READING 12.

1
PREACHING THE
GOSPEL TO THE
HEART
BY TIM KELLER

I. CRITIQUE BOTH RELIGION AND NON-RELIGION WHEN

YOU PREACH
A. RELIGION VS. THE GOSPEL
1. The basic operating principle of ‘religion’ in the world is, ‘I obey—therefore I am accepted by
God.’ The basic operating principle of the gospel is, ‘I am accepted by God through Christ—
therefore I obey.’ Two people living their lives on the basis of these two principles may (and do!)
sit right beside one another in the pew in the church—and both are striving to obey the law of
God, to pray, to give money generously, to be good family members. But they are doing so out of
radically different motives, in radically different spirits, resulting in radically different personal
character.

A basic insight of Martin Luther was that ‘religion’ is the basic default mode of the human heart.
Even professed secular and atheistic persons operate on the basis of it. And even Christians who
know the gospel in principle and who have been changed by it continually revert to it. The results
of works-religion therefore stubbornly persist in us. Christians believe the gospel at one level but
at deeper levels continue to operate as if we are saved by our works.

Only a fraction of the present body of professing Christians are solidly appropriating the justifying
work of Christ in their lives....Many...have a theoretical commitment to this doctrine, but in their
day-to-day existence they rely on their sanctification for their justification...drawing their
assurance of acceptance with God from their sincerity, their past experience of conversion, their
recent religious performance or the relative infrequency of their conscious, willful disobedience.
Few know enough to start each day with a thoroughgoing stand upon Luther’s platform: you are
accepted, looking outward in faith and claiming the wholly alien righteousness of Christ as the
only ground for acceptance, relaxing in that quality of trust which will produce increasing
sanctification as faith is active in love and gratitude....Much that we have interpreted as a defect
of sanctification in church people is really an outgrowth of their loss of bearing with respect to
justification. Christians who are no longer sure that God loves and accepts them in Jesus, apart
from their present spiritual achievements, are subconsciously radically insecure persons.... Their
insecurity shows itself in pride, a fierce, defensive assertion of their own righteousness, and
defensive criticism of others. They come naturally to hate other cultural styles and other races in
order to bolster their own security and discharge their suppressed anger. -- Richard Lovelace1

2. This insight has been more and more evident to me exegetically over the years. Dick Lucas’
taped sermons have been an enormous help in this regard. He clearly grasped the difference
between ‘Religion’ and ‘Christianity.’

1
Richard Lovelace, The Dynamics of Spiritual Life (IVP, 1979)
1
 His studies on the Sermon on the Mount were especially clarifying in this regard. He points out
that at the end of the sermon Jesus forcibly offers two gates roads, two trees, two foundations on
which to build one’s house. What are these two ways? Traditionally, preachers have said that
Jesus is speaking of a) living God’s way (i.e. according to the principles of the Sermon) and b)
living immorally, disobediently. But Dick asks: if Jesus is contrasting these ‘two ways’ at the end--
surely we would find Jesus treating the two ways within the sermon. And if we go back, we do
see a continual contrast drawn--but it is not between ‘those disobedient to God’s word’ and ‘those
obedient to God’s word’. The contrast is between Jesus’ way and the Pharisees’ way.
In 5:21ff, Jesus contrasts the Pharisees way of obeying God’s commandments (which is
supplying minimum, external compliance) and Jesus’ way, which is motivated by a very different,
inward, thorough change in motivation.
In chapter 6 we come to see what that inward motivation really is. When they give to the poor
(vv.1-4) and pray (vv.5-7) they do it for acclaim, applause, and reward. They feel superior and
believe they have leverage over others and over God for their spiritual performance (“they will be
heard for their many words”.)
In short, what do we see in the Sermon on the Mount? Jesus is not contrasting people who don’t
obey the law, give alms, and pray with those who do. Both groups of people in the sermon obey
the law, both give to the poor and both pray--but for profoundly different reasons. The ‘works-
righteousness’ group does it out of a desire to get leverage over others and over God, which
leads to superiority, pride, inability to take criticism, and minimal, external obedience.
5:20 announces that the Sermon on the Mount is not a contrast between the moral and the
immoral or the religious and the irreligious but rather is a contrast between the religious
Pharisees and those who believe the gospel.

RELIGION
• “I obey—therefore I’m accepted”
• Motivation is based on fear and insecurity.
• I obey God in order to get things from God.
• When circumstances in my life go wrong, I
am angry at God or myself, since I believe,
like Job’s friends, that anyone who is good
deserves a comfortable life.
• My prayer consists largely of petition and it
only heats up when I am in a time of need. My
main purpose in prayer is control of the
environment.
• My self-view swings between two poles. If
and when I am living up to my standards, I
feel confident, but then I am prone to be proud
and unsympathetic to failing people. If and
when I am not living up to standards, I feel
humble, but not confident. I feel like a failure.
• My identity and self-worth are based mainly
on how hard I work, or how moral I am--and
so I must look down on those I perceive as
lazy or immoral. I disdain and feel superior to
‘the Other.’
• Since I look to my own pedigree or
performance for my spiritual acceptability, my
heart manufactures idols. It may be my
talents, my moral record, my personal
GOSPEL
• “I’m accepted—therefore I obey”
• Motivation based on grateful joy.
• I obey God to get God—to delight and resemble
him.
• When circumstances in my life go wrong, I may
struggle, but I know all my punishment fell on
Jesus and that while he may allow this for my
training, he will exercise his Fatherly love within
my trial.
• My prayer life consists of generous stretches of
praise and adoration. My main purpose is
fellowship with him.
• My self-view is not based on a view of myself as
a moral achiever. In Christ I am simul iustus et
peccator--simultaneously sinful and lost, yet
accepted in Christ. I am so bad he had to die for
me and I am so loved he was glad to die for me.
This leads me to deeper and deeper humility and
confidence at the same time. Neither swaggering
nor sniveling.
• My identity and self-worth is centered on the
one who died for his enemies, who was excluded
from the city for me. I am saved by sheer grace.
So I can’t look down on those who believe or
practice something different from me. Only by
grace I am what I am. I’ve no inner need to win
arguments.
• I have many good things in my life--family, work,
spiritual disciplines, etc. But none of these good
things are ultimate things to me. None of them

2
discipline, my social status, etc. I absolutely
have to have them, so they serve as my main
hope, meaning, happiness, security, and
significance, whatever I may say I believe
about God.
are things I absolutely have to have; so there is a
limit to how much anxiety, bitterness and
despondency they can inflict on me when they
are threatened and lost.

B. THREE WAYS WITH GOD—RELIGION, NON-RELIGION, AND THE GOSPEL

The gospel is neither religion or non-religion, neither morality or immorality. The legalist says, “the
good people are in and the bad are out.” The secular relativist says, “the tolerant are in and the bigots
are out.” But the gospel says, “the humble are in and the proud are out.” Those who know they are
not good are on the way at least.
In short, the gospel is a ‘third way’—neither religion or irreligion. It changes the way you look at
everything. Tertullian said, "Just as Christ was crucified between two thieves, so this doctrine of
justification is ever crucified between two opposite errors." Tertullian meant that there were two basic
false ways of thinking, each of which "steals" the power and the distinctiveness of the gospel from us
by pulling us “off the gospel line” to one side or the other. These two errors are very powerful,
because they represent the natural tendency of the human heart and mind.
In Galatians 2:14, Paul lays down a powerful principle. He deals with Peter’s racial pride and
cowardice by declaring that he was not living “not in line with the truth of the gospel”. From this we
see that the Christian life is a process of renewing every dimension of our life-- spiritual,
psychological, corporate, social--by thinking, hoping, and living out the “lines” or ramifications of the
gospel. The gospel is to be applied to every area of thinking, feeling, relating, working, and behaving.
Notice, Paul did not say, "you are breaking the no-racism law!" though that is perfectly true. However,
it is not the best way to think. Paul asks neither “what is the moral way to act?” nor does he say "we
don't need to order our steps at all!" but rather he asks: “what is the way to live that is in-line with the
gospel?” The gospel must be continually “thought out” to keep us from moving into our habitual
moralistic or individualistic directions. We must bring everything into line with the gospel.

The following are some examples of how to treat subjects contrasted with both religion and irreligion.
(They are often called 'moralism' and 'relativism' below.)

SUFFERING. The religious believe God owes them a happy life, since the whole point of living a
good life is to put God in their debt. So when the religious suffer, they must either feel mad at
God ("I've been living right--and this is what I get??") or mad at themselves ("I must have not
been living right") or both at once! On the other hand, the irreligious do absolutely everything to
avoid suffering. They see no use for it at all. Its presence renders life meaningless. But the cross
shows us that we had a suffering God. The gospel on the one hand takes away our surprise and
pique over suffering. We see him suffering--without complaint--for us. So we know that we
deserve to be eternally lost but by mercy we will never get what we deserve. This eliminates self-
pity. On the other hand, we know God could not be punishing us for our sin--since Jesus paid for
our sins, and God cannot receive two payments. That means whatever suffering we are receiving
is not retribution, but instruction. If you face suffering with a clear grasp of justification by grace
alone, your joy in that grace will deepen, but if you face suffering with a mindset of justification by
works, the suffering will break you, not make you. “He suffered not that we might not suffer, but
that in our suffering we could become like him.” Since both the religious and the irreligious ignore
the cross in different ways, they will both be confused and devastated by suffering.

SEXUALITY. The secularist/pragmatist sees sex as merely biological and physical appetite. The
moralist tends to see sex as dirty or at least a dangerous impulse that leads constantly to sin. But
the gospel shows us that sexuality is to reflect the self-giving of Christ. He gave himself
completely without conditions. So we are not to seek intimacy but hold back control of our lives. If
we give ourselves sexually we are to give ourselves legally, socially, personally--utterly. Sex only
is to happened in a totally committed, permanent relationship of marriage.
3
 THE POOR. The liberal/pragmatist tend to scorn the religion of the poor and see them as
helpless victims needing expertise. This is born out of a disbelief in God's common grace or
special grace to all. Ironically, the secular mindset also disbelieves in sin, and thus anyone who is
poor must be oppressed, a helpless victim. The conservative/moralists on the other hand tend to
scorn the poor as failures and weaklings. They see them as somehow to blame for their situation.
But the gospel leads us to be: a) humble, without moral superiority knowing you were "spiritually
bankrupt" but saved by Christ's free generosity, and b) gracious, not worried too much about
"deservingness", since you didn't deserve Christ's grace, c) respectful of believing poor Christians
as brothers and sisters from whom to learn. Jesus himself came as a poor man. The gospel
alone can bring "knowledge workers" into a sense of humble respect for and solidarity with the
poor.

C. THE IMPORTANCE OF PREACHING THREE APPROACHES TO GOD, NOT

TWO
It is typical for evangelical preachers to speak as if there were two ways with God--to follow him and
do his will or to reject him and do your own thing. Of course that is true! But as we have seen there
are ways to reject God as savior even while you are obeying his law. To completely do God’s will is to
believe the gospel, but people who reject the gospel for moralism look to all eyes as if they are trying
to do God’s will. So it is not enough to simply preach as if there are two ways with God. There are
three--religion, non-religion, and the gospel.

One of the most important ways to get a hearing from post-modern people and to wake up nominal or
sleepy Christians is to preach the gospel as a "third" distinct way from both irreligion and religion.
Religion is "if I obey I will be accepted." Irreligion is "I don't really have to obey anyone but myself."
The gospel is "since I am accepted in Christ, I will obey." It is crucial to distinguish all three from one
another for your hearers. Why?

1. Many professed Christians aren't believers--they are pure 'elder brothers' (Luke 15:11ff.) and
only making this distinction can convert them.
2. Many genuine Christians are elder-brotherish--angry, mechanical, superior, insecure--and only
making this distinction can renew them.
3. Modern and post-modern people have either been raised in or near churches that were heavily
“religious”--either in a conservative, moralistic way or in a liberal, ‘do-gooder’ way. When they
rejected religion and its fruits they were sure they had rejected Christianity. Unless you show
them that you are offering them something different they won’t stay to listen to you.
The only way to get legalists to understand their error is to ‘deconstruct’ antinomianism with the
gospel. And the only way to get antinomians to understand their error is to ‘deconstruct’ legalism
with the gospel. Modern and post-modern people have seen how self-righteous religious people
are.
As we have seen, religious people who don't understand the gospel have to bolster their own
sense of worthiness by convincing themselves they are better than other people. This leads them
to exclude and condemn others. The majority of modern and post-modern people in NYC who
are hostile to Christianity don't know any other kinds of churches. Only if you show them there's a
difference--that what they rejected isn't real Christianity--only then will they even begin to think
and listen again and give it 'one more look'.
4. If Luther is right (and he is!) that ‘religion’ is the default mode of the human heart, then when
non-believers hear you calling them to follow Christ they will automatically believe you are calling
them into the ‘elder brother’ moralistic approach to God. It doesn’t matter if you use Biblical
language such as ‘receive Christ and you will be adopted into his family’ (John 1:12ff) They will
think you are calling them to try hard to live according to Christ’s example. Unless you are
extremely clear and are constantly contrasting religion with the gospel--your hearers will believe
you are calling them to ‘get religion’.

4
II. EMPHASIZE BOTH HOLINESS AND LOVE TO CREATE A
CONCEPT OF GRACE
A. WHAT IS ‘GRACE’?
1. Religious moralism tends to stress the holiness, justice, and wrath of God. It implies that we
must be moral or God will be angry at us. This approach of course loses its grasp on the love of
God. On the other hand “liberal” churches and more secularized versions of spirituality put all the
stress on the love of God. They believe (essentially) that God loves and accepts you no matter
how you live. But it is critical to realize that preaching the grace of God is not to just tell people
‘God loves and accepts you no matter how you believe or live.’ Many people assert something
like: “if you talk about the grace of God all the time then people won’t have incentive to lead godly
lives.” But the Biblical concept of grace does not simply consist of a general idea of God’s
unconditional love for everyone. And understanding of the holiness of God and the love of God
are equally important building a rich, full, accurate understanding of grace.

2. How is this so? What if I think of God as all or mainly holy—and that I am saved because I am
living morally according to his righteous standards? In such a case it does not move me to the
depths to think of my salvation. There is no joy, no amazement, no tears. I am not galvanized and
transformed from the inside.

What if I think of God as all or mainly love—and that I am saved because God just forgives and
accepts everyone no matter how we live? In such a case it does not move me to the depths to
think of my salvation. There is no joy, no amazement, no tears. I am not galvanized and
transformed from the inside. Example: After a service a woman approached me and announced
that my sermon was narrow-minded. “I don’t think we need to believe in Jesus,” she said. “My
God is a God of pure love. He accepts everyone regardless.” (Perhaps I was less than tactful,
but) I said, “May I ask—what did it cost your God to love and accept us?” She was taken aback
(and not angry) and said, “Well, I guess it didn’t cost him anything.”

3. The God of the relativists—mainly loving but not holy—isn’t really all that loving! The Biblical
God who is infinitely holy had to pay the penalty of sin in order to love and accept us. But the God
of the moralists—mainly holy but not loving—isn’t really all that holy! The Biblical God is not
satisfied with our imperfect moral efforts to earn salvation. The God of the Biblical gospel is more
holy than the moralists’ God and he is more loving than the relativists’ God at the same time.
Because of the absolute love of God, there is grace for us—but because of the absolute holiness
of God, that grace is costly, infinitely so. Costly grace both humbles us and affirms us at the very
same time. To grasp this is life-changing, heart-melting in as nothing else is. Only when I see
God as absolutely holy and absolutely loving will the cross of Jesus truly electrify and change me.
He was so holy that he had to die for me. (Nothing less would satisfy his holy and righteous
nature.) But he was so loving that he was glad to die for me. (Nothing less would satisfy his
desire to have us as his people.) This humbles me out of my pride and self-centeredness, but it
affirms me out of my self-pity and inferiority at the same time. It makes me hate the sin that led to
his death and yet at the same time forbids me to morbidly just hate myself.

B. GRACE AND REPENTANCE

It is only this rich concept of grace (not just a vaguely inspiring idea of God’s all-inclusive love) that
gives us the ability to do life-changing repentance.
To truly repent, a person certainly needs humility--"emotional poverty". You must feel and
acknowledge the guilt of what you have done and your inability to make it right by your own efforts.
But full and true repentance also requires emotional 'wealth'. You need to have a hope and
assurance of God's commitment to you, his love and mercy toward you. Anyone who simply despairs
under sin, who says, "I'm too bad, too terrible for God or anyone to forgive me" is (ironically) guilty of
unbelief. In some ways, to be either proud or despondent is to refuse to see Christ as Savior and to
insist on being your own Savior.

5
The ‘joyful fear.’ You need a sense of God's grace even to become convicted. Not only that, but it is
not really possible to be honest about how sinful you are unless you have the confidence that God
loves you. If you base your self-image on your record and performance, it will be too traumatic to
admit the extent of your sinfulness. You will be in denial, rationalizing and 'screening out' evidence of
deep character flaws. Unless you believe that "the Lord's unfailing love surrounds" you, you will not
be able to repent. It takes the good news of the gospel as much as the bad news to lead our hearts to
admit what we really are.

APPLYING THE GOSPEL TO THE HEART

The purpose of a sermon is to apply Christ. We are to point out the listeners’ needs and problems
and show them the solution to their problems is faith in Christ, not just redoubled effort on their part.
We looked at this a bit before when touching on how to preach the Law Christo-centrically. Now is
time to elaborate on this principle.

Example or savior?
In 2 Corinthians 8 Paul does not show stingy people the example of Jesus so much as the salvation
of Jesus. “You know the grace of…Christ…for your sakes he became poor.” In the same way, Paul
does not show unloving husbands just some moral example but (again) shows them the salvation of
Jesus. He showed sacrificial love toward us, his ‘bride’. He did not love us because we were lovely
but in order to make us lovely (Eph 5). Every one of the commands of God must be looked at this
way and can only be understood in this way.

PREACHING FOR PERSONAL CHANGE

In Titus 2:11-15 Paul calls his listeners to ‘say no to ungodliness and worldliness’ and ‘to live self-
controlled lives’. But how does Paul tell them to get this self-control. Remarkably, he says it is the
“grace of God that brings salvation” which teaches us (Greek: paideia) to say no to ungodliness. In
Titus 3:5 he explains what he means by the ‘grace of God’. “He saved us, not because of righteous
things we had done, but because of his mercy.” This is how we say ‘no’ to temptation! Many people of
course think that the more you talk about grace-grace-grace the less incentive people will have to
lead a godly life. But if when you lose all fear of condemnation (Rom 8:1) you lose all incentive to be
holy. That means the only incentive you had to be holy was one of fear.

Think of all the ways you can ‘say no’ to ungodliness. You can say, "No—because I’ll look bad!” You
can say, “No—I’ll be excluded from the social circles I want to belong to.” You can say, “No—because
then God will not give me health, wealth, and happiness.” You can say, “No—because God will send
me to hell.” You can say, “No—because I’ll hate myself in the morning and disappoint myself and
have low self-esteem.” But (see below) virtually all of these motives are really just motives of fear and
pride—the very things that also lead to sin. You are just using sinful self-centered impulses of the
heart to keep you compliant to external rules without really changing the heart itself. Also, you are not
really doing anything out of love for God. You are using God to get things—self-esteem, prosperity,
social approval. So your deepest joys and hopes rest in other things beside God. This kind of
‘obedience’ does not issue from a changed heart at all.

Paul is saying: if you want to really change and gain self-control you must let the gospel teach you—a
word that means to train, discipline, coach you over a period of time. You must let the gospel argue
with you.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF EXPOSITION TO APPLICATION

Christ-entered exposition is directly linked to gospel-to-the-heart application. It is possible to expound
Christ and fail to do gospel-to-the-heart application, but it is impossible to do gospel-heart application
in a sermon if you have not first done Christ-centered exposition.
6
For example, look at the story of David and Goliath again. Without reference to Christ, the story may
be (usually is!) preached as: “The bigger they come, the harder they’ll fall, if you just go into your
battles with faith in the Lord. You may not be real big and powerful in yourself, but with God on your
side, you can overcome giants.” We have said above that, when put into its whole-canon-context we
see the story in a different light. The story is telling us that the Israelites can not go up against
Goliath. They can’t do it. They need a substitute. When David goes in on their behalf, he is not a full-
grown man, but a vulnerable and weak figure, a mere boy. He goes virtually as a sacrificial lamb. But
God uses his apparent weakness as the means to destroy the giant, and David becomes Israel’s
champion-redeemer, so that his victory will is imputed to them. They get all the fruit of having fought
the battle themselves. So Jesus is the true and better David, whose victory becomes his people's
victory though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves. This is a fundamentally different
meaning than the one that arises from the non-Christocentric reading. There is, in the end, only two
ways to read the Bible: is it basically about me or basically about Jesus? In other words, is it basically
about what I must do, or basically about what he has done?

And see the implications for application! Until I see that Jesus fought the real giants (sin, law, death)
for me, I will never have the courage to be able to fight ordinary giants in life (suffering,
disappointment, failure, criticism, hardship). For example how can I ever fight the “giant” of failure,
unless I have a deep security that God will not abandon me?

A. UNDERSTAND THE ‘SIN UNDER THE SINS’

For people to truly change, a sermon must do more than merely point out sin. Why? Because
underneath our behavioral sins lies our true problem: a fundamental refusal to rest in Christ’s
salvation and, in it’s place, the drive to save ourselves.

a. Here is an excerpt from Martin Luther Treatise Concerning Good Works (1520)
All those who do not in all their works or sufferings, life and death, trust in God's favor, grace and
good-will, but rather seek His favor in other things or in themselves, do not keep the [First]
Commandment, and practice real idolatry, even if they were to do the works of all the other
Commandments, and in addition had all the prayers, fasting, obedience, patience, chastity, and
innocence of all the saints combined.

Comment: Luther says if you look to your moral performance as the basis of your relationship
with God, then you are breaking the first of the Ten Commandments: "Have no other gods before
me." If you fail to grasp and believe the gospel of free justification through Christ's work you
violate the first command. How could this be?

Luther says that if we obey God's law without a belief that we are already accepted and loved in
Christ, then in all our 'doing-good' we are really looking to something more than Jesus to be the
real source of our meaning, and happiness. We are trusting in our being a good parent, or being
a good spouse, or our moral uprightness, or our spiritual performance, or our service to other
people as our real "Saviors". If we aren't sure God already loves us in Christ we will be looking to
something else as our foundational significance and worth. This is why Luther says that we are
committing idolatry (breaking the First commandment) if we don't thoroughly trust in Christ for our
acceptability, even if we are otherwise totally moral and obedient to God.

And as this Commandment is the very first, highest and best, from which all the others proceed,
in which they exist, and by which they are directed and measured, so also its work, that is, the
faith or confidence in God's favor at all times, is the very first, highest and best, from which all
others must proceed, exist, remain, be directed and measured...."

Comment: All people sin in general because we are sinners, but why do we sin in any particular
instance? Luther indicates the first commandment is foundational to all the others. Why?
Because we will not break commandment 2-10 unless we are in some way breaking
commandment One and serving some idol. Every sin is rooted in the inordinate lust for
something which comes because we are trusting in that thing rather than in Christ for our
7
righteousness or salvation. At the moment we sin it is because we are looking to something to
give us what only Jesus can give us. Beneath any particular sin is the general sin of rejecting
Christ-salvation and indulging in self-salvation.

b. Jonathan Edwards. Abridged and paraphrased, from Charity and Its Fruits, in vol.8, Works of
Jonathan Edwards, ed. P. Ramsey (Yale, 1989) and Religious Affections, in vol.2, Works of
Jonathan Edwards, ed. J. Smith (Yale, 1959)

“No matter how many our acts of justice, generosity and devotion, there is really nothing given to
God...if God is not the end (or ultimate aim) in what is given. If your aim is the gaining of
reputation and love, then the gift was offered to your reputation. If your aim is the profit and
comfort, then the gift was offered to your profit....Indeed, in such cases the gifts are but an
offering to some idol....It is true that by doing great things something is worshipped, but it is not
God..(CF, p.180-81)

What makes people honest? generous? Jonathan Edwards tackled this over the years. The
following is my summary of his “gist”.

There are two kinds of moral behavior: “common virtue” and “true virtue” Let’s take one virtue:
honesty. “Common” honesty is developed two ways. 1) First it can be inspired by fear. There is
the secular version--“be honest--it pays!” or “if you are not honest, society will not work”. There is
also the religious version-- “if you are not honest, God will punish you!” These are all versions of
the same motive, namely, that it is impractical to be honest. 2) Second, it can be inspired by
pride. There is the secular conservative version—“don’t be like those terrible dishonest people
who hurt others have no virtue!” or the secular liberal version--“don’t be like these greedy people
who don’t work for the common good”. There is also the religious version—“don’t be like these
sinners, these bad people. Be a good godly person”. These are all versions of the same motive,
namely, that I am better than these people who lie.

Edwards is by no means scornful of common virtue. Indeed, he believes in the ‘splendor of

common morality’ (Paul Ramsay), which is the main way God restrains evil in the world. He does
call it virtue and not sham. Nevertheless, there is a profound tension at the heart of common
virtue. We just said that the main reason people are honest is due to fear and pride. But what is
the main reason we are dishonest? Why do we lie? Almost always--it is our of fear or pride. So in
common virtue, you have not done anything to root out the fundamental causes of evil. In
‘common honesty’ you have restrained the heart, but not changed the heart. You are doing an
ingenious form of judo on yourself. (Judo depends on using the enemy’s forward motion against
him.) You have ‘jury-rigged’ heart so that the basic causes of dishonesty are being used to make
yourself honest. But this is quite a fragile condition. At some point you will find that honesty is not
practical nor humiliating and you will do it. Then you will be shocked. You will say, “I was not
raised to do such a thing”

But the reason you did, was that all your life, through the sermons and moral training you had,
you were nurturing the roots of sin within your moral life. This is true whether you grow up in a
liberal-moral environment or a conservative-moral environment. The roots of evil are alive and
well and protected underneath your moral-behavior progress. And some day they erupt and show
themselves and we are shocked.

So Edwards says--what is true virtue? It is when you are honest not because it profits you or
makes you feel better, but only when you are smitten with the beauty of the God who is truth and
sincerity and faithfulness! It is when you come to love truth telling not for your sake but for God’s
sake and its own sake. But it particularly grows by a faith-sight of the glory of Christ and his
salvation. How does ‘true honesty’ grow? It grows when I see him dying for me, keeping a
promise he made despite the infinite suffering it brought him. Now that a) destroys pride on the
one hand, because he had to do this for me--I am so lost! But that also b) destroys fear on the
other hand, because if he’d do this for me while I’m an enemy, then he values me infinitely, and
nothing I can do will wear out his love for me. Then my heart is not just restrained by changed.
It’s fundamental orientation is transformed.
8
 c. Case Study #1- A Lie What if you find that you have a habit of lying? What do you do
about it?
Moralistic ways to stop lying: Fear: “I must stop doing this because God will punish me, he won't
bless me.” Pride: "I must stop doing this, because I'm a good Christian. I don't want to be like the
kind of person who lies." In general, you will find that the more you simply lay Biblical principles
on your heart, the more your heart resists it. (Rom.7:21--Paul says “When I [most] want to do
good, evil lies close at hand.”.)

The gospel way to stop lying: First, ask the question: “why am I lying in this particular situation?”
The reason we lie (or ever do any sin) is because at that moment there is something we feel that
we simply must have--and so we lie. One typical reason that we lie (though it is by no means the
only one) is because we are deeply fearful of losing face or someone's approval. That means,
that the 'sin under the sin' of lying is the idolatry of (at that moment) of human approval. If we
break the commandment against false witness it is because we are breaking the first
commandment against idolatry. We are looking more to human approval than to Jesus as a
source of worth, meaning, and happiness. Under the sin of lying is the failure to rejoice in and
believe in our acceptance in Christ. Under the sin of lying is a kind of heart-unbelief in the gospel
(whatever we may tell ourselves intellectually.) As we will see below, anything you add to Jesus
Christ as a requirement for a happy life is a functional salvation, a pseudo-lord, and it is
controlling you, whether it be power, approval, comfort or control. The only way to change your
habit of lying is to repent of your failure to believe the gospel, that you are not are saved and
acceptable by pursuing this goal and serving this master, but through the grace of Jesus Christ.

PREACHING AND THE MORALISM PROJECT

Now we see the crucial importance of Christ-centered preaching. Without relating it to Christ, the
story of Abraham and Isaac means: “You must be willing to even kill your own son for him.”
Without relating it to Christ, the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel means: “You have to
wrestle with God, even when he is inexplicable—even when he is crippling you. You must never
give up.” These ‘morals-of-the-story’ are crushing because they essentially are read as being
about us and what we must do. And they participate in the moralistic project—to make people
moral through fear and pride. Rather than transforming the heart at the root through the grace of
God, the heart is being ‘jury-rigged’ using its own fear and pride rather than destroying it’s fear
and pride.

Nothing in the above point is different from the traditional Reformed understanding that we are
not only justified by faith rather than our works, but we are also sanctified by faith rather than our
works. Yet very few ministers know how Christ's finished work is the dynamic and guide for
growth into holy character. Here are some traditional statements of this:

THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF SANCTIFICATION BY FAITH

Luther and Calvin taught that not only was justification by faith in Christ’s work--not ours, but
sanctification is also by faith in Christ’s work, not ours. In practice, however, nearly every
evangelical teaches that: 1) we are justified by faith in Christ’s work, and 2) we are sanctified by
trying very, very hard to live according to Biblical principles (with the Holy Spirit’s help, of course).
In Faith and Sanctification (Eerdmans, 1952), Berkouwer insists that it is not salvation by grace,
but sanctification by grace that is the biggest difference between the Reformers and the Catholic
church and between the Reformers and later Methodism (Wesley) and much of Protestantism
today.

B. STRUCTURE THE MORAL ARGUMENT OF THE SERMON AROUND

CHRIST
In the past, my sermons reasoned like this:
1. Here’s what the text says.
2. Therefore, here’s how you must live.
3. Go and do it—and God will help you.
9
I came to realize over time that I was doing what Edwards said that I shouldn’t be doing. I was
basically relying on fear and/or pride to motivate people to obey God. I was doing it indirectly,
unconsciously, but I was doing it. When the sermon provides a moral example and simply exhorts
people to try hard to emulate it, the natural ‘religion’ of the human heart kicks in. People are being
motivated to obey so God will not punish them or so they won’t look like bad people or so they won’t
disappoint themselves, etc.

I have come to realize that my sermons need to reason as follows. (I don’t mean sermons must
overtly and literally follow this outline, but rather that this would be the force of the basic argument.)
1. Here’s how you must live.
2. But here’s why you simply can’t do it.
3. Ah—but there’s one who did!
4. Now, through faith in him, here’s how you can do it.

In every text of the Scripture there is somehow a moral principle. It may grow out of because of what
it shows us about the character of God or Christ, or out of either the good or bad example of
characters in the text, or because of explicit commands, promises, and warnings. This moral principle
must be distilled clearly.

But then a crisis is created in the hearers as the preacher shows that his moral principle creates
insurmountable problems. The sermon shows how this practical and moral obligation is impossible to
meet. The hearers are led to a seemingly dead end.

Then a hidden door opens and light comes in. The sermon shows how the person and work of Jesus
Christ bears on the subject.

Finally, we show how our inability to live as we ought stems from our forgetting or rejecting the work
of Christ. The sermon points out how to repent and rejoice in Christ in such a way that we can live as
we ought.

CASE STUDY
The texts on David and Jonathan can easily yield principles and insights about the importance of
friendship and how it is built. Let’s say that as expositors we notice that: “Friendship consists of
two principles. Friends always let you in and never let you down! That is a) friends are
transparent and open with one another, and b) friends are committed to serving one another’s
needs.” If you end the sermon saying “now go and do likewise” you have preached a moralistic
sermon. It is also an unrealistic sermon. What are the real barriers to friendship? Well, examine
the principles. I don’t want to be vulnerable and transparent with others because of my pride (or
maybe my inferiority feelings!) And I don’t want to be committed because of my selfishness. I’m
busy. I have things to do. I want to keep my options open. These rooted sins in my heart make
me a poor friend or keep me from making friends. So how can I overcome these and become a
true friend? Only through Jesus. Jesus was the ultimate friend. He says, “I don’t just call you
servants, but friends.” (John 15:12-14) And look at the cross—there’s the ultimate act of
friendship. On the one hand, Jesus ‘let us in’! How much more vulnerable can you get than what
he did there? See his arms are open to us. They were nailed open for us. And on the other hand,
how much more committed could you get than what he did there? He (almost literally) went to
hell on the cross. For us.

The point is this. Until you see and grasp down deep this ultimate act of friendship—you’ll never
be a friend to others. The cross will give you the security to be open and vulnerable to others but
also the humility to serve others rather than your own selfish desires.

C. PREACHING AND PASTORING ON IDOLS

As we have seen-'idolatry' is ‘the sin beneath the sins’ and thus a major aim of the preacher who
wants to have people change in Christ rather than just moralistically. So we will explore this Biblical

10
theme here. Idolatry is there all through the Bible as the unifying way to describe what is wrong with
us--psychologically, intellectually, sociologically, and culturally. Again, the word itself is fairly rare in
the NT, but once we understand some key texts and some key words, we will see how pervasive the
concept is. And if it is the main way to understand what is wrong with us, a pastor, as a physician of
souls, can't possibly ignore it.

The whole story of the Bible--at least in the OT, can be seen as a struggle between true faith and
idolatry.

In the beginning, human beings were made to 1) worship and serve God, and then 2) to rule over all
created things in God’s name (Gen.1:26-28). Instead, we “fell into sin”. But when Paul sums up the
“fall” of humanity into sin, he does so by describing it in terms of idolatry. He says we refused to give
God glory (i.e. to make him the most important thing) and instead chose certain parts of creation to
glorify in his stead. “They exchanged the glory of the immortal God...and worshipped and served
created things rather than the creator.” (Rom.1:21-25) In short, we reversed the original intended
order. Human beings came to 1) worship and serve created things, and therefore 2) the created
things came to rule over them. Death itself is the ultimate emblem of this, since we toil in the dust
until finally the dust rules us (Gen.3:17-19).

The very first of the 10 commandments is "have no other gods before me." And after the entire moral
law is given in Exodus 20-23, it ends with a summary “do not make a covenant with...their gods”
(v.32) lest they “snare you” (v.33). There is no “third” option. It is not possible that we should worship
nothing. Something will capture our hearts and imaginations and be the most important thing, the
ultimate concern and value. So every personality, community, and thought-form will be based on
some ultimate concern or some ultimate allegiance. If it is not God Himself, it will be some god-
substitute, an idol. So an 'idol' is anything more fundamental than God to your happiness, meaning in
life, and identity. This means virtually any thing can become an idol, including (and especially!) good
things such as career, family, achievement, your independence, a political cause, material
possessions, certain people in dependence on you, power and influence, physical attractiveness,
romance, human approval, financial security, your place in a particular social circle or institution. Idols
are not simply personal and individual, they are also corporate and cultural. Different societies can
make into ultimate values things like the family or the individual (romanticism) or the state
(communism) or racial superiority (fascism) or rationality (empiricism) or personal experience
(existentialism) or group identity (post-modernism.)

It is typical to think that “idolatry” is mainly an Old Testament phenomenon, but closer examination
shows that it is not. A couple of texts provide clues to the fact that pervasive human idolatry was
assumed by the New Testament writers.

IDOLATRY IS AT THE ROOT OF ALL SIN--IN FACT, IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO UNDERSTAND
SIN
Galatians 4:8-9 sheds light on the classic text of Romans 1:18-25. This extensive passage on idolatry
is often seen as only referring to the pagan Gentiles, but instead we should recognize it as analysis of
what sin is and how it works.
v.21 tells us that the reason we make idols is because we want to control our lives, though we
know that we owe God everything. "Though they knew God, they neither glorified God nor gave
thanks to him.
v.25 tells us the strategy for control--taking created things and setting our hearts on them and
building our lives around them. Since we need to worship something, because of how we are
created, we cannot eliminate God without creating God-substitutes
v.21 and 25 tell us the two results of idolatry: (1) deception--"their thinking became futile and their
hearts were darkened" and (2) slavery-"they worshipped and served" created things. Whatever
you worship you will serve.

Summary: The Bible does not consider idolatry to be one sin among many (and thus now a very rare
sin only among primitive people). Rather, the only alternative to true, full faith in the living God is
idolatry. All our failures to trust God wholly or to live rightly are due at root to idolatry--something we

11
make more important than God. There is always a reason for a sin. Under our sins are idolatrous
desires.

IDOLATRY IS AT THE ROOT OF EVERY HEART--IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO UNDERSTAND

MOTIVATION
There is another word that is very common in the NT which has strong links to the idea of idolatry.
Once we make this connection, we can see an even deeper link between the NT concept of the heart
and idolatry.
" If 'idolatry' is the characteristic and summary Old Testament word for our drift from God, then
'lust' [inordinate desires], epithumiai is the characteristic and summary New Testament word for
that same drift. (See summary statements by Paul, Peter, John, and James as Gal.5:16ff;
Eph.2:3, 4:22; I Pet.2:11, 4:2; I John 2:16; James 1:14ff, where epithumiai is the catch-all for
what is wrong with us.) The tenth commandment [against 'coveting', which is idolatrous,
inordinate desire for something]...also...makes sin 'psychodynamic'. It lays bares the grasping
and demanding nature of the human heart, as Paul powerfully describes in Romans 7....the NT
merges the concept of idolatry and the concept of inordinate, life-ruling desires...for lust,
demandingness, craving and yearning are specifically termed 'idolatry' (Eph.5:5 and Colossians
3:5).
--David Powlison, Idols of the Heart and Vanity Fair

IDOLATRY IS AT THE ROOT OF ALL UNBELIEF AND, TO SOME DEGREE, EVERY CULTURE
It is not only that idols are the basis for all personal sins and problems, but they are also the basis for
all social and cultural sins and problems. When an individual makes and serves an idol, it creates
psychological distortion and troubles; when a family, a group, or a country makes and serves an idol,
it creates social and cultural trouble.

When we read Paul in Ephesians and Colossians carefully, we see him talking about 'powers' that
sometime seem to be demons, but sometimes appear to be forces that we can convert and
persuade. I think that what we see is an example of good things--government, business/capital, the
pursuit of wisdom and knowledge--made idols and thus suffused with destructive ('demonic') power.
The book of Revelation in particular shows how the state--something quite good in Romans 13--can
become evil.

Intellectual and cultural idols stem not just from a disbelief in God but from a basic rejection of the
basic gospel. If we reject the truth that all our problems come from a depraved heart, we will have to
account for it by 'demonizing' some created thing as well as idealizing (ideologizing) of some other
created thing. So romanticism demonized culture and idealized nature. Marxism demonized the rich
and idealized economic and social factors. It believed that if we manipulated them properly, social
problems would evaporate.

The following are a list of some of the more obvious social-cultural idols. Please remember that what
is written below are major generalizations. There are many different forms of capitalism, for example,
which moderate and improve on the fundamental theme I mention. The idea is to show that most
'ideologies' are 'idolatries'.

Capitalism makes an idol of the ‘market’. When a society comes to believe that most or all our
problems will be solved by free market competition, it leads people to “worship” success, personal
freedom, and the 'almighty individual'. Today, even advocates of the free market recognize the
'cultural contradictions of capitalism', namely, that capitalism and consumerism undermine the very
virtues of self-control and responsibility that gave it rise.

Relativism makes an idol out one’s own individual conscience and inner feelings. When a society
teaches people “you alone can determine what is right or wrong for you, as long as you don’t steal
others’ freedom to have the same choice”, then it has made “choice” an absolute value, and the
feelings of the heart a god.

12
Summary: At the root of all problems (personal or social), and of all non-Christian philosophies and
ideologies is the elevation of some created thing to the place of ultimate worship and ultimate arbiter
of truth and meaning.

"The idol begins as a means of power, enabling us to control, but then overpowers, controlling
us."
-- Richard Keyes, "The Idol Factory" in No God but God

THE DE-CONSTRUCTION OF IDOLS

A. THE “MORALYZING” APPROACH.
A very typical approach to personal change among orthodox and conservative Christians can
best be called the "moralizing" approach. Basic analysis: Your problem is that you are doing
wrong. Repent! This focuses on behavior--but doesn't go deep enough. We must find out the why
of our behavior. Why do I find I want to do the wrong things? What inordinate desires are drawing
me to do so? What are the idols and false beliefs behind them? To simply tell an unhappy person
(or yourself) to 'repent and change behavior' is insufficient, because the lack of self-control is
coming from a belief that says, 'even if you live up to moral standards, but you don't have this,
then you are still a failure.' You must replace this belief through repentance for the one sin under
it all--your particular idolatry.

B. THE “PSYCHOLOGIZING” APPROACH.

A very typical approach to personal change among more liberal religious groups can best be
called the "psychologizing" approach. Basic analysis: Your problem is that you don't see that God
loves you as you are. Rejoice! This focuses on feelings, which seems to be “deeper” than
behavior--but it also fails to go deep enough. We must also find out the why of our feelings. Why
do I have such strong feelings of despair (or fear, or anger) when this or that happens? What are
the inordinate desires that are being frustrated? What are the idols and false beliefs behind
them? To simply tell an unhappy person (or yourself) 'God loves you--rejoice!’' is insufficient,
because the unhappiness is coming from a belief that says, 'even if God loves you, but you don't
have this, then you are still a failure.' You must replace this belief through repentance for the one
sin under it all--your particular idolatry.

C. THE “GOSPEL” APPROACH

Basic Analysis: Your problem is that you are looking to something besides Christ for your
happiness. Repent and rejoice! This confronts a person with the real sin under the sins and
behind the bad feelings. Our problem is that we have given ourselves over to idols. Every idol-
system is a way of our-works-salvation, and thus it keeps us "under the law". Paul tells us that the
bondage of sin is broken when we come out from under the law--when we begin to believe the
gospel of Christ’s-work-salvation. Only when we realize in a new way that we are righteous in
Christ is the idol's power over us broken. Sin shall not be your master for you are not under law,
but under grace. (Rom.6:14) You will only be “under grace” and free from the controlling effects
of idols to the degree that you have both: (1) repented for your idols, and (2) rested and rejoiced
in the saving work and love of Christ instead.

"The faith that...is able to warm itself at the fire of God's love, instead of having to steal love and
self-acceptance from other sources, is actually the root of holiness. Richard Lovelace, The
Dynamics of Spiritual Life

D. WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

To 'preach Christ' is to preach the gospel all the time. One of the reasons preachers can't seem to
'preach the gospel' from every text is because their understanding of the gospel is too narrow. We
believe that "the gospel" is not just a way to enter the kingdom of God (and 'get saved') but it is the
fundamental dynamic for living the whole Christian life--individually and corporately, privately and

13
publicly. In other words, the gospel is not just for non-Christians, but also for Christians. Everybody in
the listening audience needs the gospel every week. When anyone hears someone say, "we need to
preach the gospel every week" there will be a fear of being repetitive. And indeed there is a danger of
this unless we understand the gospel 1) in Biblical perspectives and 2) as a story.

1. THE GOSPEL IN THREE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES

The word evangelion ('the gospel') or evangelizdomai ('declare the gospel') occurs so often in the
New Testament (virtually every author uses it) that "clearly the term gospel is a kind of code word for
many New Testament writers that summarizes something very basic regarding what the early
Christians though Christian faith was all about."2 But what is that 'very basic' core of Christian faith?

In our desperate search for simplicity, it is easy to overlook the great variety of ways that the 'gospel'
is used in the Bible. The most obvious example is how Paul makes 'gospel' almost synonymous with
'justification by faith', while the gospel writers almost seem to make it synonymous with 'the kingdom
of God'. We have to be careful that we do not elevate one perspective on the gospel over all others,
nor that we assume the perspectives contradict one another. We must have an outline of the gospel
that encompasses the way all the Biblical writers speak.

a. The gospel is news rather that ethical instruction:

Ex. ‘The gospel of Jesus Christ‘, Mark 1:1. This is the 'normative' perspective: What happened?

The term Greek term "eu-angelion" distinguished the Christian message from that of other
religions. An 'angel' was a herald or messenger that brought news of some historical event that
had already happened, and that radically changed the listeners' condition. The most common
examples in Greek literature are "evangels" about a victory in war or the ascension of a new king.
When Christians chose evangelion to express the essence of their faith, they passed over words
that Hellenistic religions used, such as "illumination" (photismos) and "knowledge" (gnosis) or that
Judaism used such as "instruction" or "teaching" (didache) or "wisdom" (sophia).3 Of course, all
of these words were used to describe Christianity, but none achieved the centrality of "gospel".
What does that mean?

First, it means that the gospel is news about what God has already been done for you, rather
than instruction and advice about what you are to do for God.

Second, it means that the gospel is all about historic events, and thus it has a public character.
"It identifies Christian faith as news that has significance for all people, indeed for the whole
world, not merely as esoteric understanding or insight."4

This public, historic aspect of the gospel is especially seen when the term "the gospel of Christ"
or "of Jesus Christ" is used. Often the word "gospel" and the life and work of Christ are
essentially synonyms. Particularly significant is how Luke links "gospel" to "Jesus". In Acts 5:42, it
reads, literally, "they never stopped… evangelizing Christ Jesus". Obviously, Jesus is not the
object of their evangelism (they are not trying to convert him!) But the word "evangelizdomenoi"
means, all by itself, 'to preach the gospel' or literally "to gospelize". So in the places in Acts where
it says, literally "they evangelized Jesus", the English translations have to render it "they told the
gospel about Jesus Christ" or "they told the good news that Jesus was the Christ" (cf. NIV Acts
5:42). But the Greek construction clearly has a stronger meaning than that. Its intentional
redundancy aims to say that the good news they preached was Jesus. His very life, and all his
works, is what saves us. To declare Jesus and to declare the gospel is the same thing. Jesus
does not bring the gospel--he is the gospel, because the gospel is that God has broken into
history and accomplished everything necessary for our salvation.

2
James V. Brownson, Speaking the Truth in Love: New Testament Resources for a Missional Hermeneutic.
[Christian Mission and Modern Culture Series](Trinity Press: Harrisburg, PA, 1998), p.31.
3
Brownson, p.46.
4
Brownson, p.46.
14
 Summary: So the gospel is news about what God has done in history to save us, rather than
advice about what we must do to reach God. Jesus does not just bring good news; he is the good
news.

b. The gospel is grace to the weak rather than power to the strong.
Ex. ‘The gospel of the kingdom’, Matt. 4:23. This is the 'situational' perspective: How did it
happen?

We also see that the gospel is not simply that Christ has come into history to save us, but also it
is how he accomplishes that. The answer is: through a new, deep structure or 'paradigm' that
completely contradicts the way of the world. God's saving purposes are effected through the
crucified and risen Christ. Christ wins through losing, triumphs through defeat, achieves power
through weakness and service, comes to wealth via giving all away. And those who receive his
salvation are not the strong and accomplished but those who admit they are weak and lost. In
short, Jesus pulls off 'the great reversal'. "The essence of sin is man substituting himself for God,
while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man…puts himself where only
God deserves to be; God…puts himself were only man deserves to be."5

Many Christians 'reduce' the gospel to the good news of individual forgiveness of sins. But
clearly, the gospel writers are talking about something much more than that. The "gospel of the
kingdom" is a phrase used numerous times in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The 'Great Reversal' of
the cross means that the gospel proclaims and creates a reversal of the values of the world. For
example, the gospel is especially welcomed by the poor and for the poor (Luke 4:18- He has
anointed me…to preach the gospel to the poor." Cf. also Luke 7:22.) Preaching the gospel and
healing people's bodies are closely associated (Luke 9:6). The gospel creates a people with a
whole alternate way of being human. Racial and class superiority, accrual of money and power at
the expense of others, yearning for popularity and recognition--all these things are marks of living
in the world, and are the opposite of the mindset of the kingdom (Luke 6:20-26).

Summary: The gospel of free grace is necessarily a 'gospel of the kingdom' that effects the way
we live in society and in the world. The gospel is not just (as is often thought) the message of
how you can get individual forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus. But we cannot separate
this second 'perspective' from the first. If we are not saved wholly by Christ (not ourselves) then
the kingdom of God is not good news! It is not good news to be told, simply: "God has created a
mini-society of freedom and justice based on his laws. Join up!" That would make the message of
Christianity a burdensome one of instruction on how to live, not a message of grace. But also,
separated from the other perspectives, the kingdom of God would simply never 'work'. What
makes people able to change their mindset from 'worldly' to 'kingdom' is the existential
experience of justification and sonship (Perspective #3), not just being told to live unselfishly.

c. The gospel is of faith rather than of merit or performance.

‘The gospel of your salvation’ Eph. 1:13. This speaks of the 'existential' perspective: In whom
does it happen?

While the gospels (especially the 'Synoptics'--Matthew, Mark, and Luke) stress the gospel of the
kingdom, the epistles, and especially those of Paul, show how it is additionally "the gospel of your
salvation" (Eph.1:13).

Paul, better than any other Biblical writer, explores the meaning of the 'gospel of Christ' for the
individual believer. He tells us that the gospel "reveals a righteousness from God" (Rom. 1:17).
Here and in Galatians 2 Paul specifically identifies the gospel with the teaching that we receive
not just pardon and forgiveness but also the righteousness of Christ (2 Cor.5:21).

If we think of the gospel as only pardon or forgiveness of sins, we will trust in God for our past
salvation, but will trust in our own present strivings and attainments for our present relationship
with God. But the "hope of the gospel" (Col.1:23) is that now he has reconciled you by Christ's

5
John Stott, The Cross of Christ. (Inter-Varsity Press, 1986), p.160.
15
 body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation."
(Col.1:22). The gospel offers not just forgiveness for our bad record, but also complete
acceptance through Christ’s perfect record. Christ did not only die in our place but lived a perfect
life in our place. Therefore we do not simply get forgiveness for sins from Christ, but also
complete acceptance. His perfect past and record now (in God’s sight) becomes ours.

THE IMPORTANCE OF ALL THE PERSPECTIVES

These three perspectives are important to "keep together". There are today different 'parties' that
have isolated and focused on one aspect of the gospel--this usually leads to difficulties and
imbalances. The 'classic evangelical' position is 'the gospel of Christ'--which all by itself leads to a
ministry almost strictly of apologetics, evangelism, and discipleship. The 'progressive evangelical'
position is the 'gospel of the kingdom'--which all by itself leads to a ministry mainly of community-
building and social justice. The 'revivalist evangelical' position is the 'gospel of sonship'. Not only
should these perspectives be 'combined'--it must be seen that they interpenetrate and contain one
another. Put another way: if you push down deep enough into any of the perspectives, you find the
other two! For example: if you push down into the gospel of sonship far enough, you will discover that
we need to care for the poor. My new identity in Christ, when perfected, must remove class pride and
racism.

SO WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

You may notice that I haven't put the 'gospel in a nutshell' through this whole paper! That is not
because it cannot be done. The Bible does put the gospel in a nutshell often, but it puts it into many
different 'nutshells'. See 2 Cor.5:19-21 (my favorite) or Mark 1:14-15; John 16:33b; Rom.1:1-4, 16-17;
1 Cor.15:1-5; Phil.2:5-11; 1 Tim.2:5-6; Titus 3:4-7; 1 John 1:8-2:1; 3:8b; 5:1; Rev.5:9-10. Each
nutshell stresses a different 'perspective'. It is therefore somewhat risky for a church to take just one
'nutshell' and standardize it.

THE GOSPEL AS A STORY: WHAT IS A ‘STORY’?

Robert McKee, a successful screenwriter has an interesting article in the June 2003 issue of the
Harvard Business Review. He points out that CEOs try to motivate with disconnected facts-statistics
and graphs—but it doesn’t work. People only ascribe meaning to things by placing them into stories.
What is a story?
McKee says 1st that a story begins when something throws life off balance. (For example: “Little Red
Riding Hood took her grandmother some goodies” is not a story. “LRRH took was going to her
grandmother to bring her some goodies, but a big bad wolf tried to eat her” -- is.)
McKee says that 2nd a story progresses as the central characters fight to restore that balance. This
means that there are protagonists (agonizing/struggling toward the restoration of balance/peace) and
antagonists (agonizing/struggling against the restoration and the protagonists).
3rd the story ends as the struggle results in either the restoration—the realignment of the subjective
desires with objective reality (when ‘hope and history rhyme’) OR when they fail to restore it and the
struggle is over. Either way—once the struggle to restore balance is over the story is over.
Summary: So a ‘story’ consists of the answer to three questions:
1) First, how are things supposed to be? (implied in any story—unavoidably—is a theory about
how life ought to be, a theory of creation)
2) Second, what has gone wrong? what is the main problem with things? (implied in any story—
unavoidably—is a theory of sin)
3) Third, what is the solution and can it be realized? (implied in any story—unavoidably—is a
theory of how salvation, how things in life can be put right.)

THE POWER OF STORY

Western 20th century Christians lost sight of the power of story along with everyone else. But we
should have known better. It is in the very heart of the English word "Gospel".
16
The English word "gospel" comes from the Middle English word "Godspell" which derives from two
old English words--"good" and "spell" [story]. In Old English, 'to tell a story' was 'to cast a spell'! And
we all know of the power of a great story to almost literally 'cast a spell' on us. Speakers long ago
learned that almost the only thing that listeners can remember about their speeches is the stories
they tell, not that propositions or principles they declare. Stories capture the heart and imagination
and give us deep sadness and joy. Obviously, ancient people knew more than we about the power of
stories to shape how people feel, think, and live.

The Gospel, then was The Goodspell--the most greatest of all stories with the ultimate power
possible. It was the story that casts the ultimate spell of joy and changes your whole life. It was the
story that all other joy-bringing, spell-casting, heart-shaping stories only pointed to.

J.R.R. Tolkien, a professor of Old English (Anglo-Saxon), lays this out in an essay ("On Fairy
Stories"). C.S. Lewis lays this out in "Myth Became Fact". The essence of their theme: Stories have
power because they are telling us the truth, even though the stories are fiction. (They aren't 'true',
factually.) The stories seem to point to some underlying 'reality' which is even hard to put into words
or propositions or definitions. Arthur Danto said "Art is getting across indefinable, but inescapable
meaning". Stories resonate deeply because they witness to the fact that deep down we know some
things are important and true and right and good, that there is meaning and hope and glory--lasting,
inexorable good. But the stories point to it and evoke it but they don't define it. However, in the gospel
story, of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ we have the 'myth that became a fact'.
The Jesus story is not one more myth pointing to the underlying reality, but it is the underlying reality
to which all the stories point.

If we disbelieve the gospel, and we weep at the happy ending of some story, we will slowly sour,
because our minds tell us "life is not really like that". But if we believe the gospel, then we both make
stories and take in stories with even greater wonder, mirth, and joy. Our hearts slowly heal as we
make and listen to and weep at stories (both tragedies and fairy-tales!) because we know 'life is like
that--because of Him!" Then even our griefs, even the 'dyscatastrophes', we know will be taken up
into the miraculous grace of God's purposes, just as the dyscatastrophe of the cross is taken up into
the resurrection.

STORY AND THE GOSPEL

First, we must be careful when putting the gospel 'in a nutshell'. Because the gospel is by grace it is a
story. Salvation cannot be a story if it is by works. If salvation is by what we do, then it comes in the
form of principles, or instruction. But since salvation is by grace through the actions of God in history,
the gospel is not just principles--it is a story about what he has done. In the 20th century, Christians
have tried very hard to 'de-story' the gospel by putting it into 'laws' or principles.

The concept of the gospel as the 'Good Story' has enormous implications for communicating the
gospel in every culture. Lamin Sanneh Translating the Message insists that only Christianity does not
decimate an indigenous culture's story, but rather a) enters it, b) cleanses it of distortions, demonic
and idolatrous elements, and c) resolves its unresolved story lines in Christ. See 1 Cor 1:22-25.
Jesus is the power that Jewish culture sought and it is the wisdom that Greek culture sought.
Christianity in every culture is somewhat different, because Jesus was God who became truly human.
Sanneh cf. Christianity with modernity, Islam (totalizing metanarratives), post-modernity (no
metanarratives), and the gospel. This again has implications for artists, because it shows how
Christianity tends to transform and resolve rather than simply oppose different cultures.

17
From Theology and Practice of Church Ministry, Part III, 2004

18