Revised July, 05, Dec. 11, 2023
All conceptions below are based on Scripture, although none is by itself fully representative of the whole teaching of the New Testament. They tend overlap and are often not completely distinct from each other.
By creating a toolkit of different conceptions, the evangelist can find a conception that works best in a particular cultural context. One might be far more helpful than others in a particular context.
Some lend themselves better to teaching situations and other lend themselves to friendships. Accordingly, some of the variables are the role of information, the role of personal relationship, and even the concept of conversion. A lot more work seems to be necessary in exploring the close relationship between conceptions of the Gospel, and the ways in which it spreads. Some other possible conceptions and technical aspects are discussed briefly in the appendices.
In this view, the Gospel follows the core ideas of systematic theology: the concept of sin, the holiness of God, and the idea of atonement (justification and redemption) through Jesus Christ the Savior. It is culturally a very western view of the evangel, but is firmly based in the letters of Paul, especially Romans.
In some village and tribal situations, teaching rather than preaching is the primary way of communicating the Gospel. For example, one might start teaching about God and his power, creation, God's revelation to the patriarchs, the prophets and their message, the coming of Jesus the Messiah, the teachings of Jesus, the death and resurrection of Jesus, the ethics of the Christian life.
Mark 1:1 says: This is the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
It then tells the story of Jesus, including his teaching and his death on the cross. Matthew and Luke are very similar, while even John's Gospel is very largely a Jesus story. This includes the Gospel of the Kingdom message Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.
Believing the Jesus story and accepting the teaching and claims of Jesus can be an adequate definition of the Gospel. It is worth adding that it is not only a story, but that the stories have a self-evident meaning and impact. This works very well when Jesus has great credibility, and people do not want a long period of processing information. For them the change is an issue of personal transition and discipleship.
In some passages in Acts, the gospel message to the Jewish community was simply that the Messaih had come. (E.g., Acts 13:26-41; 17:3)
In these first three views, the Gospel is primarily information (news
).
The first view is probably easiest of all views to prove theologically correct but missiologically wrong. It has reduced Christianity to a series of theoretical abstracts that are incomprehensible in many cultures.
David Phillips (2003) has commented that it takes at least some understanding of Jesus as somebody special to understand His parables and miracles, and that some element of confrontation is necessary. He adds that the miracles are themselves theological statements about God and the world. The parables are not just platitudinous illustrations.
Conceiving the Gospel as information works best when it is taught over a period of time, but information-driven approaches are not always helpful when:
On the other hand, the story of Jesus can be effective in many places where other versions are not; for example, note the worldwide use of the Jesus film. Many cultures connect better with concrete narrative than with a series of abstractions. In the West, this is also probably much truer now than in the past, as narrative is a key theme in postmodernist communication.
The next group of views see the Gospel as something very specific based on one teaching of Scripture.
For many new Christians, this is the predominant factor in their thinking of the Gospel. It is a powerful, personal message, and certainly without it, the message is dead and useless. In many cultures, he value of a changed life is paramount.
From a theological standpoint, it may be sensible to differentiate between the Gospel and conversion. The question then becomes almost tautological: How much should we preach the Gospel and how much should we preach the necessity of conversion?
In the parable of the sower, the word is pictured as seed. We spread the seed and it takes time to grow. Whether it takes effect really depends on the hearers. Not every kind of soil will produce a crop. It is worth comparing the differences between the Gospels in their rendering of this story.
The value of this conception is, first, it points out that the process must be natural and will take time. Second, it points out that there is a limit to how much the sower can do to make the seed grow and develop. McGavran spoke strongly against a harvest theology
where the messenger take little responsibility for his fruitfulness, but on the other hand, it is God who grows the church.
In this view, the idea is that the Gospel is the light of Christ shining out onto people. Mt. 5:14-16 We reflect it outwards to bring people into the light.
This concept appeals strongly to the mystically-minded. The lack of theological information is significant, although the metaphor is used fairly widely in the New Testament.
This conception also works well for centered set
thinking. It implies that the light itself is clear and unambiguous. Some people are further than others from the light, and not everyone moves towards the light at the same speed. It might also suggest that if listeners are unresponsive, we should give them only as much light as their eyes can stand--blinding them doesn't help.
This conception is very important when people are open to the Gospel, but react negatively to confrontational evangelism and need time to make the transition. They need time to give credibility to the messenger and the message, confer with others in the community, and think though the implications of the message.
For many people, having friends and being accepted into a group are often crucial to conversion. The relationships between Christians exemplifies Christianity, especially in communal societies.
Joining the body of Christ is integral to conversion; the question is the extent to which it is part of the Gospel. Christ is like a single body, which has many parts; it is still one body, even though it is made up of different parts. In the same way, all of us ... have been baptized in one body by the same Spirit ...
(1 Cor. 12:12, 13. Also Eph. 4.) Both Old and New Testaments teach is a strong view of the community of faith. Many non-westerners are very communally-minded, and Christians have very major pastoral care responsibilities for people who have left secure communal lifestyles for the sake of the Gospel.
However, this illustrates the difference between conversion and the Gospel. Joining the church is not a legitimate promotional strategy for salvation but it is a legitimate part of conversion.
In this view, the world is the battleground of the forces of God against the forces of darkness. The evangelist's task is then to demonstrate that God has power over the various forces of darkness. Especially in animist cultures, where spiritual power is the essence of religion, the main question is not whether the Christian message is true but whether it has power. A powerless Gospel is useless even if it is true.
Conversion is the change of allegiance to a different spiritual power. Power may be manifested by healing, but especially by casting out evil spirits or rendering them harmless and defeated. There is ample biblical evidence that Jesus in particular acted this way, and not a little that Paul also did. (For further reference, see the writings of John Wimber.)
These two conceptions are nearly the same, differentiated only by the particular terms in the gospels from which they are derived. They both strongly portray the Gospel as an ongoing spiritual change of the whole of one's life.
By learning the teachings of the New Testament, one's whole life and understanding are changed to become a disciple of Jesus the Messiah. The truth is reflected more by character than by information. Conversion is simply a small part of the entire process of learning and following, and should not be too rigidly separated from the formation and growth of the whole person. The Gospel can be discipled (taught, modelled) rather than preached (Cf. Mt 28:19, 20) The Navigators have an apt expression: life-to-life transfer.
The role of the disciple is to become like the teacher.
This conception is best when information doesn't help and when the main issues are personal. It is essential to friendship evangelism. Again the idea of allegiance is important. Central to this conception is that accepting the Gospel is basically a matter of changing one's personal allegiance.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is a call to live under God's kingship. It is not just a soteriology, but also a whole ethic and lifestyle. As such, any part of teaching the ethic and lifestyle is part of communicating the whole Gospel of the Kingdom.
The Sermon on the Mount is an mixture of teaching on ethics and relationship to God. It does not neatly distinguish between the two, as if ethics were secular, but treats them as a harmonious whole. It is difficult to describe Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of heaven in very specific terms, simply because it is very holistic and inclusive.
In practice, this often means that in preaching the Gospel, one imparts a great deal more Christian teaching than simply some bare bones Protestant soteriology. Preaching the gospel often involves passing on the moral values of the Sermon on the Mount. It is a gradual process that leads to salvation and a change of lifestyle.
Oddly enough, this might be criticized as weak theology, but it was the theology of Jesus and must be acceptable on that basis. Even so, the danger is that one might teach only about morals and omit the message of Christ and the cross.
Are they all truly Protestant? Not traditionally so. Protestants have traditionally wanted a very clear conversion. Roman Catholics were happy to espouse the Lumen Christi conception, largely because it can avoid conversion altogether, and to espouse the role of acceptance into the church. We need not dwell on the well-known limitations of medieval Catholic theology. Are all Protestant versions satisfactory? Decidedly not. The Reformation tradition has seen the basic doctrines as the only valid version of the Gospel and conversion as primarily information-driven. This has proven of limited usefulness in non-Western situations.
Some conceptions are dangerous if used alone. Lumen Christi lacks information, and incorporation into a group is not in itself conversion. Nevertheless, differentiations need to be made because, depending on local factors, some conceptions are clearly more helpful than others.
Must one choose? It is quite likely that in some cases it is most healthy to link some together. The discipleship group is so holistic that it incorporates much from the other conceptions.
Holistic approaches, like the Gospel of the Kingdom and discipleship, might describe the whole better, but are not necessarily explicit on how one can be converted. Describing the whole building is one thing, but does necessarily mean that one knows how to get in the front door. In practice, however, this does not seem to have been a problem. Taking a study group through large sections of Scripture tends to build a larger picture of Christian truth as a path toward faith.
________________
Appendix 1: Other possible conceptions
Many religious traditions have a Messiah concept:
Jesus Christin Arabic is Isa Al Masih, and there are certain commonalties of belief about Jesus between Muslims and Christians, or at least between the Koran and the New Testament.
Their helpfulness will depend largely on local situations. For example, the term Isa Al Masih is very appropriate in some contexts, and perhaps equally inappropriate in others.
When local people make the connection, the interpretation and judgment of validity may no longer be under the control of the intercultural communicator.
The Gospel has also been linked to promises of instant happiness and fulfillment. If not unscriptural, these views are of doubtful validity and should be excluded.
It might be possible to say that the Gospel is basically a proclamation that calls for conversion, but this is perhaps not a definition of the Gospel as much as a reference to communication style. This approach challenges listeners to make a decision, but at its worst can become Dump some theology on 'em and give 'em an ultimatum.
It is as much a concept of evangelism as of the evangel, a functional definition is that it says what it is supposed to do. It does bring up the old chestnut topics about the experience of the love of God as opposed to repentance through fear of damnation, but that discussion might be best left in the past.
Historically speaking, this approach sometimes works well for evangelizing who accept that Christianity is true but have never been converted, such as nominal Christians. It was the predominant conception of the Gospel amongst evangelicals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Appendix 2: Technical perspectives
A theologian, a communicator, and a cultural studies specialist tend to think about it in different ways. (What the Gospel is vs. how to communicate it vs. different conceptual slants) However, missiology includes all three fields. Cultural understanding and styles of communication are usually very local.
From a cultural viewpoint, there are many different conceptions of the Gospel although theologically there is only one Gospel. The question is not What is the whole truth?
because Christians with relatively little theological knowledge don't understand everything that a theologian might think important. For example, one cannot proclaim epistemology and ontology no matter how important they are to a Christian worldview.
The issue is What will be understandable to them?
Some theological ideas do not easily transfer directly into another culture, and even when people of any given culture understand it, it is not on the same terms as the culture of the missionary that proclaimed it. Even if the shape is the same, things change color when they cross cultural boundaries. It's a worldview issue. Besides, missionaries aren't as much in control of the contextualization process as they often think, especially after a national church is established.
Then each Christian also has his/her own cultural perspective. Not many evangelicals fully recognize the Jewishness of Jesus; Christians in each culture generally paint Him to be culturally like their own. It is always easy to find cultural and contextual traces in theological formulations, and that is a large part of the tasks of ethnotheology and historical theology.
The role of basic religious temperament could also play a role. The doctrinaire temperament might lead to seeing the Gospel as information, the contemplative-mystical might see it as deeply personal and private, while ecstatics and ceremonial-symbolics might see it as something quite different. It might even be possible to track down small variations arising from the personality or culture of the evangelist.
Even in theology, there are variations of viewpoint. The Scriptures were subject to perspectival roles of writers. Ezekiel, Moses, David, and Isaiah wrote quite differently. Compare parallel accounts of the same thing. Why are parts of Chronicles different from the equivalent sections of Kings? In the New Testament, John did not write like Paul or Luke. Even the synoptic Gospels are not carbon copies of each other, and this is not to say that they are inconsistent in any way. Different denominations in different eras express the Gospel in different ways. One of the surest signs of a cult to claim that one has the only true version and that everyone else has misunderstood it.
Another communication factor is that the Gospel is good news. If hearers perceive it to be bad or unacceptable, we need to ask have we represented it as bad news?
The offence of the gospel will always be there, as it should be. The issue is how one can represent it in ways that can be understood.
It may also be asked the extent to which Christianity should be individualistic and how much it should be communal. At least the western tendency is promote individualism as if it were a theological tenet of its own.