What is the Gospel?
This is part 2 of what I was teaching on last Sunday. You can read Part 1 here.
So now we move on to four aspects of the Kingdom. There is so much more, but here are 4 that I talked about on Sunday, trying to (re)introduce us to the concept of the Kingdom of God / Heaven.
1. The Kingdom now.
Jesus came saying that the Kingdom was near or here. He didn’t seem to envisage the Kingdom as some distant or apart from us. The good news of the Kingdom was for people now, on earth; not just some promise for the future or in “heaven” (which we often see as something up there!). eg. Mark 1:14-15
Steve Chalke puts it this way, in his book The Lost message of Jesus.
“We live with the idea that the gospel’s chief aim is to make us fit for heaven, when in reality Jesus’ message is focused on making us citizens and recipients of the Kingdom of God today.”
2. The Kingdom of Shalom.
Shalom is one of those difficult words for us non-Jews to really understand. It is a Hebrew word, that we often translate peace, but in reality means so much more. Steve Chalke suggests that the Kingdom is really about living in the “shalom of God”.
Shalom has connotations of completeness, wholeness, fulfillment, health. Again Chalke has this to say:
“Shalom … vision of what life is like when lived in line with God’s agenda. It incorporates contentment, health, justice, liberation, fulfillment, freedom and hope. Shalom is the equipping of a person so they can cope with life’s suffering and sorrows while basking in the beauty and joys it brings. Shalom is about comprehensive well-being, and flourishing at every level of life - social, economically, spiritually and politically. The tragedy of what many modern day health and wealth preachers have done is to take this panoramic vision of shalom and reduce it to something that merely imitates our consumerist, get rich quick, individualistic, self-centred society.
3. The Radically Inclusive Kingdom
Jesus comes bringing His Kingdom. Whereas the Roman Kingdom did bring prosperity and peace to those already rich and powerful, Jesus brings the Kingdom to the “have nots”. He preaches the Kingdom to the poor - to the people who have no voice, no power, no influence, no opportunities, no hope … and he offers them the Kingdom.
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. (Lk 6:20)
Dallas Willard says that Kingdom is theirs not because they are poor, but in spite of their poverty. No one, in those days would have thought the Kingdom was for these kind of people: Jesus did!
4. Entering the Kingdom: Repent
Often we the emphasis of repentance on the wrong things we are to quit! But Steve Chalke suggests that the emphasis is more about the new way of living that we are to get caught up with. Start living a new way … my way, says Jesus.
“…If they already posses a longing, you can offer them hope, a way of being that is so attractive that they will increasingly see just how pointless the way they have been living really is and begin to jettison it…
It is a calling to something rather than away from something; about putting God’s agenda at the centre of your life and in doing so being good to yourself and bringing good into the world“.
So I am suggesting that the Kingdom is the heart of the gospel, the good news, and that it is about the whole of life, every part of our humanity. We are called to participate in the Kingdom, and express the Kingdom wherever we are: to bless, heal, bring justice, care for the environment, be full of integrity, honesty, compassion, love, to restore … and so participate in God’s mission.
“Jesus didn’t come to tell people how to become Christians. He didn’t even spend his time telling people how they could join the Church. Rather, he came to show them how to be human.”
Steve Chalke. The lost Message of Jesus. p. 153
What do you think? What are the implications of this?
Tags: Emerging Church, Kingdom, Kingdom of God, Missio Dei, Missional Church, Steve Chalke, The Lost Message of Jesus
Great summation of the Kingdom!
During one of my messages on the Kingdom I said that the Kingdom of God is a bit like grabbing fog. You can see it, feel it, know it’s effects, but just can’t quite hold onto it because it’s so beyond us.
Nice job of grabbing!
I’m going to steal some of your words. As we re-start Revolution this Sunday, we are again addressing the Kingdom and what that looks like for us.
Are you going to be blogging about re-starting Revolution on you blog? Be interesting to hear how it all going.
Feel free to steal my words, as they aren’t mine anyway … mostly from Steve Chalke et al…
It’s interesting that you talk of re-introducing us to the Kingdom of God. It does seem like that.
In recent conversations where I have tussled with language, trying to say modernism amd postmodernism seem in one sense to be neither here nor there, red herrings even. They have/can have the ability to redirect us to elements of life and faith that we have lost or need to refind. Both are hopefully trying to point to something else, something deeper and larger and foggier and possibly internal which I think quite legitimately could be best expressed as the Kingdom of God. Thank you.
The quote Jesus “came to show us (them) how to be human” is really helpful: its grounding, its now, affirming of incarnation and suggests transformation. It is reminiscent of Jean Vanier’s work and maybe the above can be extended to “to become more fully human… as Jesus is” .
I love the notion of living in the Peace. “Shalom is the equipping of a person so they can cope with life’s suffering and sorrows while basking in the beauty and joys it brings.” We can’t ignore difficulties but there should be a way of being within them. This living in the shalom seems to capture both. When asked how is it that suffering crushes one person and not another Richard Rohr and Ronald Rolheiser seem to suggest that its about the fact that we need not be alone, we have (as all do) the possibility of living with and within what may be called, from the above, Peace. For me its appealing to make this connection.
I’d be interested to know if you have come up with better language than postmodern and modern? It does seem to describe something that is going on in our culture and reflected in church. But it is limited too. Any other suggestions?
I love the stuff re Rohr and Rolheiser … that express something more clearly of things that i am grasping for …
OK, at long last I have some time to comment on this!
According to your post above, the gospel is:
1. The Kingdom now.
2. The Kingdom of Shalom.
3. The Radically Inclusive Kingdom
4. Entering the Kingdom: Repent.
I’m not sure where to begin, but I don’t think this is “full gospel” at all! Certainly, not from reading Wright am I confronted with this. However, I think I understand something of what you are getting at, and I like how you are trying to move away from a “free ticket to heaven” personal salvation gospel, where repentance is the means to obtaining your ticket. I couldn’t agree more that this is only a fraction of the “good news”, and I’m glad you are challenging us all to think BIG in this way.
Its also obvious that you are trying to major on the Kingdom, and I really like that. But somehow it just doesn’t hang together for me. Its a Kingdom without much said about the King, and a gospel which seems to have no room for atonement, let alone the cross or even the resurrection!
I am sure you were trying to emphasis what was important, and didn’t have time to fill out all the details. Anyway, I’d like to present N T Wright’s view of the Kingdom, and from that, figure out what I think the gospel is about.
First of all, the Kingdom (of God/Heaven) was not Jesus’s invention…it was a concept which had common currency in the Judaism of Jesus’ day. Everyone already knew what the Kingdom was about, even if they all had different interpretations (e.g. the four groups mentioned in your last post).
According to Wright, the Kingdom of God was simply the idea that God - Yahweh - was becoming King of Israel (and therefore the world):
If, then, someone were to speak to Jesus’ contemporaries of YHWH’s becoming king, we may safely assume that they would have in mind, in some form or other, [the] two-sided story concerning the double reality of exile.
- Israel would ‘really’ return from exile;
- YHWH would finally return to Zion.
In other words, Israel was without a King, and Yahweh himself had turned his back on them. Even though their geographical exile had ended, their spiritual exile hadn’t. Their national “sins” had not been forgiven yet. The Hope of all Israel, according to Wright, was that this situation would be reversed, by God himself returning to “Zion” and delivering Israel.
But if [this] were to happen there would have to be a third element as well: evil, usually in the form of Israel’s enemies, must be defeated. Together these three themes form the meta-narrative implicit in the language of the kingdom
In other words, as you pointed out (I think) in the comments of your last post: “Jesus was articulating a new way of understanding the fulfillment of Israel’s hope. He had radicalized the tradition.” (Wright).
So we have these elements:
- The forgiveness of Israel’s sins (which implies…)
- The return from exile, (which implies…)
- the defeat of evil, and (which implies…)
- the return of YHWH to Zion
All of this is clear from the OT prophets. Jesus believed it as much as any other Jew. But he saw it happening in a unique and radical way.
The question is not, did “kingdom of god,” for Jesus, still mean “Israel’s god, the creator, at last asserting his sovereign rule over his world,” with the
connotation of the return from exile, the return of YHWH to Zion, the vindication
of Israel by this covenant god, and the defeat of her enemies? That simply was
its basic, irreducible meaning with first-century Palestine. The question is, in
what sense did Jesus affirm this meaning, and how did he redefine the concept
in such a way as to give rise to the meanings that emerge among his earliest
followers?
Now according to Wright, the ministry of Jesus, culminating in his death on the cross, his vindication in resurrection, and his glorification in the ascension, fulfilled the OT prophecies and ushered in the Kingdom of God. In other words:
- Israel’s sins had been forgiven in Jesus, and by turning to him.
- Yahweh had returned to Zion, to judge and to vindicate Israel, in the person of Jesus
- Israel had been delivered from demonic bondage to Satan and the Powers by the death of Jesus, which was the new Exodus.
- Israel was reformed around Jesus. True Israel is all those that align themselves with him
- Jesus did for Israel what Israel could not do for herself
- now that Yahweh, i.e. Jesus, was reigning, the shalom of God was breaking through into fallen creation.
- Since all of the above was known to happen at the end of the age, in some way the current age had ended, and the new age (of Shalom, to use your term) had begun, even though the current age was still drifting on.
So that is the Kingdom, in historical 1st century terms. Its not my idea, its Wright’s, but it makes a heck of a lot of sense to me! So Shalom is part of it, but in Wright’s telling, its only one part of the story of the Kingdom. Vindication of God’s people and judgement of the nations is also a part of the Kingdom!
I’ll start a new comment to blog on the gospel in relation to all this jazz.
Thanks for the comments Alastair. Sorry it has taken me a while to comment, but you have put so much detail here, i want to have the time to really read an digest - which has needed to wait till today.
What you are presenting here is great. I thoroughly agree with it.
I think what i was presenting was: the gospel or good news = the Kingdom. Full stop. The good news is the inbreaking of the Kingdom, and you are right it would have been more complete to have talked about the Kingdom having a King: Jesus.
The four points is really really four aspects of the Kingdom. “Kingdom 101″ you might call it. There is so much to say about the Kingdom, that i was never going to say it all.
In my mind i was trying to present something that answered the question: what is the place of forgiveness of sins? I felt i had stirred the pot a bit in my previous preach … and i need to bring a bit more explanation to that.
… i’ll continue after you next comment…
The gospel, again, in historical 1st century terms, is as I am sure we all know, simply a word that means “good news”. Now that may be its denotation, but it had two different connotations, depending on its context. Again, this is all from Wright.
The herald in the mountains — In Isaiah, we find in a couple of places that a messenger in running across the mountains, with an important message for Israel: “Your God reigns!”, he shouts. He has come to announce the best news in the world: God himself — Yahweh — is personally returning to Zion, to Israel, in order to sort out Israel and sort out the world, by becoming King of Israel and therefore the World.
Royal proclamation — In the 1st C Roman world, the “gospel” was the announcement that a new King had been enthroned. It was a summons to allegiance, to pledge your life to the King who in return was your Saviour and Lord. These are all secular terms in their original context!
Taking these two elements (Wright does a fair amount of study to conclude both connotations in are in the term “gospel”), and chucking in some other NT teaching, I would see the gospel then as something like this:
1. The arrival of God — in Jesus — on the scene of humanity. This is God’s righteousness: Yahweh loves the world so much that he himself is turning up to sort out the mess we have made, and to show how much he loves us! In other words, he is being true to him promises of old, and will be seen to be a just and righteous God.
2. The reformulation of God’s people, now centred around Jesus. This involves the concept of the forgiveness of sins.
3. The defeat of evil, and the rescue of God’s people from evil. This is a multi-dimensional defeat, from a personal to a cosmic level.
4. The subjection of the powers: Jesus is now the only true King, Lord, Saviour and God.
5. The in-breaking of the New Age/Resurrection life/Shalom/etc: signs, wonders, miracles, peace, etc…
6. The commission of God’s people to continue to be blessed in order to bless the world: in other words, what Jesus did for Israel, the Church does for the world. We are to be agents of blessing and redemption, ushering in the Kingdom as ambassadors of Christ. (I’ve put in Wright’s phrase here about Jesus, Israel, Church & World.)
7. The transformation not only of the world but of humanity itself, through the incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
8. The promise that God in Jesus will finish what he had now started, and return to destroy the enemies he previously defeated, including the destruction of Satan, Sin, and Death, all of which were defeated on the cross. All those who have aligned themselves with the the above will also be wiped out. The chaotic nature of the cosmos will be tamed (no more earthquakes etc). With no further barriers, God’s shalom and glory and Spirit can fill the earth and the cosmos, all of which have been resurrected in some way following this final “wrap-up”.
9. The Good news is, therefore, that God is loving, he is faithful, and he has personally seen that justice is done, evil and death will be defeated, humanity and indeed the entire world — the entire cosmos/creation — will be transformed into a multi-cultural “paradise”, with all peoples and nations giving Glory to God.
What do you think? I’ve probably missed out stuff, anything in particular? Do you think that Chalke’s shalom concept, whilst opening up our view of salvation, actually is quite narrow in terms of the full biblical picture?
really helpful again Alastair … i must get these books from NT Wright!
I think that as a summary to say the Good News = the Kingdom, which is my main point is a pretty fair summary of what you / Wright are saying.
It is easy to gloss over that … but it is a radical departure from the tradional evangelical view of good news = sins forgiven and go to heaven! That is very very narrow and not faithful to the Biblical texts i would suggest.
You have clearly expanded what i spoke about - it seems to me points 1-9 are really about: what is the Kingdom? There are a number there that i mentioned, or have mentioned very recently (1,2, 5,6,7) but others that haven’t really entered into what i am have been speaking about. That is not because i don’t believe them or think they are important. They just weren’t my focus.
I do think number 5 is the crux, in terms of what is means for us today (which was my focus). I would see 3 & 4 as resulting in 5. Shalom as Chalke and I are using it, would mean freedom from evil powers. The inbreaking Kingdom brings Shalom - peace, health, healing, freedom, deliverance etc.
I am not dismissing the future kingdom … but i was wanting to emphasis the here and now of the kingdom, which has got lost (i think) by narrowing the gospel to forgiveness of sins.
So in summary:
I think i still want to say that the gospel in the inbreaking of the kingdom. That is accomplished by the birth, life, teaching, healing, death and resurrection of Jesus.
You are bringing other aspects of what the Kingdom is, and how it is accomplished. But i don’t see that in contradiction to the main point i am making in the paragraph above? Do you?
Thanks for taking time to read my comments! I’m happy to hear you affirm the basic narrative of the Kingdom as Wright presents it, as its certainly not the traditional Kingdom message I have come across in churches before. Lots of ppl (Especially reformed folks, ironically enough) seem to get freaked out by Wright, but I think he’s really onto something.
Looking at my 9-point gospel, I see your point: the gospel could be seen as the telling of the kingdom of God. So I think where I depart from what you are saying is this:
=> At the moment, I don’t see how “shalom” can be equated to the gospel, as it leaves far too much left unmentioned. How is this peace achieved? At what cost? What is someone doesn’t want to accept this peace? How can this peace fix the wrongs that have already past? What has the death of Jesus got to do with peace, of all things?
=> You mention that the crux of the gospel is the inbreaking of the kingdom. Was this intentional ironic? Surely the crux of the gospel must be found in the cross that Jesus died on, and the empty tomb three days later? Your telling of the gospel didn’t seem to leave a lot of room for the cross. Wright is convinced that Isa 53 forms the backbone of Jesus’ ministry: the Suffering Servant. I don’t think we can announce the gospel of peace and kingdom until we can tell the story of the suffering servant, and how that peace was bought. I also think we need to keep the Christus Victor element of the cross in view, and that this peace was established because of the defeat and assured destruction of Satan, Sin and Death.
=> In summary, whilst I think I can agree that the gospel narrative could be seen as the story of the inbreaking kingdom, to reduce either one to simply Shalom is here now, as it almost seems you did, seems like we are announcing a Kingdom but forget to mention the King, and what he did to secure the Kingdom. The Kingdom comes when we proclaim and live-out the Lordship of Jesus, our King.
So I guess I would have had no problem with anything, and indeed would be really affirmative, if you had integrated more fully and centrally the self-evident crux of the gospel: the death and resurrection of our Lord & King, Jesus. Without bothering to contextualise or set in narrative, I guess ultimately I would say that the simplest possible gospel telling is thus: “Jesus is Lord”, not “the Kingdom of Shalom is now”. Shalom precedes only from Jesus’ Lordship, not the other way around. I would also add that the historical gospel (as I outlined above) has an implicit element of challenge: to assert that God in Jesus can come to to earth to defeat evil and put the world to rights, and has established a new people (the church), and summons all to repent and to submit to Jesus, because he is King/Lord/Boss/etc. To say simply that there is this Shalomy peace thing floating around that can bless you if you really would like it (although you do need to repent first to get the blessing), contains no challenge whatsoever!
To summarise (again!): I liked nearly everything you said — its what you didn’t say that gave me cause for concern. Whether someone speaks for one minute or one hour, if you do not major on the Cross and the King when speaking about the Kingdom, you have surely not shared the gospel!
Interesting conversation alastair …
Here are some thoughts on what you say:
1. I think i am saying that Shalom describes what it means to live in the Kingdom, rather than equating it with the good news / gospel. I think the good news is that the Kingdom of God has come. The benefit of that Kingdom is living in the Shalom of God.
2. I would want to say that shalom is much greater than just peace as we understand it: but to do with wholeness, health, blessing, life, peace, restoration … I think the Hebrew concept of Shalom is pretty difficult for us to understand but is much wider than we understand in the word peace.
3. Yes i was being a bit cheeky by using crux … i think the cross is a crucial part of bringing the Kingdom (or how God establishes the Kingdom), but the Kingdom, i am beginning to see, is the central part of Jesus manifesto. To use a wedding analogy, the cross is like the bride’s father paying for the wedding, but the deal is the wedding (Kingdom). Of course there are other aspects to the cross that aren’t covered in that analogy: eg. jesus modelling sacrifice. But i am trying to suggest that the whole Christ event, including the cross, is to bring or usher in the Kingdom of God. That is the good news!
4. We may not be too far off one another here i think: i think you would say too that it is what Jesus accomplishes on the cross that is important. that is all i am saying - although i guess i am saying that i want to broaden it out to the whole Incarnation etc, rather than just the cross. I think it is a fair summary to say that the benefit of the cross is the Kingdom.
5. I suppose in defense of what i was trying to say (in 30 mins or so) was to broaden our view of the gospel, which i think traditionally we have narrow to forgiveness of sins. i wasn’t talking about the cross (or birth, life, resurrection, ascension) as the means of that, as it wasn’t the purpose of the talk.
6. I actually don’t think anyone needs to understand any of these things to enter the Kingdom. I certainly didn’t, but i did know i wanted to follow Jesus … and implicit in that, was not wanting to live the way i had been living. I think that is repentance, although i wouldn’t have called it that at the time.
Just wanted to reply specifically to this:
I think i still want to say that the gospel in the inbreaking of the kingdom. That is accomplished by the birth, life, teaching, healing, death and resurrection of Jesus.
This sounds a lot closer to something which I could agree with (although I am not sure what you mean by healing. How does the historical healings that Jesus performed do anything for me?). But I don’t recall all of that being emphasised in your preach, which my comments are specifically referring to.
Here’s my attempt to reword your mini statement and get in all the points I feel are important:
The gospel is the proclamation of the inbreaking of God himself into the world, in the person of the man Jesus, who by his birth, life, teaching, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven defeated Satan, Sin & Death and established a new people of God so that through them, Jesus’ Kingdom could embrace the world so that the world would be put to rights and that God may be all in all.
What do you think? I’m sure this could be improved further!
On healing … yes probably a moot point. I was thinking about healing being a sign of the inbreaking kingdom. But probably not as significant as the others. I like the additions you bring of suffering and ascention.
On your reworking of the what the gospel means … i don’t see the gospel as a proclamation. That is a bit like saying a party is the invitation. I think the good news is the good news of the Kingdom. There is an annoucement about that the kingdom, but that isn’t the good news (in my opinion).
So how about:
The gospel in the inauguration and inbreaking of the Kingdom of God, established by the incarnation, birth, life, teaching, suffering, death and resurrection of the God-Man Jesus. In so doing, Jesus brought about the rule of God, by forgiving sin, deafeting death and evil, which enables human beings to experience the shallom of the kingdom now, and its fullness in the age to come.
That doesn’t have the the bit you have of the world being put to rights, which i think is very important …
I think you are right about the proclamation bit. I think I am conflating the good news (gospel) with the preaching/proclamation of the good news (evangelism). I will dwell on your rewording of the gospel summary and see if I can tweak it further.
This iterative theological process seems a bit like the sending back and forth of missives in Scotland when someone buyts a house!
Its a good way of bouncing ideas around!
Look forward to your further thoughts…