"Did Jesus Preach the Gospel?"

I can't remember, exactly, how I came across these videos.  I don't know who Scot McKnight is - he says here he's an Anabaptist - but I somehow found my way here, and then listened to this talk all the way through, both videos.  McKnight is, as far as I can tell, talking about Evangelicalism to Evangelicals, and his purpose here is to ask the question, "What is the Gospel?" - and then to answer it.

I've wondered about this question, too - because awhile back, I came into contact with what I think of now as "Reformation Ideas" through a priest in the Episcopal Church.   The priest in question, when talking about another priest (a liberal one, very into what might be called "the social Gospel"), said to me:  "He really can't ever preach the Gospel, can he?"   I wondered at the time what that actually meant; I had always assumed "the social Gospel" was "the Gospel," and I was kind of at a loss to understand what was being said.  What was I missing?

Everything about the church is new to me, and so was this; I learned eventually that, at least according to that particular priest's understanding of Reformation Theology, "the Gospel" is "what Jesus Christ did on the cross for our sake" (AKA, "Justification by Faith"). 

Scott McKnight, in this video (and perhaps elsewhere?), says he started to wonder about this, too.  In a very interesting anecdote (in Part 1), he mentions to a pastor of his acquaintance that he's thinking about the question, "What is the Gospel?"  The pastor responds:  "Easy.  'Justification by faith.'"  McKnight then asks:  "Did Jesus preach the Gospel?" - to which the colleague responded:  "Nope.   He couldn't have.   No one understood the Gospel until Paul.  No one could understand the Gospel until after the crucifixion, the Resurrection, and Pentecost."   McKnight said:  "Not even Jesus?"  The pastor said:  "Nope.  Not possible."  (McKnight adds his silent, sardonic thought at this point:  "Poor Jesus.  Born on the wrong side of the cross....")

As I've said before:  there's something about Reformation Theology - particularly the American Evangelical version of it - that really doesn't sit well with me.  I couldn't quite say what until now, but McKnight's put his finger on it for me here:  the Gospel, in Reformation Theology, has become all about us, and really not very much at all about Christ.    And that - the self-regarding, self-referential thinking - is, for me, exactly the primary flaw in Evangelicalism.   I've written about this before, from another angle, after coming into deeper contact with Reformation Theology and the idea of "grace":

It’s true that we can do nothing to merit the Grace of God; it’s true that we don’t deserve it, and that we can’t earn it. And sometimes it appears to me that the Evangelical thing is a worry that somehow we’re going to lose God’s love by “improving”! In other words, unless we acknowledge at all times that we are bad, bad, bad – and that nothing we do can change that fact – God will abandon us. Because that is the basis of the relationship! But of course, that is – as they say in A.A. – “pride in reverse.” It still leaves us at the center of the universe; we’re still focused on ourselves! The point, really, is to let go of all that, and become “channels” or “instruments” of God’s will.

But this did not get at the heart of the problem, as McKnight's analysis does; the "what Jesus did for me" idea keeps people stuck thinking about themselves; this shows up, though, apparently, all the way through Evangelical theology.   The whole point of the thing, though, is to stop thinking about ourselves!  That is the sine qua non of all spiritual endeavor, and the heart of Christianity, too.   (I've always had a bit of difficulty with the "what Jesus did for me/justification by faith" idea anyway; it's always seemed to me way too much like a kind of quid pro quo - a bizarre kind of "Salvation Equation" - and one that, tragically, ignores the story itself!   Because the story itself is where all the power is.  McKnight talks about this in Part 2.)  

McKnight goes on to say, simply, that:  "The Gospel is the announcement that Jesus is the Messiah - and that he is the point, and goal, and telos of the narrative."

All that means, naturally, that yes, of course:  Jesus preached the Gospel.  He announced himself:  not just once, but many times.  As McKnight says:  "The Gospel belongs to the narrative.  But the text has disappeared under interpretation."

It's a strong talk - and I think a real broadside across Evangelicalism's bow.  I'm assuming this is part of the "New Perspective on Paul," but don't know for sure; I'm very glad, though,  to see the move away from things like "imputation" and "justification by faith," neither of which have ever made any sense, or seemed very real, to me.  And I'm glad that "the narrative" is being put back front and center here; as McKnight says:  "The Gospel, or to 'evangelize,' in the New Testament, is to herald the story of Jesus as Messiah."