For all the anti-redemptive-historical innuendo I like to slosh around, there are things to be said for it, though I will remain critical. One of the things I was surprised by when out from under it recently was the evangelical habit of speaking of the Gospel strictly in terms of a conversion experience, no more. The great thing is that you either have it or you need it, and that is all. Which is not untrue, but if you are left thinking this exhausts the Gospel, don’t you have a problem? For me it is the implied idea that only unbelievers need the Gospel. I don’t mean that as bloviated rhetoric—wow, the Gospel (and you give the word a kind of aural polish as you say it), it’s so awesome, it’s all of our life, guys; all. our. life. I’d rather not mention it than talk about it that way. However, the Gospel as proclaimed in redemptive-historical preaching is a summons to all those who hear to the Christian life of repentance from sin and of faith in Christ every day, and it is done in weekly rhythms. A churchgoing life of word and sacraments constitutes the world in which redemptive-historical preaching is supposed to function and the thing it is intended to nourish. I’m for that.