This introductory essay is worth every moment the reader will take to digest every thought of the late Dr. J.I. Packer. In these initial paragraphs Dr. Packer sets the stage by comparing two Gospels. It is not a comparison of heresy versus orthodoxy, because both “Gospels” have the similar content and words. The difference lies in what and how the “Gospels” are communicated. In his own words he writes, “The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.” This new Gospel has been categorized as “attractional”, “user-friendly”, “relevant”, or “therapeutic”. I have found that you have to attend or observe services of this type rather than try to categorize them. But in Dr. Packer’s words they are centred upon this “new Gospel”. Note Packer’s comparison:
“. . . Without realising it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty.
The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centred in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do.One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be “helpful” to man—to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction—and too little concerned to glorify God.
The old gospel was “helpful,” too—more so, indeed, than is the new—but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its centre of reference was unambiguously God.
But in the new gospel the centre of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him . . ..”
As I have attended or watched these “new Gospel” churches I sense I have been drawn into a spiritualized Ted-Talk. However, in Pauline thought there is really just one Gospel. So, this so-called “new Gospel” is actually no Gospel at all. Attendees leave psychologically and emotionally pumped up devoid of God-centred thoughts, Christ-centred pursuits, or Word-driven behaviours.
