We are in a series of posts about how it is better to think of gospelism than evangelism.
Much of my thinking in the areas of mission, evangelism, and discipleship has been reinforced by David Bosch, and his book, Transforming Mission. Below are a few pertinent quotes. Note that he doesn’t use the term “gospelize” but I have included it in brackets where his thinking helped my thinking in this area.
Later today, I will post a story about one group of people who decided to live the gospel in their community (gospelize), rather than just “evangelize.”
So here are the quotes from David Bosch:
We cannot capture the evangel and package it in four or five “principles.” There is no universally applicable master plan for evangelism, no definitive list of truths people only have to embrace in order to be saved. We may never limit the gospel to our understanding of God and of salvation (p. 420).
Evangelism [is] that dimension and activity of the church’s mission which, by word and deed and in the light of particular conditions and a particular context, offers every person and community, everywhere, a valid opportunity to be directly challenged to a radical reorientation of their lives, a reorientation which involves such things as deliverance from slavery to the world and its powers; embracing Christ as Savior and Lord; becoming a living member of his community, the church; being enlisted into his service of reconciliation, peace, and justice on earth; and being committed to God’s purpose of placing all things under the rule of Christ (p. 420).
Mission [or evangelism] is not narrowed down to an activity of making individuals new creatures, of providing them with “blessed assurance” so that, come what may, they will be “eternally saved.” Mission involves, from the beginning and as a matter of course, making new believers sensitive to the needs of others, opening their eyes and hearts to recognize injustice, suffering, oppression, and the plight of those who have fallen by the wayside (p. 81).
The primary responsibility of “ordinary” Christians is not to go out and preach, but to support the mission project [i.e., gospelizing] through their appealing conduct and by making “outsiders” feel welcome in their midst (p. 138).
The church is that community of people who are involved in creating new relationships among themselves and in society at large and, in doing this, bearing witness [i.e., gospelizing] to the lordship of Christ (p. 169).
The church is the only society in the world which exists for the sake of those who are not members of it. [Bonhoeffer said] “The church must share in the secular problems of ordinary human life, not dominating, but helping and serving” (p. 375).
Mission [gospelizing] is the church sent into the world, to love, to serve, to preach, to teach, to heal, to liberate. …Evangelism is integral to mission. …One may never isolate it and treat it as a completely separate activity of the church (p. 412).
Evangelism is only possible when the community that evangelizes – the church – is a radiating manifestation of the Christian faith and exhibits an attractive lifestyle. …If the church is to impart to the world a message of hope and love, of faith, justice, and peace, something of this should become visible, audible, and tangible in the church itself (p. 414).
A talk-alike, think-alike, look-alike congregation may reflect the prevailing culture and be a club for religious folklore rather than an alternative community in a hostile or compromised environment. …The focus in evangelism should, however, not be on the church but on the irrupting reign of God (p. 415).
[Mission] is the good news of god’s love, incarnated in the witness of a community, for the sake of the world (p. 519).
See more on this gospelism series:
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 1)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 2)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 3)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 4)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 5)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 6)
Want to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."
The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!
Hi Jeremy,
this is an interesting series. You’ve obviously put a lot of thought and reading into it. I especially like your “gospelizing” concept. However I find a boatload of problems with these quotes from Bosch.
It so happens that without articulating it, a lot of people I know generally subscribe to this philosophy:
“The primary responsibility of “ordinary” Christians is not to go out and preach, but to support the mission project [i.e., gospelizing] through their appealing conduct and by making “outsiders” feel welcome in their midst (p. 138).”
I have been a t church for 16+ years that has embraced this idea full-tilt, and I can tell you that the consequence is that “ordinary” Christians (whatever that means!) do not preach the gospel, unbelievers never hear it, and no one comes to faith. That is the practical outcome of this approach, I promise. I know it sounds good on paper, but telling people that living the gospel without putting it into words will result in unbelievers trusting Christ is make-believe. And this is just liberal social-gospelizing:
“Mission [gospelizing] is the church sent into the world, to love, to serve, to preach, to teach, to heal, to liberate. …”
“Liberate”? Code-word alert!
Follow Bonhoeffer’s advice (and Bosch’s, I suppose) if you think “social justice” or “human progress” wins people to Christ. Or makes the world think better of us. Just look at the liberal church: it’s devoted to these principles and its dead. I grew up there and never heard the gospel, that’s why this pushes my buttons. We will delude ourselves if we think we can adopt something approximating an “attractive lifestyle.” I work in a leftist urban culture where bearing children is looked down upon. I will NEVER have an attractive lifestyle. It’s a dead end. I will hopefully live in way that pleases God, but only people who are seeking him and his ways will find it attractive.
Lastly, Bosch seems confused about the purpose of the gospel.
“Evangelism…offers every person and community, everywhere, a valid opportunity to be directly challenged to a radical reorientation of their lives, a reorientation which involves such things as deliverance from slavery to the world and its powers; embracing Christ as Savior and Lord; becoming a living member of his community, the church; being enlisted into his service of reconciliation, peace, and justice on earth; and being committed to God’s purpose of placing all things under the rule of Christ (p. 420).”
This is the postmilliennial/amillennial project. It is no longer a clear gospel, because it loaded down with the burden of changing the world, when what we are supposed to be doing is calling people out of it. We are not called to make the world a better place – this one is temporary. It’s people who are saved, not cultures. Or do we really believe in a redeemed, Christian culture prior to Christ’s return? I find it odd that this notion is enjoying a revival in our day, since it was gassed to death in the WW1 trenches of Europe, and it’s remains were burned in the ovens of Auschwitz.
And to call the gospel a lifestyle is a short walk down the street from the Lordship confusion of justification with discipleship.
Jeremy, I appreciate where your thinking is, and your heart. But I have to say, I have been down this road and the result I have witnessed is ALWAYS the eventual abandonment of a gospel with words that mean something, spoken out loud, with conviction. And that’s because people will almost always be more at ease running a soup kitchen or a political campaign than declaring the good news with their mouths. If your point is that we need to do both, I agree. But the gospel in words comes first, because it alone has the power of God to save.
your brother,
steve
Steve,
I hear the warning, but I would not hestiate to say that if it didn’t “work” for your church, probably your church was not doing what I am suggesting.
I was part of a church in Texas (and have witnessed several more) which I think revealed the gospel quite well in word and deed, just as I have been describing in these series of posts (and right in line with what Bosch is proposing), and numerous people were coming to faith in Christ and living life under the gospel.
In fact, I have also been in many churches where the gospel was faithfully preached (but not lived very well), and not a single person had come to believe in Jesus for eternal life in numerous years.
As you say, both are necessary. If we are only doing one or the other, the gospel will be ineffective. In fact, I am somewhat arguing is that if you are only doing one or the other, you are not really revealing the gospel at all.
Steve,
When Jesus embarked on His public ministry, He read from Isaiah to show what He would be focusing on. Check out what He read in Luke 4:18-19. Notice that He says this is the “gospel” he will be proclaiming.
The gospel Jesus lived is full of ideas about liberating people, setting them free from bondage, helping the poor and oppressed. This terminology is nearly identical to the terminology of Bosch above.
Not at all equating the two, but if it’s dangerous to do what Bosch is suggesting, then I propose that it is also dangerous to do what Jesus says.
As for me, I think I’ll take the risk.
Hi Jeremy,
as usual for me, i came on pretty strong. Sorry. And experiences with dysfunctional churches (and believers) I know can skew one’s perspective. Mine may very well be skewed. I’m not worried that it will never work, it may at first. That’s conjecture. I’m warning that the conception of the gospel you are describing always seem to lead to the preference of works over message. My example of churches that adopted the social gospel stands. It’s not a theoretical danger. It happened.
But I think I ‘m after something more basic. When you say-
“In fact, I am somewhat arguing is that if you are only doing one or the other, you are not really revealing the gospel at all.”
-I couldn’t agree more. But the real question maybe is, *what* are we doing? Maybe that is where you started. I mean, when i preach the gospel, hopefully i know that I don’t govern its impact. I’m casting seed. Someone waters, God makes it grow. Fair enough?
But when I do good work in the world, what am I doing? I would have say – at the risk of seeming to quibble – I am not doing the gospel, gospelizing.
For one thing i do not want my Christian works to be seen as the “works of the gospel.” I’m concerned that a ‘gospel lifestyle’ will be confused with lifestyle salvation. I think this concern is warranted. It happened a lot in the 19th century.
For another, I think works authenticate the gospel, but my works are not good news themselves. The works will say, Jesus is real, that is why I can give myself away. But it’s His giving, not mine, that is the real good news. I hope that people will see Jesus, loving, compassionate, gracious, – and He IS the gospel. Then I have to use words!
I think our disagreement is ultimately eschatological. What did Jesus come to do? Usher in a new age of man, where Christians spread justice and peace? Or did He come to write the last chapter on this world, with the promise of a brand new one to come? That, for me, informs the purpose of our work. Am I building His kingdom? Or waiting for it? If the latter, then I work as His hands and feet, so that my message is real, I am real. If he is real through me, love will flow through me, touching others with Him, not me. Some might love me, most, Jesus promised, will hate me, but I hope either way it will be a real expression of His Spirit, and not me they respond to.
I appreciate you, not only for working through these questions, but for sharing your journey.
Jeremy,
Again, this may seem like quibbling over words, i”m just assuming they reflect your POV.
You say,
“The gospel Jesus lived is full of ideas about liberating people, setting them free from bondage, helping the poor and oppressed.”
Again with Jesus living the gospel. This makes sense only if you see the gospel as a proposed lifestyle.
And I have to respectfully but very strongly disagree with it being full of ideas. God has revealed a lot of things but I’m not aware of any ideas. The gospel does not have ideas about how we should live.
To be sure, there are moral and spiritual precepts and principles in the NT. But this comes back to mixing the good news about God’s salvation coming to us in Jesus, along with every other thing He taught about how we should live and call that the gospel. I myself wrote a few weeks ago that it is good news that Jesus taught us how to live. But if you fold it all together, you will have as our mission teaching the world how it should live whether it believes or not. You know what you have then? Bono.
Lastly, when Jesus read Isaiah, was He telling us what to do, or was he saying what He was anointed to do? Is He not the only Person who could do those things? It was uniquely His mission as Messiah. Preaching and proclaiming are among those things, they are not those things.
your brother,
steve
Steve,
Maybe we’re talking past each other. I’m not sure. But it sounds as if either I haven’t been clear on what I’m saying, or you don’t understand what I’m saying, or we are using words in different ways.
I’m not really interested in debating this too much. For one, I don’t have the time. But it seems to me that the primary difference between us is in our definition of “gospel” and how to know what to include in the biblical “gospel.”
I think I have been pretty clear on my view of this. Gospel is “good news” and I include everything in it that the Bible calls good news, which is everything related to the life, teachings, death, resurrection, and future return of Jesus Christ, including how these things should make a difference in our life now and in eternity. I have supported these claims from Scripture in the previously published study.
So just so I know where you are coming from:
1. How would you define “gospel”?
2. What do you include in the “gospel”?
3. How do you decide what to include in the “gospel”?
Good question, I would be interested in hearing the answer.
The reason is this, I came to Jeremy’s conclusion from a study of the Old Testament in relation to the New. In fact I believe there are many sections of the New Testament that cannot be rightly understood without understanding the Old.
What I found was that the Lord has always wanted His people to be a blessing to those around them. This cannot be denied. This teaching lines up with many New Testament passages.
The Sermon on the Mount (plane really) is an excellent example – even though addressed to Israel can be applied to the believer today.
One reason that I also believe this is that for the most part regenerate people are the ones who are specifically given the mission to preach the gospel (in all its fullness).
Jim
Jeremy ,
You ask:
1. How would you define “gospel”?
2. What do you include in the “gospel”?
3. How do you decide what to include in the “gospel”?
1. “Good news.” I think we agree.
2. When you put “the” in front of it, I think we’re looking for a unified body of good news. This I’m not really sure about, that’s why I’m interested in the conversation. I didn’t mean to pick a fight with you, or waste your time. My sincere apologies if I did.
My thinking so far is partly reflected in what I wrote here: http://thegiftandtheprize.blogspot.com/2008/12/gospel-as-story.html.
But I lean toward the notion that *the* gospel is about salvation in Christ. If forced to put a umbrella over all the good news in the NT, it might “the Christ event,” or the announcement, “God has brought us salvation.” It’s what the exodus was in the OT: the story of the salvation event. That seems to me what the apostles were told to preach in order to bring their hearers to faith. I agree that they (and we) were tasked with good works, I just think that if that is part of our mission (and it is), it is not the same as our message.
3. Our source for definitions should be Scripture. I don’t think the question is, “what should (or must) we include,” or “what can we leave out?” I think the question is more likely, “What is the nature of the good news?” Is it the saving message? The salvation narrative about Jesus? All new and glad tidings about what God has done? The coming of the millennial kingdom? The last days?
Right now, I lean toward “the message of salvation in Christ.” If that turns out to be the most faithful to the NT (and right now I don’t see any big holes in that), then my preaching of the good news focuses on past-tense justification-salvation truths, and my works are a response to those truths and are also informed by present-tense sanctification-salvation teaching and future-tense evaluation and rewards.
Something very good is picking up garbage in the neighborhood. There is no debate about whether things like that are worthwhile, but how much of our time should we spend not reaching people? I tend to agree that the opportunities with people may come because of the work. But if I mean to say (as i clean), “This is me preaching the good news,” a natural conclusion for onlookers might be, “The good news is that Christians are cleaning up the neighborhood,” or, “The good news is doing good work.” Not much better than the thought, “the good news is: God is love.” We have to be clear, and clarity begins with our own thinking about the matter. I’m not there yet, I’m just working on it.
I’ll leave you alone now.
Steve,
I’m sorry if I’m coming across too strong as well. I’m not upset or anything either… also, I don’t feel like you are wasting my time. You aren’t. Your questions are very good.
Also, I had already read your post about the gospel as story. It was very good, and I agree with you. The Gospel is a narrative.
I think if you and I were talking about this in person, it would be much easier…ha ha! From what I have read on your blog, it would be great to sit and talk with you about these sorts of things!
As another commentor (Tim) said earlier, we’re running into each other at acute angles, but at least we’re both moving in the same direction.
Blessings!
Thanks, Jeremy!
I’m in 100% agreement with what you have said.
This medium definitely has its limitations: you can’t hear the smile in my voice.
steve
Later today, I will post a story about one group of people who decided to live the gospel in their community (gospelize), rather than just “evangelize.” please can i get this story?