So what is the good news then?

Rupert is currently blogging about mission. I recommend folks go over and check it out. Don't be afraid to comment! On a kind of parallel theme, I think its time to think again about what the gospel (Good News) actually is. I've blogged on this before, but I didn't exactly cause a storm. I'm hoping to get some more response this time.

So, as well as thinking about what our mission is, we need to think about what our message is. Previously, I said this:

These days its all too common for people to talk about the love of God. The gospel has become "God loves you and died for you", or sometimes just, "God loves you". But is that the gospel? Did Jesus incarnate, die, rise again, and ascend to heaven just to ensure he got his message through that God loved the world? Is the atonement just that God loves us?

Clearly not. Surely every good jew must have known already that Yahweh loved his covenant people dearly, as a husband loves his bride.

On other hand, proclaiming that God hates you, is mad at you because you a filthy sinner, and you will burn in hell unless you believe in Jesus, is not in any shape or form the gospel either.

I am asking my readers to chuck in their tuppence worth, and comment on how they understand the gospel message. To get the ball rolling, here's what various folks say the gospel is:

N T Wright: "the gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. And that his death and Resurrection transform the world, and that transformation can happen to you. You, in turn, can be part of the transforming work."

Loraine Boettner: "The Gospel is the good news about the great salvation purchased by Jesus Christ, by which He reconciled sinful men to a holy God."

Jeff Purswell: "The gospel is the good news of God's saving activity in the person and work of Christ. This includes his incarnation in which he took to himself full (yet sinless) human nature; his sinless life which fulfilled the perfect law of God; his substitutionary death which paid the penalty for man's sin and satisfied the righteous wrath of God; his resurrection demonstrating God's satisfaction with his sacrifice; and his glorification and ascension to the right hand of the Father where he now reigns and intercedes for the church."

Adam Walker Cleveland: "The gospel is the uncontrollable and uncontainable inbreaking of God's hopes and dreams for this world, and beyond. Through the gospel, God the Creator, God the Redeemer and God the Spirit, bring peace, love and hope into the world, while also presenting an alternative way of life, challenging the powers and principalities that be in the world today."

Brian McLaren: "The core gospel message is the kingdom of God and [it] contains all the dimensions of Jesus' mission: the social, the personal and the saving work of the cross."

What do you think? How would you put it? After a while I will post a sequel to this post, with some of my thoughts on the gospel.

The best news since year one?

I've just finished reading Megashift, by James Rutz. An enjoyable book to read, if you can get past the the hype.

The book is all about the new (as opposed to the historical) house church movement, which is picking up speed all across Western world. The book starts by looking at the examples of house churches in primarily non-Western countries, noting countless miracles and healings that occur in their midst. The book is worth it simply for this first chapter alone.

Jim is convinced that traditional (and by that I think he includes most of contemporary) Christianity is going downhill, fast. He sees cities full of small house churches, interconnected by relationship. These holy-spirit filled house churches would meet up city-wide, say once a month, for encouragement, corporate worship and apostolic input.

I think Jim is partly right. I do see this coming to the Western world. In the United States, its now a fact according to Barna that there are more Christians out of church (unchurched/dechurched) than there are in church. Barna reckons that 100 million US Christians are currently not tied to a local church. Lets face it folks, church as we know it is not cutting it! I don't know the statistics for the UK, but I've often estimated that around 50% of Christians are unchurched, dechurched, or floating aimlessly between churches.

Why is this? I think there are two, probably related reasons.

1) Cultural connection: traditional and contemporary churches often seem to be locked into various layers of culture which increasingly push people away from the church. The main cultural issue for the church to address currently is the broad shift from modernity to post-modernity.

2) Somewhat related to the first point, there is a move across the church worldwide (even in cultures that are not experiencing post-modernity) to practise church with what can only be described as an organic Hebrew methodology, as opposed to the prevalent Roman/Greek methodology that the traditional and even contemporary churches identify with.

3) Further points, perhaps related to the above two points, would also includes movements such as post-evangelical, post-charismatic, post-protestant and for some it seems, post-Christian.

So when you chuck all this into the melting pot, what comes out? The answer is of course, the emerging church.

Going back to Jim, I do believe that one expression of the church of tomorrow will be the emerging house churches. However, as others have said, I also think that the Megachurch model, in second and first-world countries at least, is here to stay. Despite all the predictions to the contrary, Megachurches continue to grow and prosper, even with younger post-moderns members (originally it was said Megachurches would only appear to the Baby-Boomer generation i.e. Willow Creek). For example, Mars Hill Church, Seattle, started off as post-modern post-evangelical post-charismatic bible study. Its now has over 6000 members and shows no sign of stopping its constant 60% growth. Meanwhile, over here in the UK, we think 6% church growth is a practically a Holy-Spirit fuelled revival! Other churches have no growth to speak off and continually make up reasons why this is a good thing. "Its not all about numbers", people continually chant in some sort of weird mantra. "A perfect community has less than 100 people" is one I've heard a few times as well. Last time I checked, each "number" was an individual soul (person), loved by the Lord Jesus, who earnestly desires his or her salvation. Is there a verse in the bible that says "And the Lord said thus: It is not about numbers". If anything, it is about numbers, if the book of Numbers teaches us anything :-) Even the Yellow Pages folks realise that.

So Jim, I love the book, but I think we need to make room for other expressions of the body of Christ. I anticipate many house churches starting up in my local scene over the next 10 years. No sign of a mega-church yet, though :-)

This post has brought up a bunch of other thoughts in my mind, so if I get time I will blog some more on all of this. Especially on this meme going around that preaching no longer works (only if you suck at it, according to Mark Driscoll!).

What's wrong with the gospel ?

updated: 28/03/07

I've recently finishing reading the excellent biography No Compromise, the life story of Keith Green. I thoroughly recommend this book to any Christian serious about their faith. Its absolutely fantastic! Very challenging as well.

Now I want to provoke my readers a little and post a little from one of Keith's talks mentioned in the book. If you want to hear his sermon in full then you can buy it on DVD
or read the transcript in full. I'm just going to give you the highlights.

I believe with all my heart that Jesus would be ashamed of most of the "gospel" messages and sermons that are being preached today, mainly because they lack almost every major point He Himself preached on...

Keith goes on to mention the following categories. I'll added my own comments in italics.

• We have removed the Blood of Jesus from the gospel.
  Seems true in my experience. I did hear a preach on the blood of Jesus at New Life Church Kelowna, Canada last summer. To be honest it wasn't the best preach I'd ever heard...I think its hard to talk about this to a post-modern audience. Derek Prince tells us that "It is when we testify personally to what the blood of Jesus does for us that we can claim all the benefits that God has provided for us through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross."
  
  
• We have removed the Cross of Jesus.
  Yes! So many folks are saying this: Alistair Begg, N T Wright, Mark Driscoll...
  
  
• We have removed the Threat and Terrors of Hell, and the Guilt of Sinners.
  I can't remember the last time the word Hell was even mentioned in church, let alone preached. I honestly think many Christians no longer believe in it. I do think that many of the images of hell in the bible are metaphorical / symbolic, as that is the nature of prophetic imagery. The emerging church has done a pretty good job at deconstructing hell. But its now time for the emerging church to reconstruct hell.
  
  
• We have removed the Law of God Preached to Convict One of Sin.
  This is basically what Ray Comfort bangs on about (A friend of mine calls this the "sick-boy method" -- don't ask). I think this works for some people, but not totally sure about its validity. Any thoughts, especially from evangelists?
  
  updated: Synchronicity strikes again: it just so happens that Ed Stetzer has blogged on "beginning a conversation about Christ". He discusses the "Way of the Master" / "sick-boy" method, which he explains thus: "remind people they are hypocrites, liars, thieves, and adulterers in the first two minutes and bring up the "lake of fire" in the third.". Check out the his blog for more about how to share the gospel in today's world.
  
  
• We have removed the Fear of God and the Judgment Seat of Christ.
  Absolutely. The very notion of fearing God is some quarters causes shuffling of feet and stifled coughs. And Christians being judged or rewarded? Come on! That's so medieval, right?
  
  
• We have removed Repentance as Necessary for Forgiveness.
  I think I know why Keith said this. He encountered so many "forgiven" Christians living worldly lives and shaming Jesus. They needed to "repent", that is, to have a change of mind. Both N T Wright (emerging evangelical) and Bill Johnson (charismatic) have done excellent preaches on Repentance. If you haven't heard them -- you should! (Email me for the mp3s.)
  
  
• We have removed God's Sorrow and Broken Heart Over Sin.
  Totally agree. But how does the cross factor into this?
  
  
• We have removed the Necessity of Holiness to Please God.
  What does this Hebrews verse actually mean? Anyone venture an exegesis? The blood of Jesus makes us righteous, but not holy, is that the starting point here?
  

Some folks have commented that the church today is experiencing prophetic aftershocks -- "exhortations, teachings, and prophetic insights delivered years, decades, and even centuries ago that the Holy Spirit is now using to challenge and inspire the body of Christ.". I would agree with this. Keith's message seem more relevant than ever today (even if we would phrase things differently or perhaps tweak his emphasis).

Keith Green often offends Christians. As one blogger put it, "he was just a little immature in his communication skills [but] the message he had was right on the money." I don't think we should let his bluntness put us off him.

Another blogger commented:

Green brought streams of Christianity together, too. He incorporated the holiness movement, the charismatic movement, the Jesus People movement, the missionary movement, the worship movement, and old-fashined tent revivalism into one foundation. I can't think of anyone in recent memory who was able to pull off this feat so well.

Keith, I don't know if you can read blogs in heaven, but if you can, I for one salute you. We need more leaders like you. My prayer is that Jesus would raise up more radical Christians ready to walk in the footsteps of men like Keith.

We may have a more nuanced understanding of some things today, such as Wright's work on Jesus and Paul, and if Keith were here today I am sure he would recast his message in today's language. But lets challenge ourselves and take heed from this amazing man.

Sex God [updated 13/03/07]

Rob Bell has authored a new book on sex, entitled Sex God. There are some initial comments at Jesus Creed, plus Ben Witherington has a detailed review. With chapter titles such as "God wears lipstick", "Sexy on the Inside", "Leather, Whips, and Fruit", this looks like the sort of book the church needs to embrace :-)

A comment from Jesus Creed sums up my response as well:

Interestingly, I have had a number of older folks tell me that in all their years of going to church they have NEVER heard a message on sex! Seeing how sexuality is a significant part of our humanness, as well as the ways it has been distorted throughout human history, I think we need to be talking about it. Especially since Jesus talked about it!

I look forward to reading this...

Why is the church so reluctant to talk about sex ? Perhaps we should take a cue from Salt 'n' Pepper?

update: Check out Part 1 of McKnight's response, and Part 2, his critique.

Do bones of Jesus disprove Christianity?

Reach out and touch faith
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers

-- Depeche Mode, "Personal Jesus"

The media and blogosphere is abuzz (is that even a word?) with talk of the bones of Jesus being found by James Cameron, of all people.



Apparently Channel 4's Richard and Judy held a discussion on how this discovery, if true, would affect the Christian faith.

According to my brother [HT: James Roberts] who watched it (I can't find a youtube link):

The debate was actually pretty complicated for teatime viewing, and although hugely hypothetical as how would you prove Jesus' bones were his, it was interesting to see such things being discussed on Richard and Judy including the quoting of scripture and Richard and Judy giving there views - Judy that she would still be Christian regardless and Richard agreeing with the viewpoint that Jesus' rise from the dead was so critical to Christianity that would prove untenable to still be a Christian if you accepted that Jesus' bones had been found.

In my opinion, if Jesus died (and therefore has not been ressurected and bodily ascended), then our faith is based on nothing more than legend, myth, folklore, fable, and feelings. Its value is reduced to nothing more than a personal philosophy, a self-helping post-modern belief which has no real substance and which ignores the solid data of history and reality. We enter the realm of meta-physics, of relativism, where each faith becomes equal. In other words, the historically based faith of Christianity collapses into generic religion or some form of paganism or new-age belief. (What do you think?)

For those that want the detail, this has been covered fairly well elsewhere in the blogosphere, try Scott McKnight, Mark Goodacre and Ben Witherington III for much more detail and analysis.

Again, my question is, if this was true, how would it affect your faith?