What is the gospel?

Following the Derek Webb interview podcast I mentioned the other day, the folks over at the 9marks blog are concerned that Derek "is stating the gospel differently than Reformed theologians have been stating it for a long time. Is this a 'different gospel'?"

The following is what Derek said in response to the question, "What is the Gospel?"

What a great question. I guess I’d probably…my instinct is to say that it's Jesus coming, living, dying, and being resurrected and his inaugurating the already and the not yet of all things being restored to himself…and that happening by way of himself…the being made right of all things…that process both beginning and being a reality in the lives and hearts of believers and yet a day coming when it will be more fully realized. But the good news, the gospel, the speaking of the good news, I would say is the news of his kingdom coming the inaugurating of his kingdom coming…that’s my instinct.

The gist of the comments on the post, and two follow up articles (1, 2) is that Derek's answer here is critically deficient in that it does not directly address the issues of sin, repentance, penal substitution, and so on. Some have even labeled Derek's remarks as being–gasp–emergent. I've already weighed in a couple of times, but I feel like this is an interesting enough question to explore it a little further over here.

First of all, the gospel that Derek is defining here is categorically different than what most people mean by "the gospel" in most churches today. We have come to understand the gospel as something transactional where God does something for us, we do something for him, and then we "get saved." The whole deal is understood from a "What's in it for me?" perspective. When we talk about sharing the gospel, what we often mean is taking someone down the 1 or explaining Romans Road^{The Four Spiritual Laws to them, and then asking them if they want to accept Jesus into their heart. The whole deal is man-centered from start to finish.}

Now, I don't mean to say that we should completely discard this understanding of the gospel. John 3:16-17 makes it clear that the Father sent the Son because he loved the world and "that the world might be saved through him." Jesus himself said that he "came to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10). So, to deny that there is a man-centered aspect to the gospel would be to disagree with what is plainly taught in the scriptures².

Having said that, this is most certainly not the only aspect of the gospel that is revealed to us in the Bible. If you're already in John 3, turn several pages to the right until you get to John 17:1-10:

¹When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, ² since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. ³ And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. ⁴ I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. ⁵ And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

⁶ “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. ⁷ Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. ⁸ For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. ⁹ I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. ¹⁰ All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.

The gospel in this passage (i.e. what Jesus came to do/is doing) is centrally focused on what is going on between the Father and the Son. The Father glorifies the Son, and the Son glorifies the Father. The Father gives people "out of the world" to the Son, and the Son reveals the Father to them. The Son is glorified in those whom the Father has given him, and this glory is given to the Father. The whole thing is a spinning relationship of I/you/yours/mine/ours that gets at the heart of the unity between the Father and the Son, and of the way that their co-reflecting glory is displayed through Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

I may be giving Derek the benefit of the doubt here, but it seems to me that he's trying to frame the gospel in this context instead of the get-out-of-hell-free way that it is so often understood. Derek says, to paraphrase, that Jesus is restoring all things to himself, through himself, and inaugurating the coming of the Kingdom of God. This is a very theocentric way of thinking about the gospel, which is appropriate considering that the Bible is a very theocentric book.

The history of creation, which is still being unfurled around us, is the story of who God is and what God is doing. Creation exists primarily for God's glory (Rom. 11:36), and while it is true that God gets glory from the redemption of the elect, it must always be remembered that it is for his name's sake, and not for theirs (Ezekiel 36:22-32), that he has ransomed this group of people from their sins by his Son's blood.

A "gospel" that leaves out man's sin, man's need for repentance and faith, and man's eternal destiny might not satisfy many Christians these days. Obviously, these elements are important in answering the "What must I do to be saved?" question. And yet, I would argue that "What must I do to be saved?" is not necessarily the same question as "What is the gospel?" Call me an old softy, but I just don't think we should crucify Derek for the way he handled this question. In my mind, the more God-centered we can get in our theology, the better.