It's a relief to read serious, pastorally concerned theology going in the direction that Prof. McKnight outlines in this post. I wonder if it might be helpful (or accurate?) to describe our problem as an anthropocentric soteriology, as opposed to a christocentric soteriology. That is, the individualism lamented in the post seems to derive from the conviction that I am the center of the spiritual universe, and that Jesus is there to broker a transaction between holy God and sinner me: because Jesus dies for my sins, I'm ok. In this conception, though, I as an individual person am the focus of God's salvific action, which frankly seems to contradict every theological trajectory in the Bible.

Contrast this with a christocentric soteriology which views Christ as the focus of God's salvific action: Christ the seed of the new creation, Christ whose body is the church. The question then posed to us as individuals is how we want to relate to Christ (follow or ignore/reject); i.e., whether we want to enter into the community contained in and constituted by faith (living trust, rather than mere belief/assent) in him. This is an inversion of typical evangelical language of "inviting Christ into my life"--rather, it is Christ who invites us in to God's life as Abraham's adopted spiritual family.

After John Wesley's conversion at Aldersgate, he famously wrote, "an assurance was given me that [Christ] had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death." I've wondered whether this might be the advent of modern evangelicalism's emphasis on Christ as personal Savior. The thing is, whereas Wesley's conversion represented a welcome move toward apprehending the personal significance of Christ, it seems like evangelicalism has taken Wesley's epiphany and spent 270 years running with it to the point where the personal is all we see: the individual significance, but not the communal or the cosmological. Perhaps someone with better historical knowledge than I could affirm (or rebut) this hunch?
http://glassdarkly.net :: Brand Jesus: Christianity in a Consumerist Age

Posts like these are exactly why I read this blog. I don't think there's anything that could possibly be added. Fantastic!

I love it when we are challenged to understand the totality of the gospel. Thanks for the post.

"a more complete view"...exactly. Thanks.

Very well stated.

In "The Divine Conspiracy" Dallas Willard talks about two errors we make. He calls them "The Gospel on the Right" and the "Gospel on the Left".

Gospel on the Right -- Sin Management (i.e., Salvation is all about what happens after I die)
Gospel on the Left -- Social Justice (i.e., Gospel is all about what happens here)

What we need is "The Gospel in the Middle" where we recognize the importance of both the "now" and "not yet" aspects of our life as Christians. We do believe in a life after this one, but we don't simply sit back and expect to "escape" the world and its problems so they don't really matter to us. As I see it, Local churches ought to be Vanguards of the Second Coming that empower individual members and groups of members to engage our world and transform it to a place that more resembles what God originally had in mind and what Jesus will come again and someday restore completely.

As I spend time in churches, most are far from that ideal. I see that our biggest problem is that we have come to a point where our culture views church attendance and participation the same way they view country club membership -- an optional activity for Sunday that is always there if I want to drop in. Suggestions that we ought to be more committed are too often politely ignored -- sometimes not so politely. :)

As long as that continues to be the prevailing atttitude on church participation, I wonder how much hope we have of creating the kinds of communities McKnight (and Jesus for that matter) envisioned in our churches.

Though I appreciate your definition and explanation of the gospel, I think a little “packaging” might be in order.

You stated that “Students of mine that grow up in Christian homes often admit to me that the gospel they grew up was this: Jesus came to die for my sins so I could go to heaven.” Frankly, that’s because we present the gospel in a way that is difficult for young people to understand and carry with them (heck, for most people, not just students, to understand)

Though I believe your definition may be complete, it is far from memorable (sorry:().

I have always operated on an “elevator pitch” concept. If I can’t say it concisely in 30 seconds (as if giving a sales presentation in 30 seconds between floors to a complete stranger), then it’s too complex.

So, what’s the “elevator pitch” version we can teach? What could your students remember? Perhaps “The gospel is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit using the promises of Jesus’ death to build a church with people like me.”

Does that work? Thoughts?

Engaging post. We must forever challenge any gospel that leaves us saying, "What can I get away with and still go to heaven?"

Trevor,
I would agree with you that the KISS principle is needed to begin with, especially with younger students. However, I would say that we also need to be ready and willing to challenge our students to think deeply and theologically about things. So, yes, I agree - let's begin with having something simple like that (and your's is a good one to use), but then, as we wet their appetite for something more, then we can be prepared to go deeper in explaining what that "elevator pitch" means. Would you agree, or disagree... or were you saying that anyway, and I just missed it?
That comment responded to, I would also say that Scot's thoughts are fantastic, and remind me of a Rob Bell message I heard at a YS conference a few years ago. Great thoughts, Scot.

"Jesus died for my sins" isn't a bad place to start, it's a bad place to stop. For a six year old, the whole scope of the gospel is too wide. She needs milk. For a 12 year old, then a 18 year old, it's time to move on to solid food. Perhaps we just need a developmental understanding, so that formation itself is also developmental and progressive. As it is we have almost entire faith communities undernourished and dependent.

It is interesting to see the comments on Christocentric soteriology when the major thrust is that the gospel and thus by extension soteriology needs to be trinitarian. I have a post about this on my blog (follow the link in my name).

Ironically, I think this comes from our attempts to create simple 30 second blurbs to teach people. If these short snippets are all you need then theology would be extremely easy to teach. I think that Scot Mcknight spent a lot of time putting this together. It is easy to create a 20 page paper on this. For 5 pages some deeper thought is needed. A concise posting to challenge the blogosphere is hard.

One major failure of evangelicalism is that we never think enough about what really matters. We reduce things too quickly and by too much. Thus God become less than He is and the church becomes emaciated.

One final thought, give people a chance to show they are more intelligent than they are given credit for.

Scot (and Tyler), you're sounding like great anabaptists. You present a needed corrective to our simplistic, individualistic notion of gospel. Jesus came to bring not a 30-second pitch, but a kingdom. I appreciate the focus on community as it relates to living out the gospel. Because, I believe, we are submersed in a consumerist culture, we somehow persist in trying to "package" the gospel into something people can carry home with them to their private existence. Your approach instructs us to say, "if you want to know the gospel, I'll need more than 30 seconds. Come see the community of Christ, how we live, how we love, how we worship, what we do because of Jesus."

Great post. I think it shines a bright light on a glaring problem with a gospel that is so focused on Jesus being MY personal savior, without considering the broader implications.

As for the need to keep it short and simple, that is great, but we live in a sound bite world where context and depth rarely seem to matter. The truth of the gospel is not something to be distilled to a couple of questions that lead to a memorized "pitch." Rather, we must be willing to engage the gospel together, and allow it to speak to us, whether it takes 30 seconds or 30 years.

People think the gospel means "Jesus died for my sins so I could go to heaven when I die" because that's exactly what we are telling them, at least in my experience. I personally know pastors of large churches who would see McKnight's "parody" summation of the gospel and say yes, that's exactly what the gospel is. If you agree with it.

This may be what we are saying because it's easier to "package" than a holistic gospel. I've heard the gospel defined as the word "did" versus other religions defined as the word "do". Jesus already "did" everything, according to this "gospel". In fact, any suggestion that the Christian life might entail "doing" anything is dismissed as works-based legalism.

But what if the gospel shouldn't be easy to package? What if the nature of God's restoration of the world is way too involved and revolutionary to be compressed into a soundbite for people who happen to be riding a theoretical elevator with us?

I think real evangelism requires longterm commitment to and Christian life lived amidst those it reaches out to. Incarnational evangelism isn't simply better or more effective than shock-and-awe blitzkrieg 4 spiritual laws-style evangelism (even if you change the content to be less individualistic and more communal). It's what's required for the kind of communal spirituality and Christian discipleship we're talking about.

How one individual explain to another individual what a community of faith following Jesus looks like?

What a great post! Its deep. I've come to grow in my own understanding of the gospel -- to include incorporation into a community, and service to the world.

It's more than just forgiveness of sin. It is my desire that we would preach a more "full gospel."

I agree wholeheartedly with the points made in this post.

What we call "the gospel" in most Evangelical circles today, is difficult to square with the words actually spoken by Jesus.

But here's a question that arises in light of this discussion: if the gospel has been truncated in our American/Western context, why is that? How did that happen? What factors contributed to the situation?

In my opinion it has a lot to do with a subconscious prioritizing we do when we study the New Testament. Typical Evangelical views on the Hell issue (i.e. say the prayer to receive Jesus or burn for eternity), for many, seems to trump other aspects of the gospel in perceived importance.

And from that sense of prioritizing, stretched and fine-tuned over decades, comes our skewed sense of what the gospel actually is.

Like Scott, I think we need to realign ourselves with the fullness of the gospel. However, I also think we need to pay attention to aspects of our theology that lead to a subconscious prioritization that ultimately ends with gospel truncation/distortion.

When such distortion happens, perhaps our theology, as well as our “spirituality”, is a root issue.

To me, by God's work, the gospel is always the moment. The gospel, the living Word is always closer than a brother. We can appreciate our concern for the, " eye has not seen nor ear has heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love Him." as we pray for "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".

It is dificult for me to phantom, as an un-educated person, how one can have a relationship with God and not further His kingdom. Unless I'm bottled up with the focus on myself as myself and my performance. It is also dificult for me to comprehend that evil is having his way in the moment rather than the Ultimate and only Good is having His way.

The reconceliation between the individual salvation and the communial salvation still resides in Faith. All have a relationship with God's Son since He is the Light that lit every man. He is in every heart... crucified or risen; therefore, there are only two hearts present... the heart of stone and the heart of flesh. One a living soul and the other a Life giving Spirit.

I Love what my Pastor once said. "I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that the world is mess. The good news is that there isn't a thing you can do about it. But Jesus can!

Let us permit our heart to love others on the same treshold of salvation as we do our bretheren in Christ, in the moment. The educated and the illiterate both understand sacrifice and the fear that is in trusting someone other than the self.

Let us cheer in Salvation even when the ebb of all that makes any sense is apparent. Gratefullness is coherent in not what we do but whom we have to do with and His commitment to us by promise and fullfilment."

The definition of " I will make myself like the most High." is that there never is any rest with control ( as exhibited to us by our Lord Jesus Christ, to and on the Cross. )

The liquid is never the cup, the Church is never the Liquid as in the vine and the branch: Yet, even as He is, so are you in the world.

He IS risen!

If McKnight is right, then what is needed is not a better definition of "the Gospel," nor is it better theology. Rather, what is needed is for our preachers and leaders to truly encounter the Gospel in relationship.

I think McKnight's points are solid, and I appreciate his examples.

But the majority of pastors are living, preaching, and "doing theology" in isolation. They are beyond lonely: they are ministering in exile while surrounded by parishioners. If the heart of the gospel is community (a Trinitarian God creating a community for redemption) then how can pastors who report having no friends truly preach a better gospel? How can pastors who have no mentors preach effective discipleship? How can pastors with no one to confess their sins to preach repentance?

Thus, it would seem to me that our model of ministry which effectively elevates then isolates ministers is also part of the problem. And in truly circular fashion, may itself be traced to the kind of gospel we preach.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent

great post Scot! this is a huge challenge for our churches today. as i interact with youth i see how disconnected they are from their community and so enmeshed in self. it seems that the church, in large part, continues to strenghten this rather than posing challenges to self-centeredness. i know a major piece of my own formation was an experiment Klyne Snodgrass had us do in New Testament class. we had to read the Gospel of Matthew and reflect on how the text challenged our self-centeredness. what a challenge to a young seminary student who thought he had the whole faith thing figured out!

I wonder how demographics relate to this post and the replies.

I confess that, as a teenager, I became a Christian to avoid going to hell. 20 years later, I remain a Christian because the landscape that has unfolded is far more beautiful, more real and just bigger than a baby bulger like me could have possibly imagined. Scot's excellent piece and some of the responses reflect a more mature view of the Gospel, which I warm to at my time of life.

Does this mean that the Church has matured, or has the demographic that addresses the issue reached a certain age?