here is something to consider:
2. How do you define the gospel in the book?
The gospel is to announce that the Story of Jesus, who is Messiah/King, Lord and Savior, fulfills or completes the Story of Israel. It is the good news that God’s promises have now been realized in Jesus Messiah, Lord and Savior.
This is certainly a different approach than how we often consider the gospel (which is “sortarian” in McKnights view). Maybe this change is needed. Consider his answer about how this view of the gospel would affect Christian mission:
7. If the church were to adopt your definition of the gospel, what would the mission of the church look like and what would our evangelism look like?
We would be telling people about Jesus, about a Jesus who fulfills Israel’s Story, who is Messiah, Lord and who saves us from our sins. Let me make this point clear because it’s subtle and pervasive: is our gospel something that tells us about Jesus (who saves) first and foremost or is about salvation first and foremost?
Our evangelism would be declaring what Peter declares in Acts 2, 3, 10-11 and what Paul declares in Acts 13, 14 and 17. And it would see that every passage in the Gospels is pure gospel. It would show how Romans explains how Gentiles now join Jews in God’s Story in this world, and it would show how they are both accepted on the same basis: in Christ. And they respond to that message by faith and by faith alone.
So what do you think? If you take the view of the gospel as the story of Jesus as Israel’s messiah and deliverer, how will that affect how you go about missions and evangelism? Do you think it will be more effective or not really make a difference?
Let me know. I will need to think about this some.