The Incredible Shrinking Pulpit

From Al Mohler:

Preaching has fallen on hard times. So suggests a report out of Durham University's College of Preachers. The British university's CODEC research center, which aims to explore "the interfaces between the Bible, the digital environment and contemporary culture," conducted the study to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the College of Preachers. The report is not very encouraging.

As Ruth Gledhill of The Times [London] reports, "Sermons, history shows, can be among the most revolutionary forms of human speech. From John Calvin to Billy Graham, preaching has had the power to topple princes, to set nation against nation, to inspire campaigners to change the world and impel people to begin life anew."

Indeed, preaching is the central act of Christian worship, but its great aim reaches far above merely changing the world. The preaching of the Word of God is the chief means by which God conforms Christians to the image of Christ. Rightly understood, true Christian preaching is not aimed only at this earthly life, but is the means whereby God prepares his people for eternity.

Yet, you wouldn't know this if you judged the importance of preaching by its place in many of today's congregations. Gledhill observes, "In many churches this most vibrant of moments has withered to little more than 20 minutes of tired droning that serves only to pad out the gap between hymns and lunch."

The withering of preaching is not uniform in all congregations and denominations. Evangelicals were most enthusiastic about preaching, while others registered less appreciation for the preached Word. Interestingly, Gledhill reports that "Baptists and Catholics were also more enthusiastic about the Bible being mentioned in sermons than were Anglicans and Methodists."

The Anglicans also expressed a desire to be entertained, rather then educated. The Rev. Kate Bruce, Fellow in Preaching and Communication at the CODEC center, said that "in a culture which values entertainment and likes stand-up, over a quarter [of respondents] said they want preaching to be entertaining, too."

Read the entire article HERE.

Pro-Baby

From Marvin Olasky of World Magazine:

A Gallup poll in 1972 showed 66 percent of Americans opposing abortion legalization. That year Detroit newspapers heavily supported a Michigan referendum to establish abortion on demand through the first five months of pregnancy, but 61 percent of Michigan voters said no. In North Dakota, 77 percent of voters turned down a similar referendum. Nevertheless, in 1973 seven U.S. Supreme Court justices imposed their beliefs on the nation.

Over time, top-down pressures have an effect on popular sentiment. That's why Moody, the evangelical magazine, asked in 1980 whether evangelicals had been co-opted: "We've organized no protest. . . . The Catholics have called abortion 'The
Silent Holocaust.' The deeper horror is the silence of the evangelical"...

Overall, we have optimism this year, but it's tethered to a brutal realization. The May 1980 issue of Moody magazine (which ceased publication in 2003) noted that 8 million American babies had been aborted since 1973. Now the butcher's bill is more than 50 million.

We need more bottom-up pressure and the ultimate top-down one: God changing the hearts of leaders and all of us.

Check out the following articles from World:

Learning to wait Denied federal funds, abstinence educators plan next moves William McCleery

'Look after orphans' Twenty ways to become an adoption-friendly church Paul Golden

Chemical reaction The drug RU486 gives women the option of abortion in privacy Alisa Harris

Eyewitnesses Ultrasound technology is one reason more Americans are becoming pro-life Alisa Harris

Finding searchers Pregnancy centers buy Google real estate to reach abortion-minded women Emily Belz

Higher learning? Catholic colleges have become training ground for pro-abortion politicians Anne Hendershott

Life changes Anti-CPC forces alter their tactics and auditors eye Planned Parenthood Alisa Harris

Called to a cause The pro-life movement won over Marjorie Dannenfelser, and now she’s working to help it win over Congress Marvin Olasky

'It all clicked together' How one Christian volunteer found herself in the right place at the right time at a crisis pregnancy center in Texas Susan Olasky

The telltale protests The abortion issue did not die after Roe v. Wade Andrée Seu

Worship and Reality

There is spiritual danger in Paganism, and as Origen stated (and recently quoted by Pope Benedict) Paganism is defined by “Lacking feeling and reason, they are transformed into stones and wood.” In other words, Paganism flattens our perception, makes all experience virtual, dumbing down our senses. Paganism, as in the Matrix movie, is virtual, manageable, flat reality, whereas the red pill takes you down into the harsh reality of pain and suffering. Christianity opens our perception and our understanding of Reality. . . . .

Proper worship is central to our understanding of reality, the arts, and it affects everyone, Christians and non Christians. Culture is affected by how we worship God. . . .

By “proper worship,” I mean a distinctively Christological way of looking at God, the world and ourselves that is driven by understanding and experiencing God’s grace.

Makoto Fujimura - Acclaimed Artist and Christian

From an interview conducted by Stewart Lundy.

HT: Gene Veith

Sunday's Sermon

This week's message was part 26 in our series through Hebrews - "A Sacrifice Like No Other" (Hebrews 10:1-18). You can listen to or download the sermon HERE.

What Happens to "Moral Values" in the absence of God

Chai Feldblum enjoys the sound of her own voice as she waxes on about moral values...

Do we love the church?

From Reformed Forum:

Christ the Center had the pleasure of interviewing Ted Kluck, author and athlete, about his recent publication, Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion, co-authored with Kevin DeYoung and published by Moody Press. We discussed the recent wave of books, blogs, articles, and interviews calling for the rejection of the institutional church in favor of an individualistic Christianity. Ted explained that while we may experience frustration with our churches from time to time, that rejecting them is no option for the Biblical Christian. The panel also conversed about the relationship of this trend to the emerging church phenomenon, a topic Ted and Kevin DeYoung touched upon in their previous book Why We Are Not Emergent. God created the church and it cannot be so easily dispensed with.

Listen to the interview HERE.

Helping Haiti (updated)

If you would like to contribute to organizations that are helping those suffering in Haiti then check out the following links:

Samaritan's Purse

Baptist Haiti World Mission

Mission to the World

Food for the Hungry

World Vision

Cross World

Religious Liberty, the Sabbath, and the Philadelphia Eagles

J. Gresham Machen the founder of Westminster Seminary did not believe the state should run the church nor did he believe that the church should run the state. Machen, one of the greatest biblical scholars of the 20th century gave us some of the most scintillating thoughts on the role of the church within the state.

I found this gem posted by Darryl Hart over at Old Life:

In 1933, the years the Philadelphia Eagles football club started (thank you Dan Borvan), the state of Pennsylvania considered reforming its laws prohibiting commercial activity on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, so that football players and coaches could play in the afternoon. (How would the NFL make it without violating the fourth and eighth commandments?) J. Gresham Machen, then a resident of Philadelphia, wrote a letter to Gifford Pinchot, the governor of Pennsylvania and requested the retention of the Blue Laws as they were then written.

Machen’s reasoning in this letter is instructive for what it says about a recognition and acceptance of religious diversity, a commitment to religious freedom, and the tensions within a democracy between majority rule and minority protection. Perhaps most important for two-kingdom purposes is the place of an appeal to Scripture in public debate. In this case, Machen argues not for the magistrate to enforce divine law, but for the advantages that come to everyone when the law protects the practices of some citizens.

Not to be missed is what this letter says about the fourth commandment, and that keeping the whole day holy with two services is an occasion of Christian liberty. If only the Bible speaks to all of life crowd would take up the cause of the sanctity of the Lord’s Day. (Do we see a pattern here? Two kingdoms, two services?)

Dr. Hart then includes the letter by Dr. Machen which reads in part:

Of course it is perfectly clear that in a democracy the majority should rule in this matter as in other matters. I should be the last to advocate any attempt to make people religious or even to make people ordinarily moral or decent against their will by mere legislative enactment. I should also be the last to advocate any tyrannical imposition of the convictions of a minority upon the majority. But how shall the majority will be exercised? I think that it ought to be exercised through the ordinary processes of representative government. To allow commercialized sport on Sunday in Pennsylvania will be a radical change in the whole life of our people. It is a wise provision of representative government that such radical changes should not be hastily accomplished, as might be the case by the referendum vote, but that they should be accomplished only when it is quite clear that the majority of the people really and seriously and permanently desires the change. . . .

As to the merits of the question, I could hardly find words strong enough to express what my feeling is. It does seem to me that the profoundest dangers to our entire civilization are found in the constant rush of noise and jazz and feverish activity which is one of the great faults of the American people and which is a great barrier to true efficiency as well as to the cultivation of the deeper things.

Of course, my own cultivation of a quiet Sunday is based on considerations much more fundamental than these. I am a Christian, and it is quite clear that a commercialized Sunday is inimical to the Christian religion. There are many other Christians in Pennsylvania, and because they are Christians they do not cease to be citizens. They have a right to be considered by their fellow-citizens and by the civil authorities. But the reason why they can with a good conscience be enthusiastic advocates of the Christian practice in the matter of Sunday is that they regard it as right, and as for the highest well-being of the entire State.

Read the whole thing HERE.

All Praise to the Name of the Savior Who Reigns

Interestingly, some of the best theology in music that is Christian is coming from rap. Here is Shai Linne from Philadelphia (that's right!). Men like Shai Linne and Lecrae are doing some very good work.

Shai Linne with "Spread His Fame." from Grace EV Free on Vimeo.

All praise to the name of the savior who reigns.
He’s taken our blame, embraced all our shame,
He’s raised from the grave so his fame we proclaim.
Salvation by grace through faith in his name.

All praise to the name of the savior who reigns.
He’s taken our blame, embraced all our shame,
He’s raised from the grave so his fame we proclaim.
Salvation by grace through faith in his name.

Jesus, the beautiful and blessed Son,
Immutable, majestic one
Who was resurrected from the grave
for the depraved.
He paved the path for some
Place faith in His passion, son
Be saved from the wrath to come.

He’s fabulous, His status is immaculate
I’m lacking the vernacular to adequately capture His glory.
Incomparable, unconquerable, all powerful, unstoppable
Absolutely phenomenal.

No obstacle He can’t navigate.
He’s God and so He fascinates.
With Him it’s impossible to exaggerate.

Lord of all continents,
Source of all consciousness,
His compliments are the consequence of His accomplishments
Every sphere of life, He’s the Lord of it
And every other power is either fraudulent or subordinate.

At first we snubbed Him,
Now His vessels of mercy love Him.
Your highest thought is infinitely unworthy of Him.
Beyond vocabulary His actions vary,
His wrath is scary
All His adversaries are imaginary.

He has no competitors.
Ask Nebuchadnezzar, bro
He’ll mess you up, have you eating grass,
You can bet He’s amazing.

He takes in blatant, flagrant vagrants, breaks them, remakes them, and shapes them
to hate sin.

Jesus!
There’s no better name!
That’ll never change and He’ll forever reign while we spread His fame.

So all praise to the name of the Savior who reigns
He’s taken our blame
Embraced all our shame
He’s raised from the grave so His fame we proclaim
Salvation by grace through faith in His name!

All praise to the name of the Savior who reigns
He’s taken our blame
Embraced all our shame
He’s raised from the grave so His fame we proclaim
Salvation by grace through faith in His name!

HT: Justin Taylor

What Danny Glover and Pat Robertson have in common...

The left wing actor Danny Glover has concluded that the earthquake in Haiti is the result of the failed climate summit in Copenhagen.

“When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”

Brilliant! Clearly, Mr. Glover is not a member of the Algonquin Round Table but I am betting that his comments will not receive the kind of publicity as those of the hapless Pat Robertson. After all Mr. Glover has a much more politically acceptable diety.

Sunday's Sermon

I was grateful to have Paul Tripp preach for me in the morning services last Sunday. I did however preach that evening at The Vine. The title of the message is "The Communion of Saints" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

Is God Judging Haiti?

As many of you already know Pat Robertson opened his mouth and more silliness fell out. Thankfully, Al Mohler has written a thoughtful and sober article on how to think biblically and mercifully about the earthquake in Haiti.

God's rule over creation involves both direct and indirect acts, but his rule is constant. The universe, even after the consequences of the Fall, still demonstrates the character of God in all its dimensions, objects, and occurrences. And yet, we have no right to claim that we know why a disaster like the earthquake in Haiti happened at just that place and at just that moment.

The arrogance of human presumption is a real and present danger. We can trace the effects of a drunk driver to a car accident, but we cannot trace the effects of voodoo to an earthquake -- at least not so directly. Will God judge Haiti for its spiritual darkness? Of course. Is the judgment of God something we can claim to understand in this sense -- in the present? No, we are not given that knowledge. Jesus himself warned his disciples against this kind of presumption...

The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe. The entire cosmos awaits the revelation of the glory of the coming Lord. Creation cries out for the hope of the New Creation.

In other words, the earthquake reminds us that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only real message of hope. The cross of Christ declares that Jesus loves Haiti -- and the Haitian people are the objects of his love. Christ would have us show the Haitian nation his love, and share his Gospel. In the midst of this unspeakable tragedy, Christ would have us rush to aid the suffering people of Haiti, and rush to tell the Haitian people of his love, his cross, and salvation in his name alone.

Everything about the tragedy in Haiti points to our need for redemption. This tragedy may lead to a new openness to the Gospel among the Haitian people. That will be to the glory of God. In the meantime, Christ's people must do everything we can to alleviate the suffering, bind up the wounded, and comfort the grieving. If Christ's people are called to do this, how can we say that God hates Haiti?

If you have any doubts about this, take your Bible and turn to John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. That is God's message to Haiti.

Read the entire article HERE.

Evangelicals: Putting the "Fun" back in "Funeral"

Contemporary evangelicals don't do death well. After all, it's negative. And that seems to be the one great sin for contemporary Christians. And so evangelicalism has a host of euphamisms for such negative words as "sin," "wrath," and, the worst of all, "death."

Craig Parton has a great article in the latest issue of Modern Reformation:

If we are anything, we are a culture of entertainment and denial that has sanitized dying and death and put it in a world hopefully far, far away. Sadness, if prolonged or of a disturbing depth, is to be diagnosed and medicated. Even sadness that might, God forbid, lead to repentance.

And entertainment is the mother's milk from which today's evangelical celebrations gladly feed. We want our funerals to mirror our church services and our church services to mirror our virtual lives--fun, interesting, enlightening, moving, and upbeat. Whether it is faithful to Christ and his Word is, well, nice if you can actually pull that off and stay cool, but it is not obligatory. If your religious life is fun, interesting, enlightening, moving, and upbeat, then it is clearly faithful to Christ and his Word.

The church used to pay less heed to the impacts of secular culture on its people--in fact, the church was culture. The church's fights were more with the sinful flesh and with the devil. The world, or culture, and Christianity were nearly synonymous, and in many ways secular Greek culture provided support and a springboard for the advancement of Christian intellectual and artistic life. The church also had good reason for absolute confidence in its liturgical forms grounded in the highly regulated Old Testament worship centering in the Temple. The church had particular confidence in the forms that surrounded the death of the Christian. The church knew what dying sinners must hear from her, and one was on the cusp of entering the Church Triumphant. The dying sinner needed to confess his sins and hear the words of absolution spoken by the called minister of Word and Sacrament, and the dying needed to receive the body and blood of Jesus unto the forgiveness of sins from that called servant. This was serious business not given over to talk-show hosts who might well deliver themselves rather than Jesus and him crucified to those in the throes of death.

The church also recognized the important humanity connected to the grieving and sadness that surrounds dying and death. The Scriptures are replete with examples of courageous men weeping over death (the grief of Job over his personal Armageddon, the grief of David over the death of his child, the grief of Jesus over Lazarus). Indeed, Psalm 6 tells us David wept all night over his sins. This affirmation of the masculinity of grieving and the proper place for sadness (both in the death of a loved one or in repentant sorrow for sin) has now been replaced by the "celebration of life" that eliminates the dead body, the casket, the burial, and the sadness and grieving that once accompanied death. The church's romanticizing of death is a consequence of its substitution of the Man of Sorrows with a Teenager of Fun. This is another reason why men don't waste their time coming to our churches. When you sentimentalize death and make it "fun," skeptics will find something else to do on Sunday. If this Jesus can't deliver at death's portal, he surely is not worth consulting on the issues of this life. '

Read the entire article HERE.

Abortion and Social Justice

As I have written many times before, abortion is not just one issue among many other equally important issues. It is a foundational ethical issue. To be "pro-choice" concerning abortion is to betray a fundamental flaw in one's moral reasoning. It is also to strip all meaning from the notion of social justice.

Chuck Colson weighs in on the connection between social justice and the dignity of human life:

This month marks a tragic date: the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, when our “robed masters”—the Supreme Court—discovered a constitutional right to kill innocent babies waiting to be born.

The good news is that polls reveal that Americans are more pro-life than ever. The bad news is the culture of death is making ominous inroads on many other fronts.

A few months ago, as most of you know, theologian Timothy George, Princeton scholar Robby George, and I co-authored a document called the Manhattan Declaration. Two hundred Christian leaders and hundreds of thousands of lay people have signed it online. Some younger evangelicals, however, demurred. Why limit the agenda to life, family, and religious liberty, they asked. What about social justice and the environment?

What these well-meaning folks fail to realize is that a strong pro-life commitment is absolutely essential for social justice. For 34 years I’ve gone into America’s prisons to witness to the most marginalized among us, precisely because I believe every human being is made in God’s image. When I walk through the vile-smelling cell blocks, I don’t see tattooed inmates; I see children of God.

There is no social justice, you see, without respect for the innate dignity of each human being created in God’s image.

Many of us will learn this truth afresh should any of these health care bills pass. They all contain provisions which will result in medical services being rationed. Decisions historically made between doctor and patient, and maybe clergy, will now be made by government bureaucrats.

Under the bill’s provisions, prescribed treatments of Medicare patients must be approved by a government commission. Medicare is publicly funded. So the government decides which services it will pay for and which it won’t. Older Americans will be hardest hit.

Imagine you’re 85 with a chronic heart condition and you experience renal failure. Should you receive dialysis? Who decides?

If we don’t have a consistent ethic about the sanctity of human life, decisions will not be made on the basis of what care we need, but on what the government can afford. Patients will be judged, not by their innate worth, but by their perceived value to society. Do the elderly and infirm have a right to life—or a duty to die?

Read the entire article HERE.

Brothers, We Are Not Directors

It seems that Erwin Raphael McManus has added director of commercials to his uber-cool persona. McManus is the pastor (although he doesn't seem to like that title) of Mosaic, an uber-cool church in Los Angeles. McManus has produced and Mosaic is sponsoring a commercial in a Doritos contest. The winning commercial will be broadcast during the Super Bowl. It's all so, well, cool. Of course it begs some pretty major questions about the purpose of the church, the role of the pastor, and the necessity of the Gospel.

Phil Johnson comments:

McManus's current project is further removed from the proclamation of the gospel than anything you'll ever see from Osteen—and that's saying something. McManus is shilling for an entry in Doritos® "Crash the Superbowl" contest. It's an utterly tasteless commercial called "Casket." ("A guy stages his own funeral just to munch Doritos and watch football undisturbed—in a casket.") McManus himself produced the commercial for the Doritos® contest and Mosaic is "sponsoring" it. They won a spot among the six finalists (out of 4,000 entries)—and tickets to the Super Bowl. The top prizewinner will be chosen by popular vote. So McManus has removed every vestige of his own website and replaced it with an appeal for votes. He's Twittering pleas for votes on a fairly regular basis, too.

He is convinced this is the work of God: "It's a miracle and a divine comedy that we've made it this far," he told USA Today. "I think it's God's sense of humor."

Rick Warren is ecstatic about the prestige and potential $$$ a win would bring McManus. He Tweeted: "My guy Erwin McManus (Mosiac Church) created a Doritos Superbowl Ad! Church could win $! VOTE 4 him!"

Our friend Paul Edwards's Twitter feed, as usual, was more on target: "Majority of Christians will laugh rather than weep at @erwinmcmanus 's commercial because the gospel is no longer central in our thinking."...

Publicity is not the same thing as evangelism. Fad-chasing isn't "missional." You're not "reaching" people in any meaningful sense at all if the gospel is not the center and the main substance of your message to the world.

Read the entire post HERE.

Carl Trueman on the Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

Carl Trueman's article in the latest Nine Marks Journal is well worth the read.

We live in strange times. Hardly a year goes by without some conference on the future of the evangelical church somewhere having at least one speaker, or sometimes even a slate of speakers, who arguably represent precisely the kind of theology that has emptied pews, castrated preaching, and disemboweled commitment to the gospel.

I saw a flyer for just such a conference recently, honoring a great evangelical thinker and critic, where one of the keynote speakers represented precisely the kind of slippery theology which the honoree had devoted his life to debunking. Strange times, indeed.

What is going on? Why this craven need for acceptability by the wider world?

WHY DO EVANGELICAL ACADEMICS CRAVE WORLDLY ACCEPTANCE?

I suspect there are a number of reasons for this problem. First, the context of evangelicalism lends itself to just such confusion. Evangelicalism really does not understand what it is. Is it a movement based on an experience (the new birth), or on theological commitments, or on parachurch institutions? Yet here's the rub: The first (experience) will degenerate into mere subjective mysticism if not connected to the second (theological commitments). The second is now highly disputed among evangelicals, who cannot even agree on the answer to Pilate's question, "What is truth?" And the third (parachurch institutions) too often either forms part of the problem of defining the second, or, in the USA in particular, becomes less a ministry and more a vehicle for a cult of personality, vulnerable to the kind of criticism made by Eric Hoffer, who said that every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and ends up as a racket. Evangelicalism is a sorry mess, neither pure nor simple.

Second, if a movement does not understand what it is, then it cannot make any really satisfactory determination on who belongs and who does not. The boundaries of a movement are ultimately revealed by the person who comes closest to belonging but who nonetheless does not. Arius is a good early church example. As high and exalted as was his view of Christ, he could still only regard Christ as a creature and not fully God. The boundary was drawn and he was outside of it. Combine the problems of defining evangelical identity with the current cultural penchant for not excluding anybody and you have a heady recipe for total disaster. Say nice things about Jesus, have a warm feeling in your heart when somebody lights a candle, and be kind to your grandmother and—hey presto!—you belong; you too can be an evangelical. Thus we have deniers of penal substitution, of any meaningful notion of biblical authority, of the uniqueness of Christ for salvation, of justification by grace through faith, of the particularity of salvation. No matter: just stress that Jesus was a jolly good bloke, mouth a few orthodox sounding phrases, speak with a bit of engaging passion, and you too can get a membership pass and a speaking gig. And, if the conferences I mentioned above are anything to go by, we fall for such ruses every time.

Third, there would seem to be a pervasive evangelical inferiority complex. This means that, while we do not wish to exclude anybody, we dread being excluded ourselves. Indeed, for the evangelical academic, in a world so ill-defined, it is always tempting to cut just a few more corners, or keep shtum on just a couple of rather embarrassing doctrinal commitments, in order to have just that little bit more influence, that slightly bigger platform, in the outside world. This is particularly the temptation of evangelical biblical scholars and systematicians whose wider guilds are so utterly unsympathetic to the kind of supernaturalism and old-fashioned truth claims upon which their church constituencies are largely built. In so doing, we kid ourselves that we are doing the Lord's work, that, somehow, because we have articles published in this journal or by that press, we are really making real
headway into the unbelieving culture of the theological academy. Not that these things are not good and worthy—I do such things myself—but we must be careful that we do not confuse professional academic achievement with building up the saints or scoring a point for the kingdom.

It remains true (as James Barr pointed out years ago) that evangelical academics are generally respected in the academy only at precisely those points where they are least evangelical. There is a difference between academic or scholarly respectability and intellectual integrity. For a Christian, the latter depends upon the approval of God and is rooted in fidelity to his revealed Word; it does not always mean the same thing as playing by the rules of scholarly guild...

Years ago, Mark Noll wrote a book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, in which he argued that the scandal was that there was no such thing. When it comes to evangelical scholars and scholarship, I disagree: the scandal is not that there is no mind; it is that these days there is precious little evangel.

Read the entire article HERE.

Nine Marks Journal

The Jan/Feb edition of the Nine Marks Journal is not online (pdf).

The theme of this edition is "The Mindset of the New Evangelical Liberalism." This is a timely subject indeed. There are some outstanding articles here and I encourage you to take time to read and reflect.

Michael Lawrence - How to become a liberal without attending Harvard Divinity School

Carl Trueman - The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

Al Mohler - Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens

Phil Johnson - The Neo-Liberal Stealth Offensive

J. Mack Stiles - What's Happening to InterVarsity?

Jonathan Leeman - Is the God of the Missional Gospel Too Small?

What does Social Justice mean?

Good stuff from Kevin DeYoung that echo my sentiments:

I’d like to make a modest proposal for Christians of all theological and political persuasions: don’t use the term “social justice” without explanation.

The term is unassailable to some and arouses suspicion in others. For many Christians, social justice encompasses everything good we should be doing in the world, from hunger relief to serving the poor to combating sex trafficking. But the phrase is also used to support more debatable matters like specific health care legislation, minimum wage increases, or reducing carbon emissions. If something can be included as a “social justice” issue then no one can oppose said issue, because who in their right mind favors social injustice?

But what are we actually talking about when we advocate social justice?

John Goldingay, in his book on Old Testament ethics, highlights the problem:

The notion of social justice is a hazy one. It resembles words such as community, intimacy, and relational, warm words whose meaning may seem self-evident and which we assume are obviously biblical categories, when actually they are rather undefined and culture relative.

After discussing the origin of the phrase “social justice” in nineteenth century Roman Catholic thought, Goldingay explains how the phrase came to be used subsequently.

“Social justice” then implies the idea of a “just society,” one in which different individuals and groups in society get a “fair share” of its benefits. But Christians disagree about what constitutes a just society and how we achieve it (for instance, how far by governmental intervention to effect income redistribution and how far by market forces and the encouragement of philanthropy)…The meaning of the phrase social justice has become opaque over the years as it has become a buzz expression (Israel’s Life, 500).

In A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell explains the difference between the constrained and unconstrained view of justice. In the unconstrained view justice is a result so that wherever people don’t get “their fair share” or don’t have as much as others there is injustice. If Goldingay is correct, most people assume this unconstrained view when they speak of social justice. For example, the RCA (my denomination) in one of its official study materials includes a glossary which defines justice as “The fair, moral, and impartial treatment of all persons, especially in law. Includes concepts of right relationships and equitable distribution of resources.” By this definition the inequality of opportunities, income, or outcomes is considered an injustice, a situation that in and of itself is sinful, implicates all (or most) of us in society, and demands immediate redress. In the unconstrained vision, the society has a lump of resources and if they are not shared roughly equally, then we do not have social justice.

In the constrained vision, by contrast, justice is a process where people are treated fairly (the first half of the RCA definition). The goal here is not forced redistribution; no one distributed the resources in the first place and no one is wise enough to allocate them for the good of everyone. Justice, in this vision, is upheld through the rule of law, a fair court system, and equitable treatment of all persons regardless of natural diversity. This doesn’t mean that in the constrained vision we shouldn’t care for the poor or that we simply shrug our shoulders and say “oh well” when we see people struggling through life with far fewer opportunities and resources than the rest of us. The Christian must be generous and should care about suffering and the disadvantaged. But in the constrained vision, this care is a matter of compassion, charity, and love, not automatically an issue of justice.

I happen to think the constrained view of justice fits the biblical definition better. But arguing one way or the other is not the point of this post. This is only a “modest proposal” after all. I simply want Christians to be more careful and more precise with their language. We don’t all mean the same thing by social justice. So when we use the term we should explain it and take pains to demonstrate why our conception of social justice is supported by Scripture. However we use the phrase “social justice” we should be slow to insist that any Christian who disagrees with our policy solution is obviously a spiritual miscreant.

“Social justice” in common parlance is often ill-defined warm fuzzy. Careful exegesis is needed if we are to unfold what the Bible means by justice instead of assuming a definition that we may or may not all agree on. And that means more than an appeal to broad themes like “God cares for the poor.” Yes, we all see that. But who is responsible to care for the poor? And how? And does it matter where they are or how they got there? I don’t mean those as rhetorical questions. They are real questions that evangelicals need to consider more carefully. At the very least it would be good to recognize that using an ambiguous phrase like “social justice” to rally for our cause or defend our side without helping each side know what the other is really talking about is not terribly helpful.

Coming to Church of the Saviour in September...

From Westminster Seminary:

Change is inevitable. And when the unpredictability of tomorrow consumes our hearts, with insatiable tyranny, it devours any sense of stability, confidence, and peace. A violent and merciless master, change relentlessly erodes the very things to which we cling for confidence and assurance.

But there is good news, indeed, great news. Into that tumultuous world, God has spoken. His unbreakable words yield strength, hope and stability, and as the very words of God, Scripture grants us full confidence for today, tomorrow...forever.

Westminster Theological Seminary's conviction is that this revealed, self-attesting Word of God must ground and shape all human thought, and that this Word, centered on Jesus Christ the Eternal and Incarnate Word, bears absolute authority in defining, understanding and defending all issues of life in a changing world.

This is the need of the hour - a fresh word on the revealed Word.

Please make plans to participate at one of the 2010 Full Confidence Conferences led by Westminster faculty, and hosted by churches and WTS alumni and friends in cities throughout the United States.

The Full Confidence Conference for the Philadelphia area will be held at Church of the Saviour September 24-26, 2010.

When Fools Make Films...

Oliver Stone is at it again. He has already manufactured an historical fantasy regarding the assassination of JFK. He has cast two serial murderers as sympathetic figures. He has villainized George W. Bush. This time he is going to make a film that will correct other historical misconceptions we might have. Specifically he will help us to the see the warm fuzzy side of Hitler and Stalin. I'm assuming their current bad reputation is the result of a Republican conspiracy.

"Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply," he said. Then he mentioned the S word. "Stalin has a complete other story. Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any person."

Stone told the Television Critics Association that "we can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good'. [Hitler] is the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect. People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII."

From an article in the Guardian

Words as the means by which God relates to His people

Modern evangelicals are an experiential lot. We promise a "personal relationship with God" but don't do a very good job of explaining exactly what that means. In fact almost everything in the neo-evangelical cafeteria of spirituality seems to be tagged as "personal." What is demanded is a spiritual experience; something that is tactile and sensual. We are like the Israelites of old who, while Moses was on the mountain receiving more words from God, demanded an up-close-and-personal kind of God.

But God has made us to be a primarily auditory people. He is not to be seen by His people (and certainly not touched!). God creates, judges, delivers, and saves by the power of His word. He reveals himself by his word. We do not intuit God's redemptive plan in Jesus Christ. It is knowledge that must be understood by way of explanation. For a church milieu that poo-poo's words and preaching and doctrine this is a timely reminder.

Do you want to know God? Then know His Word. Do you want a "personal relationship" with God? Then relate to Him through His living Word. Do you want to "experience" God? Then drink deeply from His Word, the means by which He offers Himself to us. Do want to experience the power of God? Then explain and proclaim the gospel, the power of God unto salvation.

From Carl Trueman:

To put the biblical matter in a nutshell, language in the Bible is the basis of interpersonal relationships. Creation, of course, is a highly mysterious event, but it is significant that the Bible uses the language of speech to express the creative activity of God. In Genesis 1 and 2, God is the one who converses, speaks, within himself, and the act of creation arises out of precisely this kind of interpersonal conversation between the members of the Trinity. Then, in the Garden of Eden, God's relationship with Adam is expressed via the medium of language. It is how God defines the nature and limits of the relationship, and, after the Fall, it is how God confronts Adam and Eve with their sin. The same pattern is repeated throughout the whole Bible in both testaments: whether it is command or promise, the two basic aspects of the divine-human relationship with men and women, to limit it, to move it forward: he speaks to Noah, to Abraham, to Samuel, to David and so on. Indeed, God's use of language is a basic element which allows the encounter between God and humanity to be considered as a personal relationship...

[L]anguage was divinely gifted not primarily to provide a basis for culture, but rather to facilitate intelligible communion between man and God and communication of the truth...The kind of salvation which the Christian God offers demands words, whether of promise or command, in order to define and delimit the nature of his relationship with his creatures.

From The Wages of Spin (pp. 46-47, 52)

J.I. Packer on Theological Training

HT: Justin Taylor

Splitting Hairs?

We live in a day of doctrinal compromise. Voices within evangelicalism tell us not to "split hairs" over doctrine. I recently read a brief article by a seminary president which asserts that Christians are dividing far too often over matters that are not essential. But this is not what I conclude as I observe the landscape of the contemporary church. I see biblical/doctrinal illiteracy. Oh for a few good truly doctrinal divisions! Instead, the church divides over music styles and personality conflicts.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not hoping for division within the body of Christ. But I do lament a kind of biblical ignorance that fails to build necessary boundaries. These boundaries over matters of truth are precisely what God's Word calls for.

From Martin Downes:

I want to offer some selective comments on a seminal New Testament passage concerning false teaching. That passage is 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 (ESV):

1. I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me!

2. For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

3. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

4. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

Several things should grab our attention:

1. The goal of the false teachers is to sever the intimate relationship between the true Christ and his bride, and not merely to exchange one set of ideas about God for another. It is vital that we view what is really at stake from Paul's perspective.

The loss is not merely intellectual but affectional, they have been led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. This is the burden of verses 2 and 3.

2. Both the origin of doctrinal error and the modus operandi of its preachers can be traced to the deception in the garden. We may speak of the original deception and all actual deceptions that proceed from it. This is the burden of verse 3, and verses 13-15.

3. The form that doctrinal error takes is to retain the right theological language but to substitute its content with alternative meanings. This is the burden of verse 4.

If we listen without discernement, we will assume that preachers who speak of Jesus, the Spirit and the gospel, are to be considered orthodox. But which Jesus, which Spirit, which gospel are they speaking of? That is Paul's concern

4. But there is also in these verses a damaging assessment made of the spiritual condition of the Corinthians. Paul's heart as a pastor is grieved by their tolerance of heresy:

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

Did they really not know the difference between truth and serious theological error, between orthodoxy and heresy? It is a terrible thing to knowingly tolerate serious theological error. It is a reprehensible breaking of the first commandment. It is a sign of real spiritual trouble.

Wherever this is repeated, any pastor who shares some measure of Paul's concern for the truth of the gospel and for the good of souls cannot but feel great sadness and indignation at such a state of affairs.

He who has ears to hear, let him not listen to what the serpent is saying to the churches.

Check out Martin's excellent book Risking the Truth.

Jimmy Carter aplogizes to "the Jewish Community"

Well, it's pretty late in coming but the former president offered an apology of sorts to the Jewish community for statements he has made. Of course, what Mr. Carter does not seem to recognize is the genuine harm many of his comments and symbolic actions have actually caused.

Brad Hirschfield writes:

Former President Jimmy Carter offered the following words in a letter addressed to the Jewish community: "We must recognize Israel's achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so."

The remarks should be welcomed especially in light of both the healing they could bring and the deep awareness of Jewish liturgical tradition which they reflect. I wonder in fact how many Jews would reach for the penitentiary prayer, Al Het ,as their model for public apology. Yet here we have a devout Baptist, sufficiently learned and comfortable in a tradition not his own, doing so. That alone is noteworthy.

Like many of Mr. Carters past comments, his words appear well-intentioned and sincerely offered. And yet, like so many of his past utterances, these latest mix profound sensitivity with much potentially unhelpful ideological baggage.

For starters, who is the "we" to whom he refers? If it is only himself, then he should say "I" and be done with it. Doing otherwise distances him from the responsibility he claims to take. On the other hand, if he is speaking for others, it would be helpful to know for whom he speaks. Are his comments also an admission that he has rallied a great many people to a position which he now regrets having taken? If so, that too should be noted.

It's also somewhat troubling that his comments are offered to the "Jewish community". His past comments, which attacked Israel as an apartheid state and worse, were not problematic because they offended Jews; they were problematic because they were rooted in faulty comparisons and flawed analyses of very complex realities that did not fit with Carter's idealized understandings of "big bad Israel" and "good little Palestine".

Too often, Mr. Carter made the easy, and dangerous, decision that whoever held the smaller weapon was automatically more moral. While such thinking assuages the moral concerns of those who are inherently uncomfortable with power, it is often false. While it is certainly true that power, especially military power, is easily abused, so is a people's lack of it - often becoming an excuse for horrific forms of terrorist violence.

Read the entire article HERE.

Bach, Beauty, and Advancing the Gospel

From an article by Uwe Siemon–Netto that ran originally in First Things:

Twenty–five years ago when there was still a Communist East Germany, I interviewed several boys from Leipzig’s Thomanerchor, the choir once led by Johann Sebastian Bach. Many of those children came from atheistic homes. “Is it possible to sing Bach without faith?” I asked them. “Probably not,” they replied, “but we do have faith. Bach has worked as a missionary among all of us.” During a recent journey to Japan I discovered that 250 years after his death Bach is now playing a key role in evangelizing that country, one of the most secularized nations in the developed world.

Read the entire article HERE.

A better kind of Christian

"Evangelical Christianity...is now tragically below the New Testament standard. Worldliness is now an accepted part of our way of life. Our religious mood is social rather than spiritual. We have lost the art of worship. We are not producing saints. Our models are successful businessmen, celebrated athletes and theatrical personalities. We carry on our religious activities after the methods of the modern advertiser. Our homes have been turned into theaters. Our literature is shallow and our hymnody borders on sacrilege. And scarcely anyone seems to care.

We must have a better kind of Christian soon or within another half century we may have no true Christianity at all."

- A.W. Tozer

The church needs godly shepherds not tough talking CEOs

Sad to say, Gary Lamb would probably say today (I hope) that his biggest regret is not something he didn't do.

Excellent Discussion about Brit, Tiger, and Jesus...

Check out this very clear discussion about Brit Hume's invitation to Tiger Woods to turn to Christianity from R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California.

Any thoughts?

Hang in there Representative Stupak

The New York Times has interviewed Representative Bark Stupak (D-MI) who has taken a courageous stand against the abortion language in the current health care bill. As a result Mr. Stupak has been called "the most hated man in Washington."

Mr. Stupak insists that the final bill include his terms, which he says merely reflect current law. If he prevails, he will have won an audacious, counterintuitive victory, forcing a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass a measure that will be hailed as an anti-abortion triumph. If party members do not accept his terms — and many vow they will not — Mr. Stupak is prepared to block passage of the health care overhaul.

“It’s not the end of the world if it goes down,” he said over dinner. He did not sound downbeat about the prospect of being blamed for blocking the long-sought goal of President Obama and a chain of presidents and legislators before him. “Then you get the message,” he continued. “Fix the abortion language and bring the bill back.”

C.T. Interviews Brit Hume

Christianity Today has posted an interview with Brit Hume:

CT: In this discussion about Tiger Woods, it seems as though some are offended that you would say something about Christianity specifically.

Hume: Instead of urging that Tiger Woods turn to Christianity, if I had said what heneeded to do was to strengthen his Buddhist commitment or turn to Hinduism, I don't think anybody would have said a word. It's Christ and Christianity that get people stirred up.

CT: What about raising the topic of Buddhism?

Hume: I didn't say much about Buddhism. Look, I don't think there's any question, this is a matter of fact. I don't think Buddhism is hostile to forgiveness or redemption, but Christianity, like no other religion we've ever known, is principally, and fundamentally, and especially about forgiveness and redemption. That is what Christianity is based on. That is why Christ was here. That is what he came here to achieve. On that issue, Christianity is unique.

CT: Some have questioned whether Christianity can help you be more faithful to your spouse.

Hume: I don't think you draw a straight line that way. My sense is that if you turn to Christ and seek his forgiveness and mean it, you'll get it. You will be impelled and inspired to live the Christian life. Christianity is a religion for sinners. It doesn't encourage you to sin, it encourages you not to, but it provides a way of forgiveness and redemption. That's what Tiger Woods, like many sinners, needs. That's something we all need. He, in his particularly desperate moment here where he appears to be losing his family, is in special need of it. And I hope he finds it.

Read the entire interview HERE.

Fuel for your devotional life...

When you get a chance, check out the "devotional" tag on the right hand column of this blog.

It includes devotions from Charles Spurgeon (Here), daily Bible reading from the ESV (Here), daily Bible readings and reflection from Ref21 (Here), and guidance in praying the Bible from Matthew Henry (Here).

On Christian Community

"We must be knit together in this work as one man, we must entertain each other in brotherly affection..., we must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality, we must delight in each other, make others' conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body, so shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us."

- John Winthrop

Don't miss THIS EVENT.

Piper on "Ruth"

A Sweet & Bitter Providence

Ruth: Under the Wings of God

"Hume's Gentle Witness"

Good article from Peter Wehner at NRO concerning the vehement attacks launched against Brit Hume:

The intensity of offense taken at what Hume said is itself revealing. Perhaps it can partly be chalked up to shock; maybe Shales and Hume’s other critics are genuinely surprised to learn that those who hold the Christian faith do so because they believe the claims of Christ are true, that His story is real. But of course if Christians didn’t believe their faith were true, there would be no reason to embrace it, as the Apostle Paul himself understood.

Some people obviously disagree with Hume; that is certainly their right. They can offer a different remedy to Woods if they so desire. They may think that a commitment to materialism, or atheism, or pantheism, or something quite different, is what Woods needs. Or they may think what Woods did was not problematic, and that he should be free to indulge his appetites and passions. If so, let them make their case. But Hume, in the context of the discussion he was having, should be free to make his case. And one cannot help but think that if Hume had recommended that Woods embrace Transcendental Meditation, the philosophy of Deepak Chopra, or the New Age movement, instead of Christianity, Shales would not have been so offended.

I should add that when Christopher Hitchens, whom I like and whose company I enjoy, appeared on television shows promoting his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, he was far more critical of Christianity than Hume was of Buddhism. Yet I don’t recall the Left saying that those criticisms were inappropriate for public debate. In fact, they weren’t — and neither are Hume’s words. Furthermore, those who are unnerved by Hume’s “sectarianism” were untroubled by the aggressive atheism of Hitchens.

Read the entire article HERE

The Unnatural Act of Abortion

"If we take the principles of liberal individualism as axiomatic, we find it possible to think of the fetus and the woman as the parties of the first and second part arguing over their respective rights. We are then able to blind ourselves to the natural fact that they are related as mother and child and that the child is in the only natural place for him to be, his mother’s womb."

From Francis Canavan’s The Pluralist Game:

More Foolishness from Harold Camping

Harold Camping would be easy to ignore. In fact it would be a virtue to ignore him. The problem is that Camping heads Family Radio which is broadcast around the world. The hyper-dispensationalism of Camping and others has been causing division and confusion in the church for years.

Camping has been hard at work calculating the day of the Lord's return. The following, from an article in SF Gate, is a lesson in wildly irresponsible and incompetent biblical exegesis.

By Camping's understanding, the Bible was dictated by God and every word and number carries a spiritual significance. He noticed that particular numbers appeared in the Bible at the same time particular themes are discussed.

The number 5, Camping concluded, equals "atonement." Ten is "completeness." Seventeen means "heaven." Camping patiently explained how he reached his conclusion for May 21, 2011.

"Christ hung on the cross April 1, 33 A.D.," he began. "Now go to April 1 of 2011 A.D., and that's 1,978 years."

Camping then multiplied 1,978 by 365.2422 days – the number of days in each solar year, not to be confused with a calendar year.

Next, Camping noted that April 1 to May 21 encompasses 51 days. Add 51 to the sum of previous multiplication total, and it equals 722,500.

Camping realized that (5 x 10 x 17) x (5 x 10 x 17) = 722,500.

Or put into words: (Atonement x Completeness x Heaven), squared.

"Five times 10 times 17 is telling you a story," Camping said. "It's the story from the time Christ made payment for your sins until you're completely saved.

"I tell ya, I just about fell off my chair when I realized that," Camping said.

If you have ever met any of Camping's followers then you probably already know that they seem to be impervious to facts (Just a few months back a pamphlet from Family Radio was left on my windshield). They also don't seem to mind the fact that Camping has made previous predictions about the the second coming of Christ. Among Camping's exotic teachings is that "the church age" is over and it is a sin for Christians to remain in churches. Rather, he says, they should be at home listening to Family Radio.

When Christ is taken out of Christianity

Important stuff from Michael Horton

Paul Tripp at COS next week

If you are in the Philadelphia area then plan on attending a conference featuring Paul Tripp at Church of the Saviour.

Have you ever wondered why some Christians grow and some don't? Have you ever been discouraged or confused in your own relationship with God? Have you ever wondered if other people go through the things you go through as a Christian? Have you ever longed for someone who you could share your personal struggles and questions of faith with? If someone asked you what the key to personal growth and change was what would you say it is?

Could it be that you're a Christian but you're missing an essential piece of the life God called you to. Real satisfaction of heart, real growth and change, real effectiveness and purpose is possible!

Your Walk with God is a Community Project

January 10-12
Sunday - Paul will be preaching in the three morning services (8:15, 9:30, 11:00)
Monday Evening - 7:00-9:30
Tuesday Evening - 7:00-9:30

Promotional Video

Register HERE

Brit Hume on O'Reilly

A False Gospel

In the abortion clinic, might makes right

“Suppose, in the encounter between doctor and child [in an abortion], the child won half of the time, and killed the doctor in self-defense—something he would have every right to do. Very few doctors would perform abortions. They perform them now only because of their absolute power over a small, fragile, helpless victim.”

—Stephen D. Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990), 143.

HT: Justin Taylor

Hearing God Speak

The Bible is not simply an historical account or a literary masterpiece; it is the witness to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and it presents the Deus loquens, the God who uses the Bible to speak to us today. God Himself works through the means of His grace today just as He worked through the prophetic and apostolic preaching. Today again the good news is proclaimed by a preacher standing in obedience to the Word, and it is heard by a congregation that is also dependent on this Word.

— Ernest Koenker, Worship in Word and Sacrament, p. 25.

Tiger Woods, Buddhism and the need for Redemption

Far as the Curse is Found

You can listen to or download my sermon from December 13th, "Far as the Curse is Found" HERE. The sermon begins in Genesis three and traces God's promise to bring from the fallen couple one who would finally crush the enemy.