The Church in Mission: Foundations and Global Case Studies

What does it mean today to be a church totally committed to the gospel and fully engaged in God’s mission? What major religious and sociological trends in our world are affecting the role of the global church and local churches? How must we understand and be prepared to face these trends? How do we define “church” in the twenty-first century, being faithful to the Scriptures and at the same time relevant to a generation that does not believe in the institutional church anymore? What are some good models of missional churches in different regions of the world that will encourage and inspire those who long to see a church making difference in society and in the world? These are some of the issues that the book you are holding in your hands addresses. There are certainly no final answers and magical forms; rather, we present a broad and deep discussion on how the gospel should be lived out by Jesus’ followers in our time and through our communities. Questions are raised and analyzed both from the perspective of a local church as well as from a global and general understanding of the Christian church. Some of our examples will focus more on local realities, others more on global challenges. The first part of the book is dedicated to a biblical and theological reflection on gospel, church, and mission. It includes Old and New Testament studies on the theological implications of being church, based on the biblical narrative. The second part deals with a variety of contemporary missiological issues related to the broader theme of church and mission. Different perspectives from current discussions and dialogues around the globe are included, covering both ideological reflections and practical aspects of being a mission-shaped church. The third part presents regional and national case studies that show the enormous creativity in church planting and engagement of local communities in their own societies. Models applied in the secularized Europe are contrasted to ways of functioning as church in fast growing congregations in the global South.

• Language: English
• Publisher: William Carey Library
• Release date: Jun 1, 2016
• ISBN: 9781645082132

Book preview

THE GOOD LIFE?

Reflections on the Highest Goals of Human Life

Richard Tiplady

Riots and Reflections

During the summer of 2011, with the outbreak of rioting and looting that convulsed several English cities, I found myself unable to get away from the question of what is the good life and how do we define it in a society like the United Kingdom.

I found it interesting that much of what was looted from shops during that time were the symbols of our mainstream consumer culture: expensive trainer shoes, fashion clothing, smart-phones and flat-screen televisions. Our culture aspires to such symbols, and those who looted seized the opportunity of acquiring these things free, even though some could clearly have afforded to buy them. Blackberry’s Messenger service, BBM, was blamed for the coordination of the crowds who came to loot, so it wasn’t being done by people who couldn’t afford to buy such items.

Our politicians and media tried to occupy the moral high ground, but had no rights to do so: they themselves were caught up at the time in scandals over expense claims by some Members of Parliament (MPs) and phone-hacking by journalists. Some MPs had availed themselves of as much free stuff as the looters, just in different ways. Further, the economic stimulus actions of recent years have all been aimed at increasing consumerism, thus inflating the very bubble that led to the worldwide economic crash in the first place.

There is, therefore, a fairly clear idea of the good life circulating in my culture, shared across class and ethnicity, based on consuming, spending, and possessing.

I found myself wondering whether and how we as Christians really differ from those around us. True, some churches got involved in riot clean-up activities, but so did many other people. So it wasn’t distinctively Christian, even if it was a good thing to do. Most of us Christians aspire to similar things as those around us: I live in a nice house, I drive a nice car, I have good quality clothes, a decent flat-screen television, a good laptop, a tablet computer, and a smartphone, and I take good holidays in warm places. So I’m not that different from those around me.

The thought also struck me that our current missional focus in the West is often aimed at demonstrating community to a lonely, disparate, networked society. But isn’t that what gang culture offers to its members as well?

Augustine and the Good Life

Augustine’s concept of the Summom Bonum came to mind and I dug out my old copy of The City of God and began to look at what that great theologian had to say about Christian hope and responsibility when one’s society and culture appear to be on the verge of collapse.

Augustine addressed the question of the Summom Bonum (the Final, Ultimate, Sovereign or Highest Good) because it was a matter of great interest to the Greek philosophical traditions with which he was engaging. It is that to which we refer all our actions, which we seek for its own sake, not for any ulterior end, and the attainment of which leaves us nothing more to seek for our happiness (City of God, VIII.8). He goes on to observe that most Greek philosophers located it in the human mind, body, or a combination of both, and mostly they did not seek to locate it beyond man himself. The one exception to this was Plato, who located it in the enjoyment of God: Plato defined the Sovereign Good as the life in accordance with virtue; and he declared that this was possible only for one who had the knowledge of God and who strove to imitate him; this was the sole condition of happiness (VIII.8).

Augustine’s approval of Platonism ensured that it became influential in Christian theology until the rediscovery of Aristotle by Thomas Aquinas and his scholastic contemporaries eight hundred years later. Augustine could write: There are philosophers who have conceived of God, the supreme and true God, as the author of all created things, the light of knowledge, the truth of doctrine and the blessedness of life. They may be called, most suitably, Platonists; or they may give some other title to their school. … Whoever they may have been, we rank such thinkers above all others and acknowledge them as representing the closest approximation to our Christian position (VIII.9).

Augustine outlines the various possible alternatives of the Final Good as offered by Greek philosophers, many of which sound rather contemporary: Men long for pleasure, which is a stimulation of the bodily senses that gives delight; or for repose, the state in which the person suffers no bodily distress; or for a combination of the two (which Epicurus lumps together under the one name of pleasure) (XIX.1) or the Stoic first things according to nature, being the wholeness and health of the body’s parts and the sound condition of the whole organism. He expands this to include not just a relaxed and healthy life but also involvement in one’s community or with friends: the first, without being slothful, is still a life of leisure passed in the consideration of truth or the quest for it; the second is busily engaged in the world’s affairs (XIX.2) and this happy life is social, and for its own sake values the good of friends as its own, just as it wishes for them, for their own sake, what it wishes for itself (XIX.3).

All of this sounds perfectly reasonable, but this was Augustine. The City of God was written primarily in response to the Visigoths’ sack of Rome in 410, for which Catholic Christianity was blamed, and so he was in no way minded to affirm such aspirations. On the contrary, for Augustine the City of God is characterized by those who forget earthly pleasures in order to commit themselves to the eternal truths of the Christian faith, in contrast with the City of Man whose inhabitants immerse themselves in the cares and pleasures of this passing world.

The effect of Augustine’s idea of the City of God was to develop the Christian idea of heaven as a spiritual place for which we long, and this world as a place through which we are simply passing. He describes the Christian view very simply—eternal life is the Supreme Good—and goes on to show the weakness and risks inherent in locating the Summom Bonum in the mind, the body, social or community life (XIX.4–9). He then repeats the Christian position (as he sees it), rather cleverly changing the meaning of the Bible passage he quotes to suit his purposes: the name of the City [of God] itself has a mystical significance, for ‘Jerusalem,’ as I have already said, means ‘vision of peace’ [here alluding to Psalm 147:12–14]. But the word ‘peace’ is freely used in application to the events of this mortal state, where there is certainly no eternal life; and so I have preferred to use the term ‘eternal life’ instead of ‘peace’ in describing the end of this City, where its Ultimate Good will be found (XIX.11). For Augustine, then, the Ultimate Good is eternal life, in conscious contradistinction to this life.

Augustine was clearly heavily influenced by the Platonism he admired, quoting as he does from a Greek comedy to illustrate his argument of the inadequacy of locating the Summom Bonum in social life: I married a wife, and misery I found! Children were born, and they increased my cares (XIX.5). This somewhat cynical and despairing quotation is far removed in tone and aspiration from the longings and ideals expressed in the Old Testament:

I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil— this is the gift of God. (Eccl 3:12–13)

This is what I have observed to be good: that it is appropriate for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them—for this is their lot. Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil—this is a gift of God. They seldom reflect on the days of their life, because God keeps them occupied with gladness of heart. (Eccl 5:18–20)

This last quotation from Ecclesiastes links us quite nicely back to the 2011 riots and looting in England, the question of what this tells us about the Summom Bonum of our contemporary Western culture, and what we as Christians might have to say in response to this. The looting of flat-screen televisions, smartphones, and fashion clothing tells us something about what these people value as the Ultimate Good. But before we get too condemnatory, we should recognize that all they were doing was finding a way of joining the party, as one journalist noted:

Obscene inequalities of wealth have disfigured our civil society, so is it any wonder that the dispossessed stop playing by the rules? We have created a world in which human worth is measured by crude material gain—is it surprising then that those without decide to acquire it by whatever means?

Ecclesiastes seems to say more that connects with the Summom Bonum of contemporary Western society than does Augustine. For even today’s feral youth, when asked, say that what they really want are the things that most of us aspire to, that is, a job, a home, a husband or wife, and children. It is the perceived difficulty in attaining or sustaining such aspirations that drives them to frustration and anger. To give them Augustine’s message—the pleasures of this world are passing, and what you should be longing for is heaven—might sound Christian, but is it really going to connect?

And is it really even that Christian? For, as I have suggested, Augustine was perhaps overly influenced by the Platonism to which he sought to respond. Is heaven or eternal life really the Summom Bonum for Christians? Or would it be better to say that our Summom Bonum is resurrection?

The Good Life: Living in the Light of the Resurrection

New Testament scholar Dominic Crossan asks a provocative question about the resurrection of Jesus: If Jesus did rise from the dead, then so what? Very nice for him, but what’s it got to do with anything else? Why should he be so specially favored? If God can pull off a stunt like that, why can’t he intervene and do a lot more useful things like stopping genocide and earthquakes?

German theologian Wolfhart Pannenburg gives a clear answer to this question in his book Jesus: God and Man, summarizing the implications of the resurrection of Jesus for his followers and his contemporaries: In the historical context of first-century Palestine, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead did not need to be interpreted—it would automatically be understood as the beginning of the general resurrection of the dead, as the beginning of the last days.

The New Testament presents Jesus’ resurrection as the foretaste, the first fruits, of the resurrection of the dead that the Jews expected at the end of the age (1 Cor 15:20–23). As such it has brought the full saving work of God into human history. Resurrection takes as its basis the assumption that there is something fundamentally good about bodily life, that it was created by God and that it is not evil (in supposed contrast to the good spiritual life). The resurrection of Jesus affirms that this life is not meaningless, nor has it been abandoned by God.

If the last days have begun in the resurrection of Christ, then all the expectations of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Christ. Nicholas Wolterstorff notes, Israel’s religion was a religion of salvation, not of contemplation—that is what accounts for the mantra of the widows, the orphans, the aliens and the poor. (It is) not a religion of salvation from this earthly existence, but a religion of salvation from injustice in this earthly existence. In Jesus, the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5), God has broken into the world, establishing his reign of righteousness and justice, not just at the end of the age as the Jews expected, but in history itself. Creating a better future for this world is not an afterthought to the gospel, as if it were an extra, a mere add-on. It is part of it.

If this is what God did and is doing through the resurrection of Jesus, then how will he bring it about? Not by magic, but through the church, the people of God. This may sound like a bold claim to others, but it is unavoidable. Perhaps surprisingly, the church is also called the first fruits in the New Testament (2 Thess 2:13; Jas 1:18) and so we are part of this resurrection work of God. We are called by God to be his people, set apart for him, who will be a sign and an agent of his purposes that will ultimately be fulfilled and completed at the end (1 Cor 15:24). Before we get too carried away with this claim, we should note its sobering responsibility. God’s resurrection work is not just to be served by the church, but to be exemplified by it and embodied in it. In many of his letters, Paul sees the church as the new humanity, Jew and Gentile united, no longer hostile and divided but one. For this reason he found Christian unity essential to our mission. Our disunity and conflict is a scandal, and something which rightly undermines the very claims we make about God.

At the very end of a very long exposition of the implications of Jesus’ resurrection, Paul writes: Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. Because of Jesus’ resurrection, our work is not in vain. Because of Jesus’ resurrection, what we do matters. The resurrection of Christ demands a personal response to Christ, and a personal commitment to his cause. Evangelism is not just announcing the great fact of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:18, 31–32) and inviting a response, it is also an invitation to join with the great cause of God.

The scope and impact of Jesus’ resurrection is not just national, but global. An Old Testament expectation of God’s work in the last days would be that all peoples would worship Israel’s God (Isa 60:1–3). We should see the Spirit-led explosion of mission in Acts 8–11 as the first example of this. First Samaritans, then an Ethiopian, then Cornelius the Roman soldier, and finally Greeks in Antioch—all of them respond to the message of Jesus. Paul’s mission from Antioch in Acts 13 is not the first Christian mission; it was just the next step in something that began with the resurrection of Jesus and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, and is something which has continued to this very day.

In the death and resurrection of Jesus, God has decisively and finally broken into human history, to bring his redemption and transformation to the whole of life. This fact demands a personal response—not just our allegiance, but our whole life, committed to God’s purposes. If we understand heaven not as our final destination but as the place where the will of God is done (Matt 6:10), then perhaps one of the best descriptions of life in the light of Jesus’ resurrection is grabbing chunks of heaven and dragging them down to earth.

And if this is our calling and our purpose as Christians, then perhaps we have something concrete to say about an alternative Summom Bonum, one which leads to transformed lives today, lived for others and for God.

Questions for Reflection:

Describing Christians in the Western culture, Tiplady says that most of us Christians aspire to similar things as those around us. Is that a true picture of believers also in other cultures? How does that notion of good life affect the church community today?

In light of the author’s reflection on the Ultimate Good, how can the gospel be presented as a valid and relevant alternative to the current understanding of good life in our societies?

How could the church in your context be grabbing chunks of heaven and dragging them down to earth? Give some concrete examples.

Richard Tiplady is the Principal of the Scottish School of Christian Mission (previously known as International Christian College). He is passionate about finding ways to respond to the missionary challenge of the West, and has served in leadership roles in mission for many years. He has written extensively on the changing nature of world mission, and is keen to invest his energies in developing creative and innovative leaders in mission. He is married to Irene, who works in a mental health project in one of the most deprived council estates in Scotland, and they have one son, Jamie, who is a computer game designer.

CHAPTER 2

WHY GOD IS CALLING OUT A PEOPLE

Tom Hayes

The God of all creation, the one who spoke the world into existence, reveals himself and his purposes in his creation. God desires to be known and worshipped, so he created a world that would fully express his creativity and that would allow his creation to worship him. Within this world of his creation, God gave a special dispensation to only one portion of his creation—human beings. Humans, due to this unique gift, would then be the primary carriers of God and his glory. Humans could view themselves as God does—as his witnesses to those individuals who have not yet heard, received, and embraced God and his plan.

With this thought in mind, there are really only two questions to address: (1) How has God uniquely crafted humans to be his representatives? (2) Has God chosen specific people to be his representatives?

Uniquely Crafted

In Genesis 1:27 the Bible says that humans were made in the image of God. There is no other part of God’s creation that has been given this honor. God has chosen humans to be his reflection and the representation of his image on earth. There are entire books written about all of the possible meanings of humans being made in the image of God. Christopher J.H. Wright helpfully sums up the principal idea in one paragraph:

Much theological ink has been spilled on trying to pin down exactly what it is about human beings that can be identified as the essence of the image of God in us. Is it our rationality, our sense of responsibility to God? Even our upright posture and the expressiveness of the human face have been canvassed as the locus of the image of God in mankind. Since the Bible nowhere defines the term, it is probably futile to attempt to do so very precisely. In any case, we should not so much think of the image of God as an independent thing that we somehow possess. God did not give to human beings the image of God. Rather, it is a dimension of our very creation. The expression in our image is adverbial (that is, it describes the way God made us), not adjectival (that is, as if it simply described a quality we possess). The image of God is not so much something we possess, as what we are. To be human is to be the image of God. It is not an extra feature added on to our species; it is definitive of what it means to be human.¹

What then are the implications for these humans who have been made in the image of God? It is to join with God in revealing himself to his creation. Art Glasser says it this way:

The Creation account is of such universal significance that one is pressed to conclude that it is the inalienable right of all people to know the God whose image they bear. Surely God desires that those who know him should share with those who do not know him the reality of God’s existence and nature. The Great Commission explicitly expresses what the Creation account implies.²

Humans are to join with God in accomplishing what he has already begun. He is revealing himself to his creation, which responds by worshiping him. Humans have the special task of joining with God in that work.

The next question would be, Are there certain humans through whom God will work primarily, or are all humans tasked with this assignment? All humans are made in the image of God and bear this responsibility. However, not all humans have been faithful participants with God in this endeavor for various reasons. What cannot be argued though is that God has uniquely revealed himself to individuals and communities of believers throughout time, empowering them to serve as the people of God. These people of God have taken various forms through the generations, but all serve as witnesses to what God is doing in history. From a scriptural standpoint, these people could be called Israel in the Old Testament and the Church in the New Testament. However, their task remains the same: revealing the nature of God to those who do not yet know him. There are two passages of Scripture that bear examination to see how the mandate has been the same for the people of God in both Testaments.

The Old Testament

Exodus 19 comes at a unique point in history. The people that would one day be known as the Israelites have been freed from slavery in Egypt after experiencing multiple miracles performed by God for their benefit. Among the miracles seen during those previous two months were plagues, the Passover, the crossing of the Red Sea, and miraculous provision of food and water. Even though these people were prone to complain, they could not deny that God had displayed remarkable power for their wellbeing.

In the story found in Exodus 19, God meets with Moses on Mount Sinai and says:

Give these instructions to the family of Jacob; announce it to the descendants of Israel: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians. You know that I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you will obey me and keep my covenant, you will be my own special treasure from among all the peoples on earth; for all the earth belongs to me. And you will be my kingdom of priests, my holy nation. This is the message you must give to the people of Israel. Exodus 19:3–6

It is not possible here to unpack fully this Mosaic covenant. However, note how God intended for Israel to understand its existence as the people of God. God did not choose Israel because they were special, as some argue. On the contrary, these people are shown to be complainers by nature, who were more often unfaithful than faithful to the covenant. The Bible repeatedly records the sin of the nation of Israel.

If God did not choose the nation of Israel because of its special nature, what was the basis for choosing them? God chose them because he is special. As a special, unique, and holy God, he wanted a people to represent him on the earth. As his representatives, chosen by him, they share in his purposes on this earth—revealing himself and receiving the worship that is due him alone.

Exodus 19:5–6 shows this to be true. God chose the nation of Israel to be his witnesses to all other nations, calling Israel his special treasure whose role was to serve as priests before all other nations. The role of the priest was to serve people before God. The duties of the priest were to present offerings on behalf of the people of Israel. Just as the individual priests served between the nation and God, so he intended that the nation of Israel collectively would serve between God and the nations. Charles Pfeiffer says, As the priest is a mediator between God and man, so Israel is called to be the vehicle of the knowledge and salvation of God to the nations of the earth.³ God did not choose the people of Israel to love them more or to bless them more, but he chose them to use them as his witnesses.

The New Testament

1 Peter 2:4–10 is a fascinating passage that reiterates much of what was said to the people of Israel in Exodus 19, but this time the audience is different.

You are coming to Christ, who is the living cornerstone of God’s temple. He was rejected by people, but he was chosen by God for great honor. And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are his holy priests. Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, you offer spiritual sacrifices that please God. As the Scriptures say, I am placing a cornerstone in Jerusalem, chosen for great honor, and anyone who trusts in him will never be disgraced.

Yes, you who trust him recognize the honor God has given him. But for those who reject him, the stone that the builders rejected has now become the cornerstone and he is the stone that makes people stumble, the rock that makes them fall.

They stumble because they do not obey God’s word, and so they meet their fate that was planned for them. But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he has called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light. Once you had no identity as a people; now you are God’s people. Once you received no mercy, now you have received God’s mercy.

Echoing Exodus 19, in verse 5 the recipients of the letter are told that they are holy priests, offering spiritual sacrifices that please God. This indicates to the hearers and readers of the letter their role as participants with God in revealing himself to his creation. The task of serving as mediators or servants of God as he reveals himself is not a new one, but a continuation of what God has always intended for the people of God to represent. 1 Peter 2:9 is even closer to the Exodus text. Peter explicitly and distinctly ties the role of his present readers and hearers to those who first heard the message of Exodus 19. The people of God are wonderfully included in what God is accomplishing on earth!

Who were God’s chosen people to whom Peter addresses his letter? They were both Jewish background believers, and Gentile believers, living throughout what is modern day Turkey. The language Peter uses would resonate with both groups of believers, uniting them as equal recipients of his letter. In fact, Peter goes to great lengths to include both Jewish background believers and Gentile believers, using phrases that strongly resonate with the former (e.g., the very term God’s chosen people) but making inclusion of Gentiles clear as well (e.g., the emphasis on salvation being through faith in Christ, not ethnicity).

In The Classic Bible Commentary, A.R. Faussett writes:

The heading of 1 Peter 1:1 "to the elect strangers (spiritually pilgrims) of the dispersion" clearly marks the Christians of the Jewish dispersion as prominently addressed, but still including Gentile Christians as grafted into the Christian Jewish stock by adoption and faith, and so being part of the true Israel. 1 Peter 1:14, 2:9–10, 3:6 and 4:3 clearly prove this. Thus he, the apostle of the circumcision, sought to unite in one Christ, Jew and Gentile, promoting thereby the same work and doctrine as Paul the apostle of the uncircumcision.⁴

Scripture clearly presents the role of the people of God as participants with God to reveal him to the nations. This role is not tied to birthrights or country of origin, but instead tied to purposes and plans that God himself has established. God has not only established this plan, but through the work of Christ makes it possible for any and all individuals who receive the grace of Christ to participate with him.

Questions for Reflection:

What does the author mean by the humans being uniquely crafted and how does that relate to the mandate given by the Creator to join him in his work?

Compare Peter’s description of the church in 1 Peter chapters 1 and 2 with the role God had given to the Jews in the Old Testament. How can and should the church in your specific context fulfill today the task of being a chosen people, royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession?

References

Glasser, Arthur. 2005. Announcing the Kingdom. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Pfeiffer, Charles. 1962. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Wright, Christopher J.H. 2004. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Leicester: IVP/Downers Grove, IL: IVP.

Tom Hayes serves as the Executive Vice President of International Ministries for Insight for Living Ministries. He has been involved in international ministry efforts for many years helping to equip the Western church to be involved globally, regularly traveling to and speaking in countries around the world. Tom and his wife Katie are blessed with two sons.

CHAPTER 3

THE GOSPEL IN THE GOSPELS

Andrew B. Spurgeon

The Old English word gospel is a translation of a Greek word euangelion that in ordinary circumstances meant news and in extraordinary circumstances meant good-news. The word Gospel (with the capital G) refers to any one of the first four books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Justin Martyr (c. AD 100–165) was the earliest known author to refer to the four apostolic biographies of Christ in this way.¹ So, this essay explores the question, "What is the good-news proclaimed in the four Gospels?"

John Stott says, God’s good news is about Jesus.² He reflects Paul’s declaration, Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel (2 Timothy 2:8, Romans 1:1–4, 1 Corinthians 15:3–5). Since the Gospels elaborate on the life, actions, and speech of Jesus, they become primary sources of what the early Christians understood as the gospel.

There are various ways to explain the meaning of the gospel. For instance, Snodgrass explains it in terms of the gospel [that] Jesus preached, in which four elements dominate: celebration, compassion, the role of Israel, and the kingdom of God. All other themes provide foundations for these four or become windows through which the rest of Jesus’ message may be understood.³

Dodd speaks of the gospel message in terms of kerygma, that which is preached. He differentiates between teachings that are instructional for Christians and kerygma that is preaching for non-Christians. The essentials of the kerygma are: the prophecies are fulfilled and a new age has been inaugurated in the coming of Christ, Christ is born of the seed of David, he died according to the Scriptures to deliver his people from the present evil age, he was buried, he rose on the third day, he is exalted to the right hand of God as the Son of God and Lord, and he will come again as judge and savior of humanity.⁴

Or again: Hooker examines the beginnings and the endings of the Gospels and concludes that the beginnings communicate that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s plan for his people and the endings are open-ended, implying that the stories of his people continue. The final chapters in the Gospels deal with resurrection, which brings new life, not just for Jesus, but for all his followers.⁵ Abogunrin sees a comprehensive picture: "The gospel is the good news of salvation, deliverance, and restoration for the whole of humanity, regardless of sex, race, or color. It is the story about what God accomplished for people through Jesus Christ. It is the good tidings of total liberation and forgiveness addressed to a world lost in