Month: January 2013
Sad State of Evangelicalism
An excellent, “must read”, article by Mark Galli for Christianity Today: The Troubled State of Christian Preaching. This is a great example of a “I Wish I’d Said That”. All of Galli’s insight resonate …
Here is the gist of Galli’s tought, set within the context of the Presidential Inauguration and Louie Giglio being put on the un-invite list:
Even when we try to make Jesus first, we end up inadvertently making ourselves first. …Unfortunately, in a desire to reach the world for Christ, some inadvertently …make much about our ultimate significance. Jesus becomes merely the means by which we feel better about our place in the universe. Need purpose and meaning? Follow Jesus, that will do the trick. In this subtle shift, we become the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega.
Why I Won’t Forgive Lance Armstrong
I have no inclination to forgive Lance Armstrong. I feel no need to. Armstrong, the infamous cyclist who has now been stripped of several Tour de France victories, an Olympic medal, and has had a host of other indignities hoisted upon his head, has finally confessed to doping in order to enhance his performance. And his confession has seemed to turn multitudes to dismay.
Many had considered him a hero. His story was compelling. A cancer survivor, he came back stronger than ever after his treatment to dominate the world cycling circuit, most notably in his unprecedented – and unlikely to ever be repeated – 7 consecutive victories in the Tour de France. He then translated his fame and his story into the tremendously successful cancer research foundation, LiveStrong, which has raised and given millions-upon-millions of dollars toward the treatment and eradication of cancer. To find out that Armstrong’s success was synthetic has led many to feel betrayed.
But not me.
It is not that I have any admiration for Armstrong. I have had little interest in him for some time. Armstrong is a seriously flawed guy, whose most serious character flaws had little to do with his doping. Behind the scenes he was a despicable person who destroyed dozens of lives through threats and lawsuits in order to preserve his persona – his lie. This is far worse than cheating in a sporting event – especially in a sport where nearly all the other participants were cheating just as much.
Why do I feel no need to forgive Lance Armstrong? Simple. Because I never expected anything from him in the first place. His failures and his fall have cost me nothing.
In the Bible the concept of forgiveness is often likened to that of swallowing a debt. Whenever someone wrongs us – or we wrong another – whether by actual stealing, or tarnishing a reputation, or some other offense, something is taken from the victim by the perpetrator. And a debt incurs. (See Parable of Unmerciful Servant, for instance.) What is taken may be wealth, or it may simply be peace of mind. But with any actual offense something, tangible or not, is actually taken.
Jesus’ instruction to his followers who have been wronged is to extend forgiveness to the offender, just as forgiveness has been extended to us for our offenses. Our offenses may be against other people, but they are also always against the Lord. If nothing else, by our offense we belittle the Lord. Or put another way, consistent with the above premise, we rob Jesus of the glory he is due. We essentially say he is not enough; that we need something in addition to or instead of God and what he promises and provides. Yet, in the face of such insult Jesus reminds us that we have been forgiven. He has swallowed the debt we owe, paying for it with his own blood on the cross. Further, by telling us that we ought to forgive as we have been forgiven, Jesus is not merely telling us to follow his model, he reminds us that we have been forgiven and we can rest in his promise to supply whatever we need. In other words, whatever has been taken from us he has, and will, more than make up for. Our loss now restored, we have no need to extract a penalty on those who have wronged us.
So with this understanding, one may wonder why I say I have no inclination, no intention, to forgive Lance Armstrong. The answer is simple. In this instance, Lance Armstrong took nothing from me. I have had no vested interest in him. While I found his successes impressive, and his cancer research foundation commendable, not one aspect of my life has depended upon him. So now to find out that he is a deeply flawed man, just as I am, does me no damage whatsoever. So what is there for me to forgive?
I wonder how many people, who are rightly appalled by Armstrong’s heinous behavior, have actually been effected by his fall-from-grace. It seems to me that those who are seemingly chagrined should ask themselves what Armstrong has taken from them. For some, the answer is a lot. But for most, if the answer is as simple as they lost their hero, then perhaps they ought to consider why they attached so much of themselves in a mere man in the first place.
The only man worthy of hero status is Jesus. To offer such adulation to anyone else is to rob Jesus of the glory he alone deserves. Yet this offense of our toward him is an offense he willingly swallows, if we will only confess and repent.
Obama’s Pro-Life Marching Orders
With Sanctity of Life Sunday approaching, I appreciate Justin Taylor posting the above video, and President Obama’s visionary words for protecting our children – ALL our children. And I concur with John Piper, who Tweeted:
“This use of the President’s words, with the most intense irony, is right and righteous.”
Uneasy ‘Calvinist’
I feel no little uneasiness when labeled a Calvinist. It is not that the description is unfitting. Nor is it because I have any disaffection for Calvin. Quite the contrary. My reservation is that there is much baggage that accompanies that label – baggage assigned by those who reject the tenants of the Faith associated with this particular theological system; and baggage freely toted by some who proudly – and sometimes obnoxiously – wear the label. So, while happy to be identified as belonging in the Calvinist camp, I tend to agree with theologian Douglas Wilson who says that whoever coined the phrase “Calvinist” is a “marketing chucklehead”. Wilson says he prefers to simply be called “Christian”. Me too.
I am gladdened, though, that I do not need to carry my ill-ease alone; nor do I need to craft a defense or explanation of my (clearly Calvinistic) convictions. It has already been marvelously expressed, by no less a stalwart of the Faith than Charles Haddon Spurgeon. In his autobiography, The Early Years, Spurgeon wrote:
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel . . . unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the Cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called.’
Well said.
Losing Our Gospel Grip
Evidence abounds all around that the current Spiritual climate of the typical Evangelical church is rightly described by sociologist Christian Smith as “more akin to Moralistic-Therapeutic-Deism than anything resembling historic Christianity.” I paraphrased Smith there, but it reflects the essence of Smith’s assessment. (If you want a refresher on what Moralistic-Therapeutic-Deism is click here & here.)
J.I. Packer, in his sagacious Introduction to John Owen‘s Death of Death in the Death of Christ, offers one of the best and most comprehensive explanations I have recently read about how we got this way. In short, Packer suggests, we have embraced a counterfeit gospel.
Read what Packer wrote, and think about how his critique compares with what you hear from the pulpit in your church:
There is no doubt that evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor’s dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and or equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realizing it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. Why?
We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be ‘helpful’ to man – to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction – and too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was ‘helpful’, too – more so, indeed, than is the new – but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its center of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the center of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach people to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and his ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.
From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interests of ‘helpfulness’. Accordingly, the themes of man’s natural inability to believe, of God’s free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ dying specifically for his sheep are not preached. These doctrines, it would be said, are not ‘helpful’; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their own power to be saved through Christ. (The possibility that such despair might be salutary is not considered: it is taken for granted that it cannot be, because it is so shattering to our self-esteem.) However this may be, the result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.
NOTE: One thing amazing to me is that Packer wrote this in 1958! …Two years before Christian Smith was even born. Our plight has been long time coming. Recovering a thoroughly Biblical gospel is the only recipe for our recovery.
Bible Reading Plan for Slackers
I am long overdue to draft a post. But new year equals new beginnings, right? While I will again eschew making any New Years Resolutions, except to resolve not to make any resolutions – (hey, it worked last year!) … I do plan to get back into the swing of writing and posting.
Let me begin 2013 by suggesting a different kind of Bible reading plan, one that writer Margie Haack, of Ransom Fellowship, calls “The Bible Reading Plan for Slackers & Shirkers“. She explains:
The big difference between this plan and any other I had tried was that it was not tied to any particular date. On any day of the week, say it was Friday, I read the assigned portion and happily checked it off. Fridays were good days and it is true I finished all of them before I finished the Saturdays, but then I simply read wherever I was behind.
I was not tempted to cheat, because there were no unsightly gaps. I knew it was going to take me longer than a year. And, after all, what is so inspired about doing it in a year? Nothing. I also liked not having to look up five different references in one day. You could just settle in and read an entire assignment which came from one book.
In short, here is a synopsis of some of the advantages of this plan:
- It removes the pressure to ‘keep up’ with getting through the entire Bible in a year.
- It provides variety throughout the week by alternating genres.
- It provides continuity by reading the same genre on the same day of each week.
Here’s how it works:
- Sundays: Poetry
- Mondays: Penteteuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy)
- Tuesdays: Old Testament History
- Wednesdays: Old Testament History
- Thursdays: Old Testament Prophets
- Fridays: New Testament History (Gospels & Acts)
- Saturdays: New Testament Epistles (letters)
The benefit of a plan like this is that it provides guidance but it does not put promote guilt if we miss a day. Just pick up with the next reading for whatever day it happens to be.
To download .pdf click: Bible Reading Plan for Slackers & Shirkers
GRACE & PEACE 