I recently attended the Bible Faculty Summit conference on Christology which was held this year at Maranatha Baptist College. I delivered a paper entitled “Gospel-centeredness, Jesus, and Social Action.” In that paper I critique Richard Stearns’ recent book A Hole in our Gospel and the writings of N. T. Wright. In the former, I show that the definition of the gospel has been expanded wrongfully to include the so-called social gospel. In the latter, I show that the implications of the gospel are inappropriately expanded in the social direction.
In doing this analysis, I wanted to support social action for Christians (which I believe in) and not just have a knee-jerk response to liberal social gospel ethics. However, I wanted the Bible’s teaching to clearly draw the parameters and definitions. Although I greatly respect Stearns’ desire for more social action on the part of Christians, I do not believe that this need justifies expanding the biblical definition of the gospel. I have provided an excerpt below of my critique of Stearns. I am doing some additions to the paper. I hope to post a link to the completed work when I am finished.
A Cloudy Definition of the Word Gospel
Early on in his book, Stearns shows the imprecise use of the term gospel which will characterize his work.
The idea behind The Hole in Our Gospel is quite simple. It’s basically the belief that being a Christian, or follower of Jesus Christ, requires much more than just having a personal and transforming relationship with God. It also entails a public and transforming relationship with the world…Embracing the gospel, or good news, proclaimed by Jesus is so much more than a private transaction between God and us. The gospel itself was born of God’s vision of changed people, challenging and transforming the prevailing values and practices of our world. Jesus called the resulting new world order “the kingdom of God” and said that it would become a reality through the lives and deeds of His followers.[1]
The simple idea of the book is appropriate in my judgment. One of the implications of following Christ is that it involves my relationship with God at a personal level and with others in the world at a horizontal level. We could perhaps discuss in more detail what the content of “transforming” is for both the personal and public relationships. However, following Christ does indeed involve a full-orbed Christian worldview lived fully in loving God and others. This much is not problematic.
However, notice that an embrace of the gospel is more than a private transaction between God and us. At this point I get concerned. Does this mean that what Jesus accomplished on the Cross is the basis for the redemption of all things, including creation and social structures? There may be room for a positive discussion if that is the point. However, there is the indication that Stearns is using the word gospel to encompass the social action that is one of the implications of a life lived following Christ. There is no hint that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the good news that when embraced leads to the justification of the sinner (the Pauline definition of the gospel). Then the sinner from the vantage point of a right relationship with God can live in the world and love the world as he should including the proclamation of the gospel of eternal life and social engagement as appropriate. Instead of this summary, Stearns’ words come across as the following message to Christians: “you need to do social action because that is part of what the gospel means.”[2] That such a reading of Stearns is what is meant can be discerned by his association of the gospel with the doctrine of the kingdom, a topic to be discussed later.
I find it quite interesting that many chapters of the book never mention the gospel. Beyond that, others simply attach the word gospel to a discussion where it is not really needed. For example, in a chapter entitled “The Great Omission,” Stearns appropriately challenges believers to give their lives for others in terms of justice and eliminating hunger.[3] Then out of the blue, he brings in the word gospel when the word does not occur in any of the passages which he surfaces: “When we do the gospel—the whole gospel—the world takes notice and likes what it sees.”[4] It is clear that in Stearns’ mind the gospel is something more than the good news of the Cross. It encompasses the obedience of the believer in carrying out the love ethic taught in the Bible. While proclamation of the obedience is good, the labeling of the obedience as part of the gospel is not.[5] The gospel is not something that involves us doing something. It is something that God has done in space and time on our behalf. Our embrace of it by faith drastically changes who we are and what we can do in the world. We must say these things carefully.
Again, Stearns notes the expansive nature of the gospel when he says “Jesus seeks a new world order in which this whole gospel, hallmarked by compassion, justice, and proclamation of the good news, becomes a reality, first in our hearts and minds, and then in the wider world through our influence.”[6] While he accurately shows here that the vertical leads to the horizontal in our relationships, the gospel (more properly the whole gospel) is something that becomes a reality in Stearns’ way of thinking. It is not something that God has done in space and time (although it no doubt includes that in Stearns’ theology). The implication is that the gospel here is something that is done in the area of compassion and justice along with the proclamation of the good news (gospel?). The mention of the latter in this way makes one wonder if there is more than one gospel that is being discussed: the gospel of eternal life and a wider gospel that includes the narrow gospel plus the life lived out in social action. Such presentations lack clarity and, in my opinion, do not help to generate social action on the part of genuine believers. On the other side, they may lead to a lack of clarity in evangelistic appeals.
[1] Ibid., 2-3. [The page numbers are from Stearns’ book]
[2] Elsewhere Stearns says that “this gospel—the whole gospel—means much more than the personal salvation of individuals. It means a social revolution” (20).
[3] Ibid., 186.
[4] Ibid. The emphasis is provided by Stearns.
[5] Ibid., 124. In this later chapter, Stearns cites Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 9:6-15. Verse thirteen is the crucial verse: “men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ.” It is quite easy to see that Paul is praising the Corinthians because their care and love for the poor helps to demonstrate to the world their attachment to a Christ who loves that world. Stearns would agree with this. But he goes further: “There’s that ‘whole gospel’ again that is so attractive to people, giving evidence of the coming kingdom of God.” The word gospel is stretched to include not only what God has done through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but also to include the positive behavior of Christians who prove their attachment to Christ by social action.
[6] Ibid., 243.
#1 by David Whiting on August 29, 2010 - 6:47 PM
Quote
Dr. Stallard –
I was thrilled to read this article! I just finished a four-week series here at Northridge Church (www.northridgerochester.com) called, “The Gospel, Politics, and the Poor.”
I had several themes – two of which were:
* Caring for the poor, oppressed and suffering isn’t optional for the Christian.
* Social action is a fruit of the Gospel, but not a root of the Gospel.
Your summary of Stearns book was great! It is my very concern. I wish he would make some significant adjustments and republish. It would do many Christians great good.
Thanks for your writing!
#2 by Luke Johnson on September 8, 2010 - 10:44 PM
Quote
Thanks, Dr. Stallard, for calling these issues to attention. It seems that evangelicals, even in historically conservative arenas, are often muddying up the meaning of “the gospel” and the primary mission of the Church in order to push for more social action and less emphasis on calling sinners to repentance and faith in Christ. Obviously, this is a much less offensive message. But is this faithful to Scripture? Or are even evangelicals becoming ashamed of the gospel?
I’m a young guy still trying to discern what a biblically-balanced view of ministry and mission looks like. Do you know of any books published recently or any other resources which give a balanced view of a more gospel-centered ministry?
#3 by Mike Stallard on September 9, 2010 - 4:44 PM
Quote
Luke,
I do not know of any complete books that deal with this issue. I am trying to work on the issue some. There is a fellow doing a doctoral dissertation in the area who would be from our side of things. I do not have name and information handy. We need to do more writing in this area.
#4 by Mike Stallard on September 9, 2010 - 4:47 PM
Quote
David,
Thanks for responding and doing so with some encouragement. So often, when you make these kinds of hopefully constructive criticisms, people on the other side from you think you simply don’t want to help the poor. However, nothing could be further from the truth. I am quite energized by the need for us to follow proper definitions about the most important issue in the whole wide world — the gospel of eternal life. We cannot tweak it to suit our desire to inspire others to do good things that are outside the Scriptural boundaries of that terminology.
#5 by Tim on September 26, 2010 - 9:40 AM
Quote
Thank you. I just returned from a missions conference and was wonderfully blessed… then came the keynote by Mr. Stearns. The Holy Spirit alarm bells just kept going off. I’ve ssen this before… back in the 60’s when the “liberal” church lost focus on the person of Christ. I agree with you that the fruit of the Gospel will be world affecting in both spiritual and social aspects. But Mr. Strearns moves the Gospel away from the person of Christ and makes it into an establishment of the kindom on earth.. and that does not square with Scripture. It is simply not what the apostles practiced in response to the Gospel.
#6 by Joy Tingley-Wyckoff on September 27, 2010 - 2:03 PM
Quote
This was an interesting post, especially in light of a recent conversation with a “professing Christian” who does not believe in the deity of Christ. It appears that the author has created a good deal of confusion regarding “the kingdom of God.” In the context of the highlighted paragraph, his syntax suggests that the kingdom will be established on earth by the efforts of man, depending on the works they perform via social gospel, or justice. (“Jesus called the resulting new world order “the kingdom of God” and said that it would become a reality through the lives and deeds of His followers.”) Even the phrase “new world order” raises a red flag.
#7 by Judy on October 7, 2010 - 12:13 AM
Quote
Thank you so much for your review on this book. My “gift” of discernment bell went off when I was driving by a church that I had been thinking about attending. The series on the reader board was something about a Christians call to Revolution. After doing some research I put two and two together and found out his series goes with the Hole in our Gospel book. I emailed the pastor and told him I was seeking a church and asked about the series commented on how I know that there is no hole in our gospel and asked why is God, His word and the illistrations that we are taught in the Bible never enough? I told him that I had some serious issues with this book by Sterns. His response to me was that ” I made him sad”. I did tell him that I felt that this book was a part of a larger picture called the one world church.
are we all being deceived?????
#8 by Franklin Millen on January 21, 2011 - 1:34 PM
Quote
Thank you for another terrific write-up. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in these a ideal way of writing? I’ve a presentation next week, and I am around the look for these kinds of details.
#9 by Mike Stallard on January 21, 2011 - 9:57 PM
Quote
Franklin, thanks for reading. I do not know of any specific writings. I have not read any others of the book. Sorry.