I have a few points to share about my above statement:
1) I believe the answer to the question, "What are we saved from? What are we redeemed from?" is sin and death. I believe it is that simple because of what I read all throughout the gospels and especially what Paul tells us in Romans. Here's a small sample:
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:1-4 (NIV)2) When it comes to the culture part of my hypothesis, I bring up a touchy point that may have many questioning my willingness to love. If you can replace Christ, Jesus, or Christian with any other religious or spiritual group or organization, it might not be the Gospel. Here's an example I heard the other day that really got me thinking. [UPDATE: it must be noted that I changed the quote to what was actually said. I misquoted on accident. It may change the way you read this. It may bring apathy to whether or not you replace the word now. So be it. Most Evangelicals would equate Christian with Evangelical. I am not an Evangelical.]:
"I embrace the term evangelical Evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world. Caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness; a hopeful outlook. That's a beautiful sort of thing."[a]Replace Evangelical with any other words: Buddhist, Muslim, follower of Oprah, member of "One", communist, friendly, political, Christian, an upstanding member of the community, etc. Are these intrinsically good things? Absolutely. UPDATE: Can you be an Evangelical and not be a Christian? Yes. Are they the Gospel? I don't think so. These are fruits of our Christ-likeness, but none of this statement sets us as Christians apart from the rest of the world. What sets us apart is our willingness and desire to die to ourselves, take up our cross, and follow only Christ. I hear from friends who aren't part of a church say things like, "you don't have to go to church to be a good person." and, "I know lots of good people who aren't Christians." I don't think that I am a Christian so I can be a good person. I am a Christian because I am a sinner who has no hope without Christ.
Try replacing Christ in this next statement:
"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (NIV)Difficult to do and it worries me that we have changed the Gospel of Jesus Christ for something that is very Moltmannian in order to look good to culture. I don't think they fit together.
3) Is it arrogant to know that my Redeemer lives?
This was longer than I had intended...I edited, but didn't want to leave any of this out. So I ask,
What say you?
Am I way off?
Is the Gospel as simplistic as I am making it?
Would a simple Gospel like this be Good News?
Is helping the poor the Gospel or a fruit that comes from our desire to share Jesus?
Do you think we're doing what Jesus wanted us to do?
What could we do better?
[a] statement made by Rob Bell in an interview with the Boston Globe.



