“Perhaps one of the greatest barriers to faith is not the things we don’t know but the things we think we know yet we’re wrong about… We think of heaven as a pleasure factory rather than life with God… We think of Christians as people who have got the heaven job done, while we think of discipleship as optional extra-credit work for spiritual overachievers.”
I have learned that I am one who learns best from outlines. Perhaps not in all subjects, but I think certainly when it comes to learning history. I can often recall many of the stories, but I am sometimes slow to remember how things played out and how things connect. Outlines helps to remind me of the the bigger picture, the broader narrative, which is vital to understanding.
The outline below is one I have found helpful for remembering the narrative of Biblical history. It comes from the book, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible, by Australian Anglican scholar Graeme Goldsworthy.
(See chart in .pdf)
Os Guinness, in his excellent book, Renaissance, concerning the church in midst of the present challenges unprecedented in Western Culture, notes the culture changing and culture shaping power of the gospel, when the gospel is both declared by God’s People and is actively shaping God’s People. When many of our churches are caving in pursuit of “relevance”, which is hoped will cause people to “like” the church, so we can keep our numbers up, I think Guinness offers a both prophetic and strategic word:
What we have here in the teaching of Jesus and the Scriptures, and amplified in Augustine, is the very heart of the secret of the culture-shaping power of the gospel in the church. When the church goes to either of two extremes, and is so “in the world” that it is of the world and worldly, or so “not of the world” that it is otherworldly and might as well be out of the world altogether, it is powerless and utterly irrelevant. But when the church, through its faithfulness and its discernment of the times, lives truly “in” but “not of” the world, and is therefore the City of God engaging the City of Man, it touches off the secret of its culture-shaping power. For the intellectual and social tension of being “in” but “not of” the world provides the engagement-with-the-critical-distance that is the source of the church’s culture-shaping power.
In short, the decisive power is always God’s, through his Word and Spirit. But on her side the church contributes three distinct human factors to the equation: engagement, discernment, and refusal.
First, the church is called to engage and to stay engaged, to be faithful and obedient in that it puts aside all other preferences of its own and engages purposefully with the world as the Lord commands.
Second, the church is called to discern, to exercise its spiritual and cultural discernment of the best and worst of the world of its day, in order to see clearly where it is to be “in” and where it is to be “not of” that world.
Third, the church is called to refuse, a grand refusal to conform to or comply with anything and everything in the world that is against the way of Jesus and his kingdom.
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.
Preaching through Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, I have received quite a bit of feedback – more than I receive during most series I have done. Much to the relief of my thin skin, I have received no criticism (to date). Most of the comments have been appreciative, either for the reminder of things that we need to remember, or for clarity on matters previously not understood. (Either way, this is music to any ministers ears!) The rest are questions – good questions; well-intentioned questions – concerning the role of our obedience. One godly man, a man I respect and enjoy, offered concerns about the possibility of people “hearing” cheap grace, knowing neither I nor our church believes grace is ever cheap.
These interactions have reminded me of what Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote regarding the possible charge of anti-nomianism:
If your presentation of the Gospel does not expose it to the charge of Anti-nomianism you are probably not putting it correctly.
(NOTE: Anti-nomianism means “against law” or “anti-law. It is a $20 word for someone who sees no use or present value for God’s law or commands in the Christian Life.)
This semi-famous saying is excerpted from Lloyd-Jones commentary on Romans. Lloyd-Jones’ insights are so well expressed that they are worth revisiting even now and again. Below are his thoughts from Romans 3 (which include the above statement):
A very good way of testing any view that you may hold is this one: Is this view humbling to me, glorifying to God? If it is, it is probably right. You won’t go far wrong if whatever view you are holding is glorifying to God, humbling to man. But if your view seems to glorify you and to query God, well (there’s no need to argue or to go into details) it’s wrong. It’s a very good universal rule– that!
My last word of all is, again, a word primarily to preachers – indeed it’s a word to everybody in the sense that if ever you are putting the Gospel to another person, you’ve got a very good test whether you are preaching the Gospel in the right way. What’s that? Well, let me put it like this to you: If your presentation of the Gospel does not expose it to the charge of Antinomianism you are probably not putting it correctly.
What do I mean by that? Just this: The Gospel, you see, comes as this free gift of God – irrespective of what man does.
Now, the moment you say a thing like that, you are liable to provoke somebody to say: “Well, if that is so it doesn’t matter what I do.”
The Apostle takes up that argument more than once in this great epistle. “What then,” he says at the beginning of chapter 6, “shall we do evil – commit sin – that grace might abound?” He’s just been saying: “where sin abounded grace does much more abound.” “Very well,” says someone. “This is a marvelous doctrine, this ‘Go and get drunk, do what you like the grace of God will put you right.’” Anti-nomianism.
Now, this doctrine of the Scriptures – this justification by faith only, this free grace of God in salvation – is always exposed to that charge of Anti-nomianism. Paul was charged with it. He said, “You know, some people say that’s what I’m preaching.” Paul’s preaching was charged with Anti-nomianism…So I say, it is a very good test of preaching.
You see – what is not evangelical preaching is this: It’s the kind of preaching that says to people, “Now, if you live a good life; if you don’t commit certain sins; and if you do good to others; and if you become a church member and attend regularly and are busy and active you will be a fine Christian and you’ll go to Heaven. That’s the opposite of Evangelical preaching – and it isn’t exposed to the charge of Anti-nomianism because…it is telling men to save themselves by their good works…And it’s not the Gospel – because the Gospel always exposes itself to this misunderstanding from the standpoint of Anti-nomianism.
So, let all of us test our preaching, our conversation, our talk to others about the Gospel by that particular test…If you don’t make people say things like that sometimes, if you’re not misunderstood and slanderously reported from the standpoint of Anti-nomianism, it’s because you don’t believe the Gospel truly, and you don’t preach it truly.
In the Cross is salvation, in the Cross is life, in the Cross is protection from our enemies, in the Cross is infusion of heavenly sweetness, in the Cross is strength of mind, in the Cross is joy of spirit, in the Cross is the height of virtue, in the Cross is perfection of sanctity. There is no salvation of the soul, nor hope of everlasting life, but in the Cross.
~ Thomas á Kempis, The Imitation of Christ
After learning I would be beginning a new sermon series this week, a study of the book of Galatians, a friend and colleague who is an Army Chaplain asked me if I had read the relatively new book, No Other Gospel. Though I had seen it, I admitted I was not really familiar with it. He suggested it would be a good parallel book to coincide with the series of messages we will be offering at Grace Covenant between now and Easter.
I picked it up, skimmed it this afternoon, and expect to commend it to our congregation – at least to 
those who want to do a little digging of their own over the next few months. (I’ll read it more thoroughly as well.)
In the video above Justin Taylor interviews the author of the book, Josh Moody, who serves the historic College Church of Wheaton. Moody explains the basis and the gist of the book.
“When God planned the great work of saving sinners, he provided two gifts. He gave his Son and he gave his Spirit. In fact each person of the Trinity was involved in the great work of salvation. The love, grace and wisdom of the Father planned it; the love, grace and humility of the Son purchased it; and the love, grace and power of the Holy Spirit enabled sinners to believe and receive it.
The first great truth in this work of salvation is that God sent his Son to take our nature on him and to suffer for us in it. The second great truth is that God gave his Spirit to bring sinners to faith in Christ and so be saved.”
~ John Owen
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. ~ John 1.14
Anglican Bishop J.C. Ryle elaborates on these words to deepen our appreciation for the Incarnation of Christ:
The plain meaning of these words is, that our divine Savior really took human nature upon Him, in order to save sinners. He really became a man like ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves, he was born of a woman, though born in a miraculous manner. Like ourselves, he grew from infancy to boyhood, and from boyhood to man’s estate, both in wisdom and in stature (Luke 2.52). Like ourselves he hungered, thirsted, ate, drank, slept, was wearied, felt pain, wept, rejoiced, marveled, and was moved to anger and to compassion. Having become flesh, and taken a body, He prayed, read the Scriptures, suffered being tempted, and submitted His human will to the will of God the Father. And finally, in the same body, He really suffered and shed his blood, really died, was really buried, really rose again and really ascended up into heaven. And yet all this time He was God as well as man!
Nowhere, perhaps, shall we find a more wise and judicious statement than in the second article of the Church of England. ‘The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, were joined together in one Person, that is to say, the Godhead and the manhood were joined together in one person, never to be never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man.’
There are no shortages of claims that Christmas, and Christianity, is based upon the ancient myths of other cultures. I appreciate the work of the folks at Lutheran Satire for so humorously dispelling those claims.
Paul Tripp reminds us that the greatest Christmas gift anyone could possibly receive has already been given to us – by the Living and True God. And the greatest gift, which God has given to us, is God himself.
Jared Wilson counsels:
There is a great danger this Christmas season of missing the point. And I’m not referring simply to idolatrous consumption and materialism. I’m talking about Christmas religiosity. It is very easy around this time to set up our Nativity scenes, host our Christmas pageants and cantatas, read the Christmas story with our families, attend church every time the door is open, and insist to ourselves and others that Jesus is the reason for the season, and yet not see Jesus. With the eyes of our heart, I mean.
I suppose there is something about indulging in the religious Christmas routine that lulls us into thinking we are dwelling in Christ when we are really just set to seasonal autopilot, going through the festive and sentimental motions. Meanwhile the real person Jesus the Christ goes neglected in favor of his plastic, paper, and video representations. Don’t get distracted from Jesus by “Jesus.” This year, plead with the Spirit to interrupt your nice Christmas with the power of Jesus’ gospel.
As a follow up to my post Saturday concerning the debate about the date of Jesus’ birth, (which was an excerpt from the message I delivered Sunday,) a friend from church sent me this video to check out. It is filled with fascinating, coroborating information.
Advent Conspiracy is designed to remind us of what really matters during this Christmas season. While there is nothing inherently wrong with our traditions of gift giving and celebration, consumeristic forces are constantly at work, eroding our connection with the reason we celebrate. What is helpful to remember is that Christ Jesus came into the world to redeem sinners, to set free those captive to their sin and their situations. And he has commissioned his followers to be his agents to continue what he began – in the power of his Spirit. Consider how you can make a difference in some small way.
Resurrection Day!
Here is a lyrical poem from Odd Thomas, reminding us of the significance of this day.
Happy Easter!
GRACE & PEACE 