The Gospel Proclaimed


The explicit gospel is summed up in Romans 1:1-4.  This gospel is that the Father sent the Son to be resurrected from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit to graciously bring us back into obedient reconciliation with God for the sake of His name.

All throughout Scripture God acts for His name’s sake. 1 Samuel 12:22; Psalm 23:3; Psalm 79:9; Psalm 106:8; Psalm 109:21; Psalm 143:11; Isaiah 48:9-11; Jeremiah 14:7, 21; Ezekiel 20:9, 14, 22; Ezekiel 36:22; Daniel 9:17-19; 1 John 2:12.  God acts for His glory.  Romans 11:33-36; 1 Timothy 1:11;  Philippians 2:11.

The explicit gospel is not about us.  It is about God.

The Church, however, has not done a good job of proclaiming this explicit gospel so the gospel has become obscure.  Christians have a tendency to treat our response to the gospel as if it is the heart of the gospel.  We focus on what we do (loving our families, devoting our lives to broken and hurting people, helping the homeless) instead of focusing on what Jesus did on the cross.  Matt Chandler, lead pastor of a church in Dallas stated “If we confuse the gospel with response to the gospel, we will drift from what keeps the gospel on the ground, what makes it clear and personal, and the next thing you know, we will be doing a bunch of things that actually obscure the gospel, not reveal it.”[1]

Making the entirety of the gospel about our doing things turns Jesus into merely a social justice warrior, the poster boy for every preferred progressive public policy.  If the gospel is merely about helping people overcome obstacles in this life, then people’s feelings become paramount.  The gospel then gets molded into how best to make people happy.  The gospel becomes a tool for political gain.  Abortion, homosexuality, same-sex “marriage,” gender fluidity are then justified by that gospel.    

Making the gospel about our good works and right living instead of what Christ has done is merely a self-help behavioral modification program and is all about our holiness.  A gospel that is merely about cultivating our righteousness becomes about living our best lives now, and about earning the favor and blessings of God.  This gospel is transactional: we behave and God blesses.  Rub that lamp, and get your three wishes.  God owes us for our efforts at obedience.  The more favor you have with God, the more He will give you the things that you “claim.”

These are false gospels of idolatry, leading us back to self-reliance instead of dependence on God.  The Church focuses its gospel preaching on meeting physical needs and teaching people how to behave, and neglects the heart of the gospel: the transformation of sinful, rebellious mankind from being enemies of God to a place of reconciliation by the power of the grace of God in order to give Him glory.  Christian author and apologist Ravi Zacharias often says “Jesus Christ did not come to make bad people good, but to make dead people live.”[2]  The gospel is about resurrecting those who are dead in their sins to become alive in Christ, not about lives of comfort and ease.

A song I recently heard that is popular in Christian circles falls into the same trap.  While the song generally has a good message, it misses the mark severely when it comes to the gospel.  “Dream Small” is Josh Wilson’s debut single.  Its message is about loving our neighbors as ourselves and doing small things that “change the world.”  He lists several of these small things: 

It’s a momma singing songs about the Lord.  It’s a daddy spending family time the world says he cannot afford…It’s a pastor at a tiny little church, forty years of loving on the broken and the hurt…It’s visiting the widow down the street or dancing on a Friday with your friend with special needs

The song writer encourages us to “Live well” and to “find little ways where only you can help.”  He declares “These simple moments change the world.”  Josh Wilson insists the God who makes oceans from rivers and rivers from raindrops, can add up your little things to do bigger things.  The “gospel” in this song is that our good behavior and our good deeds are the things that change the world.

Now, I do not want you to think that I believe the Bible teaches that we are not to do good works.  Jesus said that when we do not help the least of us, we refuse to help Him.[3]  Paul said in Ephesians that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works.  But he also said “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”[4]  James, the brother of Jesus, said that faith without works is dead.[5]  Good works are the fruit of a redeemed life.  But, these good works must be first and foremost for the kingdom of God.[6]

I do not despise the song when I criticize it.  But, this song’s nice sounding message is not the explicit gospel. The fault of the song is not in the fact that it encourages good works.  The fault lies in the emphasis of our good works that “change the world.”  Be nice to people.  Your kindness just might make their day.  Pay it forward and it will come back to you.  Buy the world a Coke and all will be in harmony. (OK that last reference is a little “old school.”  I’ve provided a link to help you get what I mean.)  Being nice to people does not tell them how to be reconciled with God. 

These good works are not the gospel.  They are our response to the gospel.  Matt Chandler said “We live through faith, and we die through faith.  Everything else is garbage.  Even good works of righteousness, if not done through faith, are works of self-righteousness and therefore filthy rags.”[7]  We can go to church every Sunday, attend a life group, participate in church ministry, volunteer at the food pantry, be nice to our neighbors.  But, if we do those things trying to earn the favor of God we may still be dead in our sins.  The result of making the gospel about our works is to inoculate ourselves to the real Jesus and the true gospel.   If we do those good works as the goal of the gospel, we obscure the gospel.  We essentially preach a cross with no power, grace without repentance, and a God who requires nothing of us.  Our nice deeds give people good feelings, but leave them without the good news.  We can do the same thing by singing about buying the world a Coke.

This false gospel of good works to change the world has a popular saying often (incorrectly) attributed to St. Francis of Assisi.  “Preach the gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.”  However, Romans 10:14-17 insists the presentation of the gospel will always require words, not simply our good works.  Our example should certainly be one of obedience to Christ, but it is not our works that transforms sinners.  It is the Word.  Paul writes in Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes….”

Do not assume that your nice deeds will preach the gospel.  The gospel must be preached explicitly with words. 

This true gospel—where, for His glory, God the Father tore apart and bled out the body of Son of God instead of pouring out His wrath on us who deserved it—has the transformational power to make those who are dead in sin to become dead to sin and alive in Christ.  This is the explicit gospel Christians need to believe and the Church needs to preach.

[1] Matt Chandler, with Jared Wilson, The Explicit Gospel, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2012), 83.


[3] Matthew 25:45.

[4] Ephesians 2:8-10.

[5] James 2:17.

[6] Matthew 6:33.

[7] Chandler, Explicit Gospel, 85.


Toxic Humanity


Recently a Gillette advertisement ignited controversy with its campaign against “toxic masculinity.”  This ad, titled “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be,” admonishes men to leave the herd of males behaving badly and join the #METOO movement.  The thrust of the ad was to accuse the majority of men everywhere of being oppressive bullies who victimize women and children.  The aim is to erase any distinction between male and female by highlighting all the bad things that some men do, and insist that most men do them.  The push is to remake masculinity, not into the image of God, but into a softer, more pliable, easily manipulated image.  

gillette-ad-masculinityGillette’s solution to this toxic masculinity was for men to just stop it and for other men to hold them accountable. “We believe in the best in men” the ad proclaims.  The ad features actor Terry Crews’ testimony before a House committee about sexual assault where he said “Men need to hold other men accountable.”

The backlash to this ad was swift.  The Egard Watch Company quickly put out a counter ad celebrating masculinity.  The battle lines are drawn, pitting female against male, progressive against conservative, and gender fluidity against binary gender.  The sides emphasize their virtues, while exaggerating the flaws of the other.

Each side, however, recognizes one thing: this world is broken.  They differ on who broke it and on how to fix it.

Of course men and women are flawed and behave badly.  But, the problem in our society is not “toxic masculinity” or “toxic femininity.”  Our malady is toxic humanity poisoned by slavery to sin.  Men are not wicked because they are masculine.  Women are not wicked because they are feminine.  Men and women are wicked because we are all sinners in rebellion against God.  “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23.  The Apostle Paul quotes the Psalmist when he wrote “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”  Romans 3:10-12.  All of humanity, not just men, suffers this toxicity of sin.

Mankind was created in the image of God.  “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”  This creation poem found in Genesis 1:27 demonstrates that both masculinity and femininity reflect the image of God.  But, sin has tarnished humanity’s reflection of that image.  This toxic humanity has rejected God and has constantly tried to shape its own image and destiny.

The problem with the Gillette and Egard Watch Company ads is not that they point out the flaws or virtues of men.  The problem is both ads underestimate the depravity of mankind.  Mankind is worse than portrayed.  Both ads promote the subtle belief that humanity is perfectible, that we can master our own moral purity.  They ignore the reality that the human heart tends toward evil and not toward good.  Jeremiah tells us that the unregenerate human heart is as dark as hell itself.  “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17:9.

Gillette and the social justice warriors, who appear to be trying to feminize masculinity, think that softening masculinity and having men holding each other accountable will lead to the end of rape and bullying.  Egard’s ad “sees the good in men” in order to encourage men to reach their highest potential.  But in Scripture we find the Apostle Paul stating “For I know that nothing good dwells in me…for I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.”  Romans 7:18.  Both the criticizers and advocates for masculinity do not acknowledge that we are helpless to rid ourselves of sin.

The story of Naaman, commander of the Syrian army, paints a picture of one man wanting to cure himself his own way.  In 2 Kings 5, Naaman suffered from leprosy.  He heard there was a prophet in Israel.  Naaman took his entourage from Syria to see Elisha.  Elisha sent his servant to meet him.  The servant brought a message from Elisha “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.” 

Naaman, however, was doubly insulted: that Elisha did not honor him by greeting him along the road, and that Elisha dismissed his request by telling him to bathe in the dirty Jordan RiverJordan river.  “Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel?  Could I not wash in them and be clean?”  Naaman was only willing to go God’s way if God was going his way.  The Jordan river was filthy compared to the rivers of Syria.  Naaman grew angry.  He wanted to get clean from leprosy his way.  His servants, however, convinced him that Elisha had asked him to do a simple thing.  Naaman decided to do things God’s way, and was cured of leprosy.  As a result Naaman declared “Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel.”

Leprosy is a picture of sin.  Sin is a brokenness, a separation from God.  Toxic humanity is not fixable by humans, because we are all tainted by the toxicity of sin.  “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.”  Isaiah 64:6.

King David recognized his condition in Psalm 51:3-4 “For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away…For day and night your hand was heavy upon me.”  He understood that his sin was his problem and he was powerless to remove its scourge.  But, he also understood the remedy.  “I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,’ and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.”  Psalm 51:5.

Our malady is not some enculturated, toxic practice of masculinity.  Our sickness is sin, and we are helpless to cure ourselves.  Attempting to cleanse ourselves from our sin is like trying to clean ourselves with a dirty washcloth.  That is the bad news.

The good news is that the cure has already been made available to us through the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  It was the will of God the Father that “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hebrews 10:10.  Tim Keller says “The Gospel is not something we do.  The Gospel is something that has already been done for us.”  The only cure for our malady is to respond to the Gospel in repentance.  “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9.

Toxic masculinity is not mankind’s problem.  Toxic humanity is.  But, there is hope.  Jesus Christ is the remedy for our malady.

Please Don’t Pet the Peeves III

Beggingthequestion4OK. So, it’s been over 2 years since I’ve posted a Pet Peeves segment.  (Here’s the first one, and the second one.)  I suppose that not following through with promises to post pet peeves can also be a pet peeve.  But, I’ve got  pet peeves number 6 and 7 ready to go.

6. Using “begs the questions” when you really mean “raises the question.”

I’m sure you’ve heard something like this:

“We need border security now to stop illegal aliens from crossing our border.”

“What should we need to do about it?”

“We need to build a wall on the southern border.”

“Well, that begs the question of who’s going to pay for it.”

Someone gets a thought and, to further the discussion, he blurts out “that begs the question.” But, he doesn’t mean that the preceding point “begs” the question.  What he is trying to say is “you are begging me to ask this next question.”  Using “begs to question” to mean “raises the question” is a misuse of the phrase.  Accusing someone of begging the begging the questionquestion is actually to point out that he is making a logical fallacy.  He is assuming the truth of his conclusion in his premise without providing support other than his assertion.   Here is an example of “begging the question.”  Chocolate is healthy because it is good for you.  The truth of the conclusion (Chocolate is healthy) is assumed true in the premise (Chocolate is good for you).  Saying “Chocolate is good for you” is just another way of saying “Chocolate is healthy.”  The assertion has no support for its conclusion.  (Asking “Well, who’s going to pay for the chocolate?” is not an example of “begging the question.”)

Recently I pointed out that someone was “begging the question” in an online debate.  Christian apologist, Frank Turek, asked the question “Can natural laws explain reality?”  A person commented “‘Natural Laws’ seems (sic) pretty axiomatic, no?  If they didn’t describe nature, we wouldn’t have them, yes?”  I responded “That’s begging the question: ‘Natural laws explain reality because we use them to explain reality, otherwise we wouldn’t use them’ is essentially what you’re saying.  You are assuming the conclusion is true in your premise.”

Begging the Question6The person assumed natural laws explained reality when he suggested that natural laws are used to explain reality.  “We use natural laws to explain reality, and they explain reality because we use them.”  Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

The problem with “begging the question” in sharing the Gospel is that Christians assume the premise “The Bible is God’s Word” is true, and then prove it to be true by pointing out that the Bible says it’s God’s Word.  A skeptic is right to point out the circular nature of that Christian’s argument.  You have to give support as to why you believe the Bible is a good witness and why the contents of the Bible are true.  Appealing to “Because God said so” is unpersuasive and begs the question.  There are reasons why Scripture is reliable and trustworthy.  We need to offer those answers instead of the lazy “Because God said so.”

So, now that you know how that phrase is to be used properly, when someone says “That begs the question” you can ask him which one of your premises assumes the conclusion is true.

7. “Chomping at the bit.”

sloppy masticationAnother phrase that is like nails on a chalkboard to me is “chomping at the bit.”  The phrase creates an image of sloppy mastication, as much as it stems from sloppy articulation.  Most dictionaries seem to define “chomp” and “champ” synonymously, but “chomp” usually indicates chewing food in order to swallow it for digestion, or simply to bite down on something.  Champing does not usually imply chewing and swallowing food, or biting, but the grinding of the teeth.  I think this treatment of these different words, champ and chomp, as similar is an indictment on the intellectual redcutionism of the English speaking culture, but that is another pet peeve that will have to wait for some other time.  I think society is better served if our language doesn’t devolve into reducing everything to its commonality.  We lose nuance and the ability to accurately articulate our meaning.

The idiom “champing at the bit” comes from horse racing.  A bit is placed in a horse’s mouth and is attached to the bridle in order to control the horse.  Because a bit is placed champing at the bitin the part of a horse’s mouth where there is a void in teeth, a horse does not naturally “chomp” on it, meaning that it does not bite the bit.  When a horse gets nervous, it grinds its teeth.  To champ at the bit, literally, a horse grinds its teeth on the bit. This idiom arose from horse racing where horses were seen nervously grinding their teeth in anticipation of the race. Horses may “chomp” on the bit out of annoyance, but they champ at the bit out of anticipation. It is this sense of anticipation that the idiom “champing at the bit” is conveying.

People usually understand “chomping at the bit” to be the same as “champing at the bit.” (Although, I presume that few people actually heard it expressed “champing at the bit.”)  But, saying “champing” is more precise and, I think, more eloquent.