RawKr, welcome to NarniaWeb and to the discussion! Thanks for your thoughts above. I’m guessing folks may find them a bit more readable than my previous longer post (this is what happens when I don’t, or can’t, keep up with discussion more closely).

Question: if the fulfillment of the Law comes as a byproduct of God’s love — and I think this can be proved from the Scripture — to what greater end is God’s love itself a byproduct?

This is a leading question, and I admit it. God’s love is not a means to itself; I could find and show here Biblical proof that God loves people, and Jesus died for people, for another and greater end. This doesn’t minimize God’s love, but rather it enhances it and makes grace even more amazing.

As a benefit, learning and living this answer to the Ultimate Question (of Life, the Universe, and Everything) is a way to ward off the too-prevalent “misinterpreted, emotional, and a misguided view of love” you mentioned.

More on the definition of the Gospel: it’s the hot topic of the ages, and more specifically the focus of the current Together for the Gospel conference. Speakers ranging from C.J. Mahaney (the more-“charismatic” Sovereign Grace Ministries) to Al Mohler (president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) started speaking yesterday on the topic of “The Unadjusted Gospel.” Though of course I didn’t attend myself, I know several people who did. And I look forward to the conference’s free MP3s!

Meanwhile, here’s a few paragraphs from R.C. Sproul (apparently from his message yesterday, and found here) about the Gospel. Though I’ve no wish to adjust the Gospel, or his wording, I will only adjust the paragraphs for readability:

What Is the Gospel?
from R.C. Sproul

There is no greater message to be heard than that which we call the Gospel. But as important as that is, it is often given to massive distortions or over simplifications.

People think they’re preaching the Gospel to you when they tell you, ‘you can have a purpose to your life’, or that ‘you can have meaning to your life’, or that ‘you can have a personal relationship with Jesus.’

All of those things are true, and they’re all important, but they don’t get to the heart of the Gospel.

The Gospel is called the ‘good news’ because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness – or lack of it – or the righteousness of another.

The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself.

But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn’t concerned to protect His own integrity. He’s a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead – so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification.

So the Gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did.

And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it? The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith – and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him – and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.

Question: if the fulfillment of the Law comes as a byproduct of God’s love — and I think this can be proved from the Scripture — to what greater end is God’s love itself a byproduct?

Awesome question! And I hope that I'm understanding the question correctly. I'm assuming your asking if the fulfillment of scripture comes from God's love, then where does God's love originate from or is a byproduct of?

If in fact this is the question you are asking then I can assure you that human answers would probably do no justice to the truth. For what we see as truth is not always what God see's as truth. For instance, I could say that God's love is a byproduct of the personality of God. And yet to say that is to put a human twist on God, which God himself did through Jesus. This is what makes the Trinity work. I think that maybe God expresses love, grace, power, judgement, and etc through the various parts of the Trinity.

To ask the question why God chose to love humanity is a question we may never fully understand here. I think a father or a mother of a child could better understand it than I myself could, but this still probably leaves a distorted view of the truth. The great thing in all this, in my opinion, is that God's mysterious nature causes us to want to seek Him. And seeking God I believe a definite sign of true faith.

I've probably swayed off topic or not fully understood what you were asking, but oh well. Food for thought

I can assure you that human answers would probably do no justice to the truth.

Amen times ten! So instead of speculating with human answers or philosophies, what does Scripture say on the subject?

Maybe rephrasing the question will help. I don't wish to sound vague.

Christians agree that God is love (as the Apostle John so famously wrote in his first epistle). Yet is God love, and does He love, for love's sake alone? Or does He love His creation and especially His people, for a greater, more profound goal, which only He could rightfully have?

It would be wrong, and lead to weird results at best, to speculate on that question outside of Scripture. And Christians shouldn't want to act like they have all the answers -- but this is one area upon which Scripture isn't silent. And I do have some Scriptures for starters (I'm holding back more stuff written a few years ago in a previous NarniaWeb discussions). This shouldn't be just verse-hurling; every one of these has a wider context that supports what I'm getting at, and fits with the main narrative of Scripture and reasons we read for why Jesus died.

“I give thanks to you, O Lord my God, with my whole heart,
and I will glorify Your Name forever.
For great is Your steadfast love toward me”
Psalm 86:12-13

“For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised [. . .] in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.”
Romans 15: 8-9

“In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved. [. . .] In Him we have obtained an inheritance [. . .] so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory.”
Ephesians 1: 4-6, 11-12

“And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.”
Philippians 1: 9-11

“I am writing to you, little children,
because your sins are forgiven for His Name's sake.”
1 John 2:12

I don't wish to hint any further, not to be frustrating or all spiritual guru-like, but because there's simply nothing to compare with seeing a truth by one's "self" (in quotes because, of course, the Spirit will illuminate His own Word and we can't understand it without Him) instead of reading too many spoilers from someone on the internet!

(Minor edits later to add some passages and synchronize translations.)

Great points indeed. I've always wondered if there was a greater meaning to God's love than what we understand it as. And I'm sure that there is.

I think that it's perfectly fine to have questions such as these and to wonder. God even says in the bible for us to reason with Him. Isaiah 1:18. Unfortunately I have a gut feeling this is one of those questions we won't know until we are out of this life. Just as we cannot understand time outside of linear time, we sometimes try to box God into it. But if God created time then I'm sure He is not confined to it. Yet because we live in it, is it all that we can comprehend.

Probably a bad analogy but that's the best I can come up with haha.

RawKr, again, absolutely we can't know the answers to some of those deep questions. Yet parts of Scripture like those give the answer to this question: To what greater end does God love?

Biblical answer: God loves, God acts, everything God does is for His own glory, His Name's sake, to exalt Himself and make His Name known.

That's the greater meaning, and the greater mystery, all at once.

Here's more, from Desiring God Ministries. It's a fantastic piece, and well worth reading through in its entirety. And Piper is certainly not the only person saying things like this, though he's definitely one of the most vocal!

Both the Old and New Testament tell us that God's loving us is a means to our glorifying him.

“Christ became a servant ... in order that the nations might glorify God for his mercy” (Romans 15:8-9). God has been merciful to us so that we would magnify him.

We see it again in the words, “In love [God] destined us to adoption ... to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Ephesians 1:4-6). In other words, the goal of God's loving us is that we might praise him.

One more illustration from Psalm 86 “I will glorify your name forever. For your lovingkindness toward me is great.”

God's love is the ground. His glory is the goal.

This is shocking. The love of God is not God's making much of us, but God's saving us from self-centeredness so that we can enjoy making much of him forever. And our love to others is not our making much of them, but helping them to find satisfaction in making much of God

True love aims at satisfying people in the glory of God. Any love that terminates on man is eventually destructive. It does not lead people to the only lasting joy, namely, God.

Love must be God-centered, or it is not true love; it leaves people without their final hope of joy.

(Emphases and paragraph breaks added.)

@RawKr and Dr. Ransom: great discussion. I love R. C. Sproul and Piper's blog. But I heard today that he invited Rick Warren to some fall conference. Piper's becoming unpopular really fast on Twitter!

Re: Christ's bride ... I wanna do some solo research.

Again, I am very sure you believe just as I do that Grace is more than just God’s power through Christ to help us obey. However, when one says “what is the Gospel?”, then minimizes at all the crucial element of Christ suffering God’s righteous wrath for the sins of His people, especially when non-Christians are reading, I want to point out the other side.

What is the Gospel? The following description is Tweet-able:

God created everything. He is loving, perfect. You are not. Only God can save us. He in Jesus died for us. Repent/believe Him to be saved and live eternal life.
....
And again, I’m sure you would agree it’s personal. But perhaps be more careful with your language? Christians are not saved simply so they can obey the Law, but for a far greater end: to glorify our infinite, loving God.

Yes, I'll be more careful with the language. I fully agree with the repentance part. And for me, this is where the law comes in. God is holy. His law, the fullest revelation of His character outside a Person, is holy. And we as sinners have come short of that law. All sin is disobedience. The holiness of God demands sacrifice for sin. This is why Jesus died! When I finally accepted condemnation and punishment for my sins and realized that the cup of God's wrath Jesus drank contained the punishment for my sin -- my death, my hell, my separation from God -- and that Jesus was my substitute, only then did I truly realize God's holiness and love! Only then did I truly believe!

Amen times ten, 220! That makes me want to worship! I even lifted up my hands -- I'd say that was just for you, but you know that wouldn't be true (or right of me to do it for show, right?).

Meanwhile, I wrote more about the whole bride-of-Christ and Song of Solomon issue yesterday, accessible here. But I know there's much more out there about it. It was even one of the first topics in this very discussion, starting near the end of page 1. And don't forget your big essay about it here.

Briefly, I'll repeat what I said back then, but in a slightly different way.

Song of Solomon may have Christ-and-His-Church applications, but there's still a history in Christendom in skipping over its main message: the ecstasies and difficulties of marital commitment and intimacy. (As I say in the blog, though, I think the opposite error is more prevalent.)

Similarly, The Chronicles of Narnia could have secret parallels to the medieval conception of planets. But even if Dr. Michael Ward is right, it wouldn't be right to skip the books' main messages, such as that the first story is about four children who find a magic wardrobe and in a faraway land become kings and queens under the reign of a supreme Lion.

Yeah, Piper has a few people looking askance at him for inviting Warren to the conference. Too many people have been hurt by Warren-esque changes to their churches for this to be a healthy move, even if did teach the Gospel fully and accurately (which I don't see from Warren's books and careless messages, though that's another issue).

However, I see this as ultimately healthy for people. I see a lot of what seems like over-venerating of Piper in some circles. Piper himself has pointed it out and wished it weren't so. It's a good reminder that, despite the Christlikeness Piper does show, only Christ Himself is perfect!

Argh. Well, that's that. We just opened the Rick Warren can-o'-worms. There goes the neighborhood. How about I just blame you, 220?

Quick question.... what's wrong with Rick Warren?

I know who he is, but I don't know all that much about him. I can't say I like or dislike him. I'm just curious.

*shudders at the idea of writing in any book* I hated it when I forced to highlight in a book for a class in high school.

I'm kind of the same way. I guess this makes you an idolater too .

I guess so. Glad I can keep you company. I just remembered that I have actually highlighted in a Bible However, it was against my will and I didn't like doing it. As part of the Sunday School curriculum we are supposed to highlight the passages we read to the kids so the can look at the words or have someone read them to them. Since the program was new and because I felt like they were monitoring us to see if we were doing it (I was probably a bit paranoid but the change was not a pleasant one. See post here for more details. If anyone has more questions, this is one of my “favorite” rants so I’d be glad to answer a questions), I felt I had better comply with the program in all of its ridiculous components. I also figured I give it a try in its entirety to see if it was as great as it was supposed to be. It wasn't. I only did the highlighting for 1/2 a year. The next year they gave us a different Bible so I figured I wasn't going to do it again and if another class had had that Bible and hadn't highlighted it, I wasn't going to bother. I will also put my name / address in the front of some books (mostly textbooks in case I left them somewhere).

First, somehow it’s just very cool to hear that both Warrior 4 Jesus and Pattertwigs Pal have been reading Alcorn’s fantastic Heaven.

I finished it yesterday. Actually there is rather an interesting story behind that. Because of poor choices on what I was reading when, I ended up with a good deal of the book left and very little time to read it. I think I had around 200 or so pages to finish in 2 days. On Monday night, I asked God to help me finish the book before it was due back to the library. (It was due Tuesday night before 7). I had hoped that to mean that I would not get a sub call the next day or that I would get a call to sub as a teacher (meaning one who would be giving the standardized tests) and not an Educational Assistant (whose job usually involves following students around and/or working intensely with them). I was irritated when I got a sub job as an Educational Assistant and some of that irritation was directed at God. I decided to see if I could cram the book in my purse and take it with me to read during my breaks / lunch. It just fit. Before I had shied away from bringing it because I was subbing in the public schools. It turns out that they had told me to get there ½ hour before I actually needed to start, so I had that time to read. Then my job ended up being to sit in a hallway and make sure students didn’t talk about the test if they were in the hallways. Since my section was easily viewed from one location, I didn’t have to walk around to monitor. The sheet describing the duties even suggested perhaps bringing a book. So for three hours, I got paid to read. In the afternoon, I had time to read too because I had a 15 min. break and the students I was supposed to be helping didn’t need help on anything so the teacher said I could read. By the time I finished work I only had two pages left. I apologized and thanked God repeatedly.

When given the choice between trying to fix a problem and just beating everyone into submission with a senseless rule, governments will nearly always pick the second one. The schools in our area went to uniforms several years ago and it was a disaster at first. Almost no one carried the outfits the kids were supposed to wear and those who did decided to charge a fortune for them. It's not such a big deal anymore, but I still find the idea that making kids dress like drones will keep them from bullying each other to be one of the truly stupidest ideas politicians have come up with.

The topic of school uniforms keeps coming up in the Catholic schools around here. I agree with you, especially the last part. Kids will always be able to find something to bully each other about. I think one of the suggestions around here included khaki pants for elementary students. That has got to be one of the worse colors to but kids in. Personally, if schools go to uniforms at all they should go to scrubs. No one will care if they get dirty, they are meant to be kind of baggy so no one looks amazing in them, and they will also hide subtle distinctions in weight.

Pattertwig's Pal wrote:

The topic of school uniforms keeps coming up in the Catholic schools around here. I agree with you, especially the last part. Kids will always be able to find something to bully each other about.

I'm neutral on the school uniforms issue, primarily because I agree with the intention to prevent bullying, yet sometimes students use the uniforms to do the bullying. For example, if the uniform requires a standard white button-down shirt, wealthier or status-conscious students will get the white shirt from a designer brand. Look for the little icon on the shirt. If a school requires uniforms, the teachers need to be as alert to these signals as the students are.

smartypants wrote:

Quick question.... what's wrong with Rick Warren?

I know who he is, but I don't know all that much about him. I can't say I like or dislike him. I'm just curious.

I have never seen him, heard him, watched him, or read his books. So I'll freely admit that all I know of him is second-hand.

Warren has the largest mega-church in North America. He probably gets some jealousy-barbs for that.

His message seems to be Prosperity Gospel: God wants you to be rich. (Personally I thought God wants what is best for us, which may not be the same thing.)

Some versions of the gospel supposedly have no answer to theodicy, suffering, and the like. They are lightweight, teaching only blessings but not sin, death, redemption, etc. They can be a very comforting worldview, but it is only comforting when the pain is someone else's. Prosperity Gospel has ben accused of being one of these lightweight versions.

Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Bright-sided, includes a chapter on Prosperity Gospel. Her targets are Joel and Victoria Osteen -- and she is harsh with them -- but the points she makes about Prosperity Gospel are interesting. She argues that the movement really is more about "stuff" than about blessing, more about "gimme" than "it is better to give than to receive," and more about "gotcha" than about grace.

From a review I wrote:

Bright-sided: how the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America by Ehrenreich, Barbara.

It covers a variety of topics, from the difference between Pink Warriors and making cancer "cute" ... unemployed people should be more grateful ... Bad Calvinism and the Christian Science revolt ... God wants you to be rich, etc.

The Christian Century, March 9, 2010 gave the book a mixed but mostly positive review. It notes that pastors who dislike Osteen will smile behind their hand at the way the author demolishes the guy, but that "they might not want her turning the same critical eye on their own churches." So they turn the review into an observation that Jesus followers need to talk about sin and death because that's how we get starting talking about our redemption.

It's a book to make people angry, or rather to wipe that goofy smile off our faces. It tries to explain the elevation of good feelings over good teachings and reason in the Church and the society.

A lot of people are into Prosperity Gospel, however, and it would be helpful if any proponents of it can tell us what they've learned and how they've grown from it.

I'm reluctant to wade into Warren-bashing -- not necessarily because I believe it's always wrong, but because it's not my forte and plenty of other people are already dealing with it. However, I have heard that he criticizes folks like Joel Osteen for preaching about material prosperity.

Still, I'd argue there are actually two kinds of prosperity "gospel":

1. Financial prosperity: God wants you to have an abundant life. A child of the King shouldn't have to live like a pauper. Etc.

2. Moral/spiritual prosperity: Jesus died for you because He loves you so much. He wants you to be a better person, help your neighbors and build a better community. He has a wonderful plan for your life. Etc.

The latter can be found in both right-wing and left-wing versions of Christianity. Unfortunately, Warren doesn't talk enough about repentance in the salvation process. And though he doesn't seem to be about financial prosperity, that in effect makes God's will, Jesus' death and the church serve to the goal of moral/societal improvement, not God's glory.

I don't know much about Rick Warren but I have read The Purpose Driven Life and I really enjoyed it. There are many problems with preachers and just Christians in general but I try not to have a "for" or "against" attitude. I believe that Jesus wanted unity very much. He mentioned it quite a few times in His last prayer. So I think that is important to still be unified as long as the basic concept of Christianity is agreed upon (the Gospel).

I do though understand the problem with a sort of "pop psychology" approach the preaching. Many preachers tend to preach feel good sermons and that is all. I definitely think it's important to preach truth and make sure that love is taught as well as repentance. But again, if they are not against us, they are for us. Mark 9:38 - 42.

@Dr. Ransom: blame me for the Warren can o' worms. I don't care.

I never read Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Life and never wanted to. But what I was exposed to, in so many churches that used the material, seemed suitable for new Christians maybe, but certainly not seasoned ones. It felt like milk compared to solid meat. The focus was more on this life than the next ... and not really on God's glory either. The book was a fad in 2004-06. And every evangelical church seemed to be taken up with it.

John MacArthur on modern evangelicalism [he mentions Warren]: "How did we make such an Evangelical mess?"

I don't like either version of the prosperity gospel. The true gospel is repent and believe in Jesus, the only Savior from sin; be ready to meet your Maker when He decides your time is up. It's all about eternity. True prosperity? A mansion in heaven and a crown of life!

I believe that Jesus wanted unity very much. He mentioned it quite a few times in His last prayer. So I think that is important to still be unified as long as the basic concept of Christianity is agreed upon (the Gospel).

Amen, and that's one reason why a lot of people (myself included) are pumped about the Together for the Gospel conference, and other movements that are unifying Christians, in the right ways, around the Gospel. For too long, professing Christians have swung to extremes:

1. Separation! Not only will we separate from someone who does something we disagree with (or who is legitimately not a Christian), we'll also separate from anyone who doesn't also separate from this person!

2. Unity, unity, unity! We want to get along with everybody, regardless of whether they believe the Gospel. Or: the "gospel" is redefined into God-as-means-to-morality, rather than salvation-as-means-to-God.

Either one is wrong and un-Biblical.

(Peels back the lid of the can 220 opened, and watches more worms fall out and start slithering across the floor, spewing slime ...)

Methinks Warren is a tricky case, not just because he does a lot of the "unity, unity" stuff, but because he does seem to truly believe the Gospel. There was a lot of talk when Piper said he had "vetted" Rick Warren and said Warren is a truly deep guy who believes in repentance and faith and adheres to strong Christian orthodoxy.

I've no cause to doubt that. But does Warren preach what he practices?

I've read parts of Purpose-Driven, and I agree with 220 that it was very shallow. Christians who were eating it up as "deep" made me sad. (It was like those who said they read Da Vinci Code and said they didn't buy all the heresy stuff, but that it was "a great story.") But even for baby Christians, oughtn't they hear more along the lines of Warren's correct and famous "It's not about you" statement at the front, before going on to read teaching that ended up all about you after all?

Here's another example. Let's say I'm a famous preacher who's built a church, written books and so on. I get everything right about the Gospel: even the repentance-and-faith parts. I don't minimize sin. I dare to mention Hell and manage to do so lovingly. But ... what if I rarely if ever mention the hope of Heaven, and much less the promised New Earth?

Maybe it's not intentional. Maybe this hypothetical famous preacher simply assumes it's not part of his unique presentation of the message. Maybe he believes they'll pick up that part elsewhere. And it's true that technically, one can be saved without being taught about the hope of Heaven, and the New Earth, and how they fit into Christ's eternal plan to redeem His saints and His creation as well.

But why keep skipping over that part? It's important! And especially if I'm all famous and leaderly, people will follow my example and also in their preaching and programs based on mine, ignore that part of the truth!

That's similar to the issue with Rick Warren: only with him, it's not that he doesn't emphasize Heaven and the New Earth (he once endorsed Alcorn's Heaven, but I haven't heard him talk publicly about the New Earth!). The worse problem is he doesn't talk about the seriousness of sin and how it's an offense to God. Without really comprehending that truth on a heart level, more people will be filling churches, thinking themselves saved because they "asked Jesus into their hearts," but did not repent of sin.

I'm not talking about "fire insurance," believing in Jesus as a means to get out of Hell (which is an equally questionable motivation, though someone who has it might be truly saved and grow out of it). I'm talking about believing in Jesus as a means to Himself. You see Him as incredible and loving, and your sins as disgusting. You want Him. So the sin has to go.

Someone who wants personal or community morality as an end, and Jesus as the means, might also be saved. ... But why preach as if unaware of this danger? I'm afraid that's what Warren does. He may believe in right doctrines, but if he doesn't teach them, live them, what's the use?

Phil Johnson does a good job here, graciously of addressing Piper's invitation of Warren to speak at Piper's conference.

The massive problems with Warren's ministry philosophy are well documented. The same with his practice of softening, omitting, or denying key gospel truths about sin, judgment, the wrath of God, and the necessity of repentance. A preacher doesn't have to affirm heresy or overtly deny truth in order to be dangerous. It is entirely possible by one's behavior to distort or obscure the gospel message. All Peter did to earn a public rebuke from Paul was change seats at the dinner table (Galatians 2:11-14). But in context, that seriously compromised the gospel. Deliberately and repeatedly giving short shrift to the greatest truths of the gospel is at least as serious an error as Peter's hypocrisy.

Warren's private reassurances to John Piper shouldn't trump the fact that he does not actually preach the gospel plainly, boldly, thoroughly, unashamedly, and in a way that is faithful to the Word of God. If he privately believes something other than what he has said in his books and sermons, that makes him more culpable as a hypocrite. His belief is better than his practice? Let's not make that sound heroic.

Michael Horton remarks, with a similar grace-and-truth-balanced style, God bless him:

Obviously, Rick Warren believes that he is simply translating the gospel in terms that the unchurched can understand. However, the radical condition of sin is reduced to negative attitudes and behaviors and the radical redemption secured by Christ’s propitiatory death and resurrection are reduced to general and vague statements about God giving us another chance. His central message seems to be that you were created for a purpose and you just need to fulfill it. Even at Easter he can say, “…And of course, that purpose now becomes greater — and in fact, I think that’s really what the message this week of Easter is, is that God can bring good out of bad. That he turns crucifixions into resurrections. That he takes the mess of our life, and when we give him all the pieces, he can — God can put it together in a new way” (”Larry King Live,” CNN, March 22, 2005). I heard him say on a network morning program last Christmas that Jesus came to give us a mulligan, like in golf—a chance for a “do-over” in life.

While I applaud his concern for social justice, I am concerned that he confuses the law with the gospel and the work of Christians in their vocations (obeying the Great Commandment) with the work of Christ through his church in its ministry of Word and sacrament (the Great Commission).

By the way, RawKr, did you read my post from yesterday, in response about why, Scripture says, God loves people?

More on the definition of the Gospel, a timely topic (it's always a timely topic). In an unpublished novel, there's a scene between a non-Christian teenager, Katie, and her culturally "fundamentalist" grandfather, Matthew, about the Gospel. (And the story actually focuses on his life changes, not hers.) Here, he asks her what she thinks the Gospel is.

(Note that the scene is from her point of view; ordinarily, out of respect as well as ease of reading, I would capitalize pronouns referring to God.)

“Answer this anytime you like. Why do people become Christians?”

Katie stayed quiet. He said nothing either, even as they both got into the truck’s sides. Grandpa started the engine and they drove back down the slope, toward the trees.

She thought of an answer and decided to give it. “They want to be better people. Think Christianity’s the best way to do that. And when they die they don’t want to go to hell. I guess . . .” Well, not every Christian was a Bible-thumping activist. “I guess some of them are trying to find happiness in God. Or make the world better.”

More silence. She looked over and saw him just pondering, both arms stretched out for his hands to grasp around the wheel. A thin gold ring was on his left finger.

“That is not why anyone should become a Christian.” Grandpa’s lips pressed together. “The reason to be a Christian is because you love Christ more than anything. Not yourself, not some belief or better behavior. Jesus is the person you love most. You see him for who he is, and love him so much, that you know the sin between you and him is horrible. You want it out of the way. And he took it out of the way for us. Died to get rid of it all, forever.”

I'll add a thought or two about 'prosperity'. We first need to define what prosperity is. We often hear that word and think wordly finances, living a good life, having two cars, a good family, a sufficient sized home, etc. But I see a different definition. I see proseperity as being successful in what you do. This is regardless of setting, financial situation, culture, size of home, etc. My parents are by no means properous by the worldly standard. They continuously have more money going out than they have coming in, and things keep coming up (just had to replace two carburators in our Subaru). But they are being prosperous because they are being successful in thier job. They are serving as missionaries, and what they do, God blesses. Financially, they experience 'God-math', more money goes out than comes in, yet all the bills are always paid for on time. True prosperity is doing your work as unto the Lord and him blessing you for it, regardless of financial income or social standing. I hope I was clear on that.