent: God, according to our Bible, chose to redeem humanity through Israel. So, the Story of Israel is the Story of God in this world, beginning with Adam and Eve but taking a new and covenant form with Israel, so that Israel is elected missionally to be a blessing to the nations. So, yes, there does appear to be a reduction in moving from humanity to Israel, but the order of the Bible now is from Israel to the world. And there’s more here: the Story of Christ is directly tied to the Story of Israel in almost every way possible. God chose to incarnate his plan through a people, Israel, and then to incarnate his Son through an Israelite son, Jesus. The incarnation itself is involved in this Story of Israel, and it is important for us to embrace God’s chosen plan – Israel, Messiah, church – as the means through which God works missionally and the locations in particular where God redeems.
I come back with this: Indeed, Luke and Paul (Jesus, too, in the divorce text) connects back to Adam, but the gravity of emphasis in the NT is not Adam but Abraham. But I don’t want to be forced to choose: Adam is in Abraham and Abraham is in David and David (and Adam and Abraham) are in Christ etc..
If my book comes off as not focusing on the world, then that is my fault, but one of the themes of The King Jesus Gospel is that Jesus is Messiah and Lord for Israel and the Gentiles.”
Comment by Rick — October 12, 2011 @ 6:24 am
RJS, as I said in my Ben Witherington interviews, when I say “Israel” I mean the Story of Adam as framed through the Story of Israel. oops… I see Rick took care of that for me.
On the importance of kingdom: this is because of the eschatological vision of Rev 20-22, not just because Jesus talks about kingdom. The Director of history has a goal, the Kingdom of God (or the New Heavens and the New Earth), and setting up Jesus as the King anticipates that Kingdom in the now.
Comment by Scot McKnight — October 12, 2011 @ 6:31 am
Scot,
I am leading a group at my church through The Apprentice Series from Renovare. Are you familiar with the series? My sense is that these materials are working on spiritual formation from a King Jesus gospel orientation. Would you agree?
Thanks!
Comment by Peter — October 12, 2011 @ 6:52 am
Hi Scot,
This seems to be a simple refocusing to me, but then I spend a great deal of time on the fringes of society with Neo-Pagans, Cultural Creatives, and others for whom story (or dare we use the post-modern anathemic word?) “narrative” is necessary. Yet I also know that a simple refocusing brings a radical, uncompromising change in perspective – what Zizek would call The Parallax View.
I have not read your book, but will do so. This post makes me think that this is bringing the disciplines of a culturally sensitive missionary home to stay – the disciplines of one who has had to discover the story of God in the history of the people he/she is reaching. Not sure how the church lost that discipline, but it has been missing for some time.
Comment by Phil Wyman — October 12, 2011 @ 6:56 am
“I am not contrasting salvation vs. Story, but a soteriological re-framing without the Bible’s Story vs. a Story framing that entails salvation.”
That’s an important distinction. And, it’s not immediately obvious to a first-time reader. I think you’re going to have to use this disclaimer quite often. Also: despite your clarification on your use of “Israel”, I still think you’re taking too narrow a focus. Ultimately the distinctive story of Israel is one (major) part within a much larger framework, including all nations (Adam/Noah to the grafting of Gentiles into the Kingdom) and the broader story of Satan, demons, and angels, the details of which we do not have in their entirety. It’s also possible that the Gospel is the point upon which the story turns, rather than being the entire story in itself – and so, by conflating it with the big “S” Story of the Bible, we actually lose it.
Comment by SeanR. — October 12, 2011 @ 6:57 am
SeanR. wrote:
Ultimately the distinctive story of Israel is one (major) part within a much larger framework, including all nations (Adam/Noah to the grafting of Gentiles into the Kingdom) and the broader story of Satan, demons, and angels, the details of which we do not have in their entirety.
I’ve been reading Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, Gabriele Boccaccini (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Enoch-Qumran-Origins-Forgotten-Connection/dp/0802828787
as well as some of Margaret Barker’s books. There is apparently a growing appreciation of the significance of the Enochian literature for intertestamental Judaism’s and the New Testament’s ideas of Temple and Kingdom. The Genesis 6 material and other Scriptures re: the fallen angels and the Watchers may have colored and shaped things more than we have heretofore thought.
Comment by EricW — October 12, 2011 @ 7:10 am
Scot,
Can you say some more about why you believe Creation-fall-redemption-consummation is all individualistic. The fall did more than affect our standing before God, but affected all of creation. Similarly Jesus as King, Messiah and Redeemer did not just come to save us, but redeem all of creation (Colossians 1)?
Comment by eric — October 12, 2011 @ 7:14 am
Samuel, yes, I’ve had similar experiences. We are so used to framing the gospel through what we get out of it that anything but that doesn’t sound like good news.
Comment by Scot McKnight — October 12, 2011 @ 7:17 am
Scott,
I wanted to extend some gratitude for the compare/contrast diagram with what you set up linguistically with story vs. soterian gospels. The beginning of Story gospel really is Trinitarian life overflowing into creation, the beginning of the soterian gospel begins and I believe always must return to shame.
I know it’s been commented many times before, but notice how the “new reformed” folks almost never discuss the story of Israel in relation to Jesus the Messiah. Here is an example of preaching that albeit somewhat extreme, illustrates the soterian gospel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMJK4MwfQmQ&feature=relmfu
I’d also add that as a ministry leader in Seattle, the vast majority of friends who aren’t of Christian faith are as curious about the story gospel as they are frightened (and I don’t mean convicted) of the soterian gospel. I’m truly grateful for strong language that calls for repentance and confession, but I fear the soterian gospel which does this really well, brings people again and again not to Jesus, but to shame.
Comment by Tim Soerens — October 12, 2011 @ 7:18 am
Dear Scot,
In your book on atonement, you write (page 20):
Let me now sum up the biblical understanding of humans as Eikons of God in four stages: humans are created as Eikons, cracked in their present Eikonic struggle, shaped into Christ-like Eikons as they follow Jesus, and destined to be conformed to Christ in union with God and communion with others in eternity.
This clearly is a rudimentary storyline. To me, it resembles creation-fall-redemption-consummation, although not exactly. So to me, it seems to be related to a soterian gospel. It does, on the other hand, not mention Israel.
So I question, whether there is a fundamental difference between a soterian and a story gospel, if we allow (?) the first to be told as a story rather than as timeless truths (in which Jezus could have lived and died in any moment of history) and if we stress more on mankind than on the individual.
Comment by Pietr — October 12, 2011 @ 7:21 am
eric, some who are soterians want to reclaim “story” but they do so from the lens of the C-F-R(-C) “story,” and the download is still a soterian approach that is shaped almost entirely by personal salvation. When they expand this to cosmic proportions, or at least expand it, they are giving us a fuller biblical understanding of salvation, but they are still not tying into the gospel Story framework of 1 Cor 15, sermons in Acts or the Gospels. The NT gospel Story is the Story about Jesus, and thus the story must be framed by christology not redemption. (Redemption, and I repeat this so as not to be understood, is entailed in the christological story but it is not framed by redemption.)
Comment by Scot McKnight — October 12, 2011 @ 7:21 am
Scot,
I am going to be leading a small group on “Living a Holistic Life Following Jesus.” The first lesson is going to be about the Gospel. I plan on incorporating much of what you have been saying in these posts (the book is on the way so I can get a better view later). I feel in order to understand Kingdom-living we need to understand that the Story of Christ doesn’t stop with individual salvation and our personal relationship with God (though both are important).
Anyway, I am wondering how the following looks in your opinion because I am starting with creation and the fall – I am basically talking about your idea of “eikons” from Community Called Atonement. Then I am going to Abraham and God’s Covenant with Him (that through Him all the nations will be blessed). Then that the fulfillment of God’s Covenant was originally meant to come through the Nation Israel which did not hold their end of the agreement. As such, they fell into captivity and out from them came the perfect personified Israel. Jesus Christ.
In His life, death and resurrection; He proves to be our Example, our Sacrifice/Mediator and our Victor/King. In these ways where He identifies with us; we can live in Him. Through that, we are reconciled in every way (to God, to self, to others and to the world). Also, in Jesus, we are reincorporated (grafted) into Abraham’s family and are now mandated just as Israel, to bless the nations with God’s ministry of reconciliation (and justice) until Jesus returns; serving and honoring Him as our King and Lord!
What would your response be to this summary of Gospel? I am curious to know in what ways you would tweak this message?
Also, as a side questions, do you believe we are able to actually live out the true Gospel even if our theology is incorporating the soterian gospel? This is another question I was thinking about as I know many Evangelicals who live a life that really seems to incorporate the Kingdom Story and Theology even though when they talk about it, they seem to express a more soterian view.
Comment by Jim — October 12, 2011 @ 7:25 am
It seems to me that the key to this is one’s understanding of the OT regarding the Messiah. The soterian Gospel doesn’t have a problem with Jesus as fulfilling the OT prophesies as Messiah its just that the understanding of Messiah is “spiritualized” so to speak (or maybe I should say “soterized”) so that the understanding of the fulfillment of the Messiah is individual and spiritual instead of having a much broader understanding of Messiah as one who comes to restore all of creation. What one does with their understanding of OT Messiah determines their understanding of Gospel.
Comment by Nick — October 12, 2011 @ 7:26 am
Scot,
I guess my point isn’t that it goes back to Adam. That is a rather small modification. My point is that it goes back to a mission and purpose of God in creating the world.
The gospel is the gospel because of the context it has in the entire purpose of everything.
“Who rules the world and do I live under that rule?” is a question that is subsumed in the question of purpose and mission.
The individualistic soterian approach misses all of this – and this is what makes the gospel so powerful.
Comment by rjs — October 12, 2011 @ 7:26 am
Pietr, you are right, and that book (with Embracing Grace) are corrected by The King Jesus Gospel. Those earlier books were attempts to frame a holistic theory of salvation, but were not Story enough. I discuss this shift on my part briefly in King Jesus Gospel.
Jim, you are attempting to be comprehensive, and of course loose ends need to be tied together more, but it all has to do with what is driving the narrative: is it redemption or is it Jesus as the true Messiah/king and Lord who saves? I think you have a mixture of both — one of the major themes in the OT we need to learn to see more is God’s Lordship/Kingship, and thus those odd passages about God only begrudgingly giving Israel a king ( like the other nations) and, to back up, with Adam and Eve wanting to be a god and goddess in Genesis 3, etc. Usurpation is a big term for me, and I develop this in a later chp in The King Jesus Gospel.
Comment by Scot McKnight — October 12, 2011 @ 7:51 am
Nick.
Exactly brother. Exactly.
Comment by Scot McKnight — October 12, 2011 @ 7:51 am
Scot,
Much of your distinction between a soterian approach and a story approach seems like the old distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology and that you’re suggesting the systematic theology/theologians have overly shaped our understanding of the gospel and that we need to get back to genuine biblical theology, which would give us a more “biblical” story/narrative framework. Would you agree, or is there more to this?
Comment by Norton — October 12, 2011 @ 7:53 am
Norton, unless I’m misunderstanding, I don’t think I would agree with that way of framing the differences. It’s not just systematics vs. biblical theology, but a narrower concern: soteriologizing of everything toward the plan of personal salvation vs. the Bible’s Story that leads toward Jesus.
Comment by scotmcknight — October 12, 2011 @ 8:02 am
Scot,
Trying to summarize an hour lesson in a small comment is not exactly easy and I think the other readers would not want that length comment here
Since I have made it comprehensive, with your view of “eikons” included, I am wondering how your view on the four ways we are broken has changed?
Thank you for your insights!
Comment by Jim — October 12, 2011 @ 8:12 am
Scot, I think what I’m getting at is that strong tendency of systematic theology to put everything into nice, neat categories (doctrine of creation, doctrine of sin, doctrine of atonement, doctrine of salvation), which when strung together creates a nice, linear plan of salvation, and which has “colonized” the gospel. So that it’s not just the content of the plan (toward personal salvation) that is askew, but the form itself, a logical plan vs. a winding narrative.
Comment by Norton — October 12, 2011 @ 8:20 am
Jim, the Eikons stuff is part of soteriology in the Bible. So, my Embracing Grace and A Community called Atonement are what are entailed by the gospel but not the same as the gospel.
Comment by Scot McKnight — October 12, 2011 @ 8:23 am
What I sense underlying the “soterian gospel defendants” is a baseline fear that in moving away from this, it will cause people to think God is less glorious because less emphasis is placed on God’s dominant wrath.
Funny thing is, as I’ve embraced and taught a more narrative oriented Gospel highlighting the Kingship of Jesus, His Kingdom move on earth and His final restorative work of all of creation; the result is God has become more glorious to me and those I teach.
Comment by dan jr. — October 12, 2011 @ 8:23 am
Scot,
You’re “pressing” this quite a bit. I’m glad. You’re right to think that if you don’t, tweaking of the soterian gospel is all that’s gonna happen.
I’ve often found this to be true: “['gospel-centered'] is nothing but a soterian gospel amped up by a robust Calvinist theology.” By contrast, I love the ‘amped up’ Christology of the gospel that you’re pressing.
I remember a message from Todd Hunter on the Mark 1:14 “gospel.” Before he read the passage he asked folks to get in their head a basic idea of the gospel. After he read the passage, he noted all the things that weren’t there and said, “What I want you to get is that the gospel is not first and foremost about you. The gospel is not first and foremost about me. The gospel is first and foremost about the kingdom or reign of God.”
Comment by T — October 12, 2011 @ 8:26 am
Scot,
I think the implications of your thesis are enormous. I’m reminded of a conversation a few years ago about Tom Wright’s “Justification” book. We were trying to figure out how it would “preach” and it seems your book helps us get there. We preach the gospel! To me much of the NPP and the gospel (as you present it) are linked.
I also like the implications for soteriology. The story gospel actually expands the implications of salvation.
Comment by Jerry S — October 12, 2011 @ 8:28 am
Scott,
Like EricW, I have not read your book yet and the only exposure to the contents are this post. However I am not sure the two gospel approaches are all that different. They emphasize different things.
The gospel is all about Jesus. He is the King/Messiah. And he will recreate the earth and invite those who are His into the kingdom when He returns. It should be an exciting and scary thing to order one’s life around Jesus’ kingdom priorities. But it is also about forgivness from shame and guilt and sin. It is also about escaping wrath. Sure we all can emphasize parts of that and demphasize other parts, but guess (even after your comment to explain) I am missing something of your point.
MikeB
@g1antfan
BTW: Do you think the gospel includes or allows for polytheism? There seems to be much debate over this point in your other posts on Mormonism.
Comment by MikeB — October 12, 2011 @ 8:32 am
One way to get into this that I have found useful is to begin with Rev.21-22. If this is the end state, the fulfillment of what God always intended,what needs to be true about God’s action within the story to bring this end about? TO account for all of what we find in the end compels us to account for God’s “eternal purpose” (Eph.3:11), humanity’s “reigning” throughout eternity, a non-dualist account of reality, and so on.
Lee
Comment by Lee Wyatt — October 12, 2011 @ 8:32 am
I agree about framing the Gospel in terms of the story of Jesus and his people… but I don’t think that *that* story ‘works’ to ‘Gospel’ people if it is not, itself, framed within the larger narrative about the intersection of our own lives and the present state of reality. That is, the empirical fact of evil, the drive to grow into full life, the necessity that we all have our faith put somewhere… are we putting our faith in the right place?
Etc.
Without all those details framing things, I just don’t see how your modern whomever will see any bearing or relevance to the Biblical story of God’s people or the Kingship and Personhood of Jesus Christ.
Comment by Amos Paul — October 12, 2011 @ 8:43 am
I think I’m finally understanding it a little better, Scot, (your comments in 16 finally clarified it for me). So the C-R-R-C framework, while not individualistic regarding salvation, still hinges on Redemption. Redemption is the key to understanding the world. While in the Story Gospel everything hinges on Jesus as King.
I’m trying to flush out what this actually means… is redemption secondary to Jesus’s kingship?
Comment by Ann — October 12, 2011 @ 8:49 am
Meant to say “C-F-R-C”
Comment by Ann — October 12, 2011 @ 8:50 am
In my conversations with soterians so far, they have gotten hung up on the idea of the forgiveness of sins. I would like some feedback and help on the way I handle this.
What I have been saying is that they have to give up on the notion that their sin is strictly something that they are doing that is bad. Instead, they need to consider that sin in the old testament is something for which you are rejected by god, and exiled. When Jesus talks about the forgiveness of sins he is talking about him opening his arms and welcoming you into his Kingdom, that he will not reject you, he will accept you if you want to follow him.
Thoughts?
Comment by DRT — October 12, 2011 @ 8:57 am
Ann,
I prefer to say redemption is “entailed” or “flows from” or “follows” christology. The Story gospel does not eliminate redemption from the gospel but sees it as the effect of the gospel, but not the same thing as the gospel.
Comment by Scot McKnight — October 12, 2011 @ 9:02 am
Scot,
I’m with you on your definition of the gospel. I’m wondering though–where is this going to take us? You’re fighting against a significant body of ingrained teaching & preaching. I’m skeptical as to whether your “New Perspective on the Gospel” will win much of a hearing among evangelicals who define their mission as “saving people from going to hell.”
I think it will require many more people unpacking the implications of your book in the years to come. We will need new (or maybe old!) ways of evangelism. Curriculum, preaching, and worship will need to steep themselves in the story to get there. Fortunately, churches that follow the church year already have a head start.
Comment by Jerry S — October 12, 2011 @ 9:04 am
Scot can you elaborate on this point?
“Anyone connected to that Jesus by faith, by repentance, by baptism, etc, will find the forgiveness of sins and will be summoned into a new creation life.”
It seems some might (mis)understand this in a couple of ways, either assuming that anyone who repents (i.e. changes behavior) *or* believes *or* is baptized is in the kingdom, or that faith, repentance, and baptism are all required for entrance into the kingdom, forgiveness, and new life. Also, of what does the “etc.” consist? This might seem like picking a nit, but I think it could be important in trying to “nutshell” the story gospel for others.
Comment by BradK — October 12, 2011 @ 9:07 am
I’ve been preaching through Romans and have been dreading the 9-11 section that stops so many people from even teaching through the book. I have become convinced that the Jew & Gentile make-up of the Roman church is a strong undercurrent for the style of Paul’s argument. With that, I was wondering why Paul spends so much time (three chapters) talking about Israel’s failure, and how it is not God’s failure. KJG puts that in perspective to a much greater degree. Paul has to defend his soteriology that is expressed in 1-8 in light of the bigger story of the promise, election of Israel, continual faithlessness of Israel, the preservation of a remnant, and Gentile inclusion.
It is interesting that Romans 9-11 seems to me to be a proving ground for either ‘individual election/salvation’ or ‘story of israel.’ Some read the section, and see it at a further polemic on how God chooses individuals. It seems to me that they jettison the context of Paul’s quotations too easily. Since Paul is seeking to share his heart for Israel and curtain Gentile arrogance (11:18), what better way than to make sure Gentiles know that they are partaking of best part of Israel’s story.
Scot, I’d love to hear you unpack that.
Comment by Sarters — October 12, 2011 @ 9:16 am
Scot, where do we go from here? You’ve identified the problem with the soterian gospel, but how can we swing things the other way? Where do we start?
Comment by Jerry S — October 12, 2011 @ 9:29 am
Jerry S,
I think that will be an interesting thing to watch; will Scot’s proposal have a real effect on churches? More particularly, will it result in a more robust church on the ground? Will it attract more converts? Or will it result in dying churches? It will be interesting to watch.
Scot,
I’m going to push you a little further, since you push pretty hard in this post: is the soterian gospel (say, for example, the “four spiritual laws”) a false gospel? Are those who hold to it heretics?
Comment by Ben Wheaton — October 12, 2011 @ 9:30 am
I guess I just feel confused about what salvation IS in this context. I love what I’ve read from you and Wright on kingdom theology, but all I can seem to find regarding salvation is what it isn’t, not what it is. At some point we have to address personal salvation, right? Or is there no such thing? I need help with this.
Comment by David Nilsen — October 12, 2011 @ 9:40 am
Ben (41),
Obviously!
I think you’ve been around here long enough to know the answer to that.
Jerry,
(Now I’m thinkin’ ice cream . . .) I thought Scot’s prior post re: how we do evangelism is a good place for work, but not just there. I see implications everywhere, even for curriculum for children’s ministries, for instance. I grew up in an environment in which the point of virtually every Bible story could be converted into “This shows that we’re sinful and need Jesus’ sacrifice to save us from our sins.” Which was then followed by a mini-invitation to accept Jesus’ sacrifice. I think we can let the Bible now speak more holistically (which is what it does naturally) about God’s reign, his character, his vocation for Israel, his vocation for Jesus, and now for the Church. For all this we can talk about Jesus as God’s ultimate revelation and leader for these kinds of things.
Comment by T — October 12, 2011 @ 9:54 am
Yes, yes, T. My question was partly tongue-in-cheek, but I grow suspicious of people who claim that everyone before them has got it wrong and that “I, only I, am left.”
Comment by Ben Wheaton — October 12, 2011 @ 9:59 am
Scot,
I’ve been asked to write an article for Children’s Ministry Magazine about how we distort the Gospel by the ways we present it to children. I’m a former children’s pastor and it seems obvious to me that within Evangelicalism we vigorously groom our children into the Soterian model. I’d love to interview about implications that “The King Jesus Gospel” should have on the way we talk to children about the Gospel. If you’d be open to this, what would the best way be to contact you?
Larry Shallenberger
Comment by Larry Shallenberger — October 12, 2011 @ 10:01 am
@ 41, 44
I doubt “heretical” but “incomplete” is probably safe to say. Missing out on the big picture and focusing in on individual gain instead of joining in the Mission of God.
Comment by Richard — October 12, 2011 @ 10:02 am
I loved this post. It cleared up a lot of questions that I’ve had about the gospel. Thanks for this.
But I must second David Nilsen’s sentiments. What IS personal salvation? Is there such thing? I don’t ask this to criticize. I ask because I am honestly searching for an answer that makes sense in light of this view of the gospel.
Comment by moonchild11 — October 12, 2011 @ 10:02 am
I am thinking about those who would press what Paul says about the time he went to Corinth and determined to know nothing among them except Jesus, and him crucified. Which he says is the power of God. Of course we see that in individualistic terms in our typical evangelical understanding of the gospel, rather than in the terms the Bible sets forth. The cross immediately puts up to the evangelical mindset solely the message of personal salvation, whereas the Biblical framework sets that story in the fulfillment of what humankind was called to be, carried on in Israel’s calling, and fulfilled by Jesus, and now in and through him today.
When Paul went there he must have been thinking of a cross-shaped proclamation of Jesus, but in a different framework or perspective than typical evangelicalism. Thinking out loud.
Comment by Ted M. Gossard — October 12, 2011 @ 10:13 am
I have also been trying to come up with an analogy for the soterians that will make it easier for them to understand the difference.
The best I have come up with so far is that it is like an orphan in orphanage who is generally lost, does not understand their place in life, and does not have a long term connectedness to those around them. But then a family finds them and takes them in. There are then saved by that family. There are no guarantees, but they did find their place in the world and lead a full life.
In the case of Christians, sure they expect great things of this new family, including never being separated from their Father. But the point is that they are found because this new family has stepped forward and taken them in.
Comment by DRT — October 12, 2011 @ 10:23 am
David,
Jesus’ story tells us the kinds of things that God has sent and empowered his ‘Christ’ to do (destroy the devil’s work; seek and save the lost; bind up the broken; heal the sick; get relief to the poor, etc.). Jesus reveals the agenda of God’s government. “Salvation” in a very broad, holistic sense (based on the NT examples and even usage of the term), is that agenda. “Righteousness, peace and joy throught the Spirit” are also central facets of the kingdom. I think Scot said it well that ‘salvation’ is the outflow, the result, of God’s work through Israel, which finds its focal point, its axis, in Israel’s Messiah.
Comment by T — October 12, 2011 @ 10:26 am
Ben (44),
I hear you on that. One of the things I truly treasure about Scot, especially compared to much of what is in the Christian blogosphere, is that his answer to that question is “No.” “True, but not true enough” is a Scot-ism that I deeply appreciate and has stuck with me and shaped me. “Reformed and always reforming” shouldn’t mean calling all predeceasors (even prior versions of one’s self) heretics and false teachers. We should be able to keep learning without all prior thinking, even concerning the gospel, being heresy.
Comment by T — October 12, 2011 @ 10:37 am
Scot himself acknowledges, T and Ben, that he himself did not get it right in his previous two books, that somehow what he is saying in there falls short of the apostolic gospel.
I sometimes think I’m getting it, then at other times I’m not sure. I think my problem comes from not realizing just how big and true this change is. A sea-change really.
Comment by Ted M. Gossard — October 12, 2011 @ 10:47 am
Richard,
But “incomplete” is something that Scot specifically opposes in this post; we can’t just add on more context to the soterian gospel, but start anew. Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation is the “completion” of the soterian gospel, but the “King Jesus Gospel” rejects this addition of context as inadequate–as far as I can tell.
Comment by Ben Wheaton — October 12, 2011 @ 10:49 am
T – thanks for the help, but that all sounded like the theological equivalent of management-speak – phrases that don’t actually say anything concrete. I want to understand this, because I want to believe it, but here is my question: Is the question “What must I do to be saved?” relevant at all? Is there punishment? Does the kingdom mean everything is already saved? Someone please clarify, and be as specific and direct as possible.
Comment by David Nilsen — October 12, 2011 @ 11:09 am
Scot, I’m about half way through the book and I can see how much the “individual gospel” ideas have crept into everyone thinking. I’m leading a Bible Study on Exodus and the study guide we are using is full of “How can I apply this to my life” type questions. I’m ignoring those questions and trying to help people see that this story of the birth of Israel connects back to creation and forward to Christ–and on to Revelation. To apply to us we need to embrace that we live between the “already and the not yet” and that IS Good News. Reading your book at this time is helping with that.
Comment by Barb — October 12, 2011 @ 11:12 am
Ben,
One way to describe the point is confusion of two very closely linked ideas. Scot is making a relatively simple point: The NT focuses on Jesus’ own (messianic) arrival, work, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension as ‘the gospel,’ as opposed to the effects of Christ’s work, which we might sum up as “salvation” (even though we tend to be much more narrow with even that concept than the NT). We evangelicals have taken one or two central parts of the outflows of God’s work through the Christ and announced them as “the gospel.” Scot is saying first, that’s not the way that the NT presents “gospel.” In a nutshell, the gospel is primarily and firstly Jesus’ story, not primarily and firstly our story. Perhaps this is similar to the importance of keeping the greatest commandment as the priority, even though the second “is like unto it” and needs to be said along side it. However necessary the second command is, even to understanding the first fully, it is still second. In the same way, the gospel is first and foremost about Christ, and secondarily about the salvation he brings. The salvation the Messiah brings is needed to understand and appreciate the goodness and character of the Messiah, but the gospel is still the Messiah’s story. Does that help?
Comment by T — October 12, 2011 @ 11:18 am
Scot-
First I want to say that I like where you’re coming from and I agree with what you are saying in this post.
But…
as I got to the following quote, I had a major disconnect:
“the fundamental orientation of the soterian gospel is about the benefits “I” get if I respond. The fundamental orientation of the Story gospel is not about “my” benefits but about Jesus. Embracing the Story gospel brings benefits, to be sure, but we embrace this Story because we embrace Jesus, not because we get something. The entire soterian approach is shaped by benefits.”
Throughout the first half of your post I kept thinking about Matt Chandler (a very popular protege of Piper) and his latest preaching series around “Gospel Centeredness” ( http://www.thevillagechurch.net/resources/sermons/village-identity/ )and how I can see exactly who you are speaking about.
But then I remembered that it was Chandler who taught me that salvation WAS NOT about me, but about God and His glory. In fact, he often says that following God to get to Heaven (benefits) is like marrying a woman for her money – in that it in no way glorifies the person. We follow God to get God, not to get His stuff. In other words, as Peter Rollins asks, if given the choice between an eternity in Heaven with Satan, or an eternity in Hell with God…which would we choose. Chandler claims we should choose the latter.
So my question is…how does someone who so perfectly fits your soterian-gospel descriptions come away with a theology that stresses loving God for God and not for the benefits that come with it?
Again, I’m getting your point about Story trumping Soteriology, but I have to say I arrived there through people like Chandler who don’t line up with your assessment.
Thanks again for this post!
Comment by Jon G — October 12, 2011 @ 11:25 am
I fear that this post is beginning to reveal a bit of arrogance that you have “got it” and even efforts to respond to your concerns are simply inferior. Like mine! http://bit.ly/15SRpX
Comment by William Varner — October 12, 2011 @ 11:29 am
Jon G,
I don’t know much about Matt Chandler – but I do know a fair bit about John Piper. He was a college professor when I was a student (yes at the same college) and I’ve been aware of his writings and ideas since then.
I think the difference, as I see it, is between God’s glory and God’s mission. It isn’t all about God’s glory, it is about joining into the mission of God. The gospel isn’t about God’s glory, it is about His work in creation, his entering into creation, in connection with His mission and plan for creation (including us).
Comment by rjs — October 12, 2011 @ 11:37 am
David,
Dunno if my comment in 56 to Ben will help. No one is saying that salvation (of the creation from the curse, of people from sin and death, of people from disease and demons, etc.) is unimportant. Again, Scot is saying that the gospel accounts themselves are “the gospel” and there’s lots of saving going on in those accounts. They are even necessary to know if this “messiah” is someone worth following. But the narratives are organized around a thesis, and the thesis is that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah. The main point of the gospels is not about what we get (all kinds of ‘salvation’); the point is that the long awaited Messiah has come, and it’s Jesus. He deserves our love, our trust, our loyalty, etc.
Hope that helps.
Comment by T — October 12, 2011 @ 11:37 am
Scot,
You’re pressing hard, but aren’t you essentially pressing on a soterian straw man? I have no idea if you’ve done anything to reach out to proponents of the gospel that you’re summarizing, but I hope you have. I know many such proponents who would bristle at idea that their gospel is ultimately for themselves and driven by selfish motives. That’s quite a charge to levy.
Wouldn’t it be more productive to engage in a meaningful dialogue instead of lobbing bombs from a distance? I’m not assigning motive to your actions, but I’m trying to understand what your goal is in essentially stating that the soterian gospel is flat out wrong. Obviously we’ve been reminded this year that controversy sells books — but I don’t know how much it actually helps the body grow up into Him who is the Head.
Can you help me understand what you’re ultimately after?
Thanks.
Comment by Jed Walker — October 12, 2011 @ 11:38 am
To say that the soterian gospel is a false gospel is not to say that the Spirit is hindered in birthing new life in others through “tools” like the 4 spiritual laws, 4 steps to God, the Navigators’ bridge diagram, etc. I think Scot testifies somewhere that he came to faith via a soterian gospel. A plan of salvation (aka a horribly-reduced, sales pitch scheme based on the gospel, but not in itself the gospel) has been and will be used by the Spirit to create/birth new life in others. So, let’s put to rest that Scot is saying that people aren’t really saved if they responsed to a soterian gospel. It is after all, as Scot coins the phrase, a *soterian* (saving) gospel. Yet, the soterian gospel held up to the light of King Jesus Gospel is shown to be *not* the Gospel of Jesus, Paul, Peter and John. I think T’s comment #56 is so helpful and on target. People have entered into the benefits of the gospel (forgiveness of sins, etc.) and have called the benefits the gospel itself. Scot writes, “No.” The Gospel and its benefits are not the same thing. The Gospel of Jesus is so much bigger and robust (I love this term that Scot uses) than the benefits that accrue to an individual who believes in and follows Jesus.
Comment by John W Frye — October 12, 2011 @ 11:43 am
Scot,
Echoing Jed’s sentiment here, but it would be really helpful for you to interact with Vos, Ridderbos, Kline, Bavink, Goheen, Horton, etc. to show how creation-fall-redemption-consummation is inherently individualistic. Your critique seems rather simplistic and superficial without taking on some of these works/authors in their own words.
Comment by Greg — October 12, 2011 @ 11:50 am
Scot,
I’m enjoying your new book and this series. The one question that keeps popping up for me: It seems that the “story” includes judgment. Specifically, the coming of the kingdom in consummation will bring judgment. Judgment is necessary for the kingdom to come.
I see this typologically in the OT (Flood and Exodus as types of the coming of the kingdom). I hear it in John the Baptist, from Paul in Romans, and in Revelation 21-22. And, of course, Jesus taught that kingdom brings judgment, hence the call to repent. So Part of Jesus’ role as Messiah and Lord is to judge. If we tell the king Jesus story the way Jesus told it, we have to include judgment.
And this is where the “soterian” piece fits. Once you tell the story in a way that includes judgment, you’re able to explain how the life, death, resurrection of Jesus solves the judgment dilemma (in addition to accomplishing other things).
In this scheme, “salvation throught judgment” isn’t the sum total of the Gospel. But faithful “gospeling” compels us to include it when we tell the story.
Your thoughts? Where would you push back on this?
Comment by Hunter Beaumont — October 12, 2011 @ 11:56 am
Aside from often esoteric quarrels among the professional theology class….in which I hold no standing and even less interest
…what is the “in the pews” intention of your claim here, Scot? Are you advocating through your emphasis on story, a Kingdom now approach that implies greater emphasis on social gospel/participation?
Comment by Paul Johnston — October 12, 2011 @ 12:07 pm
RJS @ #59-
I should point out that Chandler isn’t exactly like Piper and I don’t really listen to Piper all that much so maybe I shouldn’t have tied the two together in my first post(although they are close friends and run in the same circles).
But Chandler has painted another picture of God than I get from what I see in the soterian-gospel type Scot is describing. What I get from him is that God is so beautiful that we should want to get as much of Him (Him, not his stuff) as possible – kind of like falling in love – and by PARTICIPATING IN HIS MISSION, we get to be where He is. So, by taking part in the redemptive action of the Kingdom, we get to experience God’s presence as well as living out our full potential as image bearers to the King. And this presence just continues on into the next life.
I would depart from him on a lot of things though, and in terms of Heaven, I prefer to think of it as living with God under His rule as opposed to a particular place that we arrive at. It’s something that we can experience in the here and now.
Then again, in trying to follow both sides of the aisle, I must admit that maybe I’m mixing my thinking between those that stress Story, and those that stress Soteriology.
Comment by Jon G — October 12, 2011 @ 12:17 pm
Jon G, if I may, the whole idea of god doing great things to us and that gives glory to god sounds like a twisted form of logic. It is like my looking at the beauty, itelligence, humor etc of my wife and realizing that it is a testament to my glory that I got her. I just don’t buy that and feel it sends the wrong message.
In the Pope’s book he argues that the glory of Jesus is that he is willing to lay his life down for others. Which does not compare with his glory being that he does great things for me.
Comment by DRT — October 12, 2011 @ 1:00 pm
Jon G @66, I think your “mixed thinking” is a right response. I think it is a mistake to present or appear to present Soteriology and “Story” (I’m a little fuzzy on the words definition here) as dichotomy. There is significant overlap. The distinctions, as best as I can understand them on this thread, seem more about emphasis than kind.
Comment by Paul Johnston — October 12, 2011 @ 1:05 pm
I think I’m starting to get it. The Soterian gospel has strayed from the biblical story because, in the bible, personal salvation is subsumed into the greater story of Jesus’ universal reign. When salvation is the message, the message becomes ‘it’s me and Jesus’. Yet, it is not ‘me and Jesus’, but ‘Jesus permeating the universe which He has created, held together, and is now redeeming’. This redemption includes personal human beings on earth who are meant to enter into this greater reality through Jesus. This was the plan from the beginning and is a much greater concept then ‘salvation’ as it is commonly understood (most especially the emphasis of rescue from sin/wrath).
Many people detect a problem with the inevitably self-serving view of salvation and attempt a solution, but miss the mark because their overarching theological framework is fixated on salvation/wrath/the inability to enter GOd’s presence in our sin-stained state. For example, Calvinists detect a problem in a self-serving gospel, but instead of highlighting Jesus as King of the universe who’s providing the way, they highlight sovereignty instead. However, kingship is the major theme, which contains a different emphasis from sovereigty (the emphasis being relational rather than existential), making the reign of God the superior meta-narrative over sovereignty.
Have I made any progress here or have I missed something altogether?
Comment by Dennis J — October 12, 2011 @ 1:37 pm
I’ve been giving a lecture at Truett seminary at Baylor so I’ve been off line for a while…
Jerry S, begin with the last chps of my book where I sketch out how to build a gospel culture, which is beginning to take place in all sorts of places, including the churches of younger pastors who know the way forward is not the soterian gospel.
Ben Wheaton, I don’t bite on such bad offerings. No, and I have never used such terms for the soterian approach. It is not the gospel; it is soteriology. It is reasonable soteriology. But it is not the gospel. It doesn’t deny the gospel.
Larry, great question: it begins and ends with one central approach — we tell children Who Jesus is, What Jesus did, and Why Jesus matters to us today. The essence is to keep the focus on Jesus. It is far too easy to manipulate children because they want to please us, and we cheapen the gospel when we think 6 yr olds are offering mature responses. Keep it going, keep showing them and teaching them about Jesus.
Moonchild… personal salvation results from personal response to Jesus. When you hop on the lion and wash your face in the lion’s mane you find salvation flows.
Ted, Jesus and him crucified focuses on the cross, and Jesus died for our sins, but the cross of Paul was also an empty cross, of the Messiah, who was exalted… that little formula is reduction of 1 Cor 15:3-5.
JonG, hear me on this one: the Piper-led focus on the glory of God is wonderful, because it fits with 1 Cor 15:1-28, where the final result is that God is all in all. The soterian approach doesn’t fit with that all-in-all focus as well as the Story approach, and that’s what I’m saying. I would focus a bit more “christo-centrically” than their “theo-centrism” but that’s semantics and not substance. The gospel is more christo-centric.
Comment by Scot McKnight — October 12, 2011 @ 1:40 pm
Hunter, in the gospeling events of the Acts there is judgment, at the end, as warning to those who don’t respond to the Gospel about Jesus Christ. In King Jesus Gospel I have some stuff on that. I contend that the soterian gospel is too much dominated by the God of judgment. The solution is not to eliminate judgment, which some do, but to put in a place that properly expresses how it is expressed in the Gospels, in Acts and in 1 Cor 15. It should not be the driver.
Comment by scotmcknight — October 12, 2011 @ 1:47 pm
Dennis J, to quote Jesus, ‘you are not far from the kingdom.’ Yes, I like what you are saying.
Comment by scotmcknight — October 12, 2011 @ 1:48 pm
Greg, that’s not my purpose today… instead I want to lay out in broad form (this is a blog, after all) the big picture. Yes, those good reformed thinkers have a cosmic vision, and I have always liked that about them. But look at the terms: “creation, fall, redemption, consummation” is a soteriological schema and not enough christologically-framed. Look at Tom Wright’s, which is far more natural to the pages of the Bible and less soteriologically-framed: creation/ fall/ Israel/ Jesus Christ/ Church/ [I think Tom has consummation, not sure]. I see this one as a bit mixed, but much closer.
Comment by scotmcknight — October 12, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
DRT,
“It is like my looking at the beauty, itelligence, humor etc of my wife and realizing that it is a testament to my glory that I got her.”
I hear what you’re saying, but you could also look at it like this – As a dad, if I can provide and look after my children so that their life is lived joyfully (purposefully, productively, whatever), then I have brought glory (significance, weight)upon myself, no? In other words, I want to be the best (glory deserving)dad that I can be, and looking out for my children’s joy (even if they don’t think that’s what I’m doing) accomplishes this. Plus, I would say that the fact that you got your wife does bring you some glory, although we can debate how much.
I’m just saying (and this is Chandler’s line) that God is not after our begrudging submission…he’s after our love. And when we realize that He wants our joy more than we do (what loving somebody really means), then the glory follows.
On your last note about what the Pope said…I think you’re drawing a distinction that I wouldn’t make. Laying His life down for others IS the greatest thing that He could do for me/us…thus it brings Him the most Glory. The two are intertwined, not in contention.
I think most people don’t like the whole “Glory” approach because it seems so needy and self-centered…but that’s only when it is applied to a human. If anybody deserves glory, and should be self-centered, it’s God.
Comment by Jon G — October 12, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
Jed, really? A soterian straw man … are you saying no one really preaches that soterian gospel? It’s pervasive among evangelicals. I gave examples in the book, and the most articulate spokesperson for this view today is Greg Gilbert’s book. And I would contend that I have engaged them in my book, and have opened up myself to the public that way, and now on this blog have done the same. Of course, I’m pointing clearly to differences between the apostolic gospel and the soterian gospel, and that is nothing other than an attempt to make us more biblical.
Comment by scotmcknight — October 12, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
Scot
I am half way through the book and believe it contains an important message. The distinction the salvation gospel and the story gospel is an important one., but I really dislike the labels you have chosen to use. I think it is bad practice to use a good word to label a bad category, yet that is what you do with the “salvation gospel” and “salvation culture”. I realise that you are referring to “personal salvation” gospel and culture, but most the time you drop the word “personal. I find the way that use the word salvation quite irritating.
I have always read the Old Testament and when you do that you cannot stick with a narrow view of salvation. In the Psalms and Exodus, salvation clearly has a much broader meaning, probably even broader than your story gospel. So salvation is too important word and a concept to lose, so it is a pity that you have used to describe a distorted gospel. Ironically, in a loose sense Jesus name is “salvation”, which makes a salvation an unavoidable aspect of the gospel.
A more general issue is that you book does not fully explain the significance of the story of Israel. It does not seem to be enough to say that Jesus fulfils it. I think that you have to explain better how Israel fits into God’s purposes in the world. It was not just a failed attempt to do something. I agree with RJS at #4 that “The story needs to start earlier than Israel. God created the world for a purpose and has a mission in the world. Israel’s story comes out of this purpose and mission.” You need a full description how Israel fits with God’s purpose and mission for the story to be coherent (perhaps this is another book).
You are right in stressing the importance of the parousia and consummation, but I think you ha push to much of God’s salvation (in the true sense) out to the consummation. If Jesus really is king, more of this transformation should take place this side of the parousia. “Sending the Spirit” after the ascension is an important aspect of the gospel (which you mostly ignore). When that is a stronger aspect of the gospel, we will see greater transformation of the world.
Comment by Blessed Economist — October 12, 2011 @ 2:50 pm
I’m coming at this only out of this post, not having read the book, so forgive me if my confusion is simply due to this blog post being an abridged version of your point. But I am not sure I understand the seeming rejection of the soteriological story– because even what I think you mean by the “soterian gospel” is still that, a story– just because it fits inside another story. Especially when the one who came announcing the kingdom story put actually quite a bit of emphasis on the salvation story as well (salvation broadly, including but not limited to sin).
I think there are two ships passing in the night in this argument about what “the gospel really is,” in what might be almost called a meta-semantic disconnect. Yes, it is well worth pointing out that “gospel” in the NT is usually used in conjunction with discussion of the Kingdom (or, surprisingly often, with no explanation at all). Let us then say, as you wish, that what the gospel “is” (consists of) is the story of the Kingdom and its King. But “consists of” isn’t enough for this word- that description isn’t sufficient for us (humans) to understand it as _gospel_. Because “gospel” has to mean glad tidings, and the Kingdom story is only glad tidings to us if its consequences to us are good. So unless your claim is that the only frame of reference in which the gospel is meant to be “gospel” is from the perspective of Jesus himself, it sure seems to me that we are left with the total picture of the gospel including salvation, not (merely) as a side effect, but as the very reason we persons can call it that.
In other words, if we really want to dive into this question, we have to tease apart two things, the distinction between which can be discerned more easily if we substitute “good news” for “gospel”. “What is the good news?” makes it more clear that there is are two questions: what the news is, and what the good of it is. I suspect you would say the “good” of the news is far bigger than personal salvation, and I would agree. But I think salvation as a whole is a lot more central to the core of the gospel than it’s getting credit for being.
Why? Because consider even purely from the perspective of God, what makes the “story gospel” something that can be called that, what makes it “gospel” as in “glad tidings, good news.” If that gospel is, centrally, the fact that Jesus is King, the King is here, and his Kingdom is come, then there is no escaping the fact that even from a frame of reference completely outside humanity or even creation, the great goodness being proclaimed is a declaration that God’s great goodness is being accomplished in a restorative fashion– in other words, that a salvation is being accomplished.
For us, then, to see this entirely through the lens of “my own personal sins” is indeed too microscopic and narrow. But to refuse to see salvation as not just an effect, but as a core piece of what defines the gospel, seems to me to be prompted by a phenomenon that really deserves to be discussed on its own: the unremitting fear of letting something be “about us instead of being about God,” a description which, when applied to anything, instantly defeats it without examination. Or, perhaps (it is hard to tell here in such a short post) it comes from an unexplained premise that Creation-Fall-Redemption is somehow purely individualistic. Either way, it is to miss that the gospel story is, whatever else it may be, a story God preached _to us_.
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed.” I agree that the center of what Jesus preached was actually Jesus, something made most obvious by reading John, but even there, “For God so loved the world” is, strangely enough, a story which puts the world at the center, not out of human-centrism, but out of a narrative in which God chooses to put the world in that position.
“I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.” Indeed, the very definition of “Messiah” implies redemption (which, we should note, in turn implies fall, which again prevents us from letting the fall-redemption arc be anywhere but right in the middle of the gospel). That messianic, redemptive self and the joyful consequences for the people were what Jesus himself preached. And so I think we’re right to react with great joy– not some impossible, pure, objective esteem of a neutral party who recognizes that goodness is being done and disinterestedly approves, but _joy_, the joy of the prisoner freed, the blind one given sight, and the sinner given life. Surely to preach these things is not entirely to miss the point of the gospel.
(And I apologize if I have missed the point of this post entirely. I’m sure the book makes a much fuller description of what is under discussion here.)
Comment by Trajan — October 12, 2011 @ 2:55 pm
Jon G 74, I believe Jesus glory *is* laying down his life. Not that it brings him glory or shows his glory or anything like that.
It is much like Scot’s gospel being Jesus, and not salvation.
Also like God is love, not his love brings something else.
There is an existential nature to the full stop, God is love, the glory of Jesus is laying down his life. I was walking in the woods when it fully hit me …
Comment by DRT — October 12, 2011 @ 3:01 pm
Trajan, if I were able to promise that everyone who is currently hungry in the world would be fed, but you were not one who is currently hungry, would that not still be absolutely wonderful good news? Does it have to be about you to be good news?
Comment by DRT — October 12, 2011 @ 3:24 pm
Thanks for your response Scot. Describing your intention as a desire for those with a “soterian gospel” to be more biblical helps clarify the motivation behind your pressing.
I’m just starting the book so forgive me if this is redundant, but other than eliminating phraseology like “make Jesus your personal savior” and framing salvation around methods like the Romans Road or the Four Spiritual Laws, what do you suggest the first steps a soterian church should take in this process?
Comment by Jed Walker — October 12, 2011 @ 3:46 pm
Trajan — nice to hear from you. Any reading of my book, I believe, will not see any kind of dismissal of salvation, either personally or in a more holistic sense, and neither does it diminish kingdom proclamation, though it does focus on the king of that kingdom. The fundamental good news is that the Messiah is Jesus, he is King and Lord and Savior, etc. That entails — and I ask you to take a really good look at 1 Cor 15 and the sermons in Acts to see who they “gospel” — salvation in the biggest sense, both personal and all the way to the cosmic. So the good news is that God’s true king is now here in Jesus, and all those who get attached to him will find the kingdom and its redemption at work.
Luke 4. Good text and I think it is at heart of the redemption Jesus, the King, brings with his kingdom unleashed. Luke 2 focuses on the good news that King is here, but I think you have to wiggle that other stuff in from somewhere else. Messiah means king, and yes that will entail salvation/redemption, and I’m not denying that. I’m attempting to order the gospel back into the apostolic order. There is no disinterestedness in my proposal at all.
Back to the beginning: I’m not “rejecting the soteriological story.” I’m attempting to frame the redemptive story as part of the christological story that Jesus is King and Lord and Savior. The either or that I propose is either a soterian approach that has not Israel story or a Story gospel that entails salvation. Both have salvation; but only one has the true Messiah/Israel story as its framing narrative.
Methodologically, Trajan, I define gospel by 1 Cor 15, sermons in Acts and the Gospel of Matt, Mark, Luke and John….
Comment by scotmcknight — October 12, 2011 @ 3:48 pm
Jed your question surprises. Do you mean ‘soterian’ in that question? I expected ‘Story’.
Comment by scotmcknight — October 12, 2011 @ 4:01 pm
Matt. 11:28-29: “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” It sure sounds like we ‘get something’, and it sounds like a primary part of the Gospel message. You’re off balance at best, because it sounds like you’re minimizing the benefits to the individual who responds. Let me ask you this: Is the benefit to the individual a part of the Gospel call? This was unclear in your statement defining the Gospel in your 11th paragraph. If it’s not part of the Gospel call but just a side-benefit, then you’re talking about a different Gospel.
The answer is both-and. As Doug Wilson likes to put it: we are saved one-by-one into a bigger picture; we are individuals like leaves on a tree, not like marbles in a box.
Just so you know, though I’m Calvinistic in my soteriology, I’m not in league with any of those robust Calvinists you seem to be at odds with–in fact, I’m a Universalist.
Comment by John Warren — October 12, 2011 @ 5:11 pm
T and Scot (#56/60/81)
Thanks for trying to provide clarity.
The OP: Tell me what each of the above approaches to the gospel (soterian, Story) assumes and teaches about God?
Again I have not read the book, but after reading this post and the comments I guess I don’t see the difference in the story & soterian gospels. So I guess they assume/teach the same thing.
The gospel (story) has been called:
“In the same way, the gospel is first and foremost about Christ, and secondarily about the salvation he brings.”
“the thesis is that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah.”
“So the good news is that God’s true king is now here in Jesus, and all those who get attached to him will find the kingdom and its redemption at work.”
– but that is what it always has been and centered on: Jesus the Messiah.
Reviewing the image contrasting the two gospels, are you saying that the death, burial, and resurrection are missing from the soterian? These are how we overcome the sin problem and part of what we mean when we say Jesus is Savior? Why does story gospel include baptism but soterian does not? Does the story gospel leave out man’s sin condition or that God is holy and loving as shown here?
Lastly the gospel has always had both an individual (who do you say that I am, seeking the lost) and corporate (lived in community & doing the “one anothers”) aspect.
What am I missing?
MikeB
@g1antfan
MikeB
@g1antfan
Comment by MikeB — October 12, 2011 @ 5:17 pm
When I said “I guess I don’t see the difference in the story & soterian gospels. So I guess they assume/teach the same thing.” what I should have said was everything you describe as the “God of the soterian gospel” (judge and wrathful) and the “God of the Story gospel” (creator, director of history, incarnate in Jesus, and calling humans to live in God’s ordered kingdom under Jesus) are true.
Leaving any of it out is not the full gospel.
Comment by MikeB — October 12, 2011 @ 5:29 pm
john (83) and MikeB (84)
The commonly understood gospel of “Jesus died for your sins” is not big enough. The statement “God became a man” is far more comprehensive and earth shattering in its implications. By focusing on the latter statement over and above the former, a person is taken to a whole new dimension of understanding that the statement “Jesus died for your sins” cannot attain.
no matter how much you include the surrounding story of what “Jesus died for you sins” means, as long as that statement remains the focal point, the message is reduced.
Comment by Dennis J — October 12, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
DRT: No, it certainly need not be about me to be good news. But such a storyline is called good news because goodness is being done that goodness being that those who are hungry are being fed. It doesn’t make sense to say to those people, “the good news is not about you and your being rescued from hunger,” because it _is_ about that.
Interestingly enough, I wonder where we’d get if we tossed someone like Calvin into the mix. Because I think he might be willing to entertain the idea that even if _nobody_ were saved by the coming of the king, all were condemned, this would still be good news in an objective sense- goodness happening in the sense of justice happening and God’s glory being on display in his giving to all their just reward…basically this could still be good because the universe would be restored to rightness, and grace, being gratuitous rather than deserved, could be just as freely not given. And I have to admit, uncomfortable and strange as that sounds, there is something to that. Maybe this, though I suspect rather different than Scot’s expectations regarding the end of the story, does at least let us consider the notion of gospel without defining it as “my salvation.”
The trouble, though, (or the relieving truth) is that this isn’t exactly the story we’re told by Jesus or the gospel writers, all of whom tell a tale where the gospel-ness of the gospel is bound up in the particular identity of the king whose coming the gospel announces: the messiah. Messiah doesn’t just mean king, not every king is a messiah. A messiah is a saving one, a redeemer, which means the gospel of a messiah is a gospel whose core definition includes redeeming. That’s why I wasn’t sure how to understand the distinction being proposed, especially when the two options (story gospel and creation-fall-redemption) both look, at least at first glance, like “stories” that are gospels, which suggested maybe the distinction was mainly that one thought redemption was important and the other didn’t so much. I don’t think now that’s what Scot is suggesting, but I think I might have to read the book to get a fuller picture of it.
Scot, thanks for your reply. An interesting topic worth thinking about.
Comment by Trajan — October 12, 2011 @ 7:24 pm
Well, Trajan, I have said a number of times that the good news is that Jesus is that long-awaited King (Messiah) and Lord who saves (holistically). But that is a different framing than the plan of personal salvation approach to what gospel means.
Comment by scotmcknight — October 12, 2011 @ 7:48 pm
It seems that there are three different framings of the gospel. First, there is the King Jesus Gospel. Second, there is the plan of personal salvation. Third, there is the Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation gospel. Unless of course you mean to say that the third option here is equal to a plan of personal salvation?
Comment by Joe Tinker — October 12, 2011 @ 8:14 pm
I have a friend who is a Messianic Jew. One day when we were talking about Jesus, he said to me: I know that for you finding Jesus has been a very transforming event in your life, but you have no idea what it means for me. Jesus is what I have been waiting for, now I am a complete Jew.
I think his words summarize what Scot is trying to say about the story gospel.
Comment by Ana Mullan — October 13, 2011 @ 4:20 am
Something just dawned on me…. I wasn’t taught that the Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation framework was the gospel. It was always a world-view. Is there a difference between gospel and worldview? Should the gospel be our worldview or is there a distinction in those terms.
I’m still struggling with Scot’s assertion that CFRC falls within the personal soterian gospel. Because for me, I felt it freed me from the soterian gospel (which never made me feel anything but dead).
Comment by Ann — October 13, 2011 @ 9:48 am
I suppose that part of my response to the shortened (blog) version of what you’re saying comes out of the fact that my own background isn’t, mostly, in denominations which tend to do the reductionist, “personal plan of salvation” formulation, at least not in bald, individual, transactional terms like Jesus the Avon lady, where the gospel is simply nothing more than that he’s on your front porch right now, and all you need to do is open the door and let him in, and he’ll give you a free sample. Or where the gospel is the good news that there is a magic incantation by which you can extract eternal bliss from God, occasionally expanded into a plan for salvation that God clearly must have developed using PowerPoint. Those things are small in view and miss a tremendous part of the picture, and are kind of annoying to me personally (and are, for that matter, off-putting to many non-Christians, especially those of a more intellectual bent who think Christianity is silly), although I don’t think they’ve actually abandoned the gospel so much as filtered and distilled it down into a “what this means for you and me” blurb.
Not coming directly out of that atmosphere, though, seeing you contrasting your point of view with something more fully defined elsewhere but clearly related to soteriology, I was trying to figure out if your dispute was with salvation being a core element in the definition of the gospel at all, or with something else. I think you’re actually saying something more like a claim that what we tend to find ourselves doing is sticking a straw into a coconut and sucking on it, and then calling what flows out “the coconut”.
Comment by Trajan — October 13, 2011 @ 10:54 am
Trajan #92,
Love the coconut analogy.
Here’s another one: If we put the gospel banana in a blender and then drink it, is it still a banana? No, because it has no peel, or structure or identification as a fruit from a tree (story). So banana juice is good, and tastes of banana with all the nutrition, but a botanist (like Scot) finds banana juice an unsatisfying object of study. But, while it’s been fun, I must apologize for going too far with the fruit analogies.
Comment by Percival — October 13, 2011 @ 12:32 pm