Against the Seperation of Theology and Practice

Transformation of life, including social and political life, is not an "implication" of the gospel. That would suggest that the gospel is over "here," and that it has implications for life that are over "there." It would mean that the gospel is on the left hand, and that we can draw out the moral implications of the gospel on the right hand. This separation of "theology" and "practice" is common, but is not biblical.

Transformation of life is not an implication of the gospel, but inherent in the gospel, because the good news is about transformation of life.

We might be tempted to say that the message of the gospel is true, whether or not there are any apparent affects when it is preached. "Of course" we think, "we must make every effort to ensure that our lives are consistent with that truth, but even if we are inconsistent, it is still true." However, this kind of thinking is muddled at best. It reduces the gospel to a philosophical viewpoint, another belief system that is tested by logical coherence.

This is not an option Paul allowed. Paul did not agree that the gospel would be true even if no one lived out of the gospel. Paul's gospel had an empirical test built into it; if no one was transformed, then the message that announced the transformation could not possibly be true. The first and chief defense of the gospel, the first "letter of recommendation" is not an argument, but the life of the church conformed to Christ.