David Fitch says there are six gospels on offer today: (1) the Billy Graham gospel of traditional evangelicalism, (2) the Social gospel of the mainline, (3) the liberation gospel in liberation theologies, (4) the 4-fold gospel or “full” gospel of Pentecostal-Holiness churches, (5) the “good” gospel of the Neo-Calvinist/Dutch movement that shaped post WW2 evangelicalism [SMcK: this is not recognized by enough thinkers], and (6) the King Jesus gospel of the New Perspective, which David pins on my head.
The way I conceptualize the King Jesus gospel is that Person (namely Jesus) is the first order of business while Proclamation (forgiveness of sins) flows from it. To rush to proclamation without giving the Person of Jesus his proper due/emphasis is to make the gospel a crass transaction.
Super helpful delineation of idea. My question: To what extent are some of these conceptions of gospel overlapping? Can we think of the King Jesus gospel a larger idea that includes/excludes significant aspects of the conceptions of "gospel"?
I've been thinking a lot lately about the various meanings people in different church traditions have used to define what constitutes "the Gospel." So, I was thrilled to see this post. I find it so fascinating how so many view the Billy Graham or the Good Gospel one in particular as the same version Christians have used for 2000 years. When Jesus was preaching the Gospel, I have always wondered what he was saying exactly. Such as in Matthew 4 when he traveled throughout Galilee preaching the Gospel. Was his preaching a prediction of penal substitutionary atonement exclusively or was he preaching Christus Victor, showing Himself as healer, etc.? If so, then, I wonder why the Gospel gets so narrowly defined in so many circles today. Thank you for these 6 versions of the Gospel in American churches. The Gospel and the global church is full of rich and deep understanding that has so much to teach all of us.
I’m a bit confused about the practical difference between the “king Jesus gospel” and the “mainline” gospel. They seem to have different plausibility structures, the mainline being more positivist and modernist in its plausibility structures, whereas the king Jesus version draws on contemporary moves in biblical theology. That said, they are practically very similar with the possible exception that one slants to Christ “in” and the other to Christ “over…? transforming…?”culture.
I think there is more work to be done (even in summary) of the liberation vs four fold visions as well. The old jab about liberation theology choosing the poor, while the poor chose Pentecostalism is into something, a dynamic tension that seems important.
I also notice that many people move between these different thought worlds depending on context.
(Speaking of context, none of this is criticism. I’m just a New Yorker. We “talk along” in conversations as a way to show we’re listening.)
The way I conceptualize the King Jesus gospel is that Person (namely Jesus) is the first order of business while Proclamation (forgiveness of sins) flows from it. To rush to proclamation without giving the Person of Jesus his proper due/emphasis is to make the gospel a crass transaction.
What is the gospel offered by the Catholic Church? the Orthodox Church?
Super helpful delineation of idea. My question: To what extent are some of these conceptions of gospel overlapping? Can we think of the King Jesus gospel a larger idea that includes/excludes significant aspects of the conceptions of "gospel"?
I've been thinking a lot lately about the various meanings people in different church traditions have used to define what constitutes "the Gospel." So, I was thrilled to see this post. I find it so fascinating how so many view the Billy Graham or the Good Gospel one in particular as the same version Christians have used for 2000 years. When Jesus was preaching the Gospel, I have always wondered what he was saying exactly. Such as in Matthew 4 when he traveled throughout Galilee preaching the Gospel. Was his preaching a prediction of penal substitutionary atonement exclusively or was he preaching Christus Victor, showing Himself as healer, etc.? If so, then, I wonder why the Gospel gets so narrowly defined in so many circles today. Thank you for these 6 versions of the Gospel in American churches. The Gospel and the global church is full of rich and deep understanding that has so much to teach all of us.
Concerning “ David then ties this to his Faithful Witness” I think you meant Faithful Presence?
Wow! This is such a helpful summary. Thank you.
I’m a bit confused about the practical difference between the “king Jesus gospel” and the “mainline” gospel. They seem to have different plausibility structures, the mainline being more positivist and modernist in its plausibility structures, whereas the king Jesus version draws on contemporary moves in biblical theology. That said, they are practically very similar with the possible exception that one slants to Christ “in” and the other to Christ “over…? transforming…?”culture.
I think there is more work to be done (even in summary) of the liberation vs four fold visions as well. The old jab about liberation theology choosing the poor, while the poor chose Pentecostalism is into something, a dynamic tension that seems important.
I also notice that many people move between these different thought worlds depending on context.
(Speaking of context, none of this is criticism. I’m just a New Yorker. We “talk along” in conversations as a way to show we’re listening.)
“Kingdom koinonia” - love that. I really enjoyed this chapter in the book, probably one of my favorites in the collection.