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.
I have not looked up the social science data to back up my premise, but I strongly suspect that the pervasive perception of Evangelical Christianity – at least of American Evangelicals – is that we are far “more heavenly minded than of any earthly good.”
That’s a caricature, I know. But it is an understandable caricature. The influence of certain eschatalogical (i.e. “Last Things, or “End Times”) theories over the past one-hundred-plus years, and the corresponding popularity of fiction like the Left Behind series, has caused many people – both outside and inside the Church – to assume Christianity, or at least Evangelical Christianity, is more concerned about escaping this fallen and broken world than living redemptively in it.
But, even if I am accurate about my assumption of the perception of escapism, I do not believe that the perception itself is accurate. At least, it is not true of me; nor is it true of most of my friends.
Through the past several months, the church where I presently serve has been engaged in a sermon series study of the Book of Revelation, led mostly by my colleague, J.D. Funyak. Throughout this study I have been reminded, time and again, that the Bible really does not present us with an escapist mindset. Even the Book of Revelation, with all the apocalyptic imagery, when considered in proper context, paints a very real and down-to-earth picture of living life in this world. Therefore, since the Bible does not teach anything like an escapist mindset, Christianity does not – or should not – hold to any kind of escapist mindset.
As Christians, we are to develop our Worldview, our theological systems and theological emphases, and our corresponding practices, to be in accord with what is taught in the Scriptures. And the Scriptures do not teach us an escapist eschatology. Rather, I am convinced, that a proper biblical understanding of End Times is:
For those who might want to explore a little more into this subject, I suggest the following articles:
“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.
It is interesting. It is even more troubling. CNN Religion Editor Daniel Burke has posted an article to CNN Politics titled 7 Types of Evangelicals: And How They’ll Effect the Presidential Race. The post is interesting in that it describes differences among those who label themselves “Evangelical”, and creates categories for each. It is troubling, at least to me, because little to nothing in the post conveys what an actual Evangelical essentially is.
Burke begins with the tired old refrain:
It’s an axiom in American politics, duly repeated every four years: Evangelicals are the country’s biggest and most powerful religious voting bloc, especially during the GOP primaries.
But then he offers something that offers a hint of something fresh:
Like many political axioms, though, it papers over a complex reality.
It is true, Evangelicals are not monolithic. Evangelicals are individuals who have different ideas about different candidates for office – from both parties. Many of us are able to see positive characteristics even in candidates with whom we disagree. Few of us are likely to find any candidate that represents everything we would prefer. At least not those of us who think for ourselves – as God gifted us (and all humanity) to do. So I appreciate Burke’s explanation to those who do not understand Evangelicalism that we Evangelicals reflect a complex reality. Our complexity should not be confusing, just diverse.
Evangelicals are diverse in may ways. Some among us believe more water should be used in a baptism than others of us do; and some believe a lower age for that baptism is appropriate (maybe even preferable) than others of us. Some among us like a little wine or a few beers, others prefer to stick with Iced Tea. Some among us like the excitement and activity of a large church, others among us prefer the intimacy of a small family-like church; most among us are somewhere in between. Some of us prefer newer songs, others the hymns from ages past; some prefer cheerful music, others tunes that set a more reflective tone; most enjoy a mix of all of the above. Some of us appreciate the connectivity of a denominational affiliation; others, aware that no denomination has the corner on the market of God’s favor, choose to remain organizationally independent. There are all sorts of ways in which Evangelicals are diverse, different, complex. But none of these differences has anything to do with what makes us Evangelicals in the first place. Nor does Burke in his attempt to analyze and categorize an Evangelical political landscape.
Burke’s categories are interesting, even somewhat amusing. They are as follows:
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.
Ever since President Barrack Obama mad his announcement about the Great Reversal, and his renewed support of Gay Marriage there has been no lack of opinions posted… well, pretty much everywhere. I considered writing something up, but other pressing matters left me without the time to formulate words to express my opinions. But I did take the time to read the takes of a number of others. Some of those I appreciated most are posted below. I will likely add more to this post as I run across anything poignant on this polarizing issue.
Of special note, I think Mike Horton’s two articles are tremendous. The first is as pertinent for Christians to consider as it’s title is provocative.
Did you know that, in his lifetime, Patrick of Ireland was never associated with the Roman Catholic Church? In fact, if one examines Patrick’s beliefs and practices, along with his British Christian heritage, we find that if he were alive today Patrick, that pioneer missionary, would actually fall quite naturally within Evangelicalism.
Check out these resources about Patrick & Celtic Christianity:
And in his article, Reclaiming St. Patrick’s Day, Ted Olsen makes 5 suggestions about how we might better celebrate Patrick’s legacy:
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!
“Liberalism says that the gospel won’t work unless the message is changed. Some evangelicals say that the gospel won’t work unless the method is changed. But biblical Christianity believes that the gospel will work, and that God has given us both the message and the method.”
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.
Collin Hansen, Justin Taylor, and Owen Strachen discuss the re-emergence of Calvinism, the streams of the Reformed tradition, and the different faces of Evangelicalism.
Related post at Gospel Coalition: One Movement, Many Streams
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
From time to time a new and faithful expression of faith is necessary. I am not speaking of a new faith, or of new doctrines, but of the historic Christian faith prophetically applied to current and world events. Such a statement of faith has recently been produced: The Manhattan Declaration.
The Manhattan Declaration is a collective affirmation of fundamental Truths shared by Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians living in the United States. In particular, this declaration addresses:
Some may question why believers who hold some vastly different perspectives would join together and unite their voices to address these social issues. On the other hand, why would they not? These issues that both result from and contribute to our social decay are intolerable and need to be addressed. Francis Schaeffer referred to such joint operations as “co-beligerence”.
This afternoon I signed my name to this declaration. While I don’t presume anyone really cares what I sign, or even what I think, it was a way for me to lend my voice to an effort that needs to be heard. I invite you to check it out – and sign-on, if you share the concerns and agree to these solutions.
Manhattan Declaration(.doc)
The following is a spoof on the substance of much of contemporary Evangelicalism. It is taken from a past edition of Modern Reformation, probably Jan/Feb 1997, but I am not sure of the original publication date.
I know I may be stepping into a hornets nest here, but I post it because I find it funny – sad, but funny:
I believe in God who once was Almighty, but sovereignly chose not to be sovereign; and in Jesus, my personaLordandSavior, Who loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life, Who came into my heart when I asked him to, and is now seated at the right ventricle of my belief in him, Who walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way, and tells me I am his own, Who shall come again with secrecy to rapture us outta’ here, Whose kingdom shall last exactly one thousand years; And in the Holy Ghost, who did some weird stuff at Pentecost, but doesn’t do much more anymore except speak to the hearts of individual believers.
And I believe in this local, independent, and powerless church, insofar as it is in line with my personal interpretation of the Bible and does stuff I like; in one Believer’s baptism for the public proof of my decision for Christ; and in giving my personal testimony for soul winning.
And I look for the identity of the Antichrist, and know that the Last Days are upon us.
– Ay-men
GRACE & PEACE 
