Chuck Colson's The Faith Blog Tour - Rebecca Writes - Rebecca Writes

Rebecca wrote to Chuck Colson:

On page 117 you write this: “True faith means putting the cause of Christ and the needs of others ahead of self and doing the gospel.” Can you explain what you mean by the phrase “doing the gospel”? What is included in doing the gospel?

Colson didn't understand the question. Rebecca responded anyway. I submitted some comments on her blog in response to her comment on Chuck Colson's answer (see link above). Here are further comments (right-hand column) to her original comments (left-hand column):

[Colson] seems to be saying that making the cause of Christ and the needs of others primary in importance is in some way “doing the gospel.”

  

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that I’m not very fond of the phrase “doing the gospel.”  I think it conveys a view of the gospel that is, at the very least, focused on things that are not at the center of the gospel. It gives the idea that the gospel is a set of ethical teachings or commandments—in this case, the two great commandments—and that is an idea that quite misses the mark, actually, when it comes to conveying what is the good news we call the gospel.

 I like the phrase "doing the Gospel." I don't like the phrase "believe the gospel" when the word "believe" is hermetically separated from every aspect of "doing," "repenting," or "obeying."

(Why only the two commandments?)

The gospel is the historical truth of what Christ did for sinners in accordance with God’s saving plan. It is news—good news. People can preach and teach the gospel; they can believe, receive, and confess the gospel; they can advance the cause of the gospel.

 It seems to me that the vast majority of occurrences of the word "gospel" are not historical, but forward-looking, and call for obedience, not mere assent to a historical proposition.

But can they “do the gospel”? If by that someone means that the gospel—the good news—proclaimed and confessed, transforms lives, so that those whose lives are changed by the truth of the gospel live in a way that puts the cause of Christ and the needs of others ahead of their own selfish interests, then I’m prepared to give a pass to the use of the phrase. I’d argue that the phrase itself, however, used without careful definition, is much more likely to lead to a distorted view of the gospel than it is to enlighten us about the gospel or advance the cause of the gospel.

 It is a historical fact that Jesus died for the elect. That fact, by itself, changes no one. Hearing that Jesus died for the elect, by itself, does not change the hearer. Sincerely believing that "Jesus died for me" does not, by itself, change the hearer/believer.

The hearer must be transformed (regenerated, born again) by the power of the Holy Spirit from a disobedient hearer into a doer -- an obedient hearer.

Romans 2:13
(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

James 1:21-26
21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.
26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.

The good news of the Bible is that the Spirit transforms people from rebels into servants, and as more and more people are transformed, culture will be transformed.

Having read all of The Faith, I will say that I do believe that Charles Colson, personally, has this more fully orbed view of the gospel that I outlined in the paragraph above. But I wonder if statements like the one I quoted and the phrase “doing the gospel” might not cause some readers to understand the gospel as merely duty or religiousity, and not something propositional that rightly taught, understood, and believed, changes people from the inside and works outward from there.

 There is no such thing as "merely duty," and no fair reading of Colson could lead to the conclusion that Colson endorses or promotes "religiosity."

What say you all? 

  

Rebecca quotes my comments in italics in the column below, followed by Rebecca's response, and my next-round response to Rebecca is in the right-hand column

Justification by Belief" is a misunderstanding of the Christian message, and that "doing the Gospel" is more Biblical.
The problem with this is that "doing the gospel" is a phrase that is never used in scripture. The phrase "obey the gospel" is indeed a biblical one, but look at the three passages that actually use the phrase "obey the gospel." Contextually, "obey the gospel" is used synonymously with "believing our testimony" or "believing what is heard from us." In other words, if we use the phrase as it is used biblically, the gospel is propositional. It contains information that can be testified to, or told to someone, and heard from someone. Obeying the gospel is believing the propositions testified to or told to us.		  

"Trinity" is a phrase that is never used in Scripture. I think it's Biblical nonetheless.

Is there any way to measure or define "believe" apart from "doing" and "obeying?"

The gospel is a proposition, and therefore not an imperative?

"Obeying" the gospel is only believing?

"The devils believe" -- James 2
Hebrews 11, often called "The Faith Chapter," turns out on closer inspection to be "the doing chapter," or "the obedience chapter." Hebrews 11:8  
Hebrews 11 is off-topic. Hebrews 11 isn't specifically defining the gospel. And I'm not arguing that true faith doesn't lead to obedience, anyway. But you are apparently arguing that true faith can exist without (that is, before it has led to) obedience. Hebrews 11 and James 2 both define saving faith as obedience, or as I like to call it, allegiance.
I'm simply arguing that the gospel, as the word is used biblically (and why would we want to use it other than how it is used biblically?), is about what God has done in Christ: "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and was raised...." That's a historical statement. Those who understand the significance of that historical statement and earnestly trust in the truths contained in it are "obeying the gospel".
The word "gospel" in Galatians 3:8 is not historical:
And the Scripture preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, "In thee shall all nations be blessed."
"Blessing" -- as Abraham knew very well -- comes as a result of obedience (Deut. 28, Lev 26, etc.). The Gospel is the good news that God will make the whole world obedient (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Jeremiah 31:31-34, quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12).
 
"Those who understand" sounds like gnosticism.
That sort of earnest trust in this propositional truth of the gospel—the good news about what Christ has done—always leads to obedient works, since trust in the gospel saves, and being saved is transformative. Believing the gospel transforms lives. "earnest trust" sounds like "working real hard to believe a whole lot" --  as though our great work of earnest trusting will save us, and becoming saved will in turn (later on) transform us.

I believe we must be transformed ("born again") before we can be saved.
But I think it's confusing language (and frankly, a little muddleheaded) to speak of "doing the gospel", since the gospel, as defined biblically, is historical and propositional. "Doing the gospel" makes it sound like the gospel is a set of commands and it isn't. When men asked Peter, "What must we do to be saved?" they were asking, "What commands must we obey to be saved?" (Acts 2:37; 16:30) This is what those who have been born again always ask (Luke 3:10; Acts 9:6)  Peter didn't tell them that their very question was "muddleheaded." He answered them, telling them what they must do:  "repent."
(Which is not to say there are no commands for us to obey. But those commands are never called the gospel.) The Bible talks about a "way of salvation" (Acts 16:17), but never a "propositional truth about salvation."