Book Review: Scot McKnight's "The King Jesus Gospel"

Some things in the Bible mess you up. Anyone who has spent even a nominal amount of time in scripture knows there are "difficult" passages, both difficult to understand or interpret, and difficult to put into practice. Something I read a few years ago didn't fall into either of these categories, but it messed with me just the same.

After his resurrection, Jesus engages two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus. They are confused about the events of Jesus' trial and death, and even more by rumors of his resurrection (at this point, they don't know who he is). Luke then says in 24:27 "Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures" (NET Bible).

What messed with me on this particular day was the thought that I - a lifelong church attender - could not trace the story of Jesus "beginning with Moses and all the prophets". Yes, I knew that there were lots of footnoted texts in my New Testament where Jesus would quote the Old Testament. But I was sure there was something more.

Then, on studying in earnest - especially Luke - it amazed me how often Luke quoted or alluded to OT scriptures. This is Luke, the Gentile, not Matthew, the Jew. Luke knew the Old Testament story in great detail. Then I noticed it everywhere I looked: each time someone preached in Acts, they didn't give a compressed salvation story based on the passion narrative of Christ, they gave a long history of Israel, with Jesus as the culminating event. The early church fathers, even those who were gentiles, spoke in detail of Israel's story and referred often to the Old Testament.

Then, finally what messed me up was this: all my evangelical life I had been told a gospel that began with Paul. It was a justification / salvation story extracted from Paul's atonement theology. But how could this be "the good news", when all through "The Gospels", Jesus went around telling people "the good news"? The gospel that I professed for salvation was only a part of the story. The gospel included the Old Testament Israel story, and the story Jesus was telling his audiences. It was not just "Jesus died to take away your sins. Believe and you'll be saved".

That's probably the longest introduction I've ever made for a book review, but I hope you'll see why I was intrigued enough to snatch up a copy of Scot McKnight's new book, "The King Jesus Gospel" as soon as it was released. In "The King Jesus Gospel", Scot pleads the case for a broader understanding of gospel and a new gospel culture. He contrasts his understanding of "The Gospel" and a gospel culture with the current "salvation culture", based on a small piece, albiet truth, of the good news of Jesus. "I want to raise a red flag right now", he writes, "our Method of Persuasion is shaped by a salvation culture and is designed from first to last to get people to make a decision so they can come safely inside the boundary lines of The Decided" (p. 43).

The gospel, he says, is a culmination of the story of Israel. "The Story of Jesus though, is first and foremost a resolution of Israel's story and because the Jesus Story completes Israel's story, it saves." (p. 37) "The fundamental solution in the gospel is that Jesus is Messiah and Lord; this means there was a fundamental need for a ruler, a king, and a lord." (p. 137)

Scot's argument is that the common pressure in evangelicalism to "make a decision" for Christ doesn't lead people to become disciples. Instead, it allows them to escape hell. A gospel that says "Jesus is Messiah and Lord" demands a very different decision: submit, follow, or...rebel (my interpretation). And because of that decision, it creates a very different culture.

I'm sketching ever so briefly here, but this has the potential to change so many things in our churches, beginning with the way we "do" evangelism. At one point Scot says "There is no way to reduce this (the gospel) to four points, and there is also no way to sketch the gospel in a minute or two." I was relieved to hear him say this. I have long been a student of evangelism methods, and frankly, I'm dismayed at how many books, videos, and sermons have been dedicated to creating a napkin sketch or an elevator pitch that presents a coherent gospel. It can't be done. And I think it does a disservice to the story that God has put together to try to minimize it to this level. A napkin sketch gospel is perfectly suited to create the Jesus disciples we have been making. I don't think we have to fret over lost opportunity if we don't have a planned 3 minute testimony or elevator pitch. I've had plenty of opportunities to tell a complete gospel story. It's a story that takes time to tell, and it won't always be told in one setting. But it's a good story and if it's told well, then it's hearers can make informed, committed decisions about the God they choose to follow.

I'll close with two points. First, Scot mentions in passing a book by Sean Gladding called "The Story of God, the Story of Us" as an example of telling the gospel. I met Sean last year and heard him do a live reading from his book. I bought a copy, took it home and read it to my family over a series of months. It was a wonderful experience. There were so many conversations that flowed from those nights. I highly recommend the book. Scot also presents a shorter, but also very solid telling of the gospel in the closing chapters of the book. These are great examples of how to do the story well.

Second, I'll have to say that though the material was good, sometimes I had trouble following Scot's writing style. The only other book of his I've read was "The Blue Parakeet", and I didn't have the same issues with that book. Something about this book was a little clunky. It's almost like his editors didn't read the book for clarity. The book presented its case, but not as concisely as perhaps it could.