To further whet your appetite for this month’s giveaway, here is an excerpt from “Total Church” in which the authors contrast a common presentation of the gospel in individualistic terms with an explanation of the biblical storyline as it has to do with the people of God. This has definitely forked some straw into my mental feed trough. I’m still chomping, in fact. Here is what they say:
At the heart of much evangelical piety is the individual soul before God. A personal relationship with God has all too often become an individual relationship with God. This individual relationship is seen as authentic spirituality from which other expressions of spirituality are derived. So people say things like, “We will not be prayerful in the public life of the church unless we have first learned to be prayerful in private.”
In some ways it depends how you tell the Bible story. There is a version that runs something like this: “God made you to know him, but you have rejected God. Your sin cuts you off from God and brings you under his judgment. But God sent his Son to die in your place and reconcile you to God. Now you can know God and look forward to being with him after death.” It is the story of an individual out of relationship with God brought back into relationship with God. This version of the story is true. But it is not the whole truth, nor is it how the Bible itself tells the story.
Hmmm. How many times have I heard — and explained — the gospel in this way? The question, of course, is not whether or not this way of understanding the message of the Bible is true. Chester and Timmis acknowledge this. The question is whether or not there is more that needs to be said. They continue:
Consider instead a different version: “God made humanity to know him and to rule over his good creation. But humanity rejected God, and ever since we have lived in rebellion against him and in conflict with each other. But God chose Abraham and his family to be the beginning of a new humanity. He rescued this people from slavery and made a covenant through which they could relate to him and display his glory to the world. When they persistently rejected God, he promised a remnant who would continue the promise of a people who know God. He promised a new covenant bringing forgiveness for sin and his Law written on their hearts. Ultimately Jesus was that faithful remnant. He died for his people to redeem God’s new humanity. And he rose as the first among many who would enjoy new life in a new creation. God is now gathering his people through the mission of the church and will present them, drawn from all nations, as the perfected bride of his Son.”
The invitation implicit in this story is not simply to an individual relationship with God (though that is one implication). The invitation is to become part of the new people of God, the bride of Christ. It suggests a spirituality with a much more communal orientation. Here is a spirituality in which we grasp the amazing dimensions of Christ’s love “together with all the saints” (Ephesians 3:18). We model and embody God’s love for one another (1 John 4:12). I have a relationship with God because we have a relationship with God. There are persons of God because there is a people of God. (pages 148-149)
What do you think?



6 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 2, 2008 at 11:13 am
Matt C.
Right on Bowers! This is good stuff, and something that I struggle to get across to my kids. They are right now so naturally self-focused that we easily fall back to that description of their relation to everything, including God and the gospel. I wonder how many American pastors would never *dream* of stating things the way you and the authors have done?
December 2, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Megan Bryant
Wow! Thanks for posting that portion of the book! I think it is FANTASTIC! I actually put that book on my list of ones I would like to read eventually! I check your blog regularly…..and I need to subscribe now, so that I can be entered in your drawing! Give your wife a big hug from me! :)
December 2, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Dave Bish
It’s a striking difference isn’t it. I’ve used that comparison several times to help people see the centrality of the church.
December 4, 2008 at 7:49 am
Chris Walker
Sound Similar to what is inside of James Choung’s True Story: A Christianity Worth Believing In and I think is a better version of the story that focuses on the idea of community.
I’ve shared some videos about Choung’s approach here:
The Big Story - Improving the Bridge Illustration
Chris W
EvangelismCoach.org
December 4, 2008 at 11:27 am
Timothy James
I think both are true, but are used in different contexts. It is humanities sins and actions that let Christ give His life. Yet if the individual felt the responsibility, would that not lead to greater devotion for the greater forgiveness of their own personal sin? What do you think of that thought with Luke 7:47 in mind: “Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.”
December 8, 2008 at 8:05 pm
DTitus
I think this a great way to present the Gospel. However, I think it’s important to stress that the new community is formed and bonded together by the atonement, not just sharing in a common purpose or by praticipating in God’s purposes for the world. I think this is the biggest difference between churches that are “emerging” and churches that are emergent (in this case, I’m using emerget in the sense of the emergent village..). Community is great, but without the cross, the Church is just another group of do gooders…