BGODs vs Gospel Improv

Post date: Sep 25, 2018 8:30:57 AM

Part of what makes Gospel Improv hard to explain is that it is not a better mousetrap, in the sense that I'm trying to come up with The Best Gospel Outline (BGOD) Diagram. It is a framework for thinking about the underlying dynamics of the gospel so it can be contextualized easily into any number of gospel presentations with whatever drivers are relevant to the students we are trying to reach. I stopped teaching students BGODs a few years ago, because even the best (like IV's 4 worlds and Matthias Media 2WTL) get students focused on memorizing a particular outline (which are frankly rather complicated). The trick in that case is to match the outline to the situation (this is why, I think, 4 Worlds fits some proxes well but has difficult transitions for other proxes). I'd rather have them put their effort into seeing gospel opportunities in passages they study and life situations they come across. That's where the "improv" part comes in.

[another approach]

Gospel Outlines seem to have a few (largely implicit) criteria:

1. Be Relevant

2. Be Concise

3. Be Theologically Complete, or put another way, Don't Leave Out An Essential Doctrine

Numbers 2 and 3, of course, pull opposite directions even with a well-trimmed set of Cardinal doctrines.

Number 1 generally leads to an attempt to pick a metaphor for the Gospel that can be conveyed visually and that will be compelling to the sensitivities of the current generation. Will post-modern students be able to relate to the idea of atonement, for example? Probably not without some explanation.

When we put these criteria together, we have to answer some questions. For example, can we adequately share the Gospel or are we giving a faithful rendition of the work of Christ (criterion #3) if we fail to mention that Jesus lived a sinless life? Probably not if we feel that the theologically preferred way to explain his work is as an act of justification (again, #3) or we feel that students will be most moved by the idea of justification (#1). Can we leave out the love of God and Jesus if we privilege reconciliation or adoption as the primary way we are going to depict why Jesus came? Probably not.

2W does not try to be complete, based on a theory of the atonement or a sense of the best way to explain the work of Christ. It's not these ideas aren't important; of course, they are vitally important. The driving idea behind 2W is to privilege a soteriological metaphor or doctrine, but to focus on the experience of incarnation. An encounter with Jesus is the primary thing. Probably that encounter will trigger a lifetime of exploration of