It’s not just the gospel of liberals anymore

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” That is how H. Richard Niebuhr described the “gospel” of theological liberalism in The Kingdom of God in America — in 1937.  However, that “gospel” is not only for the liberals anymore.  As a matter of fact, it has roots deep within the camp of confessing evangelicalism — whatever evangelicalism is today.

Perhaps therein lies the problem.  What is “evangelicalism?”  It is, I think most would agree given the Greek root, at the very least something that has to do with “good news.”  But “good news” about what?  What is its content?  Is it “good news” or “good advice”?

These and other questions are addressed in Mike Horton’s latest, The Gospel-Driven Life: Being Good News People in a Bad News World. He comments on Niebuhr’s keen insight 50-years ago:

“Each clause is telling. First, more like Mr. Rogers than the judge of all the earth, the sentimental deity of many Americans is incapable of wrath. Since he exists for us and our happiness, this heavenly friend may be disappointed and sad when we hurt ourselves, but he never sees sin as an offense primarily against himself and his perfect justice. Second, we may make mistakes–pretty bad ones, from time to time–but it would be wrong to call ourselves sinners, much less to imagine that we are captive to sin, helpless to do anything to will or work our way out of the mess. So, third, God brings basically good people into a kingdom without judgment, since there is no law that could condemn and no gospel that could justify. And finally, for this sort of religious therapy you don’t need a vicarious, atoning sacrifice if you are basically a nice person; what you really need is a good example.” [p. 38]

Sentimental deity… who exists for us and our happiness… even though we make mistakes… we’re basically good people. Does any of this sound at all familiar?  Theology and anthropology, doctrine and faith, orthodoxy and orthopraxy–all becomes convoluted when one has a low (wrong) view of God and a high (likewise wrong) view of self.  But that is the essence of our sinfulness (OOPS!, “mistakes).  My fear is that many who profess to “know Christ” have little or no understanding of what “vicarious, atoning sacrifice” means. And yet, the penal substitutionary atoning finished work of Jesus Christ is central to the gospel.  That is the “good news.”  Could it be that many today don’t really understand the “good news” because they don’t really know the “bad news”?