If this is truly a legitimate fear it forces us to reevaluate Jesus as an evangelist. Jesus presented himself as the fulfillment of Israel's story and the one who would usher in God's global redemption. If this emphasis negatively effects our personal call to evangelism let's start the criticism with Christ. We have far more recorded evidence of him serving others through healing than we do of individual witnessing. Perhaps Jesus was missing the point? Wow, that is some honest commentary, but I think Dever should have held those thoughts in and chewed on them a bit longer.

"Does the biblical definition of gospel lack individual application?"

Huh...in what sense of this definition are we looking at?
As to how it applied to the early church, or how it applys to the Church historical?
I think cultural context has a lot to do with how this is to be discussed.

"Should we rely more on theological tradition on this matter?"

By theological are we saying, "as how the bible handles this?" then I would say, yes...yes we should rely on how the bible handles this.

"And does a cosmic view of the Good News necessarily result in the abandonment of personal evangelism?"

This part I find curious...why does it have to be either/or, why can't it be both?

I think Mr. Dever needs to have some follow questions in order to clarify his position more.
As Greg points out..."but I think Dever should have held those thoughts in and chewed on them a bit longer."
I have to agree with Greg...this seems to beg more questions than what he has presented so far.
I think a follow up interview is needed...one where he, Mr. Dever, can clarify his thoughts some more.

This is what happens when a movement based on being combative starts to run out of things to be combative about.

I like your observations, Greg, and I think you pose some good questions. Jesus certainly doesn't seem to be a good "evangelist" by certain modern Evangelical standards, but the thing is He got people (especially pious and learned Jews) coming up to Him all the time asking Him things like, "What must I do to be saved?" Similarly, the Apostles at Pentecost got the crowd's response to their preaching of the gospel, "Men and brethren, what then shall we do?"

On the other hand, their messages in both cases were accompanied by the miraculous (i.e., God showed up in an obvious way), and there was a specific common religious context in Jewish history and prophecy in which to situate the events and the preaching in both cases. It seems neither of these is a commonality with our modern setting, so I'm also somewhat sympathetic with Dever's concerns.

I suspect the biggest hindrance to the effective proclamation of the gospel is not so much an issue of a too targeted and reductionist version of the gospel vs. a full gospel picture that is too diffuse to evoke a personal response. Rather, it is that too often our lives don't match the words we preach as individuals and as faith communities. Too often, we are preaching Christianity as a set or system of beliefs, rather than what it really is--a way of life in Christ.

Love the conversation. The "Dever-ites" must make sure that they do not neglect the living it out and communal declaration aspect of the gospel. The "McKnight-ites" must make sure they that they do not neglect the speaking it out and personal invitation aspect of the gospel. Both McKnight and Dever are speaking prophetically to the church today. Let's hear them both with repentance and gladness.

What's missing here is the realization that people have made the gospel mean all things to all people. If a right minded gospel view by the individual, how it relates to their life, were universal, we would all be on the same page here. If one believes it really is finished, and one truly knows the freedom the gospel provides through Christ, then the Christian becomes a willing, even enthusiastic sounding board for evangelism and missions both, as the works (love) flow from the gospel in them. How can it not? Any gospel but one of grace makes the above interview a mute point.

Mark Deaver is totally correct. Everything Jesus did on this earth was 'individual'; every healing; every baptism; calling the woman at the well out for her sinful lifestyle; forgiving the woman caught in adultery and telling her,"go and sin no more". The first recorded word of His adult ministry was "Repent!" ("Without repentance there is no remission of sin...") It is After a person is born again through the recognition that Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of their individual sin nature and accepts the free gift of forgiveness He offers, that a mission can even exist. First things first. Jesus called the disciples to repentance before He sent them out on a 'mission'. This IS the "Good News".

I think the question is not whether Dever is putting tradition ahead of Scripture, but rather what "long tradition of reflection" is he referring to?

If we're talking about reflection (theological thinking) and "long traditions" I think he would find that there are ample historical voices in favor of the cosmic view of Christ.

and really, what this ends up sounding like is a discussion on the atonement; of which Dever seems to be thinking more on the substitutionary / satisfaction side - when we've also got "long traditions" from the ancient Fathers, Irenaeus to modern times, Gustaf Aulen which are more cosmic in scope.

Not everything Jesus did was individual... He fed the masses and when it says that he healed everyone in the masses, we don't know if that meant he did it in a group or one by one. He healed 10 lepers... we have no record of him baptizing anyone, He taught the masses.

Dever is right, we have an individual responsibility. The question is, "who are we making a disciple?" If the answer is no-one, maybe we are not listening to Jesus.

thanx Karen

I just want to clarify that when Dever wants to appeal to a "systematic idea of what gospel means based on a 'long tradition of reflection' --

-- he actually hurts his point. Said "long tradition" would weigh in favor of a cosmic view, or at least even the scales. But one thing it WON'T do is make his case for an individualist view. So I really don't know what he's talking about. Unless his "long tradition" is the past 3-400 years; in which case I would say his "long tradition" isn't long enough.

Leonard, When Jesus fed the masses, every individual got to eat; when Jesus healed 10 lepers, each one of them had to appear individually front of the magistrate to prove he was clean - plus one individual leper came back to say "thank you" to Jesus. When I asked Jesus to come into my heart; He did! And he cleansed little old me from sin. "And He walks with me and He talks with me; and He tells me I am His own. And the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known." - Merle Haggard

"This segment of the interview with Dever and Stetzer wraps up by their shared view that a "kingdom of God" and "missio dei" theology killed missions and evangelism in the mainline churches. They fear we are doomed to repeat that history."

How is that a biblical view of the gospel (he admits as much) can kill missions and evangelism? Isn't it possible that something else killed missions and evangelism in mainline? Wouldn't that be the more likely, especially given Denver and Setzer's high view of scripture?

No seriously, there is something seriously up here! There needs to be some serious soul-searching as to why there is such resistance to a kingdom vision. When the conversation starts getting this weird, you have to wonder if there are other issues at play, issues that are going unspoken. I don't say that as if I have the faintest as to what those would be, but how else do you explain this sort of thing?

Tom, I agree.

I think there is a very insightful talk by Skye Jethani here (link) that also describes some distorted framing of "the gospel" that can kill an appropriate response as well. (I doubt this sort of thing had anything to do with the death of mainline denominations, but in its own way it might have been a contributor there as well.)

I would suggest that what the two dynamics (death of mainline and exodus of many from Evangelical churches) may have in common is a denial of the critical importance of a real experiential connection to God (that "ravishing vision" Skye talks about) and the real intervention of the grace of God in bringing us to this point of connection.

As I pointed out in my comment above, in the case of Jesus and His Apostles, God intervened in obvious ways in healing and signs of His Presence. As I see it, in both mainline denominations and in much of modern Evangelicalism, rationalism has killed almost anything but the most nominal acknowledgement of the supernatural nature of traditional Christian faith. For many Evangelicals, especially those from "cessationist" traditions that deny any overtly supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit beyond the Apostolic age, this aspect of the faith is for all practical purposes denied altogether.

Even in more open segments of Evangelicalism, the supernatural is explicitly acknowledged, but for the most part tacitly ignored beyond lip service--IOW, we are pleasantly surprised when God really does intervene to reveal His Presence or to heal or guide someone, but in the meantime we are frantically involved brainstorming (supposedly "biblically-based") programs, ideas and marketing strategies to draw seekers in and effectively grow disciples. Emphasis on prayer is low on the totem pole and sometimes even off the radar of a lot of what is emphasized (again, except in a nominal way) in many Evangelical churches. The statistics on Evangelical Christians and even pastors who actually devote a significant amount of time and effort to prayer is frankly quite dismal! The exception to this is, of course, the charismatic and Pentecostal movements, which I believe have their own unique manifestation of problems of substituting human manipulation for the real intervention of God that I don't intend to address here.

It seems to me that essentially what Skye describes in his talk are the various types of human manipulation that are substituted for the conviction and activity the Holy Spirit in "Bible-believing" Evangelical circles. One may differ with his choice of description for these dynamics, but I think the dynamics themselves are all too familiar.

The bottom line of all this is that I believe even the most doctrinally rigorous Evangelicals function for the most part in too much of their teaching and leading and even living of their Christian lives more like practical atheists than real believers. Too often, our walk and experience simply doesn't jive with our talk.

Sorry, I forgot the link to Skye's talk. Here it is:

http://www.experiencelumen.com/?page_id=473

Elegance, yes, when Jesus fed the 5000, every individual got to eat. But more accurately stated, every individual got to eat BECAUSE Jesus fed the 5000. I.e. the individual "benefit" received was because of the cosmic mission of Christ. I think that's the point some of us are trying to make. You wrote in your first post, "First things first." Well, the first thing should be the larger context of the Gospel, which Biblically (as Mr. Dever himself admits) is the restoration of ALL CREATION. It is within that context that INDIVIDUALS are benefited by being invited to participate in that restoration. The individual component shouldn't be downplayed; on the other hand, if it is downplayed (which I suspect is what many fear happens when the cosmic component of the Gospel is emphasized), the solution is NOT to reverse the order of the components.

By the way, I have great respect for Mr. Dever and agree with him on other issues. But I'm somewhat surprised that he would saying something like, "I understand that God is going to restore the whole world, but that is not good news to me in particular." I'm sure he doesn't mean it in a bad way, but something about that statement comes across as very selfish and self-centered. Why wouldn't the restoration of the whole world be good news to me? I'm part of this world, so that means I get restored, too! It'd be like saying, "I don't care if God's plan is to cure cancer for everyone in the whole world, just as long as he cures mine in particular!" Surely that could never be considered Good News. Sadly, that is how I fear some interpret the Gospel!

Lest there be some confusion about my opinion of Christians doing good works, I would fully expect us to, as an outpouring of gratitude for what Jesus Christ has done for us. "...faith without works is dead..." However, good works without repentance don't count for anything with God, "...all our righteousneses are as filthy rags..." "...not of works lest any man should boast..." (I could go on).

This gets dealt with by NOT playing one aspect of the Gospel against the other but having a balanced view: Best definition I've heard (Tim Keller): The Gospel is the Good News that God Himself has come to rescue and renew all of creation through the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf.

elegance, I agree with a lot of what you say. I just want to clarify a couple of issues.

First, I agree that by nature we are self-centered and that that is the essence of sin. But the Gospel, as the solution to the problem of sin, should, among other things, lead us away from our natural, self-centered orientation. That is what the cosmic element of the Gospel is supposed to achieve. Unfortunately, there are some whose view of the Gospel is so focused on the "individual" that rather than serving as a paradigm shift AWAY from a self-centered mentality, their view of the Gospel instead simply reinforces and legitimizes that mentality.

The second clarification is regarding something you quoted from me:

"You ask, 'Why wouldn't the restoration of the whole world be good news to me? I'm part of this world, so that means I get restored, too!' That is just as self-centered as the statement I made, isn't it?"

I'm not quite sure which statement that you made you are referring to. My question was in fact is a response to Mr. Dever when he said, "I understand that God is going to restore the whole world, but that is not good news to me in particular," so I will make my comments based on his quote and mine.

I think there is a subtle difference between the wording I used and that used by Mr. Dever. I would say that the reason that my quote is not as self-centered as Mr. Dever's is because in my quote, I am recognizing that any personal benefit I gain is a RESULT of the restoration of the whole world; whereas Mr. Dever's quote seems to imply that the only thing that would be Good News to me is gaining a personal benefit REGARDLESS of whether the whole world is restored or not.

To put it another way, I repeat my earlier comparison: it's not self-centered to say, "It's wonderful that a cure for cancer has been found, and everyone with cancer will be cured, including me!" It is self-centered to say, "It doesn't matter to me whether or not everyone gets cured of cancer, as long as I'm cured of MY cancer."

Bill, I basically am in agreement with you - it's just that with both of us, it is difficult in this forum to really know where the other is coming from with so little actually being said. If you mean that the 'name it and claim it, God wants you to be rich' crowd if off base you will get no argument from me. But by the same token, if you mean that the 'Ghandi will be in heaven because he was a nice guy who liked peace' crowd are not off base then I'm ready to argue. I'm really struggling to know what is actually meant by the phrase, "God is going to restore the whole world". What, in real terms, does that mean (without nuance) in this conversation?

",'God is going to restore the whole world' What, in real terms, does that mean (without nuance) in this conversation?"

Ephesians 1 answers that question in toto...of course we won't go back to the garden...no, that door is completely close...no, our future is found in the end of the book. But yes, Ephesians 1, read it a couple of times, it'll pop out at you.

btw, Karen, I've given it a lot of thought...I'm quite certain of what I wrote...my understanding of it is still a little muddled, but I think you'll find that idiosyncratic...hmm...sometimes looking at the issue in a completely different way brings dimension to the picture we're looking at.
The bible is straight forward and quite understandable, but it also has depth...a lot of depth.

p.s. lol...captcha, "mayeek sarcophagus"

if I may re-enter the conversation here...

I think we do go back to the garden. That's why Jesus is called the "second Adam" (1 Cor 45) so as to reverse the effects of the first Adam, i.e., the Fall. This answers the "whole creation" thing, that not only man in an individualist sense is saved (our souls going to heaven) but all of creation, matter, earth, in fact the whole order of the universe will be set aright (with the return of Christ).

There's something deeply wrong when we believe that only our souls get to heaven; Christ was ascended in the flesh as the "firstborn of many brothers" (Rom 8:29) so that all flesh may be redeemed. I don't think that is to say "every person" (universalism) but rather that for those of us who believe, our entirety, that is to say, soul AND body are restored in the new creation.

Thanks sheerakahn and Wayne. It seems to me that Jesus was quite reductionist as to His own message in the 3rd chapter of John. Jesus puts it better than I can:

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God."

Thanks, Wayne. Well said.

"The bible is straight forward and quite understandable, but it also has depth...a lot of depth."

I totally disagree that in total (and especially in its spiritual depth) "the Bible is straight-forward and quite understandable," though, indeed, in much of its most simple moral instruction it is just that. In fact, if the history of the last 5-600 years of Christendom and the subsequent rise of modern denominationalism and "non-denominationalism" weren't so tragic, I would be LOL at your comment!

Yes, indeed, the Scripture has depth. I hope you won't mind if I trust my understanding of the exegesis of that depth to where the universally recognized Fathers and Saints of the Church down through the ages agree (in language as well as practice), and not to any modern denomination, pastor, or well-intentioned "Bible-believing" individual who may, or may not, have a very good handle on what that long interpretive tradition has shown. I don't believe the Holy Spirit ,Who Christ promised to lead His Church into all truth, disagrees with Himself over time.

Wow Karen, you have said a mouthful here. It would appear that you view yourself and your circle (Eastern Orthodox?) as the only ones who can understand the Bible and thus there's no particular purpose in the unwashed masses reading the Bible for themselves or they might take it at face value. I guess they really should have put Martin Luther and Menno Simmons to death 500 years ago for challenging the "...universally recognized Fathers and Saints of the Chruch down through the ages..." who, although they were ordained Catholic priests, began to read the Bible for themselves and much to their surprise, discovered that they had not been told the truth of the gospel. Your contempt for us "well-intentioned "Bible-believing" individual[s]" is no longer thinly veiled.

I also got to wondering about Jesus Himself. What on earth was this son of a carpenter thinking when he chose a bunch of burly blue collar fishermen and a tax collector to be his first disciples?

elegance, I would gladly love to clarify my terms. I don't know if this is what others mean by the phrase, "God is going to restore the whole world," but this is how I understand it.

In Genesis 1-3, there are three relationships that were formed at creation that are broken as a result of sin. There is the relationship between mankind and God, the relationship between individual human beings, and the relationship between mankind and the earth. We are under God, created in his image; we are equal among each other; and we are over the earth as responsible stewards of its resources.

Each of these relationships was broken when mankind decided to disobey God. We put ourselves above God, creating him in our image. We put ourselves and our desires above those of our neighbor. And we struggle with the earth, as well as abuse its resources.

The point of the Gospel is to restore each of these three relationships, as is demonstrated in the life of Christ. He humbly submitted himself to the Father, even unto death. He served the needs of others and put those needs above his own. And he even exercised authority over the earth, calming the winds and the waves, and causing fish to appear where he willed. Jesus was what Adam was supposed to be, and failed to be because of sin.

Unfortunately, too often typical evangelical presentations of the Gospel focus exclusively on the first relationship--Man and God--and say either very little or nothing at all about the other two relationships--Man and Man, and Man and Earth. Examples that come to mind are Gospel presentations such as the Roman Road or the Four Spiritual Laws, or even the diagnostic questions we are told to ask to unbelievers: "If you died today, do you have the assurance that you would go to heaven?" or "If God asked you, 'Why should I let you into heaven?' what would you say?" All of these are focused on the individual. Any mention of a restoration of relationships between people (and even races and societies) or a restoration of the earth is treated as merely implications of the Gospel, rather than the heart of the Gospel itself.

So, when I am referring an individualistic Gospel, I am referring to one that focuses solely on the Man and God relationship. When I am referring to the restoration of the whole world, I am referring primarily to every relationship being restored to God--individually, socially, and even environmentally.

I hope this helps. Feel free to let me know if more clarification is needed.

elegance, also, I'm having a hard time seeing how Jesus is being reductionist in his own message as he presented it in John 3. Perhaps you could elaborate some more on what you're seeing there. I suppose if you took John 3 as the only thing Jesus had to say about the Gospel, it would come off as reductionist; although I would say that is a problem more of the interpreter rather than of Jesus!

But limiting Jesus' message only to what he said in John 3 ignores the fact that there are 20 more chapters in John, as well as 88 more chapters in all four Gospels and, for that matter, 1188 more chapters in the entire Bible. All of these chapters taken as a whole would, I believe, reveal a presentation of the Gospel similar to the one I have outlined above.

"I totally disagree that in total (and especially in its spiritual depth) "the Bible is straight-forward and quite understandable," though, indeed, in much of its most simple moral instruction it is just that."

This statement of yours truly saddens me more than the rest of your post...perhaps I assumed too much...well, so be it...if you think it's really that hard to understand Karen...I don't know what to say to that...but do feel free to LoL at me anytime.

You won't be the first, and I can guarantee you won't be the last.

I don't know Wayne...I don't see any indication that we're going back to the Garden...I've pretty much scoured the texts, but I suppose...if we were liberal with the definition of "garden" then I guess we could call the New Jerusalem a garden...other than that...yeah, I don't see much support for that viewpoint.

elegance, you're jumping to some conclusions that don't necessarily follow from what I wrote. Once several years ago in my pastor's office when I was misinterpreting some Scripture, my Evangelical pastor very tactfully and kindly told me (he wasn't even Reformed--he was coming from a Baptist tradition) that I wasn't understanding the Bible "as Christians down through the centuries had always understood it." What he was alluding to is the belief I was taught even at my Evangelical College in studying Church history--in effect, we were taught a Protestant version of "apostolic succession." Read a little more about Luther and Calvin, etc. They were not intending to throw out the true apostolic interpretive tradition of the Church in their embrace of "Sola Scriptura" contra the claims regarding its teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church of the time.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has never withheld Bible reading from the laity (unlike the Roman Catholic Church). On the contrary, we are encouraged to read it every day--but we read it with and in the Church, not as solo rationalists. There is a quote from one of the Saints/Fathers, who said, "There is only one thing more dangerous than reading the Scriptures; that is not reading the Scriptures!" :-)

What you interpret as "thinly disguised contempt" is not a contempt for those who love and want to follow the Scriptures, but it is, I have to admit, a lack of patience with the attitude that fails to recognize what even the Scriptures say about themselves (e.g. 1 Corinthians 2 esp. vs. 14, Acts 8:30-35, 2 Peter 3:16) and that fails to appreciate how indebted all modern Christians are to the interpretive tradition of the Church of the first several centuries for our capacity to understand the message of the Scriptures (when we understand that aright). I find the belief that a person could come to the Scriptures with no prior training and all the assumptions of modern culture and find them meaningful on their face value in the way that Christians, raised in the faith, taught in churches and Bible studies do both unScriptural and unconvincing. That this sometimes happens with someone with a seeking heart is the result of a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit illumining their heart and not because the Scriptures can be easily understood just via "common sense" and our unassisted rational minds. That belief is both naive and unScriptural. I hope what I'm intending to communicate is clearer now. I also hope you will forgive me where I have offended you.

Sheer, all I was intending to communicate to you is that it appears you want to say that God disapproved of humankind from the get-go in some way and that He was not pleased with His human creation in its original unfallen state. This I find to be unblblical and "not the way the Bible has always been understood by Christians," but perhaps I have misunderstood you.

Martin Luther drastically changed his views of the Catholic Church. He went from being a monk to later calling the church the Whore of Babylon as described in Revelation. So, he did not support apostolic succession in any form once his views were changed by the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture.

Nestle, I think you misunderstand. In mentioning a Protestant version of "apostolic succession" I wan't talking about a specific succession of bishops as in the Catholic Church. The "apostolic succession" in this sense refers to a basic doctrinal framework for the interpretation of Scripture that is of Apostolic origin that is accepted and passed on and in which the Scriptures are interpreted and understood. Any Christian who accepts the early Creedal formulae (e.g, the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed) as reflecting a true and proper understanding of Scripture over and against plainly unorthodox Christological or Trinitarian readings, has accepted a form of "apostolic succession."

TY for explaining Karen. Yes, Lutherans (Missouri and Wisconsin synods at least) accept the Nicene, Apostle, and Athanasian Creeds, and view non-Trinitarian, and other plainly unorthodox teachings as false and heretical, so we're in agreement there.

"but perhaps I have misunderstood you."

I think you have too.