Yes, I believe that what Scot McKnight is presenting makes the community of believers the heart of what God has been doing in this world. And--I believe this is important.

Far too often, the gospel is seen through one very narrow lens. Consequently, we often just do not see the dimensions of the gospel which McKnight points out here. These dimensions have always been present in Scripture but have been difficult for us to see due to our own framework for the gospel.

It is not until someone makes a jarring comment such as, "Do we really need the church?" that we are awakened to the fact that we might have missed something.

This was helpful to me. I liked in particular the way in which McKnight expresses some of the dimensions of this "robust" gospel. Very helpful.

I say a hearty "Amen" to McKnight's concerns and points of emphasis. On the other hand, aren't the "simple answer" gospel presentations better suited for Acts 2-type questions: "Men and brothers, what shall we do?"

I whole-heartedly agree with McKnight's analysis.

In American evangelicalism of the last century, we liked things neat and tidy...and simple. Bill Bright's Four Spiritual Laws has done an enormous amount of good, for it has helped many, many people understand two critical parts of the gospel - that there was a fall (we are sinners) and that we need Christ (Christ forgives sin so that we can be in relation with God). It was very useful for its time. However, with any simplified way of explaining a larger story, we have ended up paying a price. The church no longer embraces the entirety of the story!

In the 21st Century, we will need to capture the entirety of the gospel message again. One that starts not with the Fall but with the beginning of the story - Creation. We will need to rediscover how to tell the whole gospel story of Creation - Fall - Redemption - Restoration. McKnight is urging us to move from a two-chapter story (just the middle two parts) to the full story (beginning with Creation and humanity as the imago Dei and ending with the restoration of Creation as our restored as full image-bearers again).

Good thoughts. I like them a lot. But I agree a bit with Dennis here. It might depend on the question being asked by the audience at a given time.

Further, I wonder if McKnight's excellent points could be better stated in less academic terms. Most people give me a funny look when I use terms like "locus of resolution."

There's no question in my mind that McKnight's presentation is more Biblically sound. I'm not sure the culprit simply the gospel we preach, as much as it is the society in which we live; in my opinion we have only fashioned the Gospel message around our cultures quest for individual fulfillment. McKnight is calling us to fashion the Gospel message around the scriptural narrative.

And to answer Dennis above, I don't believe the "simple answer" Gospel is better suited for Acts 2-type questions. To be sure the fullest expression of the Gospel must have an "entry point", a distilled exposition through which folks can make contact, but we can never stop there.

Perhaps a matter of semantics, but a good place to start changing our image of the Church is to refer to those gathered for Divine Service (God serving us with His Word and Sacraments) as something other than those in "the audience", as expressed by John Mark above.

The folks gathered are not the audience when called together as the Church, they are the sinner/saints called by the Holy Spirit to repentence, a new life in Christ Jesus nourished by Word and Sacraments.

When we see the Church as the means that our Triune God has decided to use to bring His Word and, through it salvation, to all people. We might wonder what He was thinking, especially those of us called and ordained to minister those Means of Grace, but the fact is that this is how God wants to do things. We should take this seriously.

i think scott has an invaluable insight that most of "protestant" christianity has missed for many many years. but ultimately, i think there has to be a balance. i love the way dietrich bonhoeffer puts it.

he speaks about how each of us HAS to come to Christ as individuals. we can never relate to our fellow humans in a proper way without having a relationship with Christ.

however, at the same time, as we have become changed by Christ, we are now able to relate in a new way with others. more specifically the church.

and if any of yall have studied bonhoeffer's life, yall will know that he emphasized community life, ie the Church.

so am i saying that scott is wrong. no. i think he has a great pt, but we must always have a balanced Gospel.

peter

While we are at it, can we try another "jarring question" on for size: Do we even need to speak of a fall?

In Genesis 3, it appears that God dealt specifically with disobedience ... not FALL, and not even SIN. SIN makes an appearance in Genesis 4, and mankind's sustained selfishness drives the narrative not only till Genesis 11 but right through most of what evangelicals call the "Old Testament".

As such, even proper emphasis of all parts of a linear representation like Creation-Fall- Redemption-Restoration don't really help undo the effects of an attenuated gospel. Time to dish this framework altogether for a more organic and relational interpretation of God's dealings with humankind.

The seeds of redemption are sown not only in Genesis 12, but were already present in the punishment meted out to the disobedient pair in Eden, also with Cain, later Noah and even at Babel. It takes on a particular covenantal form with Abraham, with significant differentiation only setting in with the ministry of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Notwithstanding these comments, I applaud and encourage the call to reconsider the attenuated (virtually bankrupt/heretical?) gospel that we have been peddling. It is only the by the grace of GOd that we have survived. Time to work with God to get off life support...

Amen Scot! I think that it important to share the whole story, not skipping from Gen3 to Romans3.... As we understand this "Big story" of the gospel we need to then allow our story to be caught up within it.... rather than just having, in the words of Depeche Mode, "our own personal Jesus"

much food for thought

Kelvin addresses something that has gnawed at me for a while. Do we need to mention the fall? Do we need to mention sin? I saw no, because that's jargon and is often either misunderstood or misleading.

Fall is often considered something you get up from. Sin is the label for things prudes disapprove of. Of course that's not what we (should) mean, but that's often what's heard.

Kelvin's suggested disobedience is better, but even that assumes the listener agrees on what is to be obeyed.

How about we talk a bout losing a connection, being distracted from God as the defining center, getting wrapped up in life at God's expense?

Any "gospel presentation" that doesn't have communion / community at it's core isn't really a gospel presentation at all. In this light, McKnight's critique is welcome.

There can really be no gospel presentation and therefore no evangelism if believers are not themselves changed by the gospel. This change with the fruit of the Spirit following as evidence is the best gospel presentation known to man. It requires no tracts. And the "apologia" are always given in context of relationship.

Evangelism and the gospel must be intentionally and innately communal not merely intellectual and content-based. I suspect if it were merely about the content, Jesus would not have come to deliver the Good news himself. A tract would have done fine.

Thank God it's not about the tracts!

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent

I think George is on to something here in the language we use. I live in Austin, TX and if you mention sin you're going to get some strange, even hostile comments. But, if you frame the conversation in terms of relationships being lost, or disturbed you might have a chance. We must remember that our compass is a triune God that models perfect community for us and that we must always seek to love as He does within this context of others.

I have often thought lately not so much on how to present the Gospel but on how the Gospel presents me.

As I think about it, I realize that I am presented as a part of Salvation's story, infinite Love in Love with finite infinity and finite infinity in Love with infinite Love. There is not much in my Life that would say to me that you followed me because I multiplied the fish.

There is little in my life that most would envy and yes, because I was made in the image of God... I am a Faith person.

How do we present the Gospel? I would say that to the degree the Gospel presents us. How many of us would throw away our books and tracks in exchange for hearing our Heavenly Father say in our most inner being "I Love You" first thing in the morning. How many of us would say in reply " I know you do."

Perhaps our Gospel is not challenged in our life since it speaks of past and future rather than the present and tends to conform rather than to free... the very being that the Gospel speaks about in knowing the Truth.

If I know my individualism, how could I resist community since community is the very spring board of my individuality. The community of individuality that we strive to bring others to, shouts with " and you are complete in Him. " After all, God took upon Himself for it to be so.

Life is not a deficit in His sheep, no matter what it looks like if we have the eyes to see Him as being robust enough for whatever it takes in His moment.

I find Scott McKnight's observations heartening. I am involved in witnessing to the cults, especially Mormons, and am painfully and depressingly aware that they have a much higher view of church than the average Evangelical believer, who usually struggles to answer intelligent, probing questions about church, authority, God's plan, etc.

Our Evangelical "Jesus and me" faith does come across as self-regarding, and a better developed sense of God's true purposes in Creation and Redemption would equip Christians to give a better account of themselves, not to mention a more robust development as redeemed people.

Having followed this emergent conversation only sporadically and not being immersed in its tenets, I am wondering if I could contribute a little something in an unbiased fashion. My generation is the postmodern one. My belief system is based on scripture.

Do I believe the gospel, as packaged in recent years, is not robust? Depends on the presenter, the life they live, and whether they are Spirit-led. Even so, the gospel IS foolishness to those who are perishing, no matter how it is packaged. But isn't it the power of God for the salvation of those who believe? God's power, not our presentation?

Even if we are culturally insensitive or clueless, isn't it about his power and not our own efforts, ultimately? Is there an underlying idea behind this thinking which implies that it is possible to have a "right/relevant for right now" presentation of the gospel? Are we even capable of that? Isn't relevant relative? Consider that good news is told like good news, with a certain excitement that lives beyond the moment, and good news may be relayed differently according to the interpersonal relationship, current intimacy with the Lord, and with regard to whether a person has any framework to comprehend your words. There is no script, but because of the unchanging content, at least some of the words will be the same. Use your own words, but be true to the message. But hey, the old words won't break your ministry if the Lord wants to use your words. This digs into the topic of sovereignty - how much power do we believe we hold, anyway?

In short, the gospel can be in a new package, or an old package -- but if packaged at all, the gospel may look like a product to my generation. A product is something to be sold and bought. I want to share, not sell. Could we share Jesus from our hearts (but knowledgably), from the Lord's wisdom and trust that HE will make it a relevant presentation? God used a "non-gospel" verse from Ephesians to bring me to himself at the age of 21. If I am sure of anything, God is in heaven; he does as he pleases.

I pray we make God famous with the offering of our bodies as living sacrifices and that we put on love, above all else. Don't all presenters of the gospel need grace and shouldn't they stand willing to extend grace, especially to one another? For the sake of the message?

There ends my not-so-academic two cents. Thanks for listening.

You all make some good points, but whatever happened to 1 Cor 15:1-8?

The Fall is indespensible because it accounts for the cruelty and injustice and suffering that is pervasive and persistent in our world. Why is evil so prevalent? Why, despite our long history of suffering and pain, can we not stop the atrocities and tragedies--manmade or acts of nature--that continue to destroy?

It's not enough to say we as individuals need forgiveness and restoration for disobedience--we live in a WORLD that needs redemption and restoration.

Glad you raised this topic. I recently started up a British website that asks "What is the Gospel?". Looking at the New Testament Gospel message preached by both Peter and Paul it is clear that we have changed both the message and its central focus. For more details see
http://www.whatisthegospel.org.uk