The King Jesus Gospel
Purchase The King Jesus Gospel
Scot McKnight likes to stir the pot. I appreciate his willingness to say hard things with good reasons for saying those hard things. He has recently published The King Jesus Gospel in order to address a central issue for Evangelicals: the gospel. He wants to contend that “we evangelicals (as a whole) are not really “evangelical’ in the sense of the apostolic gospel, but instead we are soterians…we evangelicals (mistakenly) equate the word gospel with the word salvation” (29). He wants to argue that the gospel is more than a plan of salvation.
The problem with a myopic, soterian church culture is that it creates “The Decided” (McKnight’s term) rather than “The Discipled”. This is not a problem of church programs or structures, it’s an inherent problem with a soterian culture (30-31).
After laying the groundwork McKnight moves on to consider how the gospel moved from the message of God’s meta-narrative (story of all stories) to a plea for a decision. He contends that evangelical soterians have proclaim the plan of salvation divorced from the story of God. This results in an immature and declining church. He then focuses on the gospel message as contained in the gospels and in Peter’s epistles. Finally, he considers how his emphasis on the narrative of the gospel affects evangelism and ways to return to a gospel culture from our soterian culture.
There are many parts of McKnight’s book with which I wholeheartedly agree. Yet, there were as many others with which I disagreed or had concerns.
Areas of Disagreement
First, much of McKnight’s argument felt like boxing a ghost.. Having been raised an evangelical, attended an evangelical Bible college and now attending an evangelical seminary, I am well acquainted with our strengths and weaknesses. I understood many of the concerns he expressed. But, I still felt his argument was weak because he didn’t (couldn’t?) engage contemporary evangelicals embodying this soterian gospel. His soterians are ambiguous. It’s easier to argue against someone who doesn’t exist.
Second, it seemed obvious to me that McKnight was attempting to expose the remnants of Evangelicals’ Fundamentalist-Revivalist heritage. Like it or not, Evangelicalism emerged in the 1940′s-50′s out of disagreement and discontent with the focus and emphasis of previous generations of fundamentalism. It is from the Charles Finney’s and D.L. Moody’s that we have a decision-based Christianity. Focusing on this heritage would have provided clarity and identity to his argument.
Third, in his chapter titled “Gospeling Today” McKnight attempts to demonstrate “King Jesus Gospel” evangelism. His focus is on the book of Acts and the preaching of the Apostles. McKnight is correct in identifying the emphasis upon the story of Israel and its consummation in Christ. But, that preaching occurs in the context of Jews. If he could demonstrate that apostolic preaching to gentiles was consistently and prominently Israel-focused his argument would carry weight. But, he can’t. The classic example of “Gospeling” to a gentile audience is in Acts 17. Paul does not emphasize the story of Israel. He begins with their own metanarrative and brings the story of Yahweh into it. It is not in Zeus that we live, move and have our being, but Yahweh.
The previous three points are points of contention. They are areas of his argument which I found weak. If they were addressed, his thesis would be much more compelling. My above critiques should not be taken as a dismissal of his entire book. I believe that there is much McKnight gets right. But, I think there’s just as much he gets wrong.
Areas of Agreement
First, I think the heart of McKnight’s book is correct. Evangelicals have overemphasized the decision and failed in the discipling. It is a good and noble desire to see people repent of sin and confess faith in Christ. But, that’s not the end it’s just the beginning. Contrary to McKnight, I don’t believe that we’ve gotten the gospel wrong. I just believe that we have failed to emphasize the call to discipleship that Jesus gives to any and all who would follow him.
Second, The story of Israel is absolutely essential to understanding the person and work of Jesus. However, in a biblically illiterate, post-Christian world, how many people will even know (let alone understand) a reference to Abraham, Moses or Elijah? Once again, the problem is not in the gospel Evangelicals have preached but in their failure to promote, push and provide discipleship for the people in their church.
Conclusion
We have a discipleship crisis in the church today. I disagree with Scot McKnight’s proposal in it’s specifics. But, generally I agree with the idea promoted in The King Jesus Gospel. We need to move away from the revivalist remnant of our fundamentalist heritage and actually disciple our people. This is a top-down requirement. It’s not the work of pastors alone. It’s the work of all people. He is right to call this book the King Jesus Gospel. Christians need to remember that Jesus was not merely a means to a decision. He is the true King. Declaring Jesus to be Lord was an act of treason and sedition in the apostles’ day. Let’s not forget that when Jesus calls us “he bids us come and die”.
NOTE: In accordance with the regulations of the Federal Trade Commission I would like to state that I received a complementary copy of the aforementioned text for the purposes of review. I was not required to furnish a positive review. 
