All Comments for: A Multifaceted Gospel | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > April

Christianity Today, April, 2008 |

Kingdom Sightings

A Multifaceted Gospel

Why evangelicals shouldn't be threatened by new tellings of the Good News.

Al Hsu | posted 4/10/2008 09:41AM

At the 2006 Ancient Evangelical Future conference, historian Martin Marty commented briefly on the Atonement theories proposed by the early church. Did the church fathers hold to penal substitution, Christus ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 32 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

curtis

Posted: April 16, 2008 1:13 PM

Al- Fantastic article. CT- Thanks for letting this one be published, it's a breath of much needed fresh air. It's too bad that a lot of the comments on here seem to be saying that topics and discussions like these should be shut down. Can we really gain anything from ignoring, or refusing to talk about, these issues? The church's track record for dealing with change is not a good one, and we would be wise to remember it so we don't repeat our mistakes (flat-earth, heliocentrism, slavery, "worship wars", etc.)

Dianne

Posted: April 16, 2008 11:27 AM

Good article. While there may be danger in contextualizing the Gospel (which I think Jesus did), I also think there is equal danger in forcing it into a very small defined box. I have come to appreciate that God's good news is immensely greater and more powerful than the means through which he chose to perpetuate it - these earthly vessels. So I defer to the power of the truth. God can work through anything and doesn't need us to defend his word; we are called to let it change us and live it out.

Bob	Posted: April 14, 2008 2:39 PM


Good aticle. As long as we realize just what the "Gospel" is and not try and create another. The Bible defines the Gospel as The Death-The Burial- and the Ressurection of Jesus Christ. If we can teach it another way, but end up with this Truth....Great!

Jere P

Posted: April 14, 2008 12:40 PM


God help us if N. T. Wright and Brian McLaren have become the voice of evangelicals. Has CT totally lost its way? It might as well merge with Christian Century since it no longer offers a conservative, biblical voice for evangelicals.

Jonathan Hunnicutt

Posted: April 13, 2008 7:42 PM

Decent Article. First, every one should read Gary Blevins comment about how contextualizing the gospel can go bad. I find it amusing that the people who argue most strenuously for a universal/timeless understanding of the gospel, fail to realize that only the context of the European Enlightenment demanded such a 'timeless' understanding of the gospel. In other words, is it really universal if we're the only ones who explain it like that? As for substitutionary-atonement, while it is a biblical metaphor for understanding atonement, it's not the only one (as the article points out). Why do we feel so compelled to the take the beautiful, rich and multifacted work of Jesus on the cross, and stomp it into one flat image? How dare we say that the cross is 'only' about substitutionary atonement, as if the cross accomplished nothing else. We American Christians should reflect deep and wide on the cross of Jesus, and not limit its meaning for our theology and our lives.

artm	Posted: April 13, 2008 5:10 PM

Jesus said, " I am the Way, The truth and the Life. He also said, No man cometh unto the Father but by Me. Can't get more simple than that. That is the Gospel. Amen And it is the Gospel for all who will accept it.And on Judgement day that is the Gospel and only Gospel that will save the Soul. In this age, or any past age, or future age, The Gospel is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. That Message and the Holy Spirit will get the Job done.

pete	Posted: April 13, 2008 7:55 AM


Amen Elaina ! After 30 years of walking with Christ, I have not found anyone whose conversion was just like mine! I learned many other ways to share the gospel message AFTER my conversion You are right on!!

Ray	Posted: April 12, 2008 3:43 PM

Thanks for a great and challenging article. The New Testament uses a tremendous variety of language to communicate the good news. To get stuck in one particular image is to ignore the fullness of the gospel. Unfortuantely some of the commenters here embody the problem with using only one way of expounding the biblical message. However great a theology it is (and it is) "penal, substitutionary atonement" is a phrase that I don't find in my Bible anywhere.

Ashleigh

Posted: April 11, 2008 10:48 PM

Thanks, CT, for publishing a thoughtful, if somewhat controversial, piece on how we understand and discuss the gospel. I've been taking an NT survey this semester, and it was exciting to discuss Paul different models for salvation. Besides mentioning reconciliation, redemption, and atoning (Jewish-like) sacrifice, we looked a bit more at the judicial and participationist models Paul presents (using them quite interchangeably in Romans!). The judicial model is essential another term for penal substitution, while the participationist model emphasizes sin as an enslaving cosmic power that dies with Jesus in his death, a victory which we participate in through baptism. The very week we discussed these concepts, I had an opportunity to discuss the gospel in participationist terms because I was telling some friends about my roommate's baptism-- a conversation I couldn't have had without some familiarity with multiple models. The breadth and depth of the good news is thankfully endless!

Elaina

Posted: April 11, 2008 4:27 PM

Perhaps I shouldn't have read others' responses before commenting, because all the negative reviews remind me of everything wrong with Christendom: fundamentalism! I don't find anything heretical in this article...and people who do seem to be scared by the mere mention of "emergent" names, as if there is no truth in anything those people might have to say! (and I don't call myself "emergent"). If only our contemporary Christian colleges (and/or churches) taught people HOW to think instead of WHAT to think, to think critically instead of to just criticize. Perhaps, people are thrown off by terms like "contextualize," when the author simply seems to be talking about emphasizing the parts of the gospel that people most need to hear when they most need to hear it. That doesn't make the whole gospel not true, nor does it make the parts omitted not true, it just means we discuss what's relevant to a particular time and place one time, and we discuss the rest at another relevant time.

William

Posted: April 11, 2008 10:47 AM

I commend this message, and CT for publishing it . . . approvingly? I hope and believe so. We must not let our theological formulations--selecting some Biblical passages, Church traditions, and reasoning about them--become the focus of our faith. God in Christ transcends our theological propositions, and God in Christ is the focus of our faith, not our theological statements, inevitable though it be that we all do theology--either well or not well. Paul observed in Romans, chapter 1, that all people know God, but not all acknowledge God. They worshipped the creature rather than the creator. We creatures produce creature-like products, and theology is one of them. We dare not let theology beome our object of worship lest it becomes an idol, an opaqu object that obscures God. Isaiah's caution is appropriate: My thoughts and ways are NOT yours.

Laura Paloheimo

Posted: April 11, 2008 8:42 AM


Yes, there are millons of ways analyzing the Gospel and the illustration so aptly supports the article! Many times I wonder if Jesus listens to our theological arguments and sometimes even arrogant theories about The New Testament and then smiles to himself like any morher and father would smile when they listen to nursery discussions about the secrets of life.

Sergey

Posted: April 11, 2008 5:28 AM


..."accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior"...might not be appropriate in the early 21st century... What?!! I mean, what's left?

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: April 11, 2008 1:00 AM


All "new approaches to the gospel" are different expressions of disobedience to test the objective of "discipleship training" , viz.: the once-and-for-all establishment of Jesus Christ's divine identity, for firsthand knowledge and faith, at His death on the cross (John 8: 24-28) --something completely out of circulation today! Better stop reinventing the Gospel and recover the old one!

Chris

Posted: April 11, 2008 12:50 AM


Great work! I really appreciated it, until McLaren's name was included for being helpful in providing a new way to discover the kingdom of God. But other than that, good coverage of how the differing stories point those created in God's image to find the true Story.

Nathan

Posted: April 10, 2008 7:46 PM


I'm surprised the author didn't spend more time on the plethora of different "atonement theories" in the New Testament itself.

msnchris70

Posted: April 10, 2008 6:25 PM

I agre with the author, it is both. Unfortunately, many new denominations have been created because of one group following their interpretation of the atonement and the other following theirs. If we truly look at the "Early Church Fathers", men who were personally taught by the Apostles and their successors, then we would find that this Church was extremely Catholic in its doctrines and not Protestant. I was an anti-Catholic. I became Catholic because of being introduced to these early church fathers and what they said about scripture and how they passed down the "Tradition" of what it meant from teh Apostles perspective. Once I starting reading these early venerated and respected Christians I coundn't put their writings down. Why? Well, because I began seeing myself as the heretic. As a Protestant minister I held many views that can not be found in early Christianity, like Baptism is symbolic, the Eucharist is symbolic and priests can't forgive sins.

Steve2

Posted: April 10, 2008 5:13 PM

There are a lot of versions of "Amazing Grace" being sung today that are reaching a far greater audience than the original genre can. If he were alive today, I highly doubt whether John Newton would sue the pants off of Chris Tomlin or Todd Agnew; in fact, I think he would be ecstatic over how God is using it to cross cultures. The Gospel truth is unalterable, and it can cross many different cultures and subcultures if we're open to adapting its unalterable truths to the unique contexts God calls us to.

Ralph Gaily

Posted: April 10, 2008 4:46 PM

Apparently the author of this article agrees with McLaren, McKnight, etc.,....the "emergent" movement that is slithering among us. We were all warned of those who would come from among our own ranks to distort and change the Gospel that was once, for all, given. I'm sure if the apostle Paul were here he would loudly, and very boldly, point his finger at these, and label them apostate wolves in our midst.....because that is precisely what they are. The essence of deception is not knowing you are being deceived. Now is the time for discernment to be carefully exercised within the Body. Poison is palatable when snuck into bread in minute doses. "Intellectual" discourse, delivered with smiling faces, lots of good works, and portions of truth, is a very effective technique. Those not familiar with their Bible, and the end-time warnings of deception and apostacy, will fall prey. Those of us that recognize this must speak up. Love demands it. Souls are at stake! CT editor..wake up!

Jeff G

Posted: April 10, 2008 3:50 PM

Excellent message, very well put. I couldn't agree more. WE need to be cautious in judging a message in which we are not the intended audience. I try to be sensitive to whom I am presenting the Gospel and at the same time to communicate it in its truth and as completely as possible. I thought it was excellent thing to point out that the four spritual laws and the like are relatively modern ways of communicating the Gospel. This is great food for thought. May God grant us more excellent communication skills and the grace to use them wisely.

The G

Posted: April 10, 2008 3:35 PM

There may be several opinions about the atonement, but the Apostle Paul made it clear that we are justified (declared "Not guilty!) by a holy God, who in love sent His Son to pay the penalty for our sins Himself on the cross of Calvary. That doesn't need to be culturalized or contextualized. In every culture and context people have the guilt of sin and faith and repentance and immersion and the Lordship of Jesus Christ is required. That was the teaching and practice of the Apostles as recorded in the epistles and book of Acts. Let God be true and every man a liar. Let's stop kidding ourselves with our latest ideas to fill books and make money.

Doug	Posted: April 10, 2008 3:32 PM


Nothing wrong with contextualization. Preachers do it every Sunday. However ife we contextual, then doctrine cannot be changed to fit the listener. The Bible is pretty clear that we are to watch our doctrine closely so that we save both ourselves and our hearers. I'm afraid some people metaphor themselves into heresy.

Gary Blevins

Posted: April 10, 2008 3:05 PM

I have no problem with the contention that the gospel is multi-faceted. Nor do I have an issue with proclaiming the gospel in ways that are most likely to be understood in our contemporary culture. The problem I have with this article and others like it is that it doesn't address where all of this contextualizing of the gospel goes astray. While we properly appeal to Jesus' masterful communication skills, we often skip over the completely counter-cultural message he was communicating. Most of the calls for modernizing the message center on saying it in such a way that it will be more palatable to contemporary listeners. Thus the attempts at communication end up centering on how the gospel is already like what people already desire and believe. What I see Jesus so masterfully communicating is how distinctive and exclusive the gospel is. He uses modern terms and ideas to show how He is the one and only way to the Father.

Jamie Garrett

Posted: April 10, 2008 2:27 PM

Great article and a good presentation of one of the needs of the church today. The Good News is for everyone, but people can stumble over outdated and irrelevant presentations. The Holy Spirit can still use these, but our goal should be to remove as many barriers as possible between Jesus and the world. Jesus exists in the eternal present and is always relevant; we just need to preach Christ and Him crucified. Simple enough, yes, but I think the author is trying to challenge us to think, "how do I talk to real people who don't know Jesus about all of this?" For me the whole issue is about meeting people where they are and moving them towards Christ. And it is possible to be sure of ones' salvation - look at your life and its fruit (John 15:8, 2 Cor 13:5). There is actually a kind of Christian faith that is evident in power, word and deed. Its based on love and the imitation of Christ. so much I could say, so few characters left...

Steve

Posted: April 10, 2008 2:13 PM

Fresh expressions of the Gospel are great. We often need to adapt a story to fit a certain cultural setting, but without changing the basic premise of the story. Christ is God, became man, and died and rose again to take humanity from the bondage of sin. My only real problem with the article is mention of McLaren and McNight, Emergent Church leaders who seek a truly postmodern church that has willingly tried to separate itself from an objective, historical reading of such Biblical essentials as the incarnation and the atonement. Address the culture with the Gospel message. Just don't change the Gospel message to fit one's culture. I fear that's what McLaren et al. have been doing.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment