In my ministry I have, on one occasion, been accused of ‘not preaching the gospel’. I was puzzled about this statement and I wondered how the person concerned thought of the good news contained in the bible. I began by looking to see what churches, who supposedly did ‘preach the gospel’, actually did which was different. What I discovered was not something I wanted to copy, so I knew I would never be able to qualify to be one of this select company. My investigation of what preaching the gospel meant in practice was to discover that many people go to church in order to have a profound emotional experience. The experience normally consists of three parts. The first stage is what I call the ‘grovel’ part. The audience is invited to reflect on their sin and utter degradation. The preacher will add his commentary with an account of his own ‘unsaved’ self. There will be metaphorical chest beating, spiced up with memories of how the preacher used to drink, smoke and indulge in other doubtful activities which might be described or hinted at. The second part would be a description of the moment of conversion and how all this was put behind him The congregation are invited to remember or renew their own conversion experience and feel the sense of freedom coming from this salvation from future hell and damnation. Alongside the feeling of newness and safety that the climax of the ‘gospel preaching’ is designed to promote is another feeling. That is to look out at the unsaved world around them, lamenting its descent into hell. The congregation is exhorted to preach the gospel to the unsaved around them. That is to be the mark of their discipleship, whether or not they preach and teach others about Jesus. This third section evokes feelings which combine a sense of superiority and smugness with a sense of pity for people who are unsaved.
I hope my readers will believe me when I say I have heard this ‘sermon’ many times. Its main feature, one that I do not copy, is the deliberate arousing of emotions in the listener. I suspect that my accuser was someone who associated this range of emotions with preaching. Therefore when he did not have these emotions of loss, rescuing and sometimes smug pity, the task of preaching for him was incomplete. But there is something more going on for me than a distaste for the arousing of emotions. The whole theology of ‘gospel preaching’ as I have summarised it is based on a thoroughly un-Christian reading of Scripture. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that it is an Old Testament God who is presented rather a New Testament one. I need to explain what I mean.
At the start of the events of Holy Week, Jesus is presented as riding on the back of a donkey into Jerusalem. Apart from any Old Testament allusions that may be claimed for this act, it is clear that Jesus was acting out a gesture of profound humility. Kings did not arrive on donkeys, they mount war horses, ready for battle and domination. This is clearly how the writer in Revelation thought, when he describes the ‘Word of God … clad in a robe dipped in blood’ with ‘the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, following him on white horses’. (Rev 19.14 ) Such language echoes the concepts of God in some parts of the Old Testament, a God who clearly is understood to reflect the way certain humans behave. Thus he is sometimes merciful but at other times vindictive, vengeful and ready to smite his enemies when they oppose his will or disobey his law. (See how people are treated in these random passages, Deut. 13.12-18, Exod. 31.12-15 & Hosea 9.11-16) The model that seems to have been in the mind of the Old Testament writers who wrote in this way, was the idea of an earthly monarch or ruler. It is, we might remark, all the more remarkable that Jesus had such a different picture of God. Jesus spoke about a father who loves his enemies, one who is prepared to forgive many times, even when the child has wandered off into the desert of his own selfish desires. The doctrine of ‘infallibility’ and the cliché, ‘all scripture speaks of Christ’, has blinded us to these contrasts in the doctrines of God within the Bible. Without going to the extreme of rejecting the Old Testament, we do have to realise that at times this part of the Bible shows a God that is some way from the God that Jesus came to proclaim.
Once again I find myself needing to draw things to a conclusion for fear of overrunning my self-imposed limit. But my summary would be to say that my accuser was pointing to a presentation of God which was not the gospel of Jesus. Rather it was a presentation of a mishmash of ideas and concepts from certain parts of the Old Testament that want us to submit to an arbitrary and tyrannical ruler. The good news that I find in the teaching of Jesus is not all about punishment and separation but rather about reconciliation and forgiveness. The Jesus I follow is not one who rides on a war horse but one who rides a donkey in humility. Christians perhaps need to be braver in their reading of the Old Testament. Because many are committed to a doctrine of infallibility, they consequently have to find ways either to explain away or simply ignore the parts that are, quite bluntly, unedifying. There has to be another way and I believe it is possible to read this literature with the eyes of Jesus. It is he who reads out of scripture and the God who is found there, the qualities of mercy and compassion. At the same time he passes over the passages that seem to imply that God is only interested in revenge and punishment. A doctrine of gradual revelation will allow us to sit more lightly on the ‘difficult’ parts without denying its overall inspiration. My version of the ‘good news’ will draw mainly on the teaching of Jesus, his offer of the Kingdom, a place where the will of God, his ‘shalom’ may be done and experienced. But to this we will return …….
I was schooled on this presentation of ‘the gospel’. It was a reinterpretation and somehow, (God knows how they did it), they even managed to bring in to it an acceptance of the world system, with all its ugly acceptance of career motivation and ambition incentive?
This normalizing of the capitalist mentality is clearly evidenced on the ‘God channel’ and in the priorities of many modern day church/fellowships.
“What shall we do this year brethren? I know, we’ll build a quarter of a million pound extension on to the building!”
A mass betrayal of Christ has been allowed to happen under our very noses.
I see the art of parody is not dead!
Thanks Dick, I’m not intelligent enough to know? I can feel a million used car salesman jokes coming on, anyway, to quote CJ (from Reggie Perrin)
‘ I didn’t get where I am today by changing horses in mid-stream when I’ve got two in the bush’
When I was doing my National Service in Germany in 1954 I was taken with some others by the very Evangelical Chaplain to hear Billy Graham in the Olympic Stadium Berlin.It did not have the desired effect on me.I could not get out of my head that someone else (Adolf Hitler)used to hold great rallies in the same place and that the techniques being used by Billy Graham were the same. It was a great pressure on people to conform to a desired set of beliefs. Crowd Evangelism is a pressure to make people to conform. It is absolutely nothing to to with the Christian Gospel. The correct word is “Proselytism” which involves using means that are not of the Gospel to preach the Gospel. Christianity is here to help us be ourselves not to turn us into something we are not. It is costly, caring, sharing love that commends the Gospel not the pressurising techniques which we see all around us in politicians and marketing techniques. It is sad so many cannot see that they are being manipulated.
Thanks Robert, May I respectfully ask what you think is the best way forward for my fellow travellers and me?
We have been spewed out of a system that has held us prisoner for long agonizing years. I don’t even know who ‘I’ am anymore. Guilt self hate and confusion seem to be the rule of the present day.
The theatre evangelical environment seeps into your whole being. When you finally realise that you have been cloned by only one possible view of the Christian faith, all trust and hope seems distant.
I think I am coming back into believing but I just can’t see the first step.
I open myself in this way to shine a light on that great number of people who, unlike me, don’t have a voice. They are held captive to a terrible silence.
Thanks Stephen. Always interesting! Some thoughts arising.
Jesus not only brought good news for the poor; he was good news for the poor. The body of Christ today (us) has this twin calling too, to my mind. Am I good news for poor people? I hope so. As regards the OT and the passages you cite Stephen, I wonder if there is more mercy in them than meets the eye. For example, where any religion goes (Deut 13), all kinds of evils can arise: for example, my daughter spent her gap year helping cast-off disabled children who had been rejected by their parents because “they must have been wicked in a previous life to have been born disfigured like that”. Where the Sabbath is not observed (Exod 31), and people overwork like a friend of mine, they end up dying young, as he did. He worked seven days a week for a period of years, with no holidays, had a stroke and developed leukaemia. Ephraim in Hosea 9 is used as a name for the northern kingdom which had turned away from God and adopted heathen practices, such as encouraging people to kill their firstborn, following the god Molech. In all three cases quoted, understanding a bit more about what was going on helps get the harsh words more in perspective, as the indictments were aimed at preventing oppression.
WHAT DO THESE PREACHERS HAVE IN COMMON? BY STEVE FINNELL
What do the following preacher all agree is true?
Benny Hinn
Joel Osteen
Billy Graham
Jimmy Swaggart
Robert Schuller
John Hagee
Paul Crouch
Pat Robertson
John Piper
Max Lucado
T.D. Jakes
John MacArthur
Chuck Colson
Charles Stanley
All of the above deny that being baptized in water is essential in order to be saved from the penalty of sin.
All of the above deny what Jesus said in (Mark 16:16) … is baptized shall be saved.
All of the above deny what the apostle Peter said on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) … let every one of you be baptized for the remission of sins.
Do you really want to look to these men for spiritual direction. Why not just trust Jesus and His apostles?
you are invited to follow my blog. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com
You sound a bit as if you think you’re always right, Steve. At the Baptist church I used to be in, it was a closed order. That is, you had to have followed Our Lord through the waters of baptism to be a full member. Then came a man who was accepted for baptism, but was told by his doctor that due to a heart condition, if he did any such thing he was likely to have a heart attack and die. There was a meeting about it. First the Deacons’ Court, and then the full membership agreed that a public declaration of faith would be sufficient. And not just in his case, but in any other. A big step, but absolutely right in my view.
Dear Steve, How about the thief on the cross? No time for water was there? I wish you Peace my friend. Sincerely, Chris Pitts
I thought I’d posted this already! And my name has disappeared. Any way. You’re right Chris. There are examples of people’s being filled with the Holy Spirit before baptism in the New Testament. So, no, baptism won’t make any difference to God. But Jesus did it, and so perhaps so should we.
Thanks English Athena, No problem with that. But absolutism in relation to doctrine, I see as a poison. Peace, Chris
fear god your lord and love god with all your heart,mind and soul. love your neighbor as you love yourself and respect your mother and father. that says the lord the most high.