14 thoughts on “Is this an Adequate Presentation of the Gospel?”
In a very simplistic way, yes. I do find that the video trivializes “faith and repentance” and fails to give the end of the story. Jesus is just here to fix our mistake and that’s the end of the story. He comes across as our get out of jail card.
From the stand point of presenting the metanarrative found in Scripture, minus the end, from the human point-of-view, it’s fine. But I think more needs to be done giving the divine POV of the biblical metanarrative.
YES. YES. YES.
I commented on the friends page where I found this and said that this presentation is decent as far as it goes. But that it didn’t go far enough.
My problems (in a nutshell) – to individualistic, get out of jail card, where’s the meaning of the resurrection?, ‘what does this mean to you’ isn’t the gospel question – what does this mean to the entire creation IS, what about salvation in the here and now? – restored sight to the blind, setting captives free, love of neighbor and enemy.
I’m glad we’re on the same page. It’s not horrid. But I don’t think it’s adequate to create a sustaining faith. I would’ve done it differently…even if I only had 4 minutes.
But maybe that’s the problem with 4 minute presentations of the gospel – the gospel is a narrative that takes more than 4 minutes to develop…especially in a post-Christendom age.
I would agree with the above comments. The set-up is great. I feel like it’s take on atonement falls short though. It very much approaches atonement as creation-fall-redemption. As one who likes to look at atonement as creation-incarnation-recreation, I feel that it is incomplete.
Oooh. Good. Can you explain your creation-incarnation-recreation thoughts a bit? I think I understand, but for the sake of other readers.
How did you post it on your wordpress? Every time I tried to post the video it would delete the html code. Oh the frustration.
What is the secret oh grand master of video posting?
Tom,
I am curious as to whether you would recommend a tract form of your gospel presentation. You may be completely against tracts (I know that I am not a big fan); however, the summary of the Gospel content is sometimes very helpful when sharing with someone for the first time.
Are there any models that you would recommend from your perspective? Thanks bud.
Oh and are you guys in FL? How is the new church? I am so very happy for you guys. Good “typing” with you today.
Later
1. The video itself is derivative, uncreative and uninspired (or inspiring). So, par for the course when it comes to Evangelicalism.
2. As for the content, not only is it far too individualistic (as everyone’s already pointed out – and did you notice their picture of the Gospel only included Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection? Absolutely nothing about his life. The (insufficient) gospel this film proclaims would be just as well served by a Jesus who materialized out of thin air, got stabbed by a sword and then risen.
But truthfully I didn’t expect much else out of Southern. That is an excellent presentation of the Gospel THEY preach.
Additionally, the Gospel is from first to last Trinitarian. This video only mentions an ambiguous ‘God’ (whoever that is!) and Jesus. The Father I don’t think is ever mentioned, and certainly the Holy Spirit is never mentioned. How can you have a gospel presentation that does not include two of the three persons of the Trinity? Especially, since the Gospel only makes sense within a Trinitarian context.
Luke, it was good ‘typing’ with you, too. I had a problem loading the embedded code, so all I did was actually post the link to the actual page. Then, to my surprise, it actually had the video on it.
I don’t know about a tract. I don’t think the gospel story can be summed up that way. I don’t think it was ever intended to be. I could be wrong, but the gospel is a story, not a point by point delineation of an argument in some modernist sense. This means it takes time to delve into, ingest, and ruminate on the gospel. And, considering Jesus’ comments regarding ‘count the cost’, I think my perspective is much more compatible with serious reflection and dwelling in the gospel, as opposed to spurr of the moment decision making. Make sense?
Such an approach, to me, not only communicates the gospel message, but actually EMBODIES. Tract passing out simply cannot do that.
Thoughts?
awesome !!!
I love you, Tom.
It’s amazing to me that this video exists; it was a vision of someone’s to make this kind of gospel presentation in this medium, and this dream was not only realized, but stamped and branded by SBTS. I wonder if this was a project by a student that got baptized by the sem, or if SBTS set out to make this for a reason…
Regardless, I’m with these comments, especially in the lack of triune content and eschaton. But we almost had the ascension at 2:41…
Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I agree with you about the insufficiency of tracts and the like. I too disagree with the fundamental reasons that tracts were even created, namely-easy, non-committal evangelism.
However, I am interested to hear what your basic breakdown of the “gospel” is. Earlier you mention the phrase, “creation-incarnation-recreation”. I am not sure if this captures the complete essence of the gospel. (I may be oversimplying or misreading your comment)
This triad, though it sounds very catchy, seems to miss one of the primary reason for the Gospel’s existence–sin or human fallenness.
Though the goespl message is theological substantial and complicated, it should be possible to explain it to a child. Let me know your thoughts.
Later
Luke, thanks for the questions.
First, the creation, incarnation, recreation stuff was mentioned by Jonathan. I just asked him to clarify. But, even so, it is more the influence of NT Wright, so I’d point you there for a fuller explanation. But in short the whole point is that salvation is not about my individual soul going to heaven. The gospel necessarily invovles all of creation and in the incarnation, Jesus takes on all of humanity and desires to recreated the entire world (not just the individual elect) in redemptive glory. This was foreknown and planned by the Father, carried out by the Son, and enacted in the world today by the Holy Spirit. Human sin has corrupted not just ourselves, but God’s good creation. God desires to restore all of it. The resurrection was the first fruits of that new creation and we are to live in light of that resurrection in the present – in other words, whatever the kingdom ‘will look like’ is what it ought to look like NOW. The Spirit helps us live out this reality in a world hostile to the kingdom of God. But this is an all too brief explanation.
The triad does not forget human sinfulness. It is assumed in the incarnation aspect. Christ becomes what he wishes to redeem. He becomes physical, creation, human in order to redeem – not just disembodied souls – but all of creation, most especially the crown of creation, human beings.
I agree that the gospel should be simple enough for a child. But the gospel is a story that cannot be told in a mere 4 minute presentation. And even if it was, the gospel is not something we need to be ‘convinced of’, it is something we need to participate in.
I feel our modernist tendencies are to abstract specific truths of the gospel to present them as propositions for convincing people. But a better way is to tell the story and live the story. Isn’t that what the world is crying for anyway? They don’t need tracts and altar calls. They need a church that knows its own story well and lives in light of Christ’s incarnation and resurrection.
Thoughts?
The early church had a mindset toward atonement of Creation-Incarnation-Recreation. This was their way of capturing completely God’s story.
God is Creator and has created all that is. Through sin, (the Fall), man has become separated from God. Jesus Christ has made amends through his death on the cross. However, if we leave the story there, we hold to a more Augustinian theory of atonement that sees the story as Creation-Fall-Redemption. The story ends there, much like this video.
What do we lose by this? For one, we fragment the Gospel. We are more than just redeemed people because of Christ’s work on the cross. Because of the resurrection and Christ’s victory over sin and death, we are new creations! This is so much more dynamic for my life.
Robert Webber writes it this way in his book Ancient-Future Worship, “…when these themes are presented without creation and without God’s incarnation into our creation to re-create it, God’s whole story is reduced to individualism. God saves this or that individual, but he does not save and restore the whole world. In these fellowships the songs and choruses are usually me-centered, the preaching is often based on therapeutic themes, and communion is a sober reflection on the death of Jesus without any reference to his resurrection, exaltation, and sure return to claim his lordship over all creatures and creation” (42).
Hope that helps explain a little further. You pretty much hit it on the head, Tom. Sorry it took me so long to follow-up!
In a very simplistic way, yes. I do find that the video trivializes “faith and repentance” and fails to give the end of the story. Jesus is just here to fix our mistake and that’s the end of the story. He comes across as our get out of jail card.
From the stand point of presenting the metanarrative found in Scripture, minus the end, from the human point-of-view, it’s fine. But I think more needs to be done giving the divine POV of the biblical metanarrative.
YES. YES. YES.
I commented on the friends page where I found this and said that this presentation is decent as far as it goes. But that it didn’t go far enough.
My problems (in a nutshell) – to individualistic, get out of jail card, where’s the meaning of the resurrection?, ‘what does this mean to you’ isn’t the gospel question – what does this mean to the entire creation IS, what about salvation in the here and now? – restored sight to the blind, setting captives free, love of neighbor and enemy.
I’m glad we’re on the same page. It’s not horrid. But I don’t think it’s adequate to create a sustaining faith. I would’ve done it differently…even if I only had 4 minutes.
But maybe that’s the problem with 4 minute presentations of the gospel – the gospel is a narrative that takes more than 4 minutes to develop…especially in a post-Christendom age.
I would agree with the above comments. The set-up is great. I feel like it’s take on atonement falls short though. It very much approaches atonement as creation-fall-redemption. As one who likes to look at atonement as creation-incarnation-recreation, I feel that it is incomplete.
Oooh. Good. Can you explain your creation-incarnation-recreation thoughts a bit? I think I understand, but for the sake of other readers.
How did you post it on your wordpress? Every time I tried to post the video it would delete the html code. Oh the frustration.
What is the secret oh grand master of video posting?
Tom,
I am curious as to whether you would recommend a tract form of your gospel presentation. You may be completely against tracts (I know that I am not a big fan); however, the summary of the Gospel content is sometimes very helpful when sharing with someone for the first time.
Are there any models that you would recommend from your perspective? Thanks bud.
Oh and are you guys in FL? How is the new church? I am so very happy for you guys. Good “typing” with you today.
Later
1. The video itself is derivative, uncreative and uninspired (or inspiring). So, par for the course when it comes to Evangelicalism.
2. As for the content, not only is it far too individualistic (as everyone’s already pointed out – and did you notice their picture of the Gospel only included Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection? Absolutely nothing about his life. The (insufficient) gospel this film proclaims would be just as well served by a Jesus who materialized out of thin air, got stabbed by a sword and then risen.
But truthfully I didn’t expect much else out of Southern. That is an excellent presentation of the Gospel THEY preach.
Additionally, the Gospel is from first to last Trinitarian. This video only mentions an ambiguous ‘God’ (whoever that is!) and Jesus. The Father I don’t think is ever mentioned, and certainly the Holy Spirit is never mentioned. How can you have a gospel presentation that does not include two of the three persons of the Trinity? Especially, since the Gospel only makes sense within a Trinitarian context.
Luke, it was good ‘typing’ with you, too. I had a problem loading the embedded code, so all I did was actually post the link to the actual page. Then, to my surprise, it actually had the video on it.
I don’t know about a tract. I don’t think the gospel story can be summed up that way. I don’t think it was ever intended to be. I could be wrong, but the gospel is a story, not a point by point delineation of an argument in some modernist sense. This means it takes time to delve into, ingest, and ruminate on the gospel. And, considering Jesus’ comments regarding ‘count the cost’, I think my perspective is much more compatible with serious reflection and dwelling in the gospel, as opposed to spurr of the moment decision making. Make sense?
This is why I have previously advocated the evangelism model of genuine friendship as opposed to tract passing out: http://thefuerstshallbelast.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/forget-soul-winning-lets-be-friends/
Such an approach, to me, not only communicates the gospel message, but actually EMBODIES. Tract passing out simply cannot do that.
Thoughts?
awesome !!!
I love you, Tom.
It’s amazing to me that this video exists; it was a vision of someone’s to make this kind of gospel presentation in this medium, and this dream was not only realized, but stamped and branded by SBTS. I wonder if this was a project by a student that got baptized by the sem, or if SBTS set out to make this for a reason…
Regardless, I’m with these comments, especially in the lack of triune content and eschaton. But we almost had the ascension at 2:41…
Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I agree with you about the insufficiency of tracts and the like. I too disagree with the fundamental reasons that tracts were even created, namely-easy, non-committal evangelism.
However, I am interested to hear what your basic breakdown of the “gospel” is. Earlier you mention the phrase, “creation-incarnation-recreation”. I am not sure if this captures the complete essence of the gospel. (I may be oversimplying or misreading your comment)
This triad, though it sounds very catchy, seems to miss one of the primary reason for the Gospel’s existence–sin or human fallenness.
Though the goespl message is theological substantial and complicated, it should be possible to explain it to a child. Let me know your thoughts.
Later
Luke, thanks for the questions.
First, the creation, incarnation, recreation stuff was mentioned by Jonathan. I just asked him to clarify. But, even so, it is more the influence of NT Wright, so I’d point you there for a fuller explanation. But in short the whole point is that salvation is not about my individual soul going to heaven. The gospel necessarily invovles all of creation and in the incarnation, Jesus takes on all of humanity and desires to recreated the entire world (not just the individual elect) in redemptive glory. This was foreknown and planned by the Father, carried out by the Son, and enacted in the world today by the Holy Spirit. Human sin has corrupted not just ourselves, but God’s good creation. God desires to restore all of it. The resurrection was the first fruits of that new creation and we are to live in light of that resurrection in the present – in other words, whatever the kingdom ‘will look like’ is what it ought to look like NOW. The Spirit helps us live out this reality in a world hostile to the kingdom of God. But this is an all too brief explanation.
The triad does not forget human sinfulness. It is assumed in the incarnation aspect. Christ becomes what he wishes to redeem. He becomes physical, creation, human in order to redeem – not just disembodied souls – but all of creation, most especially the crown of creation, human beings.
I agree that the gospel should be simple enough for a child. But the gospel is a story that cannot be told in a mere 4 minute presentation. And even if it was, the gospel is not something we need to be ‘convinced of’, it is something we need to participate in.
I feel our modernist tendencies are to abstract specific truths of the gospel to present them as propositions for convincing people. But a better way is to tell the story and live the story. Isn’t that what the world is crying for anyway? They don’t need tracts and altar calls. They need a church that knows its own story well and lives in light of Christ’s incarnation and resurrection.
Thoughts?
The early church had a mindset toward atonement of Creation-Incarnation-Recreation. This was their way of capturing completely God’s story.
God is Creator and has created all that is. Through sin, (the Fall), man has become separated from God. Jesus Christ has made amends through his death on the cross. However, if we leave the story there, we hold to a more Augustinian theory of atonement that sees the story as Creation-Fall-Redemption. The story ends there, much like this video.
What do we lose by this? For one, we fragment the Gospel. We are more than just redeemed people because of Christ’s work on the cross. Because of the resurrection and Christ’s victory over sin and death, we are new creations! This is so much more dynamic for my life.
Robert Webber writes it this way in his book Ancient-Future Worship, “…when these themes are presented without creation and without God’s incarnation into our creation to re-create it, God’s whole story is reduced to individualism. God saves this or that individual, but he does not save and restore the whole world. In these fellowships the songs and choruses are usually me-centered, the preaching is often based on therapeutic themes, and communion is a sober reflection on the death of Jesus without any reference to his resurrection, exaltation, and sure return to claim his lordship over all creatures and creation” (42).
Hope that helps explain a little further. You pretty much hit it on the head, Tom. Sorry it took me so long to follow-up!
Keep up the good work on this blog!