Book Review: The Explicit Gospel

The Explicit Gospel by Matt Chandler with Jared Wilson (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012. 224 pp)

Matt Chandler is the lead pastor of The Village Church in Dallas, Texas. His sermons are among the top selling podcasts on iTunes, and he speaks at conferences worldwide. He lives in Texas with his wife Lauren, and their three children Audrey, Reid, and Norah.

Jared Wilson is the pastor of the Middletown Springs Community Church in Middletown Springs, Vermont. He is also the author of the books Your Jesus Is Too Safe: Outgrowing a Drive-Thru, Feel-Good Savior and Gospel Wakefulness. He lives in Vermont with his wife Becky and his children Macy and Grace.

Well Churched?

According to the latest Pew Report, 78.4% of Americans consider themselves Christian. Moreover, some have no idea why they went to church growing up. Church attendance rates drop dramatically when people enter their twenties, most likely because church is seen as an obligatory service to a God people don’t know. 

I still remember the last sermon I heard at the church I attended growing up. It was about why George Washington was a good man. Not Jesus, but George Washington. Not until I heard the gospel explicitly preached did I find the truth: Jesus. In Matt Chandler’s and Jared Wilson’s book, The Explicit Gospel, the authors outline why preaching the gospel explicitly and emphatically is important.

“My daughter was three, and it hit me that my kids were going to grow up in the church. That night for the first time I asked the question, ‘How can you grow up going to church every week and not hear the gospel?’ I quickly decided that these people [in my church who hadn’t heard the gospel previously] had heard the gospel but didn’t have the spiritual ears to truly hear it, to receive it. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit wasn’t going to let it go that easily. The question began to haunt me” (12).

Chandler and Wilson then outline how Christians should preach and hear the gospel on both the ground level (micro level) and the air level (macro level). In the gospel on the ground, they trace the biblical narrative of God, man, Christ, and response, and in the gospel on the ground, they look at the meta-narrative of the Bible’s story of redemption. 

Enter Grace

Perhaps the most poignant thing said in the gospel-on-the-ground section is after the authors outline who humans are (sinners).

“So far we have seen that the Scriptures reveal God as sovereign and glorious and tell us that his sovereign plan is to make manifest the supremacy of his glory. We have also seen that the Bible tells us that we fall short of God’s glory in our sinfulness, which is made manifest in our predisposition and efforts to worship things and people that are not God. Because God’s passion is for his own glory, then, and because he is perfectly righteous, his response to our idolatry is wrath, eternal condemnation administered by him in consigning us to eternal conscious torment in hell...Enter grace” (53).

Chandler and Wilson sketch the gospel of Christ’s grace and salvation in one of the most considered, poignant, and convicting ways I’ve read. An old idea we perhaps don’t hear often enough, the topic holds significant weight for me. The chapter on Christ is by far the most explicitly stated (most likely why the book is named what it is) I’ve heard in a long time, and the authors call for response.

“The gospel is such power that it necessitates reaction. Jesus Christ has worked such an outrageous wonder that he demands response, whether hatred or passion. Anyone ambivalent about what Christ has actually done just isn’t clear on the facts. To present the gospel, then, is to place a hearer in an untenable position. The heart of the hearer of the gospel must move, either toward Christ or away from him” (63).

Something for the Contemporary Church Goer

For the section on the Gospel in the air, Chandler and WIlson focus on the main narrative of the bible: Creation, Fall, Reconciliation, and Consummation. They also warn the reader about the dangers of exclusively focusing on either the Gospel in the air or the Gospel on the ground.

The Explicit Gospel is a well-written, biblically faithful and thorough explanation on what the Gospel is and how the Gospel should inform and transform people. Granted, the book does rehash some well-tread arguments and ideas (Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation), and painting the gospel as something in need of explicit statement is an Evangelical position dating back to the 1920s. But, at the same time, I think it is worth bringing the argument back, as Chandler and Wilson have obviously found the need to do so in their churches. Chandler and Wilson effectively argue their point in a well-thought-out way and will most likely advance the conversation of the Gospel to those who merely heard bland statements about Christ growing up. 

Myself, I was moved by this helpful reminder, as I perhaps don’t always present the Gospel as effectively and intensely as I should when leading others in my church. The authors gave me something to wrestle with and chew on by effectively identifying problems and systematically tearing them down. This is worth a read.

Verdict: 5 out of 5
---
Posted By: Andrew Jacobson

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: A Theology for the Social Gospel

A Theology for the Social Gospel by Walter Rauschenbusch (Mansifeld Centre: Martino Publishing, 2011; originally published in 1918. 290 pp)

Walter Rauschenbusch was the leading proponent of the Social Gospel Movement whose mission was to reform society to meet the social needs of the poor through the ministrations of the institutional church. PBS recently called him “one of the most influential American religious leaders of the last 100 years.”

The Nature of Sin and Salvation 

When attempting to manufacture a systematic theology, the nature of sin and salvation becomes integral components of the position. Slight changes in these core beliefs cause vast differences externally. Having previously labored toward the notion of “the social gospel,” Walter Rauschenbusch writes A Theology for the Social Gospel with the aims to fill in the gaps.

Interestingly, Rauschenbusch begins his endeavor under clearly inductive principles. Where many theologians begin with wide-sweeping, theoretical principles and work down toward specifics, Rauschenbusch begins with the assumption that:

“We have a social gospel. We need a systematic theology large enough to match it and vital enough to back it” (1).

Thus, the bedrock principles of theology must fit around the idea of a social gospel.

On Sin 

Next, Rauschenbusch defines the nature of sin. Rauschenbusch rejects the classic conceptions of sin which center on the notion of personal morality. Instead, he offers,

“Sin is essentially selfishness. That definition is more in harmony with the social gospel than with any individualistic type of religion. The sinful mind, then, is the unsocial and anti-social mind” (50).

As the basic tenets of the social gospel recommend, the notion of sin must transform from an individual perception to a collective perception. Sin is not defined by the “do’s and don’ts” of individual morality but the involvement of an individual in a larger group. Rauschenbusch later suggests that sin takes effect in social scenarios; without the opportunity to inflict injustice on another human being, sin lacks an ethical bite.

Sin and the Collective Body 

Having established a social setting under which sin finds meaning, Rauschenbusch expands the meaning of sin to include social groups. For his justification of the moral value in collective organizations, Rauschenbusch quotes Josiah Royce who stated,

“There are in the human world two profoundly different grades, or levels, of mental beings,—namely, the beings that we usually call human individuals, and the being that we call communities.—Any highly organized community is as truly a human being as you and I are individually human” (71). 

The collective actions of a community carry as much weight as the actions of an individual. If a human being is capable of sinful selfishness, an organization is as well. 

On Salvation 

Given the notion of both human and communal sinfulness, Rauschenbusch’s view of salvation carries a similar dualistic nature. On one side, Rauschenbusch affirms an individual salvation when he asserts,

“If sin is selfishness, salvation must be a change which turns a man from self to God and humanity” (97).

Even though he adds the caveat of turning toward humanity, Rauschenbusch aligns himself for the most part with classic views on salvation.

Yet Rauschenbusch takes an extra step, asserting that communities also carry the responsibility of salvation. He writes,

“The Salvation of the composite personalities, like that of individuals, consists in coming under the law of Christ” (111).

In ways similar to the legal standing of corporations as individual citizens, Rauschenbusch believes that the collective actions of an organization are a source for salvific consideration.

On the Church 

For Rauschenbusch, the entity that ties together his theology of sin and salvation is the church. Rauschenbusch argues:

“The Church is the social factor in salvation. It brings social forces to bear on evil. It offers Christ not only many human bodies and minds to serve as ministers of his salvation, but its own composite personality, with a collective memory stored with great hymns and Bible stories and deeds of heroism, with trained aesthetic and moral feelings, and with a collective will set on righteousness” (119).

Therefore, the connection between personal and collective sin and salvation lies with the church. It possesses the ability to speak into the life of an individual and against the injustice of a collective.

Questions on Sin and Grace 

Even though A Theology for the Social Gospel explores the importance of adding collective moral weight to the notions of sin and salvation, certain assertions from Rauschenbusch are questionable. First, he decries the classic notion of universal sin. He writes,

“Theologians have erred, it seems to me, by fitting their definitions to the most highly developed forms of sin and then spreading them over germinal and semi-sinful actions and conditions” (45).

Most Christian traditions consider sin to be sin no matter the depth or consequence. A white lie is as sinful as committing murder. Yet, Rauschenbusch clearly believes that sin is too widely defined. Certainly, we see Christians who take liberty to declare many “gray areas” as sinful.

Despite no clear “thou shalt not drink alcohol of any kind at any time,” many moralists consider such an action as sin. However, the attempt to define a “semi-sinful” state seems dangerous. On the whole, Rauschenbusch argues against a legalistic morality, but I worry he wanders too far in the other direction.

In addition, I see no mention of grace in Rauschenbusch’s theology. There is no note on the Ephesians passage that states, “For by grace we have been saved…” (Ephesians 2:8). For Rauschenbusch, salvation occurs during alignment with God and alignment with the Church body. Given his inductive approach to the social gospel, Rauschenbusch has no need for grace. But isn’t grace the first step and those alignments a response to the original offer of grace? Clearly, Rauschenbusch does not stress a Pauline view in his social gospel. But I am wary that without mentioning grace, Rauschenbusch ignores a portion of the gospel.

Conclusion 

In A Theology for the Social Gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch sets forth an attempt for a systematic theology that fulfills the social gospel from an inductive approach. Focusing on sin and salvation that includes both personal and collective pieces, Rauschenbusch believes that the social institution of the church acts as the fulcrum between the individual and society. Nevertheless, Rauschenbusch’s view of sin and his lack of interest in grace leaves question marks. The gospel offers social aims, and Walter Rauschenbusch’s theology endeavors to provide system around it. If you are interested theology and social justice, Walter Rauschenbusch’s A Theology for the Social Gospel is a must read. However, if you find unorthodox or non-conservative theological positions dangerous, I suggest you steer clear.

Verdict: 3 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links: