The Emergent Fundamentalist

Mike at Waving or Drowning? is defining the gospel:

I don't preach a social gospel; I preach the Gospel, period. The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is concerned for the whole person. When people were hungry, Jesus didn't say, "Now is that political or social?" He said, "I feed you." Because the good news to a hungry person is bread.
Bishop Desmond Tutu

This is the gospel. Period. Anything else is... something else.

That's it folks.  Period.  Feeding the hungry is the good news and there's no room for those of us who might see the salvific purpose of God's redemptive plan meted out in the Incarnation. 

Jesus is not so much man's savior but only his cook.

And don't disagree. 

Neanderthal.

Sigh.

Comments

[Nicks]

When people were hungry, Jesus didn't say, "Now is that political or social?" He said, "I feed you." Because the good news to a hungry person is bread. Bishop Desmond Tutu

This is the gospel. Period. Anything else is... something else.

Good news, yes. The Gospel, No.

I don’t find anywhere Paul feeds people, and he preached the gospel.

And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:29-31 (NASB)

Paul mentions “something else”. Did he misrepresent the Gospel?

I don’t find anywhere Jesus sent the disciples out to feed people as par to the gospel.

These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. Matt. 10:5-8 (NASB)

Every case of feeding I am aware of was an opportunity for Jesus to demonstrate a sign of His messiah ship.

He said* to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for.” And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons. Mark 1:38-39 (NASB)

When day came, Jesus left and went to a secluded place; and the crowds were searching for Him, and came to Him and tried to keep Him from going away from them. But He said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose.” So He kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea. Luke 4:42-44 (NASB)

Are Christians called to feed the hungry, most assuredly, But Jesus last instruction was to go and make disciples.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Matt. 28:19-20 (NASB)

Teaching them to observe. Is feeding teaching? Or does feeding come as a result of knowing, observing and acting?

[Leslie]

Just some random thoughts:

1. I wish Mike would talk about his own personal relationship with Jesus.

2. KP Yohannan, to me, seems to have partnered feeding the poor and preaching the gospel in the most wonderful way. His free book is here.

3. People who see the good news as more than feeding the poor don't wish for the poor to starve, they just see a different solution to the problem. Perhaps instead of pointing fingers the emergent church could take up a mantra of...and some were appointed to be cooks, some were appointed to be preachers. Pigeon holing Christ followers into one job seems...oddly un-postmodern & also seems to stir up ununified feelings.

[John]

You're not actually addressing the point at issue, though. No one (least of all Desmond Tutu) is saying that the Gospel reduces to a command to feed the hungry. The issue is whether the Gospel requires us to feed the hungry. And Jesus was quite firm about that:

Matthew 5:32-40
“Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me...Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

The Gospel of Christ is about social justice as much as anything else. If we ignore that, we ignore the heart of the Gospel.

pax et bonum

[Nicks]

John,

First- perhaps I am misreading it, but the post is:

This is the gospel. Period. Anything else is... something else.

Not much wiggle room here.

Second-I think you are putting the horse in the cart. As a result of what I attribute to a typo, the verse you reference is not the text you printed. I suspect you intended to site Matthew 25:34-46, which clearly (in context) contrasts the action of believers (those on the right) to unbelievers (those on the left). Again, the point is that those who have heard the gospel, and are “new creatures” (2 Cor. 5:17), act differently. The Gospel brings men to the point of newness. Newness causes compassion.. Newness causes men to see things the way Jesus sees them. (1 Cor. 2:14). Feeding the hungry is a result of the gospel, it is not the gospel.

“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matt. 25:34-46 (NASB)

Peace and all good,
Nicks

[MarcV]

I have been wrestling with an article by Rob Bell over at Christianity Today (trying to figure out how to post it), and some parts of it may be apropros:

There are many dimensions to living in harmony with God. In one sense, salvation is a legal transaction.

Humans are guilty because of our sin, and God is the judge who has to deal with our sin because he is holy and any act of sin goes against his core nature. He has to deal with it. Enter Jesus, who dies on the cross in our place. Jesus gets what we deserve; we get what Jesus deserved.

For Jesus, however, salvation is far more. It includes this understanding, but it is far more comprehensive—it is a way of life. To be saved or redeemed is to enter into a totally new way of living in harmony with God. The rabbis called harmony with God olam haba, which translates "life in the world to come." Salvation is living more and more in harmony with God, a process that will go on forever.

When we understand salvation from a legal-transaction perspective, then the point of the cross becomes what it has done for us. There is the once-and-for-all work of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins and saying, "It is finished."

Nothing more to be offered and nothing more to be sacrificed. We claim this truth as Christians. All has been forgiven. But let's also use a slightly different phrase: the work of the cross in us. The ongoing work of the cross in our hearts and minds and souls and lives. The ongoing need to return to the cross to be reminded of our brokenness and dependence on God. There is the healing we need from the cross every single day.

The Gospel message, what Jesus did for us and what should result from that, is so much more than feeding His sheep. The Gospel message should change lives, to the point that worship and service to the Lord comes naturally ... delighted to do it! When we bring our human agendas (you should be feeding the poor! that money on toys could be better spent supporting missionaries! how can a hypocritical sinner tell others what to do?) into applying the Gospel to our lives, we dilute the power of the message.

It's the adventure of a lifetime ... and beyond.

[Presbypoet]

There are two parts to this; milk and meat. Milk is knowing God will provide, that He has compassion, learning to trust. Meat is learning/being transformed to do His will, discipleship, submission & Joy.

This is exemplified by the myth of the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus had compassion. He told the disciples to feed the crowd. Then, when they claimed they could not, He did. It looks like confirmation of the need to feed.

Afterward, Jesus words about their not understanding the meaning of the loaves and fish, say it is more than mere feeding, more than simply giving people what they want. I will try to find time to amplify this on my blog. Look for "The Myth of the Feeding of the Five Thousand".

There is a vast difference between giving people what they want, and what they need. God gives us what we need. The devil gives us what we want.

[John]

Yes, Nicks, I missed off a 2 - look at the linked passage and you'll see you got it right. Thanks for the correction!

The point that still seems to be being missed in these comments is that we cannot dispense with feeding the hungry. I totally agree - there's more to the Gospel than that. But, if we remove that action from the Gospel, we are going against Jesus' own words. The actions of the righteous will include feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned - whoever and wherever they are. For when we do it to them, we do it to Him.

So a Gospel without a social aspect is no Gospel at all - just as much as a Gospel that only has a social aspect is no true Gospel. Desmond Tutu was correct - and Mike was, at worst, guilty of overstating the case. Read the Tutu quote again:
"The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is concerned for the whole person"

pax et bonum

[Nicks]

John,

Who are the righteous? They are those that already have heard and accept the gospel.
If you are saying that Salvation equals faith plus works, I do not agree.
My point is that faith equals salvation plus works.

How would you answer the Phillipian jailer?

Nick
“Faith alone saves, but faith that saves is never alone” Johnny Calvin.

Rick- thanks for allowing this discussion to proceed uncensored on your site.

[John]

Nicks,
I think you're trying to draw too fine a line there. Salvation, faith and works are all wrapped up together - none of the three is optional. I suspect that we agree there.

So, if salvation and faith will produce works, these words of Jesus are saying that if we fail to produce good works (if we do not feed the hungry, to minister to the whole human being) then our faith or salvation must be lacking. To proclaim the whole Gospel then requires that we declare the need to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Which is what Desmond Tutu was saying! A Gospel that is devoid of good works is a partial Gospel - for (as you said) Christians are to be remade, new people who bring forth their fruit in good works.

I'm not quite sure why people object to this - are you saying that we ought not, in fact, to feed the hungry? Because that's hard to maintain in the face of Jesus' words AFAICS. No one is saying (not even Mike) that feeding the hungry is all there is - he was responding to Tutu's assertion that Christ dealt with the whole person. As well as teaching, we must feed. As well as feeding, we must teach. Read the whole of Tutu's quote, not just one sentence. The emphasis is on the whole person - not simply their body, but not simply their "soul" either.

pax et bonum

John,

My objection is in the defining of the “Gospel” as having something to do with works. At some level, one’s faith may be measured by their works, but who is qualified to make that evaluation? Our old friend the thief on the cross did not participate in any good deeds, yet was assured a place in paradise, based on his understanding of the nature and character of Jesus and His death.

Yes, Christians should be involved in every manner of good deed. Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, protect the oppressed. But that is not the gospel. It is the outworking of the indwelling Holy Spirit in a believers life. It is the fruit of salvation. The Good News is the reconciliation of man and God, not the feeding of the hungry.

The “whole person” teaching sounds good, but the point of the Gospel is spiritual, not material. Jesus described is as death to life, darkness to light, born again.

Acts 7 describes a problem in the feeding of the hungry that illustrates the separation between the Gospel and deeds.

Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. “Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. Acts 6:1-8 (NASB)

Although the services of bread was important and needed to be provided for, the ministry of the word was more important to the apostles.

Again, the question of he Phillipian jailer brings us to the core of the issue. “What must I do to be saved?”

Nicks

[John]

There, then, we have a difference of opinion, Nicks. When Jesus proclaimed his mission, He didn't talk about spiritual things. He said that he had come to proclaim freedom for prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour (Luke 4:18,19). Jesus wasn't concerned only with the spirit but with the whole person - indeed, the very notion that we can separate the "spirit" from the rest of a person was invented much more recently.

Part of the reason that the Gospel must contain some of this works stuff is that, without it, the news really isn't very good! The good news is not just (or, indeed, not really) that we can be saved from our sins. The good news is that the meek will inherit the Earth, that the poor will be blessed (especially in Luke's version!). The powerful are to be put down from their thrones and the rich sent away empty (Magnificat). The Gospel is not purely spiritual - it is relentlessly social and political. For, without a social and political aspect, it cannot truly be spiritual. It would only be theoretical.

pax et bonum

[Leslie]

Part of the reason that the Gospel must contain some of this works stuff is that, without it, the news really isn't very good!

This leaves me asking what place does sin have in this social type of gospel message. The irony I find is that tending to the whole person is often brought up in Christian discussions about feeding the poor. But all too often on closer inspection it appears that physical hunger is actually just a substitution and spiritual hunger takes a turn being ignored leaving the whole person still untended.

Jesus said man cannot live by bread alone. He as much said that ending physical hunger isn't the whole gospel...period.

The people of the church constantly swing from one end of the pendulum to the other. All focus on sin, no focus on bread...then all focus on bread, no focus on sin.

And all the while we feel pious about whichever end of the pendulum we happen to be sitting. I include myself here.

Which brings me back to #3 of my first comment on this thread. Everyone has different jobs to do. Acts 6 is pretty clear:

So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."

The trouble is is that like Mary & Martha, one side is busy sitting at Jesus feet and the other is bitter because they feel like they're doing all the work. Again Jesus take on this situation was pretty clear too.

"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed.Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her."

Sorry guys this was a pretty long interruption of your very interesting conversation.

[Leslie]

Mary & Martha passage here.

[John]

But, Leslie, my point is precisely that we cannot ignore either. Saying that some people miss out the spiritual aspect doesn't excuse our missing out the social. Too much focus on the "spiritual" leads us to neglect totally actually caring for our neighbour's physical needs - whereas Jesus commanded us to look after our neighbour and to love her as ourself.

I am in no way trying to say that dealing with sin is unimportant - it is crucial. But we must talk about what a regenerated life actually means as well. It's all very well to say "we will be made new" but unless we talk about what that means, we're just spouting hot air. And Jesus is very clear what it means, in loving our neighbour and caring for their real physical and social needs.

pax et bonum

[Leslie]

John, you say we can't ignore either, yet you also say that the gospel message alone isn't very good news.

Yes we are to care for the needy. I know from reading the post on your own blog that you may disagree, but I just don't see anyone disputing that here. The discussion really is that to elevate feeding people to the point where sin & redemption are unnecessary subjects (as was implied in this case with the "that's all the gospel is...period" comment) is another story.

When you say:

I am in no way trying to say that dealing with sin is unimportant - it is crucial. But we must talk about what a regenerated life actually means as well. It's all very well to say "we will be made new" but unless we talk about what that means, we're just spouting hot air. And Jesus is very clear what it means, in loving our neighbour and caring for their real physical and social needs.

I would say:

I am in no way trying to say that feeding the poor is unimportant -- it is crucial. But we must talk about what redemption actually means as well. It's all very well to say that "tending to the whole person" is important, but unless we talk about Jesus work on the cross we are short-changing people from a much greater fulfillment. And Jesus is very clear what it means, in loving our neighbour as well as caring for their real spiritual needs.

For what it's worth, I work with kids & see real hunger daily & am passionate to end it. But in reality food is a temporary fix. Life on Earth is temporary, fleeting in fact. The power of the gospel is so much more.

[Nicks]

John,

There, then, we have a difference of opinion

True, but I am afraid that what for us is a theoretical difference of opinion, for some is life and death. Not just here on earth, but eternally.

But we must talk about what a regenerated life actually means as well. It's all very well to say "we will be made new" but unless we talk about what that means, we're just spouting hot air. And Jesus is very clear what it means, in loving our neighbor and caring for their real physical and social needs.

There is a difference between how one gets made new (the Gospel), and the behavior of one who is made new (discipleship).

The Gospel, the good news is that man and God are reconciled. No good behavior, no feeding the poor, no baptism, nothing but Jesus’ subsidiary atonement. A free gift. To add to that is not only not the gospel it diminishes Jesus’ death as insufficient on its own.

Part of the reason that the Gospel must contain some of this works stuff is that, without it, the news really isn't very good! The good news is not just (or, indeed, not really) that we can be saved from our sins.

What better news is there than man can live for eternity in heaven with God? What better news than

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1 (NASB)

What was the result of the gospel in the first century? Poverty, persecution and hunger. Christians banded together to feed each other. To support each other. It was significantly later that the church had any ability to do the good deeds we are discussing outside the body of believers.

Again, the question of he Philippian jailer brings us to the core of the issue. “What must I do to be saved?”

Nicks

[John]

I think that Leslie and Nicks are trying to draw too tight a cord around the "Gospel", limiting it to personal salvation only. When we read Jesus' words, however, and when we read what Paul wrote, the sense is not one of personal salvation - or, at least, not centrally. There is much talk of salvation, but it's usually communal - a saved people, a holy priesthood and so on. Indeed, Jesus rarely talked about salvation after death at all. He talked about people being freed from their sin now. To see things only in terms of personal salvation and heaven-when-we-die is too narrow. I do not believe that we can separate (as you seem to want to) "Gospel" and "discipleship". There is no meaningful division between the message that leads to our redemption, the message that means that we grow in faith and the message that leads to our taking action in the world.

I suspect that the entire problem here is that some people want to use "Gospel" for a neatly packaged, discrete entity that brings someone to personal "salvation" and that's it. My point is that this is not the Gospel that Jesus proclaimed, this is not the Gospel that any New Testament writer wrote about. Always and everywhere, we see salvation in corporate terms, and as tied up with regeneration and its outworking - which means nothing less than a new set of priorities and actions. If salvation and action are tied together as closely as they are in the Bible, the question then becomes, why the opposition to talking about them together? It's meaningless to talk about regeneration in the abstract - we need concrete action.

Finally, two points. First, no one here is suggesting that feeding the poor alone is a substitute for a relationship with God through Christ - not Desmond Tutu, not Mike and not me. The problem is that, as soon as someone says that social action is essential to the Gospel, there is a reaction that says "personal salvation is all that matters". And that's what I'm responding to here. It might not be what was meant, but it's how it comes across, because of the over-emphasis on personal salvation.

Second, an answer to the question "What better news is there than man can live for eternity in heaven with God?" How about that we can live in heaven with God right here on Earth? Heaven is where God is - it's not a different world that we go to after we die. It starts here and it starts now. If we're in relationship with God, we're in heaven right now. And that we need to work to bring heaven more fully into being here. That work will never be finished before God makes all things new, but that's no reason not to start. Then, when we are in heaven when we die, it won't be a strange place.

pax et bonum

[Nicks]

John,

How do you respond to the Philippian jailer? “What must I do to be saved?”

Nick

[Leslie]

And with Nick's question I'd like to add what about the Apostles in Acts 6?

I'm genuinely asking. I'd like to know how this view of the gospel approaches the Apostles actions.

[John]

Nicks,
The Philippian jailer (assuming you're referring to Acts 16:30) is hardly a good example here, because he was asking two questions. First, and probably foremost in his mind "How can I avoid being killed by my bosses when they learn that I've set you free?". The second question, the one to which you refer, is asked of someone who's just caused a miraculous event: "How can I get to know this powerful god?" The answer is "believe in Jesus" - which means "enter into relationship with Jesus" (the root of "believe" is the same as that of "love" - it's got nothing at all to do with assent to doctrines), which means to begin to change - which begs exactly the question I've been asking: change into what? Without an answer to how we will change, there is nothing to indicate what a relationship with Jesus actually means - and, in particular, nothing to tell us what this Jesus is like. The character of Christ is what compels our actions - we cannot love Christ and not act in love of our neighbour (as you all seem to agree). That being so, how can we possibly share Christ without sharing Christ's concerns?
The most important point about this event, though, is that it's not a sharing of the Gospel - it's meeting a question that's already been asked. The hard work has already been done. The jailer is responding and needs only a little help to take that step. The Gospel here has to start with the beginning of the story - the healing of the possessed girl, their speech to defend themselves, their behaviour when captured and imprisoned, the miraculous earthquake. Without the whole story, there can only be a partial gospel.

Leslie,
I don't quite know what you're asking here. Are you saying that appointing deacons to care for the poor in the church was not a social action of care for those very people? Surely, the apostles' actions here are to recognise that they had to act to care for the poor, and also to recognise that they themselves had other tasks as well that meant they didn't have time to do it themselves. Thus, they appointed others who would, under the apostles, take daily care of the poor.
Certainly, I don't think it shows in any way that the apostles thought that their mission didn't involve care for the poor - the answer in that case would have been "Don't bother us with these petty details. We are about God's business." No - the answer is "We are about God's business, so we must take care of these details."

Indeed, if we read the apostles' preaching (such as Peter's first address at Pentecost), his focus isn't on getting into heaven but about changing the people's wicked ways - repent and be baptised. Repenting isn't about getting forgiveness, it's about changing ourselves (with God's grace). Which is again merely to ask, change into what?

So, my question is again how we can possibly phrase the saving news of Christ in such a way as to remove any idea that we must help our neighbour without also removing every hint of who Christ is and hence of why we should want to know Him. That, as far as I can see, leaves only "repent or burn", which is not the Gospel.

pax et bonum

[Leslie]

Are you saying that appointing deacons to care for the poor in the church was not a social action of care for those very people?

Why would I ever think that? I’m saying that it’s notable to see the leaders of the church delegating other people to this task so they could focus on ministry of prayer and the word. The two tasks, both vital, are not necessarily inextricably linked.

According to the way I hear you referring to the heart of the gospel, it would seem that the Apostles were pushing the “important” jobs onto others while focussing their own energies on the part that is, as you say, “no gospel at all”.

Why do I find this passage notable? I will say again, it shows me that we are called to different tasks. It seems counterproductive for those who feel called to feed the poor to belittle those who feel called to prayer and ministry of the word, yet it happens a lot these days. It works against achieving that coveted post-modern unity we all long for.

Perhaps it would be possible to grant a tiny bit of the benefit of the doubt that, just maybe, people who feel called to prayer and ministry of the Word have a broader depth of concern than merely “repent or burn”. If it was possible for the Apostles, surely God would make it is possible for people today.

Repenting isn't about getting forgiveness, it's about changing ourselves (with God's grace).

This is a commonly held idea, but it always leaves me wondering what need is there for God if we are able to change ourselves? Isn’t it really like saying, how nice of God to offer us his grace, but really we should do all the tough stuff ourselves.

So, my question is again how we can possibly phrase the saving news of Christ in such a way as to remove any idea that we must help our neighbour without also removing every hint of who Christ is and hence of why we should want to know Him

To my knowledge, no one here is suggesting that. My concern began when you said the gospel message without a good work attached isn’t very good news. I understand that tangibly loving people is the way to show Christ’s love, but to phrase things this way makes me and my works the exciting part of Christ’s death and resurrection. Now I imagine you’d be quick to point out that is not what you meant, and that very well may be, but it is the logical implication of what you said.

I prefer to look at my good works as an outpouring of God’s work in my life. Then I can give all glory to him.

[Nicks]

John,

Although I am not sure I agree with your exposition, lets go with it, and see if I am following:

First, and probably foremost in his mind "How can I avoid being killed by my bosses when they learn that I've set you free?".

First comes the temporal, his physical need. Much like hunger or cold.

The second question, the one to which you refer, is asked of someone who's just caused a miraculous event: "How can I get to know this powerful god?"

Here is the spiritual need. How can I get a right relationship with the creator of the universe. The most high and Holy God? The one who has changed your (Paul’s) life?

Paul only answers the spiritual question. He does it directly and succinctly. Yes, his actions leading up to this sets the stage, as do ours, but first and foremost Paul answers the spiritual question. This is the good news. This is the starting point. How can I have a relationship with God that transcends my temporal condition, just like Paul demonstrated.

The answer is "believe in Jesus" - which means "enter into relationship with Jesus" (the root of "believe" is the same as that of "love" - it's got nothing at all to do with assent to doctrines),

Actually, according to the NAS Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries by New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance Project Staff, Robert L. Thomas, Th.D., General Editor Updated by W. Don Wilkins, Th.M., Ph.D. of The Lockman Foundation, the word translated believe is pisteuo; from pistis; from peitho

(The number in parenthesis is the number of times the original word is translated by the listed English word)

pisteuo is translated as follows; to believe, entrust:—believe (118), believed (73), believers (3), believes (29), believing (10), do (1), entrust (1), entrusted (6), entrusting (1), has faith (1).

pistis; is translated as faith, faithfulness:—faith (238), faithfulness(3), pledge (1), proof (1).

And peitho a primary verb; to persuade, to have confidence:—assure (1), confident (3), convinced (7), followed (2), have confidence (2), having confidence (2), listen (1), obey (3), obeying (1), persuade (4), persuaded (8), persuading (1), put...trust (1), put confidence (1), put...confidence (1), relied (1), seeking the favor (1), sure (2), took...advice (1), trust (2), trusted (1), trusting (1), trusts (1), urging (1), win...over (1), won over (2).

It, nor its roots, are ever translated love in the New American Standard. All have something to do with the placing of confidence and trust. Obviously my confidence cannot be in my works, so it must rest wholly on Jesus' works and words.(Jesus lists His three witnesses, His works, the Father, and the Scripture in John 5:36-47)

Thanks for your articulate defense of your position. I suspect that after your reply we should consider moving on to the next polemic.

Nicks

[John]

Leslie,
"According to the way I hear you referring to the heart of the gospel, it would seem that the Apostles were pushing the “important” jobs onto others while focussing their own energies on the part that is, as you say, “no gospel at all”."

Ah, but we're here starting to confuse the jobs of individuals with the whole Gospel of Christ! Of course, we all have our own roles and we each will be more capable of and drawn to different areas. So, I would in no way expect all Christians to be spending every waking hour helping the helpless - just as I wouldn't expect all Christians to spend all day in contemplation.

So each of has our own strengths, but the whole truth of Christ is still there.

"Perhaps it would be possible to grant a tiny bit of the benefit of the doubt that, just maybe, people who feel called to prayer and ministry of the Word have a broader depth of concern than merely “repent or burn”."

I'm not saying that at all. Indeed, I specifically mentioned "repent or burn" only as the logical conclusion of a path that removes everything except the individual from the Gospel. We must, as I've said repeatedly, address the whole person. That means that we should absolutely try to bring people to know Christ - but that we should also try to meet their own physical, emotional and social needs, as well as to show them how they will need to help others themselves.

So, as in the example of the apostles, each of us does what we feel called to - but we preach a Gospel that covers the full work of God.

"what need is there for God if we are able to change ourselves?"

I did add "with God's grace", and I did so quite deliberately! We cannot change ourselves into the people God wants us to be - we need God's grace to do that. We cannot know God through our own efforts - we need God's grace to do that. The fact remains, though, that we do need to change, and that we must want to change, and that we must make efforts to change. Which all emphasises again that we need to know what we are to change into.

"I prefer to look at my good works as an outpouring of God’s work in my life. Then I can give all glory to him."

There, we agree. But if the result of God's work in your life (and mine, I hope) is in part our good works, surely those good works are part of the good news? My worry is that when we say "believe and be saved", that's not enough - it's not the Gospel Jesus preached, the Gospel Paul preached or the Gospel that we actually practice (or at least that we should practice). If we set our boundaries too close around the Gospel, around what we believe to be central, then we impoverish our expression of that Gospel. I fully agree that Jesus came and lived and died and rose again in order to save sinners - but I believe that what that means is that those sinners are to be changed into Jesus' likeness. And that means that the Gospel means that Christ came to turn us into His image. And that means that Christ came so that we would act like He did. And that means that Christ came so that we would do the things He would do. This chain of reasoning (which is really very short - mostly, it is just rephrasing the same thing in a slightly different way) applies just as much as saying that Christ came to save us from our sins, which means that He came to bring us into relationship with God, which means that He came to bring us eternal life, which means that we will never die but will live eternally with God when God makes all things new. Both are true, and neither is sufficient by itself.

If we take only the former, we have the problem you see - a Gospel that is all outward work and no God centre. If we take only the latter, we have the problem I see - a Gospel that is all self-centred and isn't concerned with this world at all. The art is, I think, to find the balance: a place where we can hold both together. And a confidence that lets us accept that other people will express things differently to us but know and trust the same God.

pax et bonum

[John]

Nicks,
First off, I can't debate the Greek - I don't know Greek, and I'll happily defer to your knowledge.

When I talked about the root of the word "believe", I meant the English word, not whatever Greek words are translated that way. However, the senses of the two are similar enough that the point I was trying (possibly failing!) to make is still true - that the point is not an intellectual assent but an emotional response. To put our trust in someone, to have faith in them, is not an intellectual decision but an emotional one. And this applies to God also - we have faith because our emotions tell us so. Sure, our intellect is involved but the intellect analyses, it doesn't drive us.

Our confidence can never lie in our works - that's quite a different debate! We trust in God, not ourselves.

And, finally, to turn to your first point (!), the issue of which question Paul answers. It is true that Paul answers the second, spiritual, question. The point I was making, though, is that this isn't a clearcut presentation of the Gospel that we can use as an example of what the Gospel is. Not least, this conversation is only the end of the story. It's not sensible to divorce it from the beginning and middle of the stories. The Gospel to this jailer must include all that he saw Paul and friends do. Paul preached the Gospel in his actions and, where necessary, he used words. So the jailer saw healing, concern for individuals, sharing the events of Jesus' life , death and resurrection, confidence and calmness even when imprisoned, all sorts of things. And these help to form the Gospel - which includes the physical, social actions that Paul took in, for example, healing people. Which means, I think, that if this story tells us anything about what the Gospel is, it is that the Gospel is everything that we do - which must contain good works as evidence and demonstration of what we say. Not that our good works have power, but that they talk of the goodness of the God who motivates us to do them, and of His concern for the least of His creations.

pax et bonum

[Leslie]

John, I find much to agree on in your last comment to me. In fact, well said.

Still as the emergent church develops & I hear people talking about being Christ followers & emphasizing our actions, then I see the pendulum swinging in this direction:

Ah, but we're here starting to confuse the jobs of individuals with the whole Gospel of Christ!

I really agree with where you're going with this statement, but from past conversations I've listened to & participated in, here & elsewhere, it seems to me that this is the biggest potential pitfall of the emergent church. It's human nature to become proud of our actions & for the church to focus on its works may be fine in the beginning, but the probability of it turning into its very undo-ing is great & the consequences are grave.

In principle, the emergent church has so much promise. But, unless everyone proceeds with a clear focus on the truth's of Christ, the church will once again run itself into the ocean like a swarm of lemmings. History has proven the church has a habit of doing this. Repeatedly.

I don't advocate inaction. I'm hoping you see that. I am merely anxious for the church to resist the ever present temptation of putting its faith in human action.