What is the Gospel? (Part 2)

Scot McKnight asked a while ago whether the gospel was misunderstood by rank and file evangelicals.  He specifically pointed to Luke 4:18-19 which speaks about the poor, about captives, about the oppressed.  The suggestion was that for most evangelicals the gospel is defined in terms of “personal salvation”, where we are individually saved from our own sins and benefit as individuals in a spiritual sense, when the more “robust” gospel is about the “kingdom” here and now, righting of wrongs, healing of wounds, mercy, justice and liberty.  

It is  not my intention to hammer Dr. McKnight, but to push back on the emphasis.  The so-called "soterian" gospel of personal salvation is indeed worthy of some scrutiny.  But so is a gospel that suggests that the effects of grace in the here and now should be the primary focal point of "gospel".(More)

On the one hand, I don’t think anyone who calls himself an evangelical would say that the gospel does not in some way include or impact upon issues of justice and mercy in the here and now.  Nor is it fair to say McKnight thinks the gospel does not include personal salvation.  The questions seems phrased, though, in a way that implies that there is a disconnect between “Gospel” and “Kingdom” and that conservative evangelicals have misunderstood the heart of the gospel, and have things wrong or backwards.

There is a problem with definitions when conservatives speak to “social justice” advocates, specifically with the words “justice” and “gospel”.   On the one hand "social justice" usually implies that the problems to be solved are societal and structural and can be fixed with political solutions.  McKnight doesn't go there, Jim Wallis does. Many progressives today seem to be giving an emphasis to social justice that nearly eliminates any concern for the “heavenly” side of salvation, and it is really not particularly new.  At what point does social justice concern cross the line into "social gospel"?

But I think what bothers me remains the dichotomy between Romans, which speaks over and over about salvation from sin (individual and in the context of both church and Israel) and the Luke 4 reference which uses words like “poor” and “oppressed” without a precise definition.  

Here’s my answer to the “gospel” question specifically in Luke 4.

In Luke 4:18,19 is Jesus claiming to be the fulfillment of a messianic prophecy or making a statement which defines the gospel.  "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."

First, we have to determine if the passage applies to Christ’s followers at all, and if so how.  Are these things only Christ can fulfill?  Can his followers do these things?  There are five specific items here describing what Christ was sent to do:

1.  Proclaim good news to the poor

2.  Heal the broken hearted (only found in the KJV)

3.  Proclaim liberty to the captives

4.  Recover sight to the blind,

5.  Set at liberty those who are oppressed

First, the items above come from Isaiah 61, which was the passage Jesus was reading in the synagogue.  His statement after reading the passage was dramatic.  “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”  As such, the passage cannot apply to Christians generically.  Theoretically, it might apply to how the church should carry on Christ's work, but is it a definition of the Gospel?  Not exactly.

Even if the meaning of the gospel is about advancing the "kingdom here and now" (as opposed to a gospel of personal salvation) and WE are to carry on that work, then there seem to be a number of practical questions that come up.

What portion of the "gospel" that we should practice is proclaiming good news to the poor in the sense of freeing them from poverty, a “here-and-now” vs “by-and-by” distinction?  Or put another way, how much emphasis are we to place on temporal problems vs eternal problems?  What portion of our time is to be spent proclaiming liberty to captives?  What portion of our ministry is meant to be spent healing those who are blind?  What portion of our work of the gospel is setting free the oppressed?  And then, in alleged contrast, what portion then is to be spent calling men to repentance from spiritual autonomy and moral rebellion?

And then, these become very open-ended questions that ultimately take on enormous political implications that Jesus never addressed. 

How do we set free the oppressed?  And the how question immediately gets tangled up in partisan politics depending on what one sees as the causes of earthly injustices.  Do we free the oppressed by protesting the unjust social structure of capitalism?  By resisting the corrupt government of Zimbabwe?  By joining the Tea Party movement to resist the socialist agenda of the Obama administration?   Who is oppressing whom and why? 

How do we heal the blind?  Do we heal the blind through anointed charismatic prayer or medicine?  If the gospel is about healing the blind, then should not much of our missionary giving be devoted to medical research?

Which captives are we to free?  Captured by whom and for what reason?  Does this mean we jump on the “close Gitmo” bandwagon to free those prisoners?  Is there a difference between freeing the prisoner who is in bondage for crimes against his neighbor or crimes against humanity and freeing the prisoner who is persecuted by totalitiarian regimes?  Which prisoners in the “here and now” was Jesus referring to?  What tactics was he directing us to use in freeing such prisoners?

If that is what the "gospel" is, then there are additional questions.    If the gospel is not about personal salvation but bringing the Kingdom into the here and now in the ways described in Luke 4, then where is the evidence of Jesus organizing a movement to correct the unjust social structures of the Roman Empire?   What “here and now” work did he engage in that dealt with systemic oppression and injustice?  How many captives did Jesus set free from earthly slavery?  How did he organize to end poverty?  Where was his political action committee or medical clinic or charitable foundation?  How many did Jesus loose from the bonds of earthly oppression? 

On the other hand, how many blind people did Jesus not get around to healing of physical blindness?  How many unjust social structures did Jesus fail to even mention?  Is there a particular political philosophy that Jesus endorsed that would initiate just social structures? 

If we don't have solid answers to these questions, was Jesus insufficient in his exercise of the proclamation of "gospel"?  Did he fail to fully train the disciples?  Did the disciples fail to train their successors?

Fortunately, there is another way of looking at Luke 4.    

Does the more traditional understanding of Gospel make more sense, that the "poor" Jesus comes to proclaim the gospel to are the "poor in spirit" who are to be freed from the bondage and oppression of slavery to moral guilt before God?  That the acts of Jesus physically healing of the blind, sick and lame were signs that pointed not to what the "gospel" is, but to who Jesus is?   That the Kingdom he was ultimately establishing was not of this world?  That though the care for the poor and the oppressed in this life is a vital extension of the eternal gospel of an eternal salvation in a New Heaven, freedom in this world from earthly oppression is not the gospel itself?  

Dare we confuse the fruits of the gospel (real, but partial benefits in this world) with the gospel itself (the promise of a New Heaven and a New Earth where every tear is wiped away and death itself is destroyed)? 

In short, Luke 4 is about Jesus, and the initiation of a cosmic redemption that only he could offer.  Its implications are vast, but it begins with offering himself as an atonement for sin.  It begins with healing the spiritual disease that affects the whole race.  Luke 4 simply proclaims Jesus is the Messiah and the source of all redemptive acts.  His everlasting Kingdom is established by putting and end to sin and rising to the right hand of the Father, not by providing temporal solutions to problems that are symptoms of a larger disease in a world that will pass away.

I’m all in favor of mercy and compassion in this world, don’t get me wrong.  But in answer to the question, “what is the gospel?” I remain convinced that the gospel is decidedly not about earthly social justice.   “The poor you will always have with you.”  His Kingdom is “not of this world”, though we as citizens of a more permanent country can certainly do much good in this one.  Can Western Christians be challenged to do more for the impoverished?  Absolutely!  Is the gospel of salvation from sin and a hope for a more lasting kingdom somehow in opposition to compassion in the here and now?  Absolutely not!  But the Gospel is about the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”, first and foremost and to emphasize the Kingdom here and now treats the symptoms and not the cause of our societal ills.

 And treating symptoms without getting to the cause is simply not a cure.