It's gonna be a hot time in Gainesville

It is extraordinary how a little church in Florida can gain the attention of the world with an old fashioned bonfire. When I was kid my Friday evenings were busy with the burning of KISS albums. People thought it was weird but the President never weighed in. Maybe in this case it is the sheer act of burning books that has caused such a stir. But surely, the fact that this little church will be gathering to burn copies of the Koran, is what is at the heart of the controversy. This ought not surprise given Islam's tendency toward perpetual outrage. They are an excitable bunch. If Islamists were gathering in, let us say, a small town in Pakistan to burn Bibles the world would not notice. There would be no Presidential press conferences, Papal announcements, or State Department meetings. There would be no warnings about marauding hoards of Christians killing indiscriminately or discriminatingly for that matter. But I digress.

The fact is, this little bonfire in Florida is nothing more than a vanity project for a hapless pastor from Gainesville. I'm not sure if it is un-American or not. After all, we have been assured that the construction of a victory mosque at Ground Zero is the very essence of America. So I confess my newly discovered ignorance concerning what is or is not American. What I do know is that the burning that will go on in Gainesville will do nothing to advance the Gospel and this ought to be uppermost in the minds and hearts of God's people.

The Gospel offends. Of this, there is no doubt. The Gospel turns everything upside-down. It reverses fortunes and calls out worldly notions of power and status and wisdom. What ought not offend are the personalities of those called to advance this stumbling block of a message. The message of the cross will do its job quite well. The Gospel is the power of God after all. It does not require that it's messengers act like the rear ends of horses.

Theology for kids...

Starr Meade has a proven track record of writing outstanding material for young readers. Her newest volumes are companions: God's Mighty Acts in Creation and God's Mighty Acts in Salvation.

PDF Sample pages of God's Mighty Acts in Creation

PDF Sample pages of God's Mighty Acts in Salvation

Publisher's Description for God's Mighty Acts in Creation:
Nature reveals majestic truths about God—truths that help us know him better. God’s Mighty Acts in Creation helps children recognize those wonders, and what they tell us about their Creator.

As Starr Meade, author of Mighty Acts of God, guides young readers through the six days of creation, she points to how creation displays the wisdom and power of God. She also helps readers explore and apply other references to nature in the Bible by answering questions such as: What did Jesus mean when he claimed to be the true vine? How is all flesh like grass, and how should that affect the way we live? What was God revealing about himself when he made the sun stand still for Joshua? Each reading includes a key verse, stimulating questions, and engaging activities, all geared toward elementary-aged children.


Publisher's Description for God's Mighty Acts in Salvation:
Long before we reach adulthood, the gospel ought to be shaping our lives. Paul taught the core truths of the gospel in his letter to the Galatians, and this collection of interactive readings for preteens applies those truths in understandable ways.

Each reading begins with a key verse and then highlights one element of the gospel in everyday terms, followed by questions and activities that reinforce Paul’s teaching. Meade guides young readers to a full picture of God’s saving work, as well as a real understanding of other doctrinal concepts such as justification by faith alone, the priority of Scripture, the requirements for apostleship, and the relationship between the old and new covenants.

The disastrous worldview of scientism...

In the past, Stephen Hawking has been rather ambiguous about his thoughts regarding the existence of God. However, in his newest book The Grand Design, Hawking states explicitly that there is simply no need for God in the universe. That is, there is nothing in the universe that requires the mind or hand of a Maker. Quite honestly, I have a difficult time distinguishing Hawking's view from that of Biologos. But that is another story.

Of Hawking's worldview and new book, Al Mohler writes:

The major thrusts of The Grand Design are the magnificence of the universe and the glory of theoretical physics. Hawking is committed to what he calls “M-Theory,” a “super-string theory” that encompasses a host of theories and predictions about the nature of matter and time. Most importantly, this theory allows Hawking and Mlodinow to advance Hawking’s theory that space and time have no boundary. If such a boundary did exist, Hawking allows that God might be a necessary or allowable theory of how all this began. But, if there is no boundary, there is no reason for God at all — the universe is self-explanatory...

Stephen Hawking’s worldview is based in positivistic scientism. He really believes that science holds all the answers. “Philosophy is dead,” he asserts in this newest book. Why? “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”

In his 1980 inaugural address, given as he was installed as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, Hawking proposed that the great project of theoretical physics might be concluded by the end of the twentieth century. “By this I mean that we might have a complete, consistent, and unified theory of the physical interactions which would describe all possible observations.”

That statement speaks profoundly to Professor Hawking’s intellectual ambition — to explain the universe and all of its “possible observations.” That is nothing less than titanic in scale of ambition. Indeed, it is the quintessential audacity of a brilliant secular mind.

Professor Stephen Hawking is a remarkable human being. His courage and tenacity are an inspiration to all. His work on the theory of gravity has changed the way the field of physics is taught. But, when he crosses that border from science to theology, his worldview leads him into abject disaster. The Grand Design is yet another attempt to celebrate the universe’s breathtaking design, while denying the existence of a Designer. It will not be the last.

Read Mohler's entire article HERE.

Update:

James Anderson has a helpful post on Hawking's new book HERE.

Christians and Politics

There are two new books available on the relationship between Christianity and politics. Politics According to the Bible by Wayne Grudem and Republocrat by Carl Trueman.

Politics According to the Bible
“If you read this year only one Christian book on politics, read Politics—According to the Bible. Wayne Grudem shows how we should approach more than fifty specific issues. His biblically-based good sense overwhelms the nostrums of Jim Wallis and the evangelical left. Wayne also shows why those seeking a vacation from politics need to rise up and go to work.”
- Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief, World, and provost, The King’s College, New York City

"Conservative and hard-hitting both biblically and culturally, Grudem’s treatise is essentially a giant tract for the times, covering the whole waterfront of America’s politi- cal debate with shrewd insight and strong argument. This book will be a valued resource for years to come, and right now no Christian can afford to ignore it. An outstanding achievement!"
- James I. Packer, Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology, Regent College, Vancouver

Republocrat
“As Carl Trueman points out in his witty, provocative, and deeply well-informed way, the alliance of conservative Christianity with conservative (neoliberal) politics is a circumstance of our own context in U.S. politics—neither historically nor logically necessary. Tie the faith too closely to right-wing politics, and it’s no wonder that younger Christians think they have to check out of orthodoxy when they move left of center politically. Regardless of one’s own views, this book will delight, frustrate, and encourage healthy dis- cussions that we have needed to have for a long time.”
- Michael Horton, J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Seminary California

“The disturbing alliance of conservative theology and right-wing politics is faced head-on in this timely and brave treatment by renowned historical-theologian and social commentator Carl Trueman. Even if readers disagree with Dr. Trueman’s conclusions, the sharpness of his critique should disturb the most entrenched political consciousness, particularly if the foundations of convic- tion are shown to have little or no biblical support. Writing in a predictably provocative and forthright manner, Trueman pulls few, if any, punches. Republocrat is a timely and robust assessment of a vitally important issue and a cri de coeur for a reappraisal of the conservative church’s current political alliance.”
- Derek W. H. Thomas, John E. Richards Professor of Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary

Sunday's Sermons

This morning Church of the Saviour had the pleasure of welcoming Dr. Carl Trueman to the pulpit. He preached a challenging and encouraging message from Judges 6. It was a challenge to carefully consider how we recognize the guidance of God. It was also an encouraging word to the church about the grace of God in using flawed people for His purposes.

This evening I preached from Exodus 19 on the glory and transcendence of God.

You can download or listen to both messages HERE.

Roger's Version

Try as he might, Roger Olson specifically and Arminian theologians in general cannot adequately make an argument for the presence of evil. That is, Arminians cannot explain the presence of evil in a way that 'rescues' God's reputation as they seek to do.

Steve Hays over at Triablogue dismisses quite easily another caricature of Calvinism by Dr. Olson.

Olson’s basic error is that he only sees the problem of evil in terms of God’s involvement in evil. And if we can disassociate God from evil, that’s exculpatory.

But, of course, that doesn’t solve the problem. It simply relocates the problem. For there’s a sense in which God ought to be responsible for whatever happens.

I think one of his problems, and this is a problem with Arminians generally, is that they treat evil as if it were a ritual impurity, like a contaminant or infectious disease, and the way to remain pure is to avoid physical contact. As long as God wears latex gloves, that exonerates him.

And this this is subconsciously reflected in the legalism I sometimes run across among Arminians, where holiness is a matter of avoiding certain physical activities, like drinking or watching R-rated movies.

Read the entire post HERE.

The weightless god of evangelicalism...

The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is not inadequate technique, insufficient organization, or antiquated music and those who want to squander the church’s resources bandaging these scratches will do nothing to staunch the flow of blood that is spilling from its wounds. The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is that God rests too inconsequentially upon the church. His truth is too distant, his grace too ordinary, his judgment too benign, his gospel too easy, and his Christ is too common.

David Wells from God in the Wasteland, p. 30

HELL

That is the subject of the latest issue of the Nine Marks Journal.

Contents:

Pastoral Perspectives on Hell

Mark Dever, Pastoral Fearmongering, Manipulation, and Hell
Our culture sneers at fear, as if there really is nothing to fear but fear itself. Yet Jesus told people to fear hell, and pastors today should do the same.

Kevin DeYoung, There’s Something Worse than Death
The doctrine of hell is ballast for our ministries, which will help us sail straight toward our most urgent task: proclaiming the gospel.

Sinclair Ferguson, What Then Shall We Preach on Hell?
Hell is an awful and overwhelming reality. Yet where Scripture speaks, pastors must not be silent. Here’s some practical help for this demanding calling.

Hell in Biblical and Theological Perspective

Greg Gilbert, Why Hell Is Integral to the Gospel
Some think that by minimizing or ignoring hell, they are making God more glorious and more loving. Far from it! The horror of what we have been saved from only intensifies the glory and wonder of our salvation.

Andrew David Naselli, Hellfire and Brimstone: Interpreting the New Testament’s Descriptions of Hell
The New Testament graphically and horrifically describes hell, which raises a thorny question: how should we interpret those dreadful images?

James M. Hamilton Jr., How Does Hell Glorify God?
Hell glorifies God by vindicating his holiness and faithfulness to his word, demonstrating his infinite worth, and magnifying his mercy and love toward the redeemed.

Gavin Ortlund, An Annotated Bibliography on Hell

Disturbing words from a prominent Southern Baptist...

Richad Land was interviewed on NPR concerning the Restoring Honor gathering in Washington D.C. Dr. Land is one of the most influential leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. His commendation of the rally highlights what troubles me about the same event. As you will see, Dr. Land seems to have no trouble gathering together with Mormons, Roman Catholics, Jewish Rabbis and Muslims for a religious event (You'll notice Land's insistance that the event was not political). "The answer is spiritual renewal and rebuilding a civil society one person, one family, one church, mosque, synagogue, temple, and one community at a time." Is this what Christians are called to pray for? How does Dr. Land propose that Christians pursue "spiritual renewal" with Muslims, Mormons, and Jews? It seems to me that Dr. Land is unwittingly demonstrating how such an event can distort the nature of God, the gospel, and the purpose of the church.

Dr. RICHARD LAND (President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention): Well, thank you. It’s good to be with you.

SIEGEL: Let me ask you about that rally: a very partisan political figure, a man who has accused president Obama of being a racist, then questioned his Christianity, holds a big rally with, among others, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Is the message here that God wants the Republicans to win in November?

Dr. LAND: Well, that certainly would not be the message you got from the rally. Therally did almost everything it could to not be political and to be as ecumenical as possible.

We had rabbis praying. We had Catholic priests praying. We had Muslim imams praying and participating. We had Protestant Christians. And he kept saying over and over again this is not a political event, and politics is not the answer. The answer is spiritual renewal and rebuilding a civil society one person, one family, one church, mosque, synagogue, temple, and one community at a time.

SIEGEL: Are you concerned about what Glenn Beck has said, for example, on “FOX News Sunday,” yesterday, more pointedly than from the podium on Saturday, that Americans do not recognize President Obama’s brand of Christianity? And you share that belief, by the way.

Dr. LAND: Oh, I recognize it. To me, he’s a very typical, mainline, liberal, Protestant Christian. I know lots of people like the president and who have been deeply influenced by liberation theology.

I think liberation theology is wrong. I reject collective salvation as an oxymoron.

SIEGEL: And Mr. Beck’s assertion that most Americans wouldn’t recognize the kind of Christianity that President Obama practices obviously you would disagree with. You say we know what that is.

Dr. LAND: Well, I do. I do know what it is. And I disagree with it. But, you know, it’s a free country, and that’s one reason we have freedom of religion. There were lots of differences of religion that were present at the rally. I mean, you know, you had Jewish rabbis, and as you can imagine, I would have some differences of opinion with Jewish rabbis and with Muslims and with Catholics.

But we were all there together talking about the fact that we need we believe that America needs a return to a greater faith in God, that this country is in trouble, and it’s in trouble at a very basic level. And it’s going to have to be rebuilt at a very basic level and that politics is not the answer.

SIEGEL: Glenn Beck is a Mormon. Is that brand of Christianity as distant or more so from yours than the National Council of Churches mainline Protestantism you…

Dr. LAND: Probably more so.

SIEGEL: More so.

Dr. LAND: And look, Glenn knows this. He said, look, I’m a Mormon. Most Christians don’t think that I’m a Christian. And so, you know, I’ll quote the pope, when he’s talking about liberation theology.

I do not think Mormonism is an orthodox Christian faith, with a small O. I think perhaps the most charitable way for an evangelical Christian to look at Mormonism is to look at Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic faith.

SIEGEL: Not a Christian faith.

Dr. LAND: Not a Christian faith. (Online source)

"Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns"

My review of T. David Gordon's Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns has now been posted TGC Reviews.

Gordon makes a compelling series of arguments against the use of pop music in corporate worship. His arguments focus primarily on the three dimensions mentioned above: the literary, theological, and musical merit (or lack thereof) of pop music. Two of the problems, perhaps the most significant problems with pop music according to Gordon are its 1) profanity, that is, it is common; and its 2) ubiquity, that is, it is everywhere. It operates like a kind of white noise in our culture.

Certainly many will challenge Gordon’s assessment of the relative importance of the music itself compared to the lyrical content of the songs. But part and parcel of the book’s thesis is that form is far from neutral. Indeed, it is foolish to try to separate form from content. As Gordon asserts, “We make tools and tools make us” (p. 10).

Gordon places “paedocentrism” near the center of the present soiling of corporate worship. “Reaching the young” has become for the church what “doing it for the children” is for politicians. After all, who opposes reaching young people? But Gordon challenges this paedocentrism. “Biblically, the goal of youth is to leave it as rapidly as possible. The goal of the young, biblically, is to be mature. . . . We equate youth with youth culture, and erroneously believe that we cannot minister to the one without embracing, condoning, or promoting the other” (p. 161).

What is more, Gordon challenges the assumption of many baby boomers that pop music forms in worship is an effective way to reach young people. One of the “money quotes” from the book is, “Young people who attend a church and see a group of fifty-year-olds playing their guitars in front of the church in order to ‘reach the young’ will perhaps politely appreciate the gesture, but they frankly regard the music as being fairly lame” (p. 159).

Read the entire review HERE.

Andrew Peterson on Money, Wealth, and Poverty

“The point: being poor is not the only way to radically follow Christ. Some people are called to it. I have long felt a tension between all that I learned from the Kid Brothers and Rich Mullins about identifying with the poor and the weak, versus my holy responsibility to tend to my family’s spiritual and physical needs. Had Rich ever married, I’m certain his wife would have appreciated a nice dress every now and then, or a bouquet of flowers, or a decent kitchen, and she probably would have lovingly insisted that he not give all his money away, especially after she bore his children and needed to buy diapers, and school supplies, and shoes for goodness sake. And the other thing is, Rich Mullins had hit songs that are still making money. He gave a lot of his money away, but he also had a constant stream of it flowing in. Lots of it. And I’m sure the ministries he supported with the surplus were grateful that he channeled it to them for Kingdom work.

“Money isn’t the root of all evil. The Bible doesn’t say that. Here’s the verse: ‘For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.’ (1 Timothy 6:10) We’re called to keep watch so that we don’t fall in love with money. To be sure, wealth is a heavy burden and isn’t for everyone, just as poverty is a burden and isn’t for everyone. The people of the church are varied in strengths and weaknesses. Money itself isn’t evil. In fact, money can be a great tool for Kingdom work. It’s easy to tout ideals about how wrong it is to be wealthy until you’re on the receiving end of someone’s generosity.”

- Andrew Peterson

Read the whole thing HERE.

(HT: Denny Burk)

Mormonism is NOT Christianity

Well, it's happening. There is, as I feared, a growing confusion over what constitutes the content of genuine Christian faith. I am sure Glenn Beck is a nice man. I am sympathetic to his fear over our diminishing liberties and a federal government that has gotten far to big. But the reason why I was not enthusiastic about his gathering in Washington is that it was a rally that blurred lines between religious faith and civic engagement. It's not that our faith should not inform our politics. Quite the contrary. The problem is that as a Christian I must not involve myself in religious observances with non-Christians. Such compromises do not honor God. What is more, the Gospel gets muddied in such events. Now there are many good evangelicals who are openly entertaining the possibility that Glenn Beck is a Christian even though he is a Mormon. I feared this would happen. I feared the lines would be blurred.

Thanks to Justin Taylor for posting the following information:

The following is adapted from the section on Mormonism (or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) in the ESV Study Bible article on religious cults. The attempt is to be concise yet still accurate. I’ve added questions in bold to break it up a bit.

What do Mormons believe about apostasy and restoration?

Mormons claim that “total” apostasy overcame the church following apostolic times, and that the Mormon Church (founded in 1830) is the “restored church.”

What’s the problem with this understanding?

If the Mormon Church were truly a “restored church,” one would expect to find first-century historical evidence for Mormon doctrines like the plurality of gods and God the Father having once been a man. Such evidence is completely lacking. Besides, the Bible disallows a total apostasy of the church (e.g., Matt. 16:18; 28:20; Eph. 3:21; 4:11–16), warning instead of partial apostasy (1 Tim. 4:1).

What do Mormons believe about God?

Mormons claim that God the Father was once a man and that he then progressed to godhood (that is, he is a now-exalted, immortal man with a flesh-and-bone body).

What does the Bible teach about the nature of God?

Based on the Bible, God is not and has never been a man (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9). He is a spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Furthermore, God is eternal (Ps. 90:2; 102:27; Isa. 57:15; 1 Tim. 1:17) and immutable (or unchangeable in his being and perfections; see Ps. 102:25–27; Mal. 3:6). He did not “progress” toward godhood, but has always been God.

What do Mormons believe about the Trinity and polytheism?

Mormons believe that the Trinity consists not of three persons in one God but rather of three distinct gods. According to Mormonism, there are potentially many thousands of gods besides these.

What does the Bible teach about the Triune God?

Trusting in or worshiping more than one god is explicitly condemned throughout the Bible (e.g., Ex. 20:3). There is only one true God (Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:18; 46:9; 1 Cor. 8:4; James 2:19), who exists eternally in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14).

What do Mormons believe about human exaltation?

Mormons believe that humans, like God the Father, can go through a process of exaltation to godhood.

What does the Bible teach about humanity?

The Bible teaches that the yearning to be godlike led to the fall of mankind (Gen. 3:4ff.). God does not look kindly on humans who pretend to attain to deity (Acts 12:21–23; contrast Acts 14:11–15). God desires humans to humbly recognize that they are his creatures (Gen. 2:7; 5:2; Ps. 95:6–7; 100:3). The state of the redeemed in eternity will be one of glorious immortality, but they will forever remain God’s creatures, adopted as his children (Rom. 8:14–30; 1 Cor. 15:42–57; Rev. 21:3–7). Believers will never become gods.

What do Mormons believe about Jesus?

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn spirit-child of the heavenly Father and a heavenly Mother. Jesus then progressed to deity in the spirit world. He was later physically conceived in Mary’s womb, as the literal “only begotten” Son of God the Father in the flesh (though many present-day Mormons remain somewhat vague as to how this occurred).

What does the Bible teach about Jesus?

Biblically, the description of Jesus as the “only begotten” refers to his being the Father’s unique, one-of-a-kind Son for all eternity, with the same divine nature as the Father (see note on John 1:14; cf. John 1:18; 3:16, 18; see also John 5:18; 10:30). Moreover, he is eternal deity (John 1:1; 8:58) and is immutable (Heb. 1:10–12; 13:8), meaning he did not progress to deity but has always been God. And Mary’s conception of Jesus in his humanity was through a miracle of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20).

What do Mormons believe about our eternal destiny?

Mormons believe that most people will end up in one of three kingdoms of glory, depending on one’s level of faithfulness. Belief in Christ, or even in God, is not necessary to obtain immortality in one of these three kingdoms, and therefore only the most spiritually perverse will go to hell.

What does the Bible teach about our eternal destiny?

The Bible teaches that people have just two possibilities for their eternal futures: the saved will enjoy eternal life with God in the new heavens and new earth (Phil. 3:20; Rev. 21:1–4; 22:1–5), while the unsaved will spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:13–15).

What do Mormons believe about sin and atonement?

Mormons believe that Adam’s transgression was a noble act that made it possible for humans to become mortal, a necessary step on the path to exaltation to godhood. They think that Christ’s atonement secures immortality for virtually all people, whether they repent and believe or not.

What does the Bible teach about sin and atonement?

Biblically, there was nothing noble about Adam’s sin, which was not a stepping-stone to godhood but rather brought nothing but sin, misery, and death to mankind (Gen. 3:16–19; Rom. 5:12–14). Jesus atoned for the sins of all who would trust him for salvation (Isa. 53:6; John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

What do Mormons believe about salvation?

Mormons believe that God gives to (virtually) everyone a general salvation to immortal life in one of the heavenly kingdoms, which is how they understand salvation by grace. Belief in Christ is necessary only to obtain passage to the highest, celestial kingdom—for which not only faith but participation in Mormon temple rituals and obedience to its “laws of the gospel” are also prerequisites.

What does the Bible teach about salvation?

Biblically, salvation by grace must be received through faith in Christ (John 3:15–16; 11:25; 12:46; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22–24; Eph. 2:8–9), and all true believers are promised eternal life in God’s presence (Matt. 5:3–8; John 14:1–3; Rev. 21:3–7).

Sunday's Sermon

After 7 weeks in Revelation 2&3 we returned to our series through the book of Hebrews, Hold Fast to Christ. It was part 41 and is entitled "Faith Focused on Jesus". It can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

On Trading the Gospel for Political Power

Okay, I don't hide the fact that I am conservative politically. I believe the federal government is too big and that it taxes people too much. I believe abortion is a moral crime and a national shame and am committed to never voting for anyone who is pro-choice. But I continue to be concerned that some of my fellow conservatives seem to be undiscerning when it comes to the relationship between politics and the Christian faith. Too often it seems that some of my conservative brethren are willing to ignore distortions to the Gospel in order to enjoy the cheap pottage of political power. The political left has done this for generations. Why have we followed suit?

Certainly there were many good and decent people attending the "Restoring Honor" rally this weekend. But brothers and sisters we must clear: Glenn Beck is not a Christian. He is a Mormon. Mormons deny every fundamental doctrine of biblical faith. My fellow conservatives, recall how we fume and fuss when the Christian left partners with universalists, Buddhists, Nation of Islam and other Christ-deniers in order to further political ends? Why are we doing the same thing?

Russell Moore (no liberal!) of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has written a fine article on the subject. I ask you to consider it carefully.

A Mormon television star stands in front of the Lincoln Memorial and calls American Christians to revival. He assembles some evangelical celebrities to give testimonies, and then preaches a God and country revivalism that leaves the evangelicals cheering that they’ve heard the gospel, right there in the nation’s capital.

The news media pronounces him the new leader of America’s Christian conservative movement, and a flock of America’s Christian conservatives have no problem with that.

If you’d told me that ten years ago, I would have assumed it was from the pages of an evangelical apocalyptic novel about the end-times. But it’s not. It’s from this week’s headlines. And it is a scandal.

Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, of course, is that Mormon at the center of all this. Beck isn’t the problem. He’s an entrepreneur, he’s brilliant, and, hats off to him, he knows his market. Latter-day Saints have every right to speak, with full religious liberty, in the public square. I’m quite willing to work with Mormons on various issues, as citizens working for the common good. What concerns me here is not what this says about Beck or the “Tea Party” or any other entertainment or political figure. What concerns me is about what this says about the Christian churches in the United States.

It’s taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined “revival” and “turning America back to God” that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement.

Rather than cultivating a Christian vision of justice and the common good (which would have, by necessity, been nuanced enough to put us sometimes at odds with our political allies), we’ve relied on populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads. We’ve tolerated heresy and buffoonery in our leadership as long as with it there is sufficient political “conservatism” and a sufficient commercial venue to sell our books and products.

Too often, and for too long, American “Christianity” has been a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it. There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is also a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship. The liberation theology of the Left often wants a Barabbas, to fight off the oppressors as though our ultimate problem were the reign of Rome and not the reign of death. The liberation theology of the Right wants a golden calf, to represent religion and to remind us of all the economic security we had in Egypt. Both want a Caesar or a Pharaoh, not a Messiah...

Where there is no gospel, something else will fill the void: therapy, consumerism, racial or class resentment, utopian politics, crazy conspiracy theories of the left, crazy conspiracy theories of the right; anything will do. The prophet Isaiah warned us of such conspiracies replacing the Word of God centuries ago (Is. 8:12–20). As long as the Serpent’s voice is heard, “You shall not surely die,” the powers are comfortable.

Read the entire article HERE.

By Whose Authority?

Great post from Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs on a sermon preached by Lloyd-Jones in 1969. The point of Lloyd-Jones remarks is that the church is yielding to pressure from the cultured despisers of Christianity by rejecting those passages of Scripture and doctrines which they do not approve of.

These words from the sermon could not be more timely:

The Christian church in her utter folly during this present century has been recognizing a new authority. And the new authority of course is the man of knowledge, the man of culture, and particularly the man of scientific knowledge. And the church has been at great pains to do everything she can to please this new authority.

This man of learning must never be offended. And in order to please him and duplicate him, the church has been ready to take things out of the Bible. She rejects and throws out the whole of the first three chapters of Genesis, much of the other history, throws out all the miracles . . . She'll throw out anything in order to make her message pleasing and acceptable to this new authority—the man of knowledge, the man of learning, the man of science.

Check out Phil's post HERE.

Legalism & Self Help - The Fruit of Missing the Gospel

In Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, one of the most important books on preaching I have ever read, Graeme Goldsworthy writes:

We are all legalists at heart. We all love to be able to say that we have fulfilled all kinds of conditions, be they tarrying, surrendering fully, or getting rid of every known sin, so that God might truly bless us. It is a constant temptation to want to take our spiritual pulse and to apply the sanctification barometer. . . . The preacher can aid and abet this legalistic tendency that is at the heart of the sin within us all. All we have to do is emphasize our humanity: our obedience, our faithfulness, our surrender to God, and so on. The trouble is that these things are all valid biblical truths, but if we get them out of perspective and ignore their relationship to the gospel of grace, they replace grace with law.

If we constantly tell people what they should do in order to get their lives in order, we place a terrible legalistic burden on them. Of course they should obey God; of course we should love him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. The Bible tells us so. But if we ever give the impression that it is possible to do this on our own, not only do we make the gospel irrelevant, but we suggest that the law is in fact a lot weaker in its demands than it really is. Legalism demeans the law by reducing its standards to the level of our competence.

[ . . .] In practical terms, if we as preachers lay down the marks of the spiritual Christian, or the mature church, or the godly parent, or the obedient child, or the caring pastor, or the responsible elder, or the wise church leader, and if we do this in a way that implies that conformity is simply a matter of understanding and being obedient, then we are being legalists and we risk undoing the very thing we want to build up. We may achieve the outward semblance of conformity to biblical pattern, but we do it at the expense of the gospel of grace that alone can produce the reality of these desirable goals. To say what we should be or do and not link it with a clear exposition of what God has done about our failure to be or do perfectly as he wills is to reject the grace of God and to lead people to lust after self-help and self-improvement in a way that, to call a spade a spade, is godless.

Can Biologos Save Christianity?

Dr. Karl Giberson has apologized to Al Mohler for his schoolyard tactics of "debate". As I mention in an earlier post, Dr. Giberson, in a piece for the Huffington Post, accused Dr. Mohler of not being interested in the truth. While I would quibble with some of the details of Giberson's apology, it is not mine to accept or reject the apology which seems to be sincere.

However, the problem still remains that Giberson and his cohorts at Biologos continue to do just exactly what Mohler and many others contend. That is, the Biologos program is inherently hostile to the doctrines of God, creation, man, sin, and redemption revealed in the Scriptures. Astonishingly, Dr. Giberson states that the work of Biologos to bring about the full embrace of Darwinism within the church is for the purpose of saving Christianity. I don't know which is worse: the ignorance or arrogance of such a statement.

Giberson writes:

Is it not here that we find the central truth of our faith? Our sinful nature is a simple reality… But is it not possible that we might have different ideas about how we came to have that nature? Does the saving power of Jesus vanish if sin becomes something that developed through natural history, rather than appeared all at once in the Garden of Eden? It seems to me that there is a conversation to have here, beyond simply drawing a line in the sand. Satisfactory answers to questions like these are truly ‘How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.’

At BioLogos we have made our peace with evolution, and it has been liberating and even faith-affirming. We encourage conversations to further that agenda and make no excuses for that. We are not destroying Christianity. We are saving it. (emphasis mine).

In related news, Al Mohler comments on an article by John Farrell in the Wall Street Journal.

The American literary critic Frederick Crews once spoke of defenders of evolutionary theory who attempt to make Darwinism appear more congenial to the Christian faith than it truly is. These defenders, Crews wrote, present a vision of Darwin and Darwinism that “is often prettified to make it safe for doctrines that he himself was sadly compelled to leave behind.” The prettifying of evolution continues, even in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Writing in the paper’s weekly “Houses of Worship” column, John Farrell argues that the 60th anniversary of the Roman Catholic Church’s encyclical Humani Generis should be cause for celebration, since that historic document, issued by Pope Pius XII, “confirmed, in broad terms, that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the scientific theory of evolution.”

However, As Dr. Mohler points out, the Catholic Church continues to maintain that any theory of evolution that denies human ascent from the man Adam and the historicity of the Fall is incompatible with Christianity. This of course is the proverbial rub. There simply is no way to be committed to Darwinian evolution and at the same time maintain belief in human ascent from a specially created Adam as well as the historical Fall which is affirmed by both Jesus and Paul.

Mohler points out that Farrell "affirms the work of the late Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, who 're-interpreted Genesis in light of evolution, arguing that the story of Adam and Eve needed to be read metaphorically.' He also applauds John Haught at Georgetown University, who proposes 'that the new cosmology of the expanding universe and the evolution of life require a more dynamic sense of God’s role in a world that is still not complete, a work in progress.'"

But this "more dynamic sense of God's role" has profound implications.

Actually, John Haught argues that the entire structure of Christian theology should be recast in light of evolution. In his recent book Making Sense of Evolution, Haught asserts that “Darwin has altered our understanding of almost everything that concerns theology.”

Let no one doubt just how comprehensive Haught’s alteration of Christian theology will turn out to be. “Other disciplines such as geology, cosmology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, computer science, and medicine have already undergone a major retooling in the wake of Darwin’s findings,” he asserts. “Can theology realistically expect to escape a major metamorphosis?”

In Making Sense of Evolution, Haught provides ample evidence of what this “major metamorphosis” would mean. Every doctrine is brought to terms with evolutionary theory, including God. The revised deity of Haught’s evolutionary model is inseparable from his creation and stripped of sovereignty.

This kind of theological revisionism is not limited to Roman Catholic theologians, of course. John Weaver, a former Baptist minister and geologist who currently teaches at Regent’s Park College at the University of Oxford, also argues that we must surrender belief in an historical Adam and an historical Fall. Adam is a
symbolic, rather than a genetic head of humanity, he asserts. As for the Fall, he argues: “Within the movement of evolutionary development, there must have been a moment when Homo sapiens came to full moral consciousness for the first time.” He suggests that a proposed “bottleneck” in the evolutionary past probably reduced human populations to “fairly low numbers for a time,” and that this made “the significant moment of moral choice even more critical for humankind as a whole.” The historicity of Genesis 3 is just dismissed.

Read Mohler's entire article HERE.

What your doctor believes about God may matter more than you think...

As it turns out believers and atheists have different ideas about the dignity of human life. Of course, this should not be any surprise. Apart from a biblical worldview, what reason is there, other than sentiment, to invest human life with any dignity?

An article in the Daily Mail comments on a study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics which found that doctors who do not believe in God are twice as likely to kill their patients, er, help them die.

Atheist doctors are almost twice as likely to take decisions that speed up death for very ill patients as those who are deeply religious, research has found.

Those with a strong faith are also less willing to discuss treatments that hasten the end, according to a poll of nearly 4,000 British doctors. Medics from a wide range of specialities were asked about their religious views, their care for their last patient who died and any decisions they had taken that were expected, or partly intended to, end life.

The findings, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, showed that doctors who described themselves as non-religious were more likely than any other group to have given continuous deep sedation until death, having made a decision that they knew could or would end life. Those who described themselves as ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ non-religious were almost twice as likely to have taken these kinds of decisions as those with a strong religious belief.

Carl Trueman at COS

On September 5th Carl Trueman will be preaching at the morning services at Church of the Saviour. Additionally, Dr. Trueman will be one of the speakers at the Full Confidence Conference.

I love to hear Carl preach and am looking forward to welcoming him to COS. When you get a chance, check out some of Carl's teaching and preaching at sermonAudio.com HERE.

Whither Evangelicalism?

Okay, so I'm posting more from Al Mohler. In this truly important address (8/24/2010) to the graduating students of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Dr. Mohler deals with the increasingly amorphous nature of evangelicalism.

Denny Burk writes of the address:

In particular, Dr. Mohler notes that the doctrine of inerrancy is now up for grabs again. So is Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement, the exclusivity of Christ’s saving work, and a host of other moral and doctrinal concerns. In this context, he calls Southern Baptists to three ideals:

1. Theological Integrity – Southern Baptists must be both a “centered” and a “bounded” movement.

2. Gospel Clarity – Southern Baptists must be clear about the gospel and the necessity of conversion.

3. Biblical Authority – Southern Baptists must not abandon inerrancy, even though many in broader evangelicalism are. In this point, Mohler takes on Peter Enns, Kenton Sparks, and others at the Biologos site. [His full response to Karl Giberson should be published on his website very soon.]

This is an important, programmatic address given by a leading statesman for the cause of the gospel. Give it a close listen.

Watch or Listen to the address HERE.