Two heavyweight proponents of gospel, grace, and godliness – Michael Horton and Tim Keller – discuss suffering, forgiveness, Justification through Faith, Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism), along with a number of other topics in this thoughtful conversation between old friends. (According to Horton, this conversation was his last with Tim Keller, before Keller’s death in Spring of 2023.)
Much to chew on here. I think I’ll be watching this one again, and maybe again and again.
“The hallmark of authentic evangelicalism is not that we maintain the traditions of the evangelical elders. It is rather that we are prepared to re-examine even the most long-standing evangelical traditions in the light of Scripture, in order to allow Scripture, if necessary, to judge and reform our traditions. Evangelical traditions are not infallible; they need to be re-examined. They need to be judged. They need to be reformed.”
~ John R.W. Stott
I don’t do politics on social media (nor in the pulpit), but I feel an exception is warranted – on social media, anyway. With the exception that I don’t really care that Donald Trump has not previously held public office, nor do I care that neither Ben Carson nor Carly Fiorina have ever held public office, pretty much everything else Peter Wehner writes in his Op Ed for the New York Times, Why I Will Never Vote for Donald Trump, reflects my sentiments. I am disturbed by Trump’s behavior, and even more so by some of his supporters who have compromised core values and beliefs to empower him.
I know. This is politics. And Trump’s supporters have every right to support him, for whatever the reasons. For a time I was open to the possibility, despite questions about the basis of his present positions. I accept that people change. But with no history, or substantive rationale for changes in convictions, I can only wonder how long it will be, or what circumstances might arise, before we see some of these key convictions shift back.
More disturbing to me than Trump are some of his supporters. Here I do not mean the rank-and-file Trump supporters, who enjoy the bravado, and with whom the simple catch phrase “Make America Great Again” resonates. I too am entertained, or at least I have been, to a degree. And I appreciate the vision of restoring the greatness of the USA – even if I am a little unclear whether Trump’s definition of what would make America great and my definition are similar; and even if Trump’s specific plans to usher in such restoration seem a little fuzzy to me. I am disturbed most by those who are endorsing Trump, even when Trump clearly does not represent their core values and beliefs. In other words, I am most chagrined by Christians – especially those claiming to be Evangelicals – who are compromising their faith to endorse Trump.
Now let me be clear here. Every citizen of the USA has a right to support whatever candidate they want. I do not believe Christians have a responsibility to restrict their vote to only Christian candidates. Therefore, I support the right of my fellow Christians, even fellow Evangelicals, to support Trump, if they believe he would be the best leader for our country. (Check out Mark Tooley’s thoughtful piece: Trump, Evangelicals & Security.) What I do not accept are Christians – especially Evangelicals – who will rewrite the Faith to justify their support.
The poster boy of my ire is Jerry Falwell, Jr.
In recent months Falwell has made some asinine statements and decisions. Among them was to invite Trump to speak at Liberty University, where Falwell is currently president, on Martin Luther King Day. Again, I need to be clear. I support Liberty University’s decision to have Trump speak, just as I appreciated them inviting Bernie Sanders to speak. A university is a place of ideas, where a variety of viewpoints should be allowed to be expressed. So as long as a clear distinction is made between a chapel service (during which any speakers should intelligently and faithfully exalt the One True God) and a convocation (where any variety of ideas could be expressed) I have no problem. But given Trump’s history, or at least his reputation, of bigoted statements, it seems more wisdom could have been exercised about the date when Trump would be invited to speak. A day that is designated to highlight efforts to bring about racial reconciliation does not seem the most sensitive or appropriate. Of course that is just a judgment call. (For anyone interested, my friend Marc Corbett, a Liberty University alumnus, wrote an excellent piece for The Gospel Coalition. Take a moment to listen to Marc’s lament: Why I Will Protest a School I Love.)
Most disturbing to me is Falwell’s recent total redefinition of Christianity in his justification for inviting Trump to speak on MLK Day, and in his subsequent official endorsement of Trump. Again, I believe Falwell has the right to support, and even endorse, whoever he wants. In his formal endorsement Falwell said only that:
“[Trump is] a successful executive and entrepreneur, a wonderful father and a man who I believe can lead our country to greatness again.”
But Falwell’s previous justification and reasoning was this:
“I have seen firsthand that his staff loves him and is loyal to him because of his servant leadership. In my opinion Donald Trump lives a life of loving and helping others as Jesus taught in the great commandment.”
Falwell has since offered an explanation, an Op Ed in the Washington Post. And I concur with much of his reasoning, even if I would not land on the same candidate. Nevertheless, his reasoning and his freedom – both as an American and as a Christian – to endorse Trump does not negate Falwell’s compromise of the gospel, and his misuse of the scripture.
Over the weekend I spent some time reviewing the relatively new New City Catechism. While it has been around for a couple years now, and I had heard about it even prior to it’s original publication, I had not really given it much attention, until now.
I was impressed by the combination of depth and simplicty this catechism posesses. Broken into just 52 questions, it is a fairly comprehensive introduction to the substance of the Christian Faith, and yet it manages to avoid being verbose in any of it’s questions and answers. I am now giving thought to ways we might make use of this tool in our church.
The video above is an Introduction to the New City Catechism from Knox Seminary. The New City Catechism web site not only has the Q&A’s, but for each of the 52 Questions there is a tab with accompanying scripture support, a short commentary, and even a brief video explanation by a variety of renouned pastors and theologians.
Check out: New City Catechism
I don’t want to become one of those bloggers who becomes known for what he is against, or for pointing out how wrong other guys are, but this was just too funny to pass up. It is also important to distinguish the gospel from all its counterfeits. For as Paul warns in Galatians 1.6-7:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
Upon further thought, it might not be as funny as I thought. It would be funny, if it were not so serious & sad.
Thanks to the folks at Modern Reformation & White Horse Inn for the scorecard. As they said:
“It’s like Bingo… Only better.”
I was not there, but I am now wishing I had been, at least for R.C. Sproul Jr.’s address. The Layman Online reports that Sproul prophetically challenged those gathered for 2012 Ligonier National Conference “… about the true scandal of the evangelical mind.”
Developing his message from 1 Corinthians 1.18-31 Sproul briefly outlined the Christian faith, and emphasized the Unity of those within the faith. He then contrasted the unity of Believers with the perspective of Christians “by those outside of the room – the Greek, the Gentile…” reminding his hearers that “the story [the Gospel] is a scandal. It is foolishness. It is a stumbling block.”
This is an important reminder.
As Sproul elaborated: “Paul wasn’t just saying they don’t get it. Paul says, ‘they don’t get you!’ They think you are foolish … They won’t take you seriously.” And those in the evangelical church perceive this distaste and displeasure.
So we see that the unbelievers around us don’t get us, and don’t appreciate the Gospel. This should be no surprise. This is as God said it would be. But here is where what Sproul said really begins to carry weight:
“What scandalizes me is that this truth scandalizes us … that we, who embrace this Gospel that is an offense to the world, are offended that they are offended by us!”
I think this is so true. Despite the fact that we are told that we will be despised and rejected, we seem surprised. We don’t like it.
“Evangelicals grouse and complain. They go on television to complain about how they are presented on television. We want to insist that Paul is wrong – and not just Paul, of course. This is the wisdom of the Holy Spirit here … The text says ‘this is how the world will see you.’”
The greater scandal is not that we are “scandalized” by the worlds rejection but how many seem to respond:
“Some Evangelicals not only fight back and argue against it, We insist on our rights and worse of all we begin to adapt. We begin to reshape ourselves and our story. We diminish the stumbling block and, to establish our credibility, we begin to rewrite the story.”
“If we are Emergent… We say it is just our story. You have your narrative. We have our narrative. All God’s children have their narrative … You don’t need to be scandalized. I just have a different story, and I’m not sure about my story. Will you let me into your cool club?”
“If we are Seeker-sensitive, then we take the story and remove the sharp edges of talking about sin and judgment and wrath because people don’t want to hear about that.”
I won’t go into much more detail. Instead let me encourage you to check out the whole story at The Layman Online. They have done an excellent job of chronicling Sproul’s message. But I do want to share one more of Sproul’s observations, related to the laments listed above about some common responses:
“When we remember the Gospel – when we remember our own salvation – we remember the necessity of resting in His provision. In our sanctification, we are called to have our heart, mind and soul rest in His wisdom.”
And this is also true of our mission.
The primary aim of our mission is to extend the Gospel of the Kingdom. To do this we must faithfully proclaim the rich, deep, truth of the gospel in all it’s dimensions. Our hope is that this message will impact many, many people. BUT we must be clear, and we must regularly remind ourselves and one another, that we cannot make the hope of impacting many people the priority over faithful proclamation.
I am afraid many are inverting these priorities. The measure of success, in such cases, is numbers of people at the expense if gospel fidelity. So we embrace either the Seeker or Emergent approach Sproul mentioned above, or something of a similar ilk. But when we are willing to accept a gospel that is not complete, or even necessarily accurate, we then are preaching a different Gospel than the one that is faithful to Christ. Success may be apparent, but as Paul warned, if anyone is preaching a gospel different from the one the Apostles preached they are “perverting” the gospel. What they are preaching is “no gospel at all”. (Galatians 1.6-9)
If what is preached is not faithful to Christ, then it follows that the mission cannot be of Christ. We may want to offer it to him, but it is not his mission. Christ is the King. He dictates the message, the means, and the motive.
So if such mission, mission in the name of Christ but without the genuine message of Christ, is not really mission for Christ, then who is it for? Us. For our own sense of importance; For our own apparent success in the eyes of those around us; Perhaps even, we think and hope, so that God will be pleased with us. But regardless of the motive, such motive for mission is not so much for God’s glory as it is for selfish ambition. (See Philippians 1.17, Philippians 2.3)
What Sproul suggests about our sanctification, that we must “rest in his provision”, must also be applied to our mission ambition. We must rest in his provision of pure gospel and gospel power.
Wow! In this message Matt Chandler rants against the consumeristic climate catered to and cultivated by the contemporary Evangelical culture…
I wish I had said this!
OK, I have said this. I just wish I had said it as well as Matt does!
If you think about it, Fundamentalist and Liberal Christians have more on common with one another than either does with Gospel-centered Christianity. While Fundamentalists and Liberals would seem to be very different from the other, almost even polar opposites, I am convinced this is true. For both of those traditions tend to view the purpose of Christianity to be to make one a good person, or to validate a persons goodness. Fundamentalist assume what makes one a “good” person is to keep the rules. Liberal Christians, on the other hand, maintain that “good” people are never judgmental (except, perhaps, about judgmental people). So both are in essence legalists. At the center of their faith is the Law. The only thing to distinguishes them from one another is how they view and relate to the Law. Both are driven by personal performance.
Gospel-centered Christianity, on the other hand, in line with the message of the Prophets and Apostles, and even Jesus himself, is not centered on the law nor driven by personal performance. Gospel-centered Christianity is centered on the person of Jesus. Unlike the other two traditions, Gospel-centered Christianity agrees with Jesus’ words: There are no good people – not when the standard is God’s holiness. (Mark 10.18) Gospel-centered Christianity understands that Jesus, and what he has done on our behalf, is our only hope. And Gospel-centered Christians take comfort, even delight, in that, because Jesus is the only hope and comfort we need.
Is John MacArthur getting crotchety in his old age? I will leave that for you to decide. My guess is opinions will vary. Some may even muse about the verb “getting”. But after watching a couple of brief videos he has me wondering.
Before commenting on the videos let me say that I think John MacArthur has earned respect. He has labored to faithfully proclaim the Word of God, in depth, for decades. He is a living example of someone who sees the message as sovereign and not the audience. For that he should be applauded. He will never be open to the accusation of “tickling the ears” of a fickle generation. That said, I will confess that while I respect MacArthur I have long found him a bit polemic for my tastes.
In a relatively recent interview with Christianity.com MacArthur demonstrates why I both respect and am perplexed by him. Below are two videos related to the discussion of the near future of the American Church. In particular is his prediction that the current Reformed Resurgence will reverse.
Beneath each video I will comment on what MacArthur says.
One of my ecclesiastical/theological heroes, John Piper, came under a slew of criticism earlier this year for inviting “Purpose Diven” Rick Warren to be one of the speakers for the Desiring God 2010 Conference.
I like the way Collin Hansen introduces the controversy, in his article, Piper, Warren, and the Perils of Movement Building:
You only thought junior high was over. But lately the evangelical blog world has been abuzz because John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak for his Desiring God National Conference… You see, a lot of folks who like John don’t like Rick. So now some of John’s friends aren’t sure they want to hang out with him anymore. They may not come to his party in Minneapolis. And they aren’t sure that you should either.
I’ll admit I was a little surprised when I heard about it. But I really gave it no thought, until these past few days. There was nothing specific that compelled me to reconsider the issue. I stumbled upon a few articles that made reference to the matter. And as I began to think about it I wondered to myself: “What is the real problem here?”
Frankly, I see only possible benefits. I am no Warren proponent. But honestly, I find much admirable about the guy and his ministry. I may have concerns about some aspects of his ministry style, and I do have some theological differences with him. But then again, I have theological differences with many people I admire – Piper included. Nevertheless I gain insights from many people in areas where I do agree. And I am challenged to think more deeply by thoughtful expressions with which I disagree.
Some time ago I posted The Jesus Pledge, authored by my friend, Paul Miller. Those embracing that pledge declare a willingness to “learn from all types of Christians”. That is something that I don’t think we Evangelicals do enough. And it is something that Piper appears to be attempting to explore. At least that is the sense that I get from him in a video he did explaining and defending his reasons for inviting Warren to his party. (Click: Why Rick Warren?)
Two final thoughts:
First, do we implicitly endorse what someone from another Christian tradtion, or with a different ministry methodology, believes and practices simply by entering into conversation and fellowship? I don’t think so. Without such conversations, though, how would we become acquainted with anyone outside our own circles? We can maintain our own convictions, even distinctions, without isolating ourselves from others.
Second, I wonder if there is a possibility of synthesizing Piper’s Christian Hedonism and Warren’s Purpose-Driven Life/Church. I don’t know what that would look like, and I am not sure I would embrce it, but I know I would not ignore it. In fact, I am intrigued by the possibility.
Just as Martin Luther offered some suggestions for the Church of his time in Germany, Jared Wilson has some ideas for us to consider. On his blog: The Gospel-Driven Church, Jared has posted 95 Theses for the American Church.
A couple weeks ago I posted some of my thoughts about the Prosperity Gospel as it compares to Scripture. In particular I was reflecting on some insight from Revelation 2.8-11 – Jesus’ affirmation of the Church at Smyrna. (See Suffering Saints)
I have since run across this video of John Piper expressing how the Prosperity Gospel runs counter to the True Gospel. As usual, Piper’s message is powerful.
It was with some bemusement that I took note of the speaker for Liberty University’s 2010 Commencement: Glenn Beck. I am not sure what message was conveyed by this choice. One possibility seems commendable. Another possibility, I fear, may be a sad reflection of attitudes within and around contemporary American Evangelicalism.
Liberty University, long steeped in Baptistic Fundamentalism, maintained its commitment to the conservative politics held by founder Jerry Falwell while broadening its umbrella in recent years by making a transition to be more of an Evangelical institution. I applaud them for this move. Not only do I believe that Evangelicalism is more Biblical than Fundamentalism, an Evangelical worldview is unquestionably more conducive to a comprehensive education.
Glenn Beck, while controversial, is a voice in the Public Square not to be ignored. I don’t much buy into Beck’s conspiracy theories. And I categorically oppose his audacious and unqualified call for people to leave churches that promote ‘social justice’. But I do not dismiss him, as some on the far Left are inclined to do – or, at least, wish they could do. (i.e.: MSNBC) In short, not only is Beck an intelligent and articulate pundit for cultural conservatism, he also freelyspeaks about God. BUT Beck is a Mormon, not a Christian. So the god he speaks about, therefore, is NOT the Triune God revealed in the Bible.
So what is a Mormon doing speaking at a Baptist graduation? Continue reading
GRACE & PEACE 