Connecting with "Them" (a spin off from "The roasting of Chick-fil-A")

The crowd didn’t look like “my” crowd. Different clothes; different hair; different adjectives falling from their lips with great regularity; different topics of conversation. I won’t tell you where I was, because that’s not the point (it was no place inappropriate, that much I’ll say). But while there, the thought popped in my head, “If I were given a microphone and told to talk to this crowd, how could I ever bridge the gap between their world, which is much different than mine, and the gospel?”

How can we connect with, respond to, treat, and talk to “them”?

“Them” is anyone different than us. The crowd at the above event. The gay couple in the apartment upstairs.  The homeless man pushing his shopping cart down the street. The hooker on the corner. The cultural “untouchable” at the bottom of the social caste. The unmarried mom on welfare with a bunch of kids. The “undocumented immigrant” living down the street (and please don’t throw rocks at me for not calling them “illegal aliens” My point is to bring a face to mind, not stir a political issue).  The classmate who “parties”. The neighbor who supports “that” candidate or platform. The thief in jail. The liberal family member (or the conservative family member, depending on your bent).

In Jesus’ day, “them” included people like tax collectors, immoral women, lepers, Samaritans. “Them” looks different in different times and different cultures, but “them” always exist. So, how can we respond to, connect with, treat, and talk to “them”?

Let me offer six ideas (okay, I know I’m a math and science nerd who likes lists).

First, develop your convictions about our world. We shouldn’t start a conversation here, but we do need to know what we believe and why we believe it. I hold biblical marriage unites one man and one woman for life. As such, I think gay marriage runs counter to God’s design. That is my conviction, based on the Scriptures. When I talk to the gay couple in the apartment upstairs, I may refrain from saying anything, but I need to know what I believe so I can listen wisely. (By the way, I’m only using the gay marriage example because the idea for this post arose as I was thinking about the Chick-Fil-A issue, not because I’m a one-issue writer).

Second, humanize them. Here’s what I mean: I need to keep the “Pharisee in me” from getting out. I cannot become like the one who prayed, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector” (Luke 18:11). Do not view them as projects or by a label. “Them” are people, not just gay, or homeless, or poor, or …. “Them” are people made in the likeness of God (James 1:10). Like me, they have strengths and needs. Like me, they struggle with sin issues. Like me, they are imperfect. I need to remember that, like me, they need God’s grace. Like me, they are part of the world that God so loved (John 3:16). I’m not better than “them”.

Third, know that we have good news that “them” need to hear. The gospel message – justification by faith alone in Jesus alone – applies to any and all. The promise of “abundant life” (quality of life, by the way, not a promise of heath-and-wealth) applies to any and all who have trusted Christ. Since all of us “fall short of the glory of God”, none of us deserves grace. Those of us who have tasted grace have the greatest message in the world to present to “them.”

Fourth, show compassion first, not judgment. Someone once said he knew all the Bible verses about his lifestyle. Christians had thumped him with them repeatedly. But he said he started to respond to the words of Christ only after someone showed him the love of Christ. Compassion doesn’t mean we condone what others are doing (any more than we should condone our own sin), and it is faulty logic that leads someone from “You are opposed to gay marriage” to “therefore, you hate gay people.” Instead, compassion means we accept them as people with needs. Compassion looks like the tired but true cliché, “hate the sin, love the sinner”. And this compassion isn’t optional (Col. 3:12). Be good news, and then at the right time, tell the good news.

Fifth, as a friend of mine worded it, “get your hands dirty.” It is easy to write about “them” in my office; it is something else to associate with “them” in their world. Jesus did it. How many times is He reprimanded for spending time with tax collectors and sinners (e.g., Luke 5:30)? Peter did it (Acts 10). Paul did it and encouraged it (1 Cor. 5:10). Be the hands of Jesus in “them’s” world.  Get involved. (How, you might ask? Several books give practical ideas for involvement – e-mail me at rsfankhauser@bellsouth.net and I’ll send you more information. Or, find someone who is already involved and tag along. Or, look for agencies in your community and ask them how you can help.)

Sixth, while getting your hands dirty, listen and be teachable. Being teachable doesn’t mean I will (necessarily) change my theology or my convictions about a particular topic, although I might. I may discover I’ve been wrong about something or overlooked something (using Scripture as the standard, of course). Even if I am right, listening and being teachable makes me step into the world of “them” and better understand them. I don’t have to agree with “them” to understand and empathize with them, but I do have to listen.

So, back to the story in the opening paragraph. As the evening wore on, several bridges came to mind (whether I would have the courage to actually speak had the opportunity actually come up is another issue!!). The beauty of the gospel is that it fits their world and their needs. The difficulty of presenting the gospel lies in empathizing with their world, finding a point of connection with “them”, and getting my hands dirty.  

A review of "Radical"

I haven't written in some time...

Some time ago, I was asked to write a review of David Platt's "Radical" for another site. I love his premise; but I have some significant problems with some of his specifics. Thought I'd post the review here, even tho' it's a bit long for a blog post.
__________________________________________

A Review of David Platt’s Radical

Roger Fankhauser, D.Min.

David Platt makes a needed challenge in his book, Radical, as condensed in the subtitle, Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream.[1] He summarizes the book with these words:

Throughout this book we have explored a variety of bold claims about our purpose in life that are contained in the gospel yet contradicted in the American dream. Claims such as these: Real success is found in real sacrifice. Ultimate satisfaction is found not in making much of ourselves but in making much of God. The purpose of our life transcends the country and culture in which we live. Meaning is found in community, not individualism; joy is found in generosity, not materialism; and truth is found in Christ, not universalism. Ultimately, Jesus is a reward worth risking everything to know, experience and enjoy. (183)

He then challenges his readers to try a radical experiment: for one year, to pray for the entire world, to read through the entire Word, to sacrifice their money for a specific purpose, to spend their time in another context (such as a missions trip), and to commit their life to a multiplying community (church). (185)

Many of the principles in the book hit the mark, and provide a cry for believers to get out of their comfort zones and follow the Jesus of the Bible (13), a cry that churches and Christians need to hear. He wants the reader to abandon the “American Dream” version of Christianity, with focus on the self, and instead radically follow Jesus. He wants the church to actively and radically commit to global missions, including giving generously to the poor. I agree wholeheartedly with his overall goals. However, the problems in the book prevent me from recommending this work to anyone except those with a strong knowledge of the Scriptures who can “filter out” the problems and appropriately apply those principles that are biblically valid. The problems center on the author’s view of the gospel and evidence of salvation in the life of the believer.

Platt begins with a challenge that the church, as a whole, has “missed what is radical about our faith and replaced it with what is comfortable” (7).  He believes that following Christ demands total devotion to Christ, and a willingness to give up anything (“radical abandonment”, 10) in order to follow Him. He acknowledges the high cost of discipleship but wonders (rightfully), if the cost of nondiscipleship is even greater. So, he asks, do we really believe He is worth following as Jesus commands us to follow, not as “a nice, middle-class, American Jesus” (13)? “We need to return with urgency to a biblical gospel” (19).

In developing his definition of the gospel, Platt says that it is fundamentally “the revelation of who God is, who we are, and how we can be reconciled to him” (28). And so he summarizes:

This is the gospel. The just and loving Creator of the universe has looked upon hopelessly sinful people and sent his Son, God in the flesh, to bear the wrath against sin on the cross and to show his power over sin in the Resurrection so that all who trust in him will be reconciled to God forever. (36)

If Platt had stopped here, his gospel message as it pertains to eternal life  would be clear and concise (see my earlier post on the meaning of "gospel"). It is at this point, however, that the author takes a wrong turn. Even though he used the words “all who trust in him”, he then invites the reader to “consider with me the proper response to this gospel” (37), which, he says “surely evokes unconditional surrender of all that we are and all that we have to all that he is” (37) and that each of us “need to consider whether we have ever truly, authentically trusted in Christ for our salvation” (37). He presents a caricature of many gospel presentations, adding what he sees as correctives: 

We have been told all that is required is a one-time decision, maybe even mere intellectual assent to Jesus, but after that we need not worry about his commands, his standards, or his glory. We have a ticket to heaven, and we can live however we want on earth.  Our sin will be tolerated along the way…. Here the gospel demands and enables us to turn from our sin, to take up our cross, to die to ourselves, and to follow Jesus… Jesus is no longer one to be accepted or invited in but one who is infinitely worthy of our immediate and total surrender. (38-39)

In His caricature, he presents a straw man, that “we can live however we want…. our sin will be tolerated along the way”. I know of no one who teaches this; and his argument certainly runs counter to Paul’s words in Romans 6:1-2! Believers who sin run the risk of serious consequences, including the possibility of physical death. Anyone who tries to be honest with the Scriptures would not teach that “we need not worry about his commands”.

He recognizes that his corrective makes salvation sound as if it is a result of obedience, but says we are saved from our sins by a free gift of God of grace. This gift of grace, however, changes our hearts so that we “want Him so much that we abandon everything else to experience him. This is the only proper response to the revelation of God in the gospel” (39). I agree with the author’s desire to challenge believers to radically follow Christ, but his gospel definition has blurred the distinctions between our change in legal standing before God (justification) and our practical living (sanctification). He here (and throughout the book) implies that one who has truly, authentically trusted Christ is necessarily a disciple / follower of Christ.  He necessarily links certain actions and attitudes of the person to their eternal standing, as will be seen in his discussion of reaching the poor. And so, at best, what is required for salvation becomes unclear.

Having given his definition of the gospel, he next reminds the reader, correctly, that the source of the power to live radically for Jesus does not come from their own strength.  He warns the reader about letting “American dream” mentality creep into the church, instead of relying on the power of God to accomplish His purposes. Referencing the early church, he concludes, “I cannot help but long to be a part of this kind of scene in the church today. A scene where we refuse to operate in a mind-set dominated by an American dream that depends on what we can achieve with our own abilities…. A scene where the church radically trusts in God’s great power…” (53). The source of that power is the Holy Spirit. Platt incorrectly implies, using Luke 11:13 (“… how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”), that God will give us the Holy Spirit in answer to our prayers, rather than understanding that the Spirit already indwells us (Rom. 8:9). Despite this flaw, however, he rightly argues that real power flows from the Holy Spirit, not from our own abilities.

The specific application Platt addresses that requires this power is extending God’s glory to the ends of the earth. “Jesus commands us to go. He has created each of us to take the gospel to the ends of the earth.” He desires that “our hearts should be consumed with making the glory of God known in all the nations” (77), a desire in line with Matt. 28:19-20. Anything less than radical devotion to this end, he argues, is unbiblical Christianity (64). And, he concludes, the command to take the gospel to the ends of the earth is intended for each follower of Christ. We are to “be consumed with making the glory of God known in all the nations” (77). However, “it is not uncommon to hear Christians say, ‘Well, not everyone is called to foreign missions.’” (72). Unfortunately, he is unclear about whether a follower of Jesus can have a legitimate passion for ministries at home (I use the word “legitimate” to differentiate those who are actively involved in some form of ministry and those who, in reality, use these words to excuse themselves from any ministry). Platt does include a few examples of work on home soil, but in other places, his words communicate a different message:

As we have seen all over Scripture, God’s heart is for the world. So when we say we have a heart for the United States, we are admitting that we have a heart for 5 percent of God’s heart, and we are proud of it. (76)

His use of a percentage like this is misleading. I have a friend who will soon be moving to Kolkata, India. I would never describe him as having a heart for only one quarter of one percent of God’s heart!

I do not disagree that the average Christian in the United States needs to become more globally involved with  God’s purposes in the world, but what becomes unclear in Platt’s writings is whether a believer can have a commitment to world missions, with a specific passion to carry it out on a local level. I think of my daughter who has committed five years (and counting) of her life to serving full time in an inner city ministry in a major U.S. city. She has a passion to reach the world, but the venue God has given her is within the U.S. I think his intent is “both / and”, but his words tend to convey only the “uttermost”.  Acts 1:8, however, says the disciples would be witnesses not just in the uttermost parts of the world but also at home (Jerusalem and Judea).

The next question Platt addresses is, “How do we make God’s glory known to all the nations?” (87, emphasis his). His answer is, “The megastrategy of Jesus: make disciples” (90). His views of disciple-making are healthy. “Any Christian can do this” (90), implying that all believers should be involved in making disciples. The process of making disciples, he argues, is not programs and classes (although he acknowledges they have their place), but happens in the context of relationships. And in that context, “making disciples is not an easy process. It is trying. It is messy. It is a slow, tedious, and even painful at times” (93). He challenges his readers to be reproducers of God’s Word, not simply receivers of it. Instead of asking what we can get out of it, he says we should instead ask “How can I listen to God’s Word so that I am equipped to teach this Word to others?” (102).

Platt then moves to a “blind spot” in American Christianity – materialism, and the related issue of neglect of the poor. After a brief introduction to the problem of global poverty, he concludes, “Anyone wanting to proclaim the glory of Christ to the ends of the earth must consider not only how to declare the gospel verbally but also how to demonstrate the gospel visibly in a world where so many are urgently hungry” (109). I agree with Platt that this is a huge global need, one the church cannot ignore. But, while he makes some valid points which I will discuss below, the connections he makes between reaching the poor and our salvation reinforce the confusing gospel he presented earlier in the book:

The Bible nowhere teaches that caring for the poor is a means by which we earn our salvation. The means of our salvation is faith in Christ alone, and the basis of our salvation is the work of Christ alone. (109).

On this, I agree. But then he adds these strong statements:

Yet, while caring for the poor is not the basis for our salvation, this does not mean that our use of wealth is totally disconnected from our salvation. Indeed, caring for the poor (among other things) is evidence of our salvation… Caring for the poor is one natural outflow and a necessary evidence of the presence of Christ in our hearts. If there is no caring for the poor in our lives, then there is reason to at least question whether Christ is in our hearts. (110, emphasis his)

The phrase, “a necessary evidence” trumps the words “there is reason to at least question”. It carries more weight than that. In the realm of logic, a “necessary” condition is “what is required for something to be the case”.[2] In other words, in this case, if care for the poor is missing, the person is not saved (justified), based on Platt’s words. I hope he simply chose his words poorly, but this does not seem to be the case: “More pointedly, if our lives do not reflect radical compassion for the poor, there is reason to wonder if Christ is really in us at all” (111), and “rich people who neglect the poor are not the people of God…. What scares me most, though, is that we can pretend that we are the people of God” (115), and “Our neglect of the poor illustrates much about where our hearts lie. But even more than that, the way we use our money is an indicator of our eternal destination.” (138).

I agree that care for the poor is a blind spot for many believers and churches and is an issue in which the church must become more involved. It is an issue I am evaluating in my own life. Platt, however, makes it a subjective test of one’s justification. But, failure to have a passion for the poor can come from many different problems, including ignorance of the problem and/or how to address it, maturity, disobedience, and so on. But these are all sanctification issues, not justification issues. To necessarily link the two results in evaluating one’s legal standing based on works, not on the object of faith, Jesus Christ and his work on the cross.

Despite this serious error, Platt does offer some sound counsel in this chapter. First, he reminds the reader that wealth is not inherently evil; that the Bible does not condemn riches. Second, he challenges the false assumption in our culture that if we follow God, He will necessarily bless us financially. Third, he questions the financial priorities of the American church: “Every year in the United States, we spend $10 billion on church buildings” (118). Fourth, he raises the question of whether we trust Jesus enough to meet our needs when we give radically. Fifth, he asks, “Why not begin operating under the idea that God has given us excess, not so we could have more, but so we could give more?” (127, emphasis his). He closes with the challenge that “You and I both have a choice. We can stand with the starving or with the overfed… We can stand with Jesus while we give away our wealth, or we can walk away from Jesus while we hoard our wealth” (140).

After reminding he reader that God has no “Plan B”, that is, that God chooses to use His people to carry the gospel to the uttermost parts of the world, Platt closes his main argument by pointing to the “risk and reward of the radical life.” After reminding the reader of the concept that the world will hate his followers because it hated Him, he transitions to the reward that comes from following Jesus: “Are we willing to obey the orders of Christ … Are we willing to risk our lives to go to great need and great danger… to accomplish an eternally significant task and achieve an eternally satisfying reward?” (171). He summarizes:

Yes, Jesus promises great reward, but his reward looks much different than what we might expect. The reward of the American dream is safety, security, and success found in more comfort, better stuff, and greater prosperity. But the reward of Christ trumps all these things and beckons us to live for eternal safety, security, and satisfaction that far outweigh everything this world has to offer us” (171-172).

Although he does not address the concept of reward for the believer at the Bema seat, I agree wholeheartedly with his overall point that the choice that ultimately it costs us more to not follow Christ than it costs to follow Him. The benefit of discipleship far outweighs the cost. He concludes that the key to taking back our faith from the American dream is recognizing that death is a reward and believing that this world is not our home (179).

He closes the book by inviting the reader to the experiment mentioned at the beginning of this review, “to see if radical obedience to the commands of Christ is more meaningful, more fulfilling, and more gratifying than the American dream” (184).

In summary, Platt offers a compelling call to set aside the “American Dream” version of the Christian life, and to radically follow Jesus. This offer calls us to follow the real Jesus, to wholeheartedly embrace being a biblical disciple. As a whole, what he addresses is a necessary wake-up call for the American church. Unfortunately, in the midst of his offer, he offers a seriously flawed gospel and a seriously flawed view of works as “necessary” evidence of the presence of Christ in the believer’s life. I would challenge us to take the key concepts presented in the book, rework them in the context of the right gospel, with a correct understanding of the connection between discipleship and our justification, and seriously confront the American church to be radical for Jesus Christ.

---

[1] David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2010). Future references to the book will list within the text of this review the page number(s) cited from the book.

[2]  Julian Baggini and Peter S. Fosl, The Philosopher’s Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 158.

Straw men - Make Believe Arguments

Straw man arguments.

This is probably not one of my more interesting posts (no comments, please!), but I’m tired of seeing them when someone tries to build the correctness of their view.

Why do we create a caricature of someone’s position, attack that caricature, and think we’ve advanced our own view? We set up a story that doesn’t really represent the view of another, knock that view down, and think we’ve won. However, the logic in this is seriously flawed! It’s called a “straw man argument”. These show up everywhere – in personal arguments, in politics, everywhere. Sadly, this approach even pops up in Christian contexts. Here’s one example:

“If there’s going to be an Armageddon, and we’ll be in heaven already raptured up just in time, it really doesn’t matter if you have acid rain or greenhouse gases prior to that. Or, for that matter, whether you bombed civilians in Iraq. All that really matters is saving souls for that disembodied heaven”.

This author tries to make the point that his view of the kingdom and heaven is more biblical than the traditional view (which includes, “when I die, I will be in heaven”). Some people who don’t agree with his view might well believe that “it doesn’t really matter”, but I doubt that’s the main teaching of Bible-based Christianity. I, for one, believe that we enter heaven at the moment of death and I believe in a future rapture. However, between now and then, my stance is not “it doesn’t matter.” I believe we should be good stewards of God’s creation while we are here, for His glory, for my immediate benefit, and for benefit of generations to come. I like to see the mountains; I prefer blue skies to the brown skies I saw in Beijing. And the fact that I don’t get as excited about some issues (e.g., “global warming”) as other people has nothing to do with my views about heaven or the rapture. It comes from doubts about the soundness of the science behind the story (or other factors, depending on the issue!)

Here’s another example:

“We have been told all that is required is a one-time decision, maybe even mere intellectual assent to Jesus, but after that we need not worry about his commands, his standards, or his glory. We have a ticket to heaven, and we can live however we want on earth.  Our sin will be tolerated along the way.”

This particular author wants his readers to take a more biblical view of discipleship and to live accordingly (which I commend, by the way). He view is that the proper response to the gospel message should be “unconditional surrender of all that we are and all that we have to all that he is.” The problem with his argument, though, is his description of the response allegedly required by those who hold a different view than him. Again, a few may hold the view that “we can live however we want” and that “our sin will be tolerated.” But most within Bible-based Christianity do not; those who teach that the response should be belief in Jesus (“whosoever believes in Him… has eternal life”, John 3:16, et al), would never teach we can live like we want and tolerate sin (Romans 6:1-2).

It seems that the straw man approach only convinces two groups of people: (1) Those already in the arguer's camp, and (2) those not well-read enough to recognize that the description of the other position is not a sound description (This doesn't mean they aren't intelligent. They just aren't aware of the options related to the issue at hand). The rest who believe differently will see the straw man and not be convinced.

What should we do with this?

(1)    Watch for straw-men arguments. Don’t be swayed by them. The author may have some valid points, but make sure the logic he or she uses to support them is sound. Do options other than the straw man exist? What are they? By the way, even if the other option isn’t a caricature, there may still be other options. Presenting only two views when others exist is called a “false dichotomy”. Usually (but not always) more than two options exist to consider.

(2)    Avoid using straw men in our own argumentation. If we want to say something about someone else’s view, try to accurately reflect their view.

Okay. Not fascinating. But I got it off my chest. Read carefully - think carefully!

(By the way, if you know who the authors are who wrote these examples, please don’t mention their names. I’m not interested in criticizing them, but instead the logical problem of their approach).

Get Unfuzzy - Musings on the Gospel

What is “the gospel”?

We asked some African pastors the meaning of “the gospel”. They said, “The good news”. Technically, they were absolutely right. But we were more interested in hearing what they thought was required to receive eternal life. Then, in some recent reading, the topic of “the gospel” popped up repeatedly (as it should, I suspect, when reading “Christian” material!). David Platt, in his book Radical, says “We need to return with urgency to a biblical gospel”. The back cover of Richard Stearns’ book, The Hole in Our Gospel, asks this: “Have we embraced the whole gospel?” Plus, the support team of well-known speaker, someone with some “interesting” ideas about the Holy Spirit, said his evangelistic campaign would simply be a “gospel” presentation. The term “gospel” shows up repeatedly.

So, what is the gospel? Does it always mean the same thing?

I suspect when we hear or read the word, the first idea that pops in our head connects “gospel” with “what must I believe or do to receive eternal life”. I’ve concluded “gospel” is one of those words we often use, but we aren’t always clear about what we mean. And so we’re unintentionally fuzzy in our conversations about the gospel. Let’s get “unfuzzy”.[1]

The basic meaning of “gospel” is, as the African pastors responded, “good news”.[2] However, this “good news” often speaks of more than what we must believe for eternal life. True, it sometimes is a technical term with this meaning. But, in its broadest sense, the “gospel” refers to the full story of the person and work of Christ. Just as “salvation” has past, present, and future aspects, so too has “gospel”. It includes the past, present, and future aspects of our relationship with Him, based on His work on our behalf, and the past, present, and future work of God. The context must tell us whether the author is referring to the whole story or some part of the story.

Romans serves as one example where “gospel” means more than what I must believe to receive eternal life. In Romans 1:6-8 and 1:12-13, Paul calls his readers “called, beloved of God, saints, brethren”; he thanks God that their faith is being spoken of by others; and he says he longs to see them and be encouraged “each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine” (some translations use the words “mutual faith”).  It seems clear in the introduction that Paul views the Roman readers as believers. It is to this believing audience that he says he is “eager to preach the gospel”! To believers??? He then goes on, in his magnum opus, to lay out the core truth of justification by faith alone, but so much more (just read Romans 6-8!). Thus, at least in this passage in Romans, “gospel” is much broader than the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus or the requirements for justification.  (Want a few more examples? Look at Mark 1:1, 1 Cor. 1:17-18, 2 Tim. 1:10, and 2 Tim. 2:8.)

Sometimes, then, “gospel” is much broader than the requirements for eternal life. When we read the New Testament, and we come across the word “gospel”, we need to think “the good news about Jesus Christ”. But we need to let the context tell us whether it refers to the whole story or some specific aspect of the gospel.

The “gospel of the kingdom” is one such specific aspect. The phrase itself occurs only four times (Matt. 4:23, 9:15, 24:14, and Luke 16:16), although other passages infer the idea (for example, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand”, Matt. 3:2). Both Jesus and John the Baptist declared to Israel that the promised King they were waiting for had arrived. Had Israel, as a whole, received Jesus as King, this promised form of the kingdom would have appeared. But she didn’t, she rejected Jesus (John 1:11), and the kingdom offer was deferred (Acts 1:6). Matthew 24 implies this “gospel of the kingdom” reappears at the end of the age, just prior to the physical return of Jesus. There is a yet-future kingdom on earth over which Jesus will reign, whether the new heavens and new earth (as some hold) or a kingdom on this earth before the new earth (as others, like me, hold). This message is still part of the gospel, the good news, but the “gospel of the kingdom” looks at a particular aspect of the gospel, pointing to some future time when Jesus returns. (On a side note – someone commented on another post that doctrine is a “hot topic” and is often divisive. However, we can’t avoid it. How one understands the doctrine of the kingdom influences how one understands this aspect of the gospel!)

The “gospel of your salvation” is another specific aspect:

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph. 1:13)

This is the aspect of the gospel most frequently thought of when we simply say “the gospel”. This is the message “for by grace you have been saved” (Eph. 2:8-9) or “whosoever believes in Me shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). This aspect of the gospel is necessary for someone to receive eternal life now, to enter into a relationship with Jesus, to be “justified” (declared “not guilty”, Rom. 5:1), to be ensured of an eternity in heaven (“and these whom He justified, He also glorified”, Romans 8:30b). This aspect of the gospel says, simply, we are “saved” by faith alone in Christ alone. Anything else is, as Paul calls it, a “different” (false) gospel!

So, what is the gospel? It depends! It is good news. It is good news about Jesus. If we mean, “what is the gospel that results in justification”, it is “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” If we mean, “what is the gospel as it relates to my life as a believer”, it might mean that Jesus ascended into heaven and gave each of us the Holy Spirit, who gives us the power to say “no” to sin, or it might mean that in Him we have the ability to be salt and light (in word and deed) in the world. If we mean, “what is the gospel related to the afterlife”, it is that we are guaranteed entrance into heaven because of Jesus’ completed work. If we mean “what is the gospel as it relates to the final outcome of this world”, it is that Jesus will one day physically reign on earth as prophesied in the Old Testament (the “gospel of the kingdom”) and that Satan will be bound. When we (or Paul, or…) preach “the gospel”, the message could well include the entire story, or we could limit ourselves to just part of the story. So, whenever we see the word “gospel”, think “good news”, but ask, “What part of the good news? Let’s get “unfuzzy” in our thinking!

---

[1] My apologies to Darby Conly, the artist and author of the comic strip “Get Fuzzy”

[2] Our word “gospel” comes from two Greek words, euangelion (euaggelion) and euangelizo (euaggelizw). The first, a noun, means, “good news” and the second, a verb, means “to communicate good news about something”. Roughly half the time, this verb is translated simply with some form of “to preach”; the other half, it includes the phrase “good news” or “gospel”, as in “preach the gospel”. The two words show up 130 times in the Greek, and the word “gospel” shows up about 100 times in the English, depending on the translation. The word “gospel”, often has a descriptor attached to it, such as the gospel: of the kingdom, of Christ, of Jesus Christ, of our Lord Jesus Christ, of His Son, of the glory of Christ, of God, of the blessed God, of the grace of God, of your salvation, of peace, etc. It most frequently stands alone (about 60% of the time).

Reading is dangerous! (A response to "Love Wins" by Rob Bell)

With a title like "Reading is dangerous", I know I will evoke a range of responses. The English teachers I had the privilege to work with at Evangel Christian Academy have now labeled me a heretic. However, many of my former students at the same school are crying out, “Amen!” People who know me know I love to read, and know a punch line should be coming soon. And here it is: reading is dangerous if we are not careful about what we read and how we read. In the realm of reading books about God or the Bible, we need to ask, “Is that what the Bible really says?” Without asking that question, we may end up swayed by a work that misrepresents God’s Word and His plans.

Case in point: Love Wins, by Rob Bell. The book purports to be “about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived.” I don’t normally publicize my thoughts when I disagree with someone, so why critique this book? The answer is simple: Bell is popular; the book has received a great deal of press; and the problems he poses strike the core of the gospel.

Bell does make some valid points in his book. To give just one example, he rightly points out we must present the “right” Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible: “It is about how you respond to Jesus. But it raises another question: which Jesus?” (p. 7). The question is valid. However, the problems of the book far outweigh any positives. The methods Bell uses to reach his conclusion are fraught with problems. I won’t exhaustively address the issues, but I hope the examples below paint the big picture: 

(1)    He presents caricatures of the God who believes in a literal hell. The back cover of the book says this: “God loves us. God offers us everlasting life by grace freely, through no merit on our part.” So far, so good. But he continues, “Unless you do not believe the right way. Then God will torture you forever. In hell. Huh?” In the book, he makes statements like this: “God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death… A loving father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormenter who would assure they had no escape from an endless future of agony.” (p. 174). Assuming for now that hell is real, those who end there may feel this way about God (I don’t really know what they will think – we’re not told in Scriptures), but that does not mean God changed. The truth is, God’s character never changes. He cannot become “cruel and mean” at the point of death. Our circumstances cannot change the character of God. 

(2)    He presents an erroneous gospel.  In the first chapter, he paints a confusing picture about the alleged requirements for receiving eternal life For example, he writes, “Is it what you say, or who you are, or who we forgive, or whether we do the will of God, or if we ‘stand firm’ or not”, (p. 14). At the heart of the confusing list is a failure to examine the passages he uses within their context to understand what the biblical author meant. Most of the alleged difficulties resolve themselves simply by considering the context of the passage. Later in the book, he says “a story about a God who inflicts unrelenting punishment on people because they don’t say or believe the correct things… isn’t a very good story” (p. 110). Throughout the book, he questions the idea of entering hell for failure to believe the “correct things”. But, the writers of Scripture repeatedly condition receiving eternal life on “belief in Jesus” or “by faith” (for just a few examples, see John 3:16, Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16). So, one’s destiny is, in fact, determined by believing the “correct things”. Sadly, Bell never clearly defines his gospel.

(3)    He incorrectly defines “believing” as a work. He writes, “And aren’t verbs actions? Accepting confessing, believing – these are things we do. Does that mean, then, that going to heaven is dependent upon something I do? How is any of that grace? How is that a gift?” (p. 11). Believing, or faith, is not a work, however. It is a response. To believe means to be convinced something is true. In fact, Romans 4:5 distinguishes between faith and works: “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” (emphasis added). Granted, some reformed pastors and theologians (I am not one of these, by the way) would agree that faith is some sort of work, but even they would not describe it the way Bell does. But that’s another story.

(4)    He incorrectly represents the meaning of the original languages. I firmly believe we pastors should use the Greek and Hebrew texts when we study. However, we create a problem when we say “The Greek word here means….” if we don’t accurately represent what the word actually means. The average person in the pew has neither the tools nor the training to evaluate the reliability of our statement. This is particularly true of books written for the popular audience. In Matthew 25:46, the New American Standard says, “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Indulge me for a minute here. The Greek word for “eternal” here is “aionios” (αἰώνιος) and for “punishment” is “kolasis” (κόλασις). You can check this out easily in Strong’s Concordance! Bell, however, incorrectly says the word for “eternal” is the Greek word “aion” (aiwn) and the word for “punishment” is “kolazo” (kolazw). He says one of the definitions for aion refers to “a particular intensity of experience that transcends time” (p. 57, emphasis his) and that kolazo “is a term from horticulture. It refers to the pruning and trimming of branches of a plant so it can flourish” (p. 91). He concludes that “forever” is not a category the biblical writers used (p. 92) and, pulling these conclusions together, decides the Matthew passage may be translated “a period of pruning” or “an intense experience of correction”. Bell makes three significant mistakes here. First, the word used is aionios, not aion. The correct term (aionios) does refer to “eternal” in many passages, such as Romans 16:26, “the eternal God”.  Second, assuming the word is, in fact, aion, the definition Bell gives cannot be found in the standard Greek Lexicons (dictionaries). Nowhere is aion defined as “intensity of experience”. Third, the word kolasis means “punishment”. The meaning of the correct word cannot support the idea of trimming or pruning. However, Bell must redefine the words the way he does to support his contention that hell is not everlasting punishment but some form of temporal misery.

(5)    He fails to address other attributes of God. Bell focuses on God’s love, which in itself is good. More Christians need to see the great depths of God’s love! But he fails to address God’s justice which must deal with sin. He fails to address God’s general revelation in nature which sufficiently renders all people “without excuse” (Romans 1: 20). He also fails to address God’s sovereign ability to get the gospel message to anyone, anywhere (as in Acts 8:25-37). For example, he argues, “If our salvation, our future, our destiny is dependent on others bringing the message to us, teaching us – what happens if they don’t do their part?” (p. 9). The arguments he uses against traditional evangelism place far too much weight on the acts of the messenger and far too little on God. By failing to address these attributes, he creates an unbalanced picture of God’s plan for salvation.

(6)    Finally, Bell uses bad logic. For example, in his discussion of heaven, he writes, “If you believe that you’re going to leave and evacuate to ‘somewhere else,’ then why do anything about this world?” (p. 46). This world is not our real home. Philippians 3:20 makes this amply clear, “For our citizenship is in heaven“. However, even if this planet is only a temporary home and heaven is “somewhere else”, the conclusion that I have no motive to do anything in this world does not necessarily follow. At the least, we ought to care for this world because we are stewards of what God gives us and we should love our neighbors! Heaven being “somewhere else” has no impact whatsoever on these principles. Bell’s conclusion does not follow logically.

 Based on what the Scriptures really teach about heaven, hell, and the gospel, Bell’s work falls under the umbrella of false teaching, and therefore falls under the category of “dangerous reading.” Now, if Bell’s description of hell is wrong, then what is hell? For that, you’ll need to come back for the next post!