"Bad News. Good News".
That is: it's bad that we're sinful and it's bad that God is angry, but good news: Jesus.
I have questions... Firstly it's a bit (coldly) problem/solution rather than invitational and relational.
Second such a description doesn't often end up sounding all that good...
1. Why do we begin with sin?
The Triune God begins by revealing Jesus. He has strong words for the religious but for the "sinners" he's a man of unbounded mercy and welcome. Jesus doesn't deny people are sinful - his words are strong but the proof seems to rest in him not in how deeply we see our sin. And, his cross shows us his love but also our sin more clearly than anything else... seeing Jesus I see my sin less as law-broken and more as a problem of the heart, the deeper problem of betrayal and adultery of the heart... and for all that, I see Jesus.
2. Is the anger of God against sin, bad news?
Would we be better off to speak of the LORD called Jealous (Exodus 34). This is a positive trait of a lover, scorned and burning with righteous anger against her adultery. The jealous anger of the Triune God is good news of which the people of God will sing Hallelujah in Revelation 19:1. Sure, wrath is bad for those who receive it, but the gospel message isn't "God wants you to go to hell" it's "The Triune God wants you to know him, he sent his son to bring you to into that, through his death and resurrection". The gospel is such that we're invited to receive favour instead of wrath and those who stand with the lamb rejoice in his wrath...
Don't hear this as a call for being sin-lite or wrath-lite - but do hear, I'm pondering how we speak of these things from a Trinitarian basis, avoiding a flat-unrelational-merely-legal gospel language and instead speak consistently relationally without having to pit God against himself or making what is good be bad.