Mr Winzer, I do of course fully stand by Mr. Burroughs statement above, and stand by your use of Matthew 28:29. I wholly affirm the reformed tradition of interpreting scripture when it asserts that the gospel is not just the "indicative," but that there are, indeed, gospel imperatives, that the gospel is something to be obeyed; we proclaim the gospel or "the truth which is after godliness," and teach "the doctrine which is according to godliness," believing that man can truly "obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." I of course fully accept and use the terminology of "living as becomes the gospel," or "living according to the gospel," or "living out the gospel" and (when understood in an orthodox fashion) "living the gospel." Nonetheless, not knowing whether such similar movements currently exist in Australia, there are popular movements here in America associated with more "Emergent Church" ideas which basically transfer the work of redemption from the actual, concrete person of Christ who was manifested in history, performed his once-for-all objective work of redemption (the benefits of which are applied subjectively in time) -- they transfer this work to the church, which becomes the "redeeming agent," transforming the world through "love, peace, understanding and social justice." I am aware that you will be far more familiar than I am with this basic idea which has had numerous incarnations in history, but I can also imagine that the climate in Australia might be different than in certain places here in America. Thus, while I personally never like the idea of giving up sound terminology and don't think such phrases need to actually be erased from our vocabulary, I can certainly at least understand why some in this climate would want to distance themselves from terminology which would easily be understood as supporting these "emergent" ideals, especially as I imagine such things are even more in vogue in Southern California than just about anywhere else in this country. I think that general interactions on this discussion board have made it clear that many of us do have reservations about aspects of the Covenant Theology set forth in certain of Horton's works and a corresponding form of the law/gospel distinction. That being said, I think that in spite of these issues, a sympathetic reading of the above quotation can be found (assuming, of course, that the rest of the article from which it is taken supports that reading), even if we/you/I would not agree that giving up the terminology itself is the best solution; would you concur, or do you think I ought to reconsider?