reflecting on a Multi-Faceted Gospel

One book I thought I would have read by now is Scot McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement and this CT article entitled, “A Multi-Faceted Gospel” reminded me that I need to read it soon.

Here are some exerts:

“…Plurality does not equal pluralism. The ancient creeds, echoing 1 Corinthians 15, say that for our sake Jesus was crucified, buried, and on the third day rose again. God’s people have been reflecting on these declarations ever since. We will never exhaust their implications, whether expressed as “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” or “I once was lost, but now am found.”

(this one is my favorite) – “Evangelicals needn’t be afraid of new approaches to the gospel—the church has been coming up with them for centuries. We managed to get through 1,900 years of Christian history without the Four Spiritual Laws and the bridge diagram. The formula of “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior” is also fairly recent. And what worked in the post–World War II context might not be appropriate in the early 21st century. Many people today have different questions, assumptions, and concerns.”

“Hence, we need variety and creativity in our gospel witness. A chorus of voices from N. T. Wright and Dallas Willard to Allen Wakabayashi and Brian McLaren calls us to rediscover the kingdom of God. Scot McKnight tells a story about the restoration of cracked eikons (image-bearers). ”


For full article, click here


  1. He mentioned N.T. Wright so it must be good! I like your favorite part, too. That is why people who are afraid of new approaches to the gospel are somewhat laughable because they come across bitter, worrisome, and angry, which is somewhat sad at the same time, and we should pray for them.

    I am positive that the church didn’t like Martin Luther’s “new approach” to the gospel so why should I be afraid of McLaren’s new approach or Bill Hybels or anyone else (Peter Enns?)?

    I have recently been thinking about how many evangelicals treat McLaren and others like him this way — “Oh, McLaren said such and such, so throw out all his teaching! He has nothing to offer us.” This is extremely sad, and, if it must be this way, I call all evangelicals and other Protestants to throw out the writings of Martin Luther and start bashing him since he said many things that were anti-semitic. No one would dare throw out Martin Luther, so why do we throw out McLaren or Enns? Let them speak! Haha…

  2. And even if we don’t agree with a McLaren or an Enns, do we have to write them off? I don’t agree with anyone completely and if I broke fellowship each time, I’d be a lonely divorced man.

Speak Your Mind