In my previous post (a brief engagement with Kevin Young's article here), among other things, I wrote:

“But they [diverse Christian denominations] would disagree (not only with Kevin, but often with each other) about what constitutes the gospel itself, what methods for expressing the gospel are valid, and what outcomes evidence the gospel's authenticity.”

In response, a friend on facebook asked:

So what is the gospel itself? What methods for expressing it are valid And what outcomes evidence its authenticity?

She asks a fair and important question. And she and I come from considerably different expressions of Christianity, so I felt it was important to answer in some detail:

But first, I consider it critical to understand that there are no settled answers to these questions. They are openly contested among Christians, not only across global Christianities but even within particular traditions, at both the popular and scholarly level.[1] It is good and necessary, I think, for Christians and their communities to land somewhere. But it is equally important to sit with the reality that one's positions are culturally, socially, and historically contingent, and, therefore, more or less wrong.

Having said that, I take my stand here:

So what is the gospel itself?

The "gospel" is whatever news is received by the poor, the sick, and the oppressed as good (Luke 4:18-20).[2] Such good news may be expressed across a continuum of lived realities and circumstances, from the delivery of food to the hungry, to forgiveness for the indebted, to freedom from self-destructive ways of being in the world. Because these are structural and systemic categories, not merely individual realities, the gospel does not merely impact individuals, but also challenges, disrupts, and potentially upends social and political orders that are based on the accumulation of wealth and power. This is why Jesus noted that while the kingdom of God is good news for the poor, it would be received as bad news for the rich (Luke 6:24-25).[3] Because society and culture are always changing, both what constitutes good news and who are the poor, sick, oppressed, etc. can and must take different forms in different times and places.

So the gospel, in my view, is literally anything done by anyone that minimizes harm and maximizes good (Matt 7:12).[4] Theologically, such good can only be done "by the Spirit of God," regardless of who does it (Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, theist, atheist, etc.), because goodness, righteousness, and peace (or more succintly, love) are, literally, what we invoke by the word "God" (Psalm 89: 14; Mark 10:18; Romans 14:17; 1 John 4:8; James 1:17).

What methods for expressing it are valid?

All methods which are honest, intelligible, and effective for delivering, representing, and perpetuating such good news are valid. However, no methods of translation, communication, or organization are value-neutral, so great care must be continually taken to interrogate, adjust, or abandon our methods so the mission of advancing good news is not intentionally or unintentionally corrupted by its agents and structures. As with the gospel itself, how the gospel is conveyed must, likewise, take different forms. What was honest, intelligible, and effective in one time and place may be received as dishonest, unintelligible, or ineffective for another.

What outcomes evidence its authenticity?

We can know whether the "news" that was delivered and received was, in fact, good to the extent its outcomes are, in fact, good. Good trees bear good fruit (Matt 7:17-18). That's how you know. What counts as "good" is, of course, also contested, but as a Christian I find Paul's list (Gal 5:22-23) offers a helpful test: Do the outcomes evidence a net increase of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control over time? If the answer is yes, we were probably faithful to the gospel. Often we cannot know the answer to this for many years, many generations, or not at all.

I say "net" increase because there is no pure or perfect act for humans. Every good act will have negative consequences for someone, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. We cannot escape doing harm, even with the best intentions, plans, safeguards, and accountability structures (1 Kings 8:46; Romans 3:23). The best we can ever hope for is to do more good than harm and be ready to seek forgiveness and make restitution when we fall short[5].

None of this requires a church – or Christians for that matter. In that way, God and the gospel do not depend on the church; rather, they precede it.[6] But churches are the only communities that ostensibly exist for the purpose of training people in Jesus's particular way of being formed in goodness, ready to do good, and able to recognize and partner with how God and the gospel are already at work repairing the world.

Notes

  1. Perhaps more importantly, this has always been true. Theologian Judith Gruber describes scripture itself as a "conflictive plurality" and the early Christian communities reflected that same plurality. As Werner Ustorf notes: "From its very beginning, the Christian movement was multicultural, polycentric, and united only in the intention of referring to Christ,” from his article “Mission—Some Personal Reflections,” published in Anvil, vol. 8, no. 2 (1991). ↩︎

  2. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” ↩︎

  3. "But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep." ↩︎

  4. I take the view that Jesus's golden rule – "Do to others as you would have them do to you" – is a positive formulation of Rabbi Hillel's earlier version, sometimes called the silver rule: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor." Jesus is not disagreeing with Rabbi Hillel. Both are advancing reciprocity as a summation of Torah. But I particularly like that, when taken together, Hillel's version articulates an ethical floor (minimize harm), while Jesus' version articulates an ethical ceiling (maximize good). As a rule of life, this defines love quite effectively. ↩︎

  5. Viewed from this perspective, the ancient Hebrew notion of sin, and its ameliorating rituals, can be quite liberating. There is no need for an Augustinian or Calvinist formulations of total depravity. More to the point, these doctrines are not only harmful, they are obviously not true. Any cursory observation of human relationship must admit that genuine love and goodness are possible for all people, regardless of their religion or irreligion. Yet the finitude and fallibility of every human moral act are equally obvious. Cultivating within us the wisdom necessary to navigate this dilemma and thereby be able to take action for the repair the world around us is, in my view, the vocation and mission of Jesus' followers. ↩︎

  6. On this point, Dutch Missiologist J.C. Hoekendijk best represents my position: "When one desires to speak about God’s dealings with the world, the church can be mentioned only in passing and without strong emphasis" from The Church Inside Out (1966). The church does not bring the gospel or the Spirit to anyone. The Spirit is already at work in the world. The church exists to cultivate a people who are able to recognize the Spirit and partner with her. ↩︎