Kevin DeYoung on the Old & New Gospel

I'm thankful that Kevin DeYoung has taken the time to differentiate between the Old and New Gospel.  The New Gospel is becoming increasingly popular in this day & age.  He begins by stating that the New Gospel generally has 4 parts.

1. It usually begins with an apology something to the effect of, "I’m sorry for my fellow Christians. I understand why you hate Christianity."
2. "Then there is an appeal to God as love."
3. "An invitation to join God on his mission in the world."
4. "There is a studied ambivalence about eternity," focusing more on the here-and-now than heaven.

After giving a rundown of the New Gospel, Pastor DeYoung answers the question, "Why is the New Gospel so popular?"  His answer is outlined below.

1. It is partially true.
2. It deals with straw men.
3. The New Gospel leads people to believe wrong things without explicitly stating those wrong things.
4. It is manageable.
5. It is inspirational.
6. It has no offense to it.

And last but not least, he gives us reasons as to why the New Gospel is wrong.

"It shouldn’t be hard to see what is missing in the new gospel.  What’s missing is the old gospel, the one preached by the Apostles, the one defined in 1 Corinthians 15, the one summarized later in The Apostles’ Creed.
“But what you call the New Gospel is not a substitute for the old gospel.  We still believe all that stuff.”

Ok, but why don’t you say it?  And not just privately to your friends or on a statement of faith somewhere, but in public?  You don’t have to be meaner, but you do have to be clearer.  You don’t have to unload the whole truck of systematic theology on someone, but to leave the impression that hell is no big deal is so un-Jesus like (Matt. 10:26-33).  And when you don’t talk about the need for faith and repentance you are very un-apostolic (Acts 2:38; 16:31).

“But we are just building bridges. We are relating to the culture first, speaking in a language they can understand, presenting the parts of the gospel that make the most sense to them. Once we have their trust and attention, then we can disciple and teach them about sin, repentance, faith and all the rest. This is only pre-evangelism.”

Yes, it’s true, we don’t have to start our conversations where we want to end up.  But does the New Gospel really prime the pump for evangelism or just mislead the non-Christian into a false assurance?  It’s one thing to open a door for further conversation.  It’s another to make Christianity so palatable that it sounds like something the non-Christian already does. And this is assuming the best about the New Gospel, that underneath there really is a desire to get the old gospel out.

Paul’s approach with non-Christians in Athens is instructive for us (Acts 17:16-34).  First, Paul is provoked that the city is so full of idols (16).  His preaching is not guided by his disappointment with other Christians, but by his anger over unbelief.  Next, he gets permission to speak (19-20). Paul did not berate people. He spoke to those who were willing to listen.  But then look at what he does.  He makes some cultural connection (22-23, 28), but from there he shows the contrast between the Athenian understanding of God and the way God really is (24-29). His message is not about a way of life, but about worshiping the true God in the right way.  After that, he urges repentance (30), warns of judgment (31), and talks about Jesus’ resurrection (31).

The result is that some mocked (32). Who in the world mocks the New Gospel? There is nothing not to like.  There is no scandal in a message about lame Christians, a loving God, changing the world, and how most of us are most likely not going to hell.  This message will never be mocked, but Paul’s Mars Hill sermon was. And keep in mind, this teaching in Athens was only an entre into the Christian message.  This was just the beginning, after which some wanted to hear him again (32).  Paul said more in his opening salvo than some Christians ever dare to say. We may not be able to say everything Paul said at Athens all at once, but we certainly must not give the impression in our “pre-evangelism” that repentance, judgment, the necessity of faith, the importance of right belief, the centrality of the cross and the resurrection, the sinfulness of sin and the fallenness of man–the stuff that some suggest will be our actual evangelism–are outdated relics of a mean-spirited, hurtful Christianity."

 It is so important to get the gospel right.  If you want to read the entirety of his post, you can read it here.