Customer Reviews

The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(26)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Some books just give words to those ideas that have been floating around in your brain and suddenly you have a way to express what you were not previously able to express. The King Jesus Gospel is one of those books.

Over the past months, I have been struggling through understanding scripture and the church and the gospel and how it all relates. Of course, not all of my questions are answered and of course, I am not sure about all of McKnight's answers, but his basic thesis, that we need to re-orient the way we talk about the gospel I am convinced is one of the most important messages I have heard.

Early in the book McKnight summarized his thesis (which he does a number of times throughout the book).

"Perhaps the most important thing I can say about what this book will argue boils down to these points:

A salvation culture and a gospel culture are not the same.
In thinking our salvation culture is identical to a gospel culture, we betray a profound lack of awareness of what gospel means and what a gospel culture might mean for our world today.
We are in need of going back to the Bible to discover the gospel culture all over again and making that gospel culture the center of the church."

McKnight is quite provocative in this book. He clearly knows what he is trying to say, but he also knows that he will likely be misunderstood, and bends over backward to try and clarify to minimize any confusion. Frankly, my main complaint is probably that he spends too much time refocusing, repeating his point and clarifying that he is in complete support of personal salvation. The repetition is probably important to maintain the antagonistic reader, but for friendly reader it can be a bit draining. As draining as the repetition can be, the fact that he is trying to keep the reader on board is very important. So I want to give McKnight a pass on the repetition.

I am not going to draw out McKnight's argument. He makes it carefully and over 176 pages, but I will quote one of his definitions of the gospel (he defines it several times in several different ways, but this seems to be the most complete to me.)

"...the gospel is, first of all, framed by Israel's Story: the narration of the saving Story of Jesus -- his life, his death, his resurrection, his exaltation, and his coming again -- as the completion of the Story of Israel. Second, the gospel centers on the lordship of Jesus. In ways that anticipate the Nicene Creed, the gospel of Peter and Paul is anchored in an exalted view of Jesus. Jesus is seen as suffering, saving, ruling, and judging because he is the Messiah and the Lord and the Davidic Savior. He is now exalted at the right hand of God. Third, gospeling involves summoning people to respond. Apostolic gospeling is incomplete until it lovingly but firmly summons those who hear the gospel to repentance, to faith in Jesus Christ, and to baptism. Fourth, the gospel saves and redeems. The apostolic gospel promises forgiveness, the gift of God's Holy Spirit, and justification."

McKnight in no ways is minimizing the need for salvation as an individual. Christ came so that we could be saved, personally, from our sin. McKnight's point is that the gospel message is not about personal salvation (although salvation is important), the gospel message is about the Lordship of Christ and Christ's fulfillment of the story of Israel.

Personally, the implications of this book are important. One, focusing on the Lordship of Christ clarifies the evangelism/social gospel problem that has been around for the last 150 years. Two, it completely redefines Baptism and Eucharist for me. I have strongly felt that we Evangelicals are not giving adequate due to the power of the sacraments. McKnight spends some time talking about Baptism as submission to Christ as Lord (joining into Christ kingdom and the body-the church). Even more important for me is that the Eucharist is even more emphasized because regardless of what you think theologically about the eucharist, all views can see that it is about participating in the body of Christ (universal) and that it is a physical ways of seeing that we are empowered to live out the kingdom. Third, McKnight's approach gives meaning to focusing more on discipleship as a process than on evangelism as an event. I have focused on this for a while, but this really inspires me to continue. Fourth, and maybe most importantly, this again gives even more amunition to the idea that we as Evangelicals need to be spending more time reading scripture, reading it completely, reading it as a complete story, and absorbing it in a way that the Holy Spirit can really use it to change us.

I have to admit I was primed to read this book. I have been talking about some of the themes for months now. So you might not be as enthused about it as I am. But I do think that the central message, that the church should be about the gospel, that the gospel is primarily about the Lordship of Christ and Christ's completion of the story of Israel and that as important as personal salvation is, it should never be placed before the central place of Christ.

______

An ebook was provided by the publisher through Netgalley for purposes of review. This review was written for my blog Bookwi.se

Every time I read a new book by Scot McKnight, my wife tells me I say the same thing, "I think this is the most important book he's written." After finishing his newest book, "The King Jesus Gospel", I really believe that to be true for this book.

His argument is essentially that we've replaced the Biblical Gospel with instead a Plan of Salvation, and while the Gospel will indeed lead to salvation, it is far bigger than just that. McKnight defines the Gospel this way, "It is the Story of Israel that comes to completion in the saving Story of Jesus, who is Messiah of Israel, Lord over all, and the Davidic Savior."

For the past few years, I have tried to understand how the methodology of the church has created a culture of consumerism and shallowness. What Scot does with this book is develops theologically how we have gotten to that place - simply by replacing the Gospel with the Plan of Salvation.

This is the first theological book in a long time that I've had a hard time putting down. I found myself reading passages out loud to Allison regularly, scribbling notes and at times just wanting to shout, "yes" as I was reading it. I'd be willing to say that anyone who teaches or preaches the Bible regularly needs to read it. It's that important.

Here's a few of the quotes I underlined:

"Most of evangelism today is obsessed with getting someone to make a decision; the apostles, however, were obsessed with making disciples"

"...the gospel itself, strictly speaking, is the narrative proclamation of King Jesus"

"...in those early apostolic sermons, we see the whole life of Jesus. In fact, if they gave an emphasis to one dimension of the life of Jesus, it was the resurrection. The apostolic gospel could not have been signified or sketched with a crucifix. That gospel wanted expression as an empty cross because of the empty tomb."

"The gospeling of the apostles in the book of Acts is bold declaration that leads to a summons while much of evangelism today is crafty persuasion."

"When we reduce the gospel to only personal salvation, as soterians are tempted to do, we tear the fabric out of the Story of the Bible and we cease even needing the Bible"

Scot McKnight likes to stir the pot. I appreciate his willingness to say hard things with good reasons for saying those hard things. He has recently published The King Jesus Gospel in order to address a central issue for Evangelicals: the gospel. He wants to contend that "we evangelicals (as a whole) are not really "evangelical' in the sense of the apostolic gospel, but instead we are soterians...we evangelicals (mistakenly) equate the word gospel with the word salvation" (29). He wants to argue that the gospel is more than a plan of salvation.

The problem with a myopic, soterian church culture is that it creates "The Decided" (McKnight's term) rather than "The Discipled". This is not a problem of church programs or structures, it's an inherent problem with a soterian culture (30-31).

After laying the groundwork McKnight moves on to consider how the gospel moved from the message of God's meta-narrative (story of all stories) to a plea for a decision. He contends that evangelical soterians have proclaim the plan of salvation divorced from the story of God. This results in an immature and declining church. He then focuses on the gospel message as contained in the gospels and in Peter's epistles. Finally, he considers how his emphasis on the narrative of the gospel affects evangelism and ways to return to a gospel culture from our soterian culture.

There are many parts of McKnight's book with which I wholeheartedly agree. Yet, there were as many others with which I disagreed or had concerns.

Areas of Disagreement

First, much of McKnight's argument felt like boxing a ghost.. Having been raised an evangelical, attended an evangelical Bible college and now attending an evangelical seminary, I am well acquainted with our strengths and weaknesses. I understood many of the concerns he expressed. But, I still felt his argument was weak because he didn't (couldn't?) engage contemporary evangelicals embodying this soterian gospel. His soterians are ambiguous. It's easier to argue against someone who doesn't exist.

Second, it seemed obvious to me that McKnight was attempting to expose the remnants of Evangelicals' Fundamentalist-Revivalist heritage. Like it or not, Evangelicalism emerged in the 1940's-50's out of disagreement and discontent with the focus and emphasis of previous generations of fundamentalism. It is from the Charles Finney's and D.L. Moody's that we have a decision-based Christianity. Focusing on this heritage would have provided clarity and identity to his argument.

Third, in his chapter titled "Gospeling Today" McKnight attempts to demonstrate "King Jesus Gospel" evangelism. His focus is on the book of Acts and the preaching of the Apostles. McKnight is correct in identifying the emphasis upon the story of Israel and its consummation in Christ. But, that preaching occurs in the context of Jews. If he could demonstrate that apostolic preaching to gentiles was consistently and prominently Israel-focused his argument would carry weight. But, he can't. The classic example of "Gospeling" to a gentile audience is in Acts 17. Paul does not emphasize the story of Israel. He begins with their own metanarrative and brings the story of Yahweh into it. It is not in Zeus that we live, move and have our being, but Yahweh.

The previous three points are points of contention. They are areas of his argument which I found weak. If they were addressed, his thesis would be much more compelling. My above critiques should not be taken as a dismissal of his entire book. I believe that there is much McKnight gets right. But, I think there's just as much he gets wrong.

Areas of Agreement

First, I think the heart of McKnight's book is correct. Evangelicals have overemphasized the decision and failed in the discipling. It is a good and noble desire to see people repent of sin and confess faith in Christ. But, that's not the end it's just the beginning. Contrary to McKnight, I don't believe that we've gotten the gospel wrong. I just believe that we have failed to emphasize the call to discipleship that Jesus gives to any and all who would follow him.

Second, The story of Israel is absolutely essential to understanding the person and work of Jesus. However, in a biblically illiterate, post-Christian world, how many people will even know (let alone understand) a reference to Abraham, Moses or Elijah? Once again, the problem is not in the gospel Evangelicals have preached but in their failure to promote, push and provide discipleship for the people in their church.

Conclusion

We have a discipleship crisis in the church today. I disagree with Scot McKnight's proposal in it's specifics. But, generally I agree with the idea promoted in The King Jesus Gospel. We need to move away from the revivalist remnant of our fundamentalist heritage and actually disciple our people. This is a top-down requirement. It's not the work of pastors alone. It's the work of all people. He is right to call this book the King Jesus Gospel. Christians need to remember that Jesus was not merely a means to a decision. He is the true King. Declaring Jesus to be Lord was an act of treason and sedition in the apostles' day. Let's not forget that when Jesus calls us "he bids us come and die".

I started reading this book because I like the perspective Scot McKnight offers. In fact I like it so much I may not be part of the intended audience for the book: I've never been attracted to the sort of faith-alone, "John 3:16" Christianity McKnight is critiquing here. It seems to me obviously phony, and I wanted to see how a professional biblical scholar took apart this false gospel and replaced it with something more authentically biblical.

Plus N.T. Wright and Dallas Willard, who both provide prefaces, are two of my favorite writers -- so I thought this would be an important book.

No doubt The King Jesus Gospel will be important for some people, but for me it's mostly a failure. I've only read the first 99 pages so far (out of 177), but I'm so frustrated I needed to pause and vent a little.

McKnight takes on several big tasks in this little book. He wants to critique a certain form of modern evangelical Christianity; show the true biblical meaning of "gospel"; describe how these modern Christians got into this situation; and show a way out. And he wants to do it all in 177 pages. (Though if you subtract the appendices and prefaces, the main text is only 140 pages.) It would take a skilled writer to accomplish this task in a book twice the size of this one, but unfortunately Scot McKnight isn't a very skilled writer. His arguments are often vague and his sentences usually clunky and hard to read. It's not clear exactly who he is arguing against, so it's not really possible to tell if his arguments are successful against them.

Here are a couple of examples of the problems.

Chapter 5 is titled "How Did Salvation Take Over the Gospel?" The placement of this chapter -- between a discussion of 1 Cor. 15 and a discussion of the gospels -- is odd, and McKnight's reason for doing it doesn't really make sense, but that's a minor issue. A bigger problem is that the author doesn't even attempt to answer the question in the title of the chapter. In earlier chapters McKnight showed how the notion of "gospel as salvation" -- variously defined as either an excessive emphasis on justification and related doctrines, or as a reduction of Christian faith to the simplistic scheme of "sin - Jesus' atoning sacrifice - personal faith decision" -- had overwhelmed the authentic biblical teaching about the gospel as the story of Jesus being the fulfillment of the story of Israel. In the fifth chapter, then, McKnight argues that this shift had something to do with the Reformation, especially with the great confessions linked to Luther and Calvin, though along the way McKnight includes John Wesley as well. And then the author simply stops his argument. For the period from the Reformation to the modern American evangelist standing in a baseball stadium with a big sign saying "John 3:16," McKnight says nothing at all. Could it possibly have something to do with the rise of rationalism and romanticism? Or Marxism and Darwinism? Or with the industrialization of Western society? Or the influence of critical biblical scholarship in the 19th century, or the fundamentalist response? About all of this, McKnight says nothing.

So we finish chapter 5 with no idea how salvation took over the gospel, except a vague sense that it had something to do with the Reformers. But McKnight affirms his essential agreement with the Reformation, so it's not clear where his complaint lies.

Then there's McKnight's often painful writing style. On page 98, writing about he first two verses of the Lord's Prayer, McKnight says: "This implies a personal relationship to God, who is Father, and it implies also God now being the modem from which is given the only signal in the land."

Okay, take a deep breath. First, God is a modem. What?? I get it, it's an analogy. Like a modem, God gives ... a signal? What kind of signal? "The only signal in the land." Is McKnight saying God is not only a modem, but the ONLY modem? But wait ... is it really true that the function of a modem is merely to "give a signal"?

Well, as you can see, this is ridiculous, so I'm not going to go any further with it. But look also at the syntax of the the last part of that quote. It's so gnarled it's hard to read. If we ignore the silly analogy for a moment, we can restate the clause in standard English: "... it also implies that God is now the modem which gives the only signal in the land." See? Much simpler, and its simplicity makes the absurdity of the analogy much more obvious.

This is an exteme example, but even so, the book is filled with bad writing.

A broader issue in this book is the lack of a clear debating partner. Sometimes McKnight just seems to be engaged in a general critique of a certain form of evangelical culture; at other times he seems to have in mind particular thinkers or very clearly defined movements. Specifically, I think McKnight wants to disagree with the neo-Calvinist Piper-ites, but by and large he limits himself simply to lumping them together with the most reductionist form of "believe-and-be-saved" Christianity. I couldn't help thinking as I read that he was leaving holes in his argument big enough to drive a truck through, and his theological opponents will probably take full advantage of those holes. And I say this as someone who fully agrees with McKnight's conclusions!

So, if I were a famous neo-Calvinist theologian, for instance, I might say something like the following: "Well and good, professor; you're right to emphasize the importance of Christ as the fulfillment of Israel's story. But I never claimed otherwise! In fact I've always emphasized the full biblical context of the centrally important doctrines of justification, atonement and personal conviction. That, sir, reduces your argument to a debate about biblical terminology. Suppose I grant that the word 'gospel' as used by the great reformers, and by me, does not always exactly match the use of the term in the New Testament. Is this really surprising? You yourself continue using the word 'gospel' as if it were a genre -- even after demonstrating that that usage would be unintelligible to the early church. The main issue is not terminology but substance, and I maintain that my own views in no way compromise essential elements of the New Testament witness as you describe them. True enough, many modern Christians do exactly that -- but my own ministry and scholarship are intended precisely to combat these tendencies!"

McKnight makes no effort to anticipate such a response, but as a reader it, or something like it, seems obvious to me. To make an adequate response, McKnight would have to speak much more strongly, much more precisely, about exactly those areas where responsible modern Reformed theologians go wrong. This he does not do. Indeed he leaves he strongest criticism of the positions he opposes to quotes from Dallas Willard on page 75 -- Willard's famous notion of the "gospel of sin management." For most of the book, McKnight seems so reluctant to risk offending those he disagrees with that I wasn't sure exactly how far he wanted to take his argument.

Having said all this, I should also say that I found many parts of the book extremely insightful. I love the way McKnight demonstrates the meaning of "gospel" in St. Paul, the four gospels, and the early creeds -- he showed me the single gospel message of all of them in a way that I've never fully grasped before, and I'm grateful for that.

But unfortunately, on the whole, reading this book is a frustrating experience.

When I was in Bible college, I took a class on evangelism. One of our assignments was to find the "bare minimum" of the gospel. Our professor took us to 1 Cor 15:1-5, and showed us that the gospel was the message that Jesus died for sins and rose from the dead, that there is no way for a person to save himself or herself, and that Christ alone can save through faith. When I claimed that I didn't see the theology of justification by faith in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, I was told that it was implicit in the confession "Jesus died for sins."

I didn't believe that then and I don't believe that now.

Even as a student, I saw a troubling implication of the gospel my professor was advocating. If the theology of justification by faith is part of the gospel, then denominations with different theology (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) don't believe the gospel. That bothered me, considering the number of Roman Catholic relatives I have, including my mother. But again, what bothered me the most is that it's not in the text!

Don't get me wrong, I believe in justification by grace through faith. There is nothing we can do to save ourselves. We are saved only by the grace of God through faith in Jesus. That is good theology. But it's not the gospel. The gospel is a story about Jesus.

This is also the idea in Scot McKnight's new book, The King Jesus Gospel. McKnight argues that too many of us have inappropriately collapsed "the gospel" into soteriology (the theology of how people are saved). As important as doctrines like justification by faith, substitutionary atonement, and divine grace are, they are not the gospel. The biblical gospel, according to McKnight, is a story about Jesus--who he is and what he did. Our misunderstanding of the gospel has caused us to devalue discipleship, over-emphasize "making a decision," and limit the effects of the cross to "me and my personal salvation." McKnight suggests that by recapturing the biblical gospel, we can eliminate the disconnect between faith and following, make disciples that are in it for the long haul, and apply the lordship of Jesus to all of life and creation.

McKnight begins his book with some familiar stories, sobering statistics, and provocative questions. In 1971, McKnight became a Christian and had his first experience with evangelism gone bad. He and a deacon from his church invaded the home of a Sunday-morning visitor, whom the deacon badgered with the gospel until he said uncle and accepted Christ. The evangelism team rejoiced at the salvation, but the new "convert" never darkened the door of the church again. Research by the Barna group suggests that McKnight's experience isn't unique. At least 50 percent of Americans who "make a decision for Christ" don't show any measure of discipleship. (20. He cites personal correspondence with Bill Kinnaman from the Barna group and statistics dated December 17, 2010.) Why do so many "conversions" not lead to discipleship? McKnight argues that it is because we have preached a "gospel" that is inaccurately boiled down to justification by faith and a personal decision for Christ. While McKnight affirms justification by faith and the importance of a personal decision, he says that the gospel is bigger than these things.

Having made the charge that church attrition is due in part to a misunderstanding of the gospel, McKnight transitions to walking through a number of biblical passages that recount the original gospel. He begins with the earliest account of the gospel--Paul's summary in 1 Cor 15:1-5 (ESV):

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

McKnight sees in this neither a detailed explanation of substitutionary atonement, nor a defense of justification by faith, nor a passionate plea for a decision. Instead, he sees a story about how Jesus fulfilled the hope of Israel. He writes:

The Gospel for the apostle Paul is the salvation-unleashing Story of Jesus, Messiah-Lord-Son, that brings to completion the Story of Israel as found in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. To "gospel" is to declare this story, and it is a story that saves people from their sins. That story is the only framing story if we want to be apostolic in how we present the gospel. We can the frame the "gospel" with other stories or categories, but there is one holy and apostolic story, and it is the Story of Israel. That is the apostolic framing story for the gospel. (61)

He contrasts this apostolic gospel with what we are tempted to do:

We are tempted to turn the story of what God is doing in this world through Israel and Jesus Christ into a story about me and my own personal salvation. In other words, the plan has a way of cutting the story from a story about God and God's Messiah and God's people into a story about God and one person--me--and in this the story shifts from Christ and community to individualism. We need the latter without cutting out the former. (62)

Having established that the apostolic gospel was a story about Jesus fulfilling the hope of Israel, McKnight walks through the Gospels, the preaching of Jesus, The Book of Acts, and the ancient creeds to show a consistent pattern: for the first Christians, the gospel was a story about Jesus. (Why else would we call the first four books of the New Testament "The Gospel"?)

McKnight finishes the book by turning his attention to modern day "gospeling." In the penultimate chapter, he makes six comparisons between our methods of gospeling with those of the apostles. First, while our gospeling "seeks to persuade sinners to admit their sin and find Jesus as the Savior," the apostles' "summon[ed] listeners to confess Jesus as Messiah and Lord" (133). Second, the framing story of the apostles' gospel was not the atonement or personal salvation, but the Story of Israel. Third, both ancient and modern gospeling have an element of avoiding the wrath or judgment of God. Fourth, the problem that modern gospeling seeks to solve is that individuals are sinners and destined to hell. The apostles' gospel emphasized Israel's story that humanity was created as co-rulers over the earth and mediators of God's presence to creation. Both Adam and Israel failed at this task, but Jesus succeeded and is now working out his rule through the church. Fifth, McKnight acknowledges that there may be a slight anti-imperial message in the gospel (though he doesn't see this emphasized by the apostles) that is largely ignored today. Finally, the apostles' gospel was about Jesus, not the sinner or personal salvation.

In the final chapter of the book, McKnight challenges the church to become "people of the story"--to find our story in God's story, to tell a radical counter-narrative to the stories of our day, and to create a Gospel culture.

There is a lot to like in McKnight's book. First, it is biblical. McKnight is an expert in New Testament theology, and he investigates what the Bible has to say about the gospel. He doesn't defend a theological system and he doesn't attack any denomination or tradition; he simply looks at the texts and asks, "What did the first Christians believe about the gospel?" One may disagree with McKnight's conclusions, but at least he roots the discussion in the ancient texts.

The second strength of McKnight's book is that it exposes (and solves) the shortcomings of the way in which the gospel is popularly understood. If the gospel is synonymous with justification by faith, how did Jesus preach the gospel? Why are the first four books of the New Testament called "The Gospel"? Why don't we see a clear explanation of justification by faith in the apostles' preaching in Acts? Why does Paul talk about Jesus when he describes the gospel instead of defending justification by faith? (Again, McKnight believes that justification only comes through faith in Jesus; he just doesn't think that this is the gospel.) These questions are all answerable when the gospel is understood as a story about Jesus and his fulfillment of the Story of Israel.

The final strength of McKnight's book (and the one he is probably most proud of) is that it provides a robust gospel for a generation of "gospelers" engaging a post-everything culture. Methods of evangelism emphasizing theological systems and propositional truth-claims are becoming less and less effective. People in the Google era think and communicate in narrative. Many have tried to create a narrative gospel for the postmodern culture, but the results largely have been too existential. Postmoderns aren't just looking for their own story, they want to be a part of a cosmic story. McKnight has successfully communicated the gospel in a narrative, but in a narrative that is consistent with the ancient narrative. The king Jesus gospel allows us to find our story in God's story.

One area that deserves more exploration is the role of contextualization in "gospeling." McKnight's account of the gospel on pages 148-52 marches through the whole Bible, touching on Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, David and Solomon, the Babylonian exile, the life-story of Jesus, and the politics behind Jesus' crucifixion. As I read it, I imagined trying to preach it to a bunch of 20-somethings who knew nothing about the Bible. I can't imagine them tracking with me through all of that (apart from divine illumination!). My mind immediately went to the Story of Israel, and how much of it is important to understanding the Gospel. How Jewish do we have to be to be Christian?

The major accomplishment of the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus and the New Perspective on Paul is that they have recovered the "Jewishness" of both Jesus and Paul. The New Testament was written primarily by Jews, and the language, symbols, and stories they told make the most sense as a continuation of that of the Jews. However, there is also a sense in which the church is something new. There is a sense in which the Gentiles are accepted as they are--with their own histories, languages, and symbols, and without the need to adopt those of the Jews.

McKnight makes the point that all of the "gospeling" sermons in the Bible make use of the Story of Israel. This is not entirely true, and I wonder what would happen when we take into account audience when evaluating these early sermons. The vast majority of the sermons in Acts were preached either to Jews or to Gentile "god-fearers" who had already adopted the Jewish story as their own (for instance, Peter's sermon to Cornelius and Paul's sermon in the synagogue at Antioch).

The only instances we have in Acts of sermons given to Gentile pagans are Paul's sermons in Lystra and Athens. In both of these instances, the only element of the Story of Israel that Paul includes is that God is the Creator (and Judge in Athens). While McKnight rightly points out that the apostles' gospeling involved showing the overlap between God's story and that of the listeners, he overemphasizes the role of Israel's story because that is the story that most of the apostles' audiences had previously adopted. In instances in which the apostles gospeled pagans, Israel's story played a lesser (and almost nonexistent) role.

As they did when they spoke to Jews and god-fearers, the apostles demonstrated to pagans how God's story intersected with their listeners' stories. But in these instances, humanity's story (not just Israel's) provided the frame for God's story. In each of Paul's sermons to pagans, he condemns idolatry (Acts 14:15, 17:29), contrasts the Creator God with idols (14:15, 17:24), ties God's story to theirs by saying that God overlooked their idolatry in the past (14:16, 17:30), calls them to repent (14:15, 17:30), and cites historical evidence for his message (14:17, 17:31). In Lystra, Paul cites God's giving of rain as evidence and in Athens he cites the resurrection of Jesus. (It is important to note, though, that in Lystra, Paul also demonstrated the power of the Spirit by healing a crippled man.)

It makes sense that Paul's preaching to pagans would differ from his preaching to Jews. After all, Paul believed that Jesus was the telos, the goal or the fulfillment, of the law (Romans 10:4). When the Galatians tried to make the story of Israel their own by adopting circumcision, Paul accused them of turning to a different Gospel (Galatians 1:6-7). To Paul, Jesus' death and resurrection ushered in a new age where there was neither Jew nor Gentile, but one new people of God (Gal 3:28, Eph 2:14-15, Col 3:11). There was some continuity, but there was also something new.
McKnight is right in emphasizing that the message of Jesus, Paul, and the apostles has to be understood in Jewish terms. After all, they were all Jewish. But when Paul preached the gospel to Gentile pagans, he contextualized it to their own stories. We can assume that the story of Israel was part of the catechizing of new converts, as all of the New Testament churches (including the Galatians) seem to be familiar with the story. Teaching the story of Israel is important, it just isn't the gospel.

So what does that mean for modern-day gospelers preaching in a non-Jewish context? First, start with the biblical gospel that McKnight has so clearly communicated in his book--that Jesus is Lord, that his death on the cross for our sins and resurrection from the dead has vindicated him as Son of God and Lord of the universe. Understanding Israel's story is crucial to understanding God's story. God created mankind to co-reign with him over the earth and reflect his glory as his eikons. Both Adam and Israel failed at that calling, but Jesus succeeded. Through Jesus' death and resurrection and the work of the Holy Spirit, God is redeeming for himself a new humanity to fulfill his purposes for Creation.

Second, go to the problems that the gospel resolves, contextualized for the audience. The dominant framing story of my city (Gig Harbor, WA) is that happiness, love, and security can be found in money and a prestigious career. People live according to that story, but find it relatively unsatisfying (as evidenced by the prevalence of substance abuse, divorce, and addictions). God is absent, loneliness is rampant, and many (especially youth) lament life's lack of purpose and meaning. Despite the fact that the idols of money, career, and sex directly contribute to the people's unhappiness, they continue to worship them in the hope of achieving a different result.

The challenge of gospeling the people of Gig Harbor is contextualizing God's story in light of their story. The King Jesus Gospel intersects the story of Gig Harbor in a number of areas. It resolves the problem of God's absence though the indwelling of the Spirit. It resolves the problem of broken human relationships through God's new humanity. Finally, it resolves the problem of life's lack of meaning through working for the kingdom of God.

Third, tell God's story in light of Gig Harbor's story. While McKnight insists upon tying Gig Harbor's story to the Story of Israel, this doesn't seem to be the practice of the apostles when gospeling pagans. Instead, they located the pagans' story within God's broader story (of which Israel's Story is a part). For Gig Harbor, this means showing that the dominant framing story fails, and explaining how God's story resolves the problems created by that story (connecting to God through the Spirit, living in community as part of the new humanity, and finding purpose by engaging the world in the missio dei). At the center of God's story is the simple message that Jesus Christ died for sins and rose from the dead as Lord and God, and a call to repent and follow Jesus.

McKnight's book is needed in churches today. At a time when churches are forming coalitions around the gospel it is important to clarify that gospel. What gospel are we together for? The gospel Jesus preached, or another gospel? While many are collapsing the gospel into a message of personal salvation, McKnight has recaptured the King Jesus Gospel for a new generation. He dives into the Scriptures, sorts truth from assumptions, and comes up with a simple message about Jesus. McKnight overplays the role that Israel's story plays in gospeling pagans, but his emphasis on story is refreshing for those gospeling the post-everything generation.

What led me to order this book was not only my own frustration with popular definitions of the Gospel (and salvation) but also the two authors, N. T. Wright & Dallas Willard, who wrote the forwards. I was not familiar with McKnight, but I was familiar with Wright and Willard and value their recommendations. McKnight builds on the work of both authors, referencing and quoting especially from their books "What Saint Paul Really Said" (by Wright) & "The Divine Conspiracy" (by Willard). He shares with both authors the concern that the biblical Gospel has been replaced in many corners of contemporary Christian culture with a Plan of Salvation that focuses on making a personal faith decision of accepting Christ as Savior to avoid hell & secure heaven in the afterlife. Discipleship to the living, resurrected Christ as Lord in this life is not considered a requirement for salvation. Why not? As McKnight states, the contemporary salvation culture's "gospel is a gospel shaped entirely with the 'in and out' issue of salvation. Because it's about making a decision. In this book we want to show that the gospel of Jesus and that of the apostles, both of which created a gospel culture and not simply a salvation culture, was a gospel that carried within it the power, the capacity, and the requirement to summon people who wanted to be 'in' to be The Discipled. In other words, it swallowed up a salvation culture into a gospel culture" (page 33).

The emphasis on Jesus as King and Lord may conjure up in some minds the Lordship Salvation debate years ago surrounding John MacArthur's 1989 book "The Gospel According to Jesus" and the responses from Charles Ryrie in "So Great Salvation", Zane Hodges in "Absolutely Free!", and even Jody Dillow's "The Reign of the Servant Kings", the last one responded to by Curtis Crenshaw in "Lordship Salvation: The Only Kind There Is". McKnight doesn't directly address this debate, although he does emphasize the Lordship of Christ in the Gospel which is intended to produce genuine salvation and discipleship in those who accept it. Dallas Willard, on the other hand, does discuss this debate in "The Divine Conspiracy", chapter 2, but he thinks both parties, despite their differences on what defines saving faith, still share a common misunderstanding of what the Gospel is. He states: "When all is said and done, 'the gospel' for Ryrie, MacArthur, and others on the theological right is that Christ made 'the arrangement' that can get us into heaven. In the Gospels, by contrast, 'the gospel' is the good news of the presence and availability of life in the kingdom, now and forever, through reliance on Jesus the Anointed" (The Divine Conspiracy, page 49). McKnight would agree and expounds on this Gospel in his book.

Regarding the influence of N.T. Wright, McKnight provides the following quote from his book "What Saint Paul Really Said": "I am perfectly comfortable with what people normally mean when they say 'the gospel.' I just don't think it is what Paul means. In other words, I am not denying that the usual meanings are things that people ought to say, to preach about, to believe. I simply wouldn't use the word 'gospel' to denote those things" (quoted on page 58). McKnight interprets this as meaning that "Wright is pointing a scolding finger at the identification of the gospel with the Plan of Salvation." He further quotes Wright who says that the Gospel "is not, then, a system of how people get saved. The announcement of the gospel results in people getting saved...". Also, "'the gospel' itself, strictly speaking, is the narrative proclamation of King Jesus... Or, to put it yet more compactly: Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is Lord". These points by Wright are also points that McKnight agrees with and fleshes out in his book. McKnight doesn't bother addressing concerns raised by John Piper in his critique of Wright titled "The Future of Justification", but he does take issue with Piper's apparent narrowing of the Gospel to justification which he makes "Exhibit B" on page 25, considering it one of three exhibits that illustrate why he thinks we've wandered from the biblical Gospel. I think Piper makes some good points in his critique of Wright, but I also think both Wright and McKnight are correct when they say that the Gospel should not be equated with justification (or justification by faith).

I think McKnight's chapter 5 (How Did Salvation Take Over the Gospel?) is not well fleshed out, needing more details. He asks: "How did we develop a salvation culture out of a gospel culture? How did 'evangelicals' become 'soterians'? Or, when did the 'gospel' become the Plan of Salvation?" He begins his answer by saying: "It began in many ways with Augustine, but its more focused beginning was in the Reformation, though it did not happen during the Reformation" (page 70). I wish he expounded on what in Augustine's teachings contributed to this transition. One area that I think may have contributed to this is centered around what is today called "Exclusivism" in contrast with "Inclusivism". Although I'm still exploring this area and aware of the controversies surrounding it, I'm starting to believe that the biblical Gospel and the Plan of Salvation based on it is more inclusive than the exclusivism which defines much of evangelical Christianity today with its focus on making a faith decision to avoid hell. Although I don't agree with some aspects of Neal Punt's theology, I think he hits on something significant. In chapter 6 (Back To The Early Church) in his 2008 book titled "A Theology of Inclusivism", he states: "Athanasius (293 - 373 AD) was so highly regarded as a stalwart defender of biblical orthodoxy that many years after his death he was honored by having his name associated with the creed that now bears his name. Athanasius believed that Jesus Christ purchased salvation and granted it to everyone without any exception. To be finally lost, one had to disregard the salvation already given to him or her" (page 61). Although the word "salvation" as it relates to election, regeneration and ultimate glorification needs to be unpacked, this is my current position. He further states: "Dr. Roger Olson, whose book The Story of Christian Theology won Christianity Today's 2000 Book Award, wrote this to me: 'I do not know of any systematic theology prior to your own publications that spell out the nature of salvation as you do. But I hear distant echoes of it (foreshadowings, adumbrations) in Athanasius and perhaps other early church fathers' (quoted with permission)". Many Christians believe that all who die in infancy are saved "in Christ" without making a decision to have faith in Christ. Admittedly this is a controversial doctrine and other Christians disagree, but if infant salvation is true, it has significant theological ramifications relevant to the Gospel and the Plan of Salvation.

Overall, I enjoyed McKnight's book and recommend it for consideration.

Scot McKnight wants you to reconsider the gospel. In his pastorally accessible yet scholarly informed style, he will enable you to do so. But pay close attention: Scot McKnight is offering a formulation of the gospel that is neither common nor universally agreed upon. Don't expect old platitudes or excessive proof texting.

With so many lengthy reviews, there is little to add. Some believe McKnight has gone too far. His view is not Reformed enough, not biblical enough, not evangelical enough. It is too creedal. I simply believe it is theological. McKnight is dealing with the teaching of the tradition and the substance of the biblical text, and he is seeking to articulate a formulation of the gospel that declares with boldness the claims of the church concerning Jesus: He is the Son of God, the Word incarnate, the One in whom salvation is found. He is simultaneously seeking to articulate the gospel in a way that accords with the Gospels, and with the remainder of the New Testament witness. He is attempting to be biblically faithful and theologically sound.

This book is a powerful declaration that the gospel is the announcement of Jesus as the salvific hope of Israel's story, and therefore the world's story. His life, death, and resurrection are the fulfillment of a promise, and the accomplishment of the means by which all people may be saved.

Does McKnight make a compelling case? I think that he does, with few caveats, and few critiques concerning style. Should it be read? Yes. Should it be debated? Yes. But such has always been the case within the church. The gospel is not an easy Truth we profess, and its simplicity opens the door to a universe of numerous complexities. McKnight is but one guide on the journey, and a critic who helps us to analyze our present proclamations in light of the Bible and the history of theology. We should be thankful for such guides, sharpening our thinking, and giving us occasions to disagree.

If you're interested in refining your own gospel proclamation, read this book.

I recently had the opportunity to review this book for my New Testament classes at the Baptist College of Florida. As an instructor, I am always in search of interesting and thought provoking books for my students and for my own edification. Recent days have brought about a new interest in the Gospel, especially among evangelicals, and I took this book to broaden my perspectives on the contemporary conversation.

McKnight is a noted and capable scholar who handles the discussion in an academic but reader-accessible manner (by that I mean that he does not bog down the conversation with ten syllable theological terms, but he does show careful attention to fidelity to the text in its context).

The book is well-written, carefully thought out, and is persuasive to the end that contemporary Christianity has diminished the gospel of Jesus and the gospel of the Apostles to some form of a "sin management" or "hell-insurance" policy. McKnight argues that the gospel of the Bible is not the "plan of salvation" or the "methodology of salvation," but is a firm declaration of the sovereignty and lordship of Christ in the world. He advocates that the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles were about proclaiming the rule and reign of God, not about the process by which an individual receives forgiveness for individual sins. McKnight does not diminish the centrality of Christ's atonement or forgiveness of sin; rather, he advocates a larger narrative that is sometimes lost in the evangelistic call to repentance that is sometimes confused with the gospel.

"Gospeling" (a term McKnight is fond of) is about presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of God's plan for redemption and establishment of the Kingdom of God with Christ as King. In response to this message, scores of people in the biblical record and since...have yielded control of their lives to Christ as King and thus received the Salvation that is often the centerpiece of the contemporary understanding of the gospel.

One area if discussion in McKnight's book was troubling to me. I felt as though he focused too much on Christ as the fulfillment of Israel's Redemption and missed a great opportunity to express Christ as the fulfillment of God's agenda...of which Israel was central, prominent, and remains so to this day. (Self-disclosure: I have leanings to dispensational theology since I think it is most faithful, biblically, to the literal nature of the promises made to Israel throughout the Scriptures.) IN ALL FAIRNESS, I am not familiar enough with McKnight or his other works to state a conclusion...so my observation is merely a preference and may very well be an issue of semantics.

I was encouraged and challenged to rethink the gospel in reading this book. It is a resource that I will recommend to students and to discerning readers who desire to explore the depths of the message that Christ presented and the Apostles heralded!

One of the things I love about the holidays is a little extra time to read. I've been really enjoying that this season, as I'm now posting my second review in three days, this time moving from the world of fiction to Christian Ministry/Theology with Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited.

I'll cut right to the chase: Over on GoodReads, I gave this 5 out of 5 stars without thinking twice. It's one of the best books I've ever read. I absolutely loved it.

McKnight explores the reality that we live in a soterian culture, where the word "gospel" has simply come to mean "the plan of salvation." McKnight eloquently and convincingly tells why the gospel is so much more than this, especially focusing on the story of Israel and how Jesus is the culmination (or, perhaps better said, the fulfillment) of that story. It is an essential reminder for every American Christian, in my opinion.

One final note: On pages 148-153, in a section called "The Gospel Sketched," McKnight beautifully summarizes the story of Israel (which, in case you missed the point, is our story as Christ-followers). If you don't do anything else with this book, at least go to the bookstore and read this section.

But I really, really strongly recommend you just buy it and read the whole thing.

I generally enjoy Scot McKnight's way of thinking. It's different and challenging, and his books have always left me mulling over something or another, but this one just left me kind of bleh! It seems to me that we can't leave the Gospel in its simplest form any longer, but have to complicate things so much that the average human on earth will never find Jesus because they aren't smart enough. I'm a well read, college graduate. I don't have seminary training so I wouldn't be considered a trained theologian, but I am on my tenth year of ministry and feel that I get the basics of the Christian faith. I mean, I don't completely understand everything, but after reading McKnight's book it seems that according to him, I'm just stupid.

I get that this is primarily an attack on "salvation by prayer" techniques and I agree that praying a prayer doesn't mean you are a Christian. I also get that some Christians don't like altar calls and evangelistic events where mass crowds come forward. This is what I feel McKnight is targeting, but his arguments get lost in a lot of philosophical questioning and answering. McKnight joins a growing crowd that follow N.T. Wright and others that have placed a great emphasis on Paul's teachings that don't settle with me very well. If you enjoy N.T. Wright, you will enjoy The King Jesus Gospel. But if you are confused or disagree with N.T. Wright on Justification and Paul's theology, then you are in for more here.

I didn't hate it or disagree to the point that I can't recommend it, but I think you must know what you are getting into. I personally don't see the need for McKnight's voice to be added to the crowd of what Wright has already established.