James Choung’s True Story seeks to remedy the incompleteness of traditional presentations of the gospel by filling in the central aspects of the biblical Story (kingdom, mission life, church) that we have tended to leave out. Yet as he takes on this worthy challenge, Choung downplays and minimizes other aspects of the biblical teaching on salvation (atonement, personal sin against God, holiness, Law), omissions that ultimately prove detrimental to his gospel presentation.
One aspect that I do like about this presentation is its invitation to nominal Christians (like people in the Bible Belt) to begin to follow Jesus in his mission in the church. Choung’s outline challenges nominal people to repent, join a church and make Jesus Lord of their purpose and mission. Choung teaches that the church is the vanguard of hope for this broken and damaged world, in Christ, who is making all things new in his Kingdom. Those inside and outside the church need this challenge to align their lives with God’s Kingdom.
As we bring this series to a close, I’d like to speak briefly to the reasons why Choung thinks we need new gospel presentations. (Let me state clearly that I appreciate Choung’s initiative in thinking through these issues. We do need to rethink how we share the gospel. I do not, however, think we need a new gospel.)
Here’s what Choung believes is wrong with the traditional presentations. First, they may cause us to have judgmental attitudes (18). After all, if everything is about who’s in and who’s out, it can cause Christians to be smug and confident in having their eternity all figured out.
Secondly, traditional presentations may lead toward legalism (19). If the emphasis is on God desiring perfection, then we always feel like we’re never measuring up. We can’t make the grade.
Third, traditional presentations fail to address the injustice perpetrated by Christians in the world. Apologetics matter today, especially because people are wondering if Christianity is good for anything. We must address the record of the church, a record that is quite ugly at times.
Choung critiques traditional evangelistic strategies for focusing on formulas that make the soulwinner feel like “an actor in a bad B-movie who still faithfully delivers his lines” (22). Diagrams are then taken as symbols of the gospel itself instead of just a way of presenting the gospel (194) (although ironically, Choung puts forth his own diagram!).
So how does Choung’s presentation correct these deficiencies?
Regarding judgmental attitudes, Choung seeks to present a gospel that doesn’t sound so exclusive (193).
“In a day when the main spiritual question is no longer ‘What is true?’ but ‘What is real?’ or ‘What is good?’, the gospel as most of us have learned it doesn’t sound like good news” (193).
Since the gospel no longer deals with the afterlife, the judgmental exclusivity of Christians is gone.
Regarding legalism, as I mentioned before, Choung never mentions the holiness of God. The idea of a holy God demanding perfection is gone, curing us of legalism. (Ironically, legalism is not cured by lessening the Law’s demands but by seeing the demands satisfied in the perfect life and substitutionary death of Jesus.)
Regarding the issue of Christian injustice, Choung includes social action as part of the gospel itself (27). So the question of Christians doing good in the world comes into the very heart of the gospel message in order to answer the charge that Christians have often done wrong in the name of Jesus.
Choung advocates we return to an emphasis on the community of faith. I agree with him here. Most gospel presentations have been so individualistic as to leave little room for the Church. But Choung’s reason for adding the emphasis on community puzzles me:
“A gospel that highlights community in a culture that longs for intimacy and friendship will feel more relevant to today’s culture” (198).
This statement begs the question: Are we highlighting community because of its relevance or because it is true and is part of the biblical witness? I hopefully assume that Choung’s answer would be, “Because the biblical gospel includes the coming together of Jew and Gentile since Jesus is Lord of all (Ephesians 2).” But it seems to me (at least from the context of his statement) that Choung is taking his cue from what the culture thinks is relevant, and then shaping the gospel to fit the cultural demands.
Another revealing statement comes from a Thai woman who has heard Choung’s presentation of the gospel and expresses her approval. She then says, “I don’t have to make my friends feel like sinners to share the gospel with them” (221). I do not want to misrepresent James Choung or his motivations, and I believe he is truly passionate about seeing people come to faith in Christ. But I cannot help but wonder if, in the end, the entire True Story project has the unintentional effect of removing the offense of the gospel.
If the outcome of our gospel presentation allows listeners to avoid the issue of personal sin, then we have completely missed the boat. The gospel answers more than the problem of individual sin, yes. But it never answers less. And to excise the offensive nature of our sinfulness and God’s holiness from the gospel is to remove the stumbling block. At this point, we are not being more faithful to Scripture, but less.
James Choung’s True Story helpfully points out some of the deficiencies of our gospel presentations. We would do well to incorporate many of his insights into our presentation of the gospel. But True Story fails, not in what Choung adds, but in what he takes away. At the end of the day, I believe the traditional presentations (for all their flaws) are actually more complete than the gospel of True Story.
