Living on the Margins...

It seems inevitable that organizations will become either more narrow and sectarian or more mainstream and secular, which will lead to fundamental realignments within the evangelical world. Those institutions that cherish their place at the cultural table will have to accept the legitimacy of homosexual relationships and to abandon a fully Pauline gospel of salvation predicated on a historical Adam. Those institutions wishing to maintain a traditional orthodoxy on these points will have to accept their status as marginal figures in the broader world, objects of scorn and not serious contributors to the public square...

It is likely that the coming cultural storms will be best weathered by evangelical organizations and institutions with more precisely defined doctrinal statements, particularly statements that are close to, or identical with, historic creeds and confessions. The last one hundred years of evangelicalism has shown that minimal doctrinal bases do not provide real resistance to heterodoxy and the downgrading of doctrine. Of course, no creed can safeguard orthodoxy alone; fidelity and integrity on the part of leaders and gatekeepers are also required. But without a strong and complete doctrinal confession, gatekeeping becomes nearly impossible, even for well-intentioned and faithful leaders. [emphasis mine]

Carl Trueman from The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

"Their bio-ideology of genocide"

"Over the years, millions of our African-American children—destroyed by the practice of abortion. No racist, no Klu Klux Klansman, no Nazi could have come up with a more effective way of carrying out their bio-ideology of genocide against blacks than what has happened here. And I think that those groups that push abortion, especially in minority communities and poor communities are responsible for it."

- Robert George from an interview with Al Mohler

Sunday's Sermon

This week's message was part 2 in our current series God's Great Story. It is entitled "The Saving God" and is based upon Genesis chapters 2 and 3. You can listen to or download it HERE.

Discerning Lewis

Read C.S. Lewis. You will surely benefit from him. I remember reading Mere Christianity for the first time. It is a classic for good reason. However, we must be careful that in our reading of Lewis we read discerningly. This is particularly true of Mere Christianity. It reveals that Lewis was, shall we say, less than orthodox on some important doctrines. I am not calling Lewis a heretic. I have an abiding appreciation for him and his work. But there is far more to biblical Christianity than is reflected in Mere Christianity.

Thanks to Kevin DeYoung for his post "Cautions for Mere Christianity."

Let me highlight two significant problems.

Atonement, But How?

The first caution to raise concerns Lewis’ view of the atonement. Lewis believed Jesus died on the cross for sin, but he didn’t think it was important to understand the particulars of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor an other is Christianity. The central belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter: A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. (57-58 [pagination varies by edition)

Later Lewis says that “Christ was killed for us” and “His death has washed out our sins” but “any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary” (59). This impatience of careful thinking about the atonement is bad enough, but then Lewis goes on to make clear that he rejects the understanding of the atonement evangelicals (and the Bible I would say) find most central and most glorious.

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before–the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. (59)

Pay careful attention to what Lewis says in that paragraph. He does believe in a substitutionary theory of the atonement, but he rejects penal substitution. He admits that penal substitution is not quite as silly as it once sounded, but he still does not accept it. Instead, he argues that Christ pays a debt (which is true), but not as a punishment for our sakes.

Lewis’ theology of the atonement is confusing (see for example this helpful Touchstone article), but I would argue his view is more like Christus victor or ransom to Satan than penal substitution. Aslan’s death, you may recall, was a sacrifice to the Witch and was explained rather ambiguously as “deeper magic.” This is not the place to defend the critical importance of penal substitution. My point is simply that Lewis does not teach it in Mere Christianity, and in fact undermines it.

An Early Inclusivist

The second problem with Mere Christianity is Lewis’ inclusivism. Evangelicals believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. Further, they believe that conscious faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation (assuming we are talking about sentient beings; all Christians allow that infants and the mentally disabled may be in a different category). Lewis, by contrast, believed in what we might roughly call “anonymous Christians.” That is, people may be saved through Christ without putting explicit faith in Christ.

There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. (178)

No matter how much we may like Lewis, this is simply a profound misunderstanding of the Spirit’s mission (and a rejection of John 14:6). The work of the Holy Spirit is to bring glory to Christ by taking what is his–his teaching, the truth about his death and resurrection–and making it known. The Spirit does not work indiscriminately without the revelation of Christ in view. Arguably, the Holy Spirit’s most important work is to glorify Christ, and he does not do this apart from shining the spotlight on Christ for the elect to see and savor. Again, we see the inclusivist Lewis at the end on Narnia where Emeth, a worshiper of Tash, is accepted by Aslan for following him all along without knowing it.

Sunday's Sermon

On Sunday I launched a new series of messages entitled God's Great Story.

From beginning to end the Bible tells one story, God’s great story. It is the story of God’s glorious work of redeeming a people through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This story includes creation, human sin, the fall of all creation, God’s covenant with his people, the redemptive work of Jesus, and the coming new creation. It is the story that shapes all of history and defines our lives.

This 14 week series of messages will take a bird's eye view of the entire Bible. Specifically these messages will seek to magnify God's redemptive work in Christ through the unfolding of redemptive history.

The first message is entitled The Creator God and covers Genesis chapters one and two. You can download or listen to it HERE.

Orwell on Political Speech...

In light of recent statements made from political leaders celebrating the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade...

“Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
- George Orwell

What Your Children May Be Watching...

Have you heard about MTV's latest foray into limit testing? They have begun airing a new drama called "Skins" which puts on display a wide array of teen pathologies. Included in this, not surprisingly, are depictions of sexual activity. Controversy is nothing new for MTV. I was in 8th grade when they launched. Back then parents were shocked by Ozzy Osborne and Prince videos. Over the years however, Music Television has been airing less music and more sex. The ratings have also declined in recent years. But the executives at MTV may have found a way to resurrect their brand. And that brings us back to "Skins." The problem? It is certainly not that MTV execs have had a sudden attack of decency. Rather, there are some who are raising the possibility that MTV may have violated child pornography laws.

Al Mohler weighs in:

The sex acts portrayed on “Skins” pretty much cover the waterfront of modern sexuality. There is no question that MTV will draw an audience. The big question confronted by the network is whether the show will draw child pornography charges as well.

David Carr, author of “The Media Equation” column at the Times, explained that “the series is meant to provoke.” He suggests, plausibly enough, that MTV executives did not “set out to make child pornography,” but they clearly did not set out not to make child pornography, either.

Evidently, the concerns are rather urgent at MTV’s headquarters. As Brian Stelter reported last week:

It is unclear when MTV first realized that the show may be vulnerable to child pornography charges. On Tuesday, a flurry of meetings took place at the network’s headquarters in New York, according to an executive who attended some of the meetings and spoke only on the condition of anonymity. In one of the meetings, the executives wondered aloud who could possibly face criminal prosecution and jail time if the episodes were broadcast without changes.

It should tell you just about everything you need to know that MTV executives “wondered aloud” if they might do jail time for child pornography by broadcasting the series. Have you ever worried about that at your office or place of work?

Read the entire article HERE.

The Pastor and Criticism

C.J. Mahaney has begun a series of posts addressing how the pastor ought to respond to criticism. In his first post, Mahaney gratefully acknowleges the tremendous gift of having pastored a grateful congregation for 27 years. But even having received what is probably an atypical amount of encouragement he still has learned much from being criticized.

In every church there will be those who are not particularly grateful, who normally communicate with you only in the form of criticism. And to some degree this is the norm for every pastor.

If you are a pastor you will be criticized. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually you will feel the sharp sting of critique.

Those within your church may criticize you, those who leave the church may criticize you, and even complete strangers may criticize you. The criticism will come from enemies and from friends. Some of the criticism will be true, some of it will be false, and some may be outright malicious. But it’s coming—if it hasn’t already arrived.

And there are many reasons why we can expect criticism:

•A pastor can expect criticism because of his own sin, which will inevitably be present in his heart and service, no matter how mature or well meaning he is (James 3:2).
•A pastor can expect criticism because there are limitations to his gifting, meaning there will always be weaknesses in his leadership.
•A pastor can expect criticism because we often preach below-average sermons. (After one sermon, a guy asked me, “So where do you work during the week?” My sermon apparently gave him the impression that preaching wasn’t my vocation.)
•A pastor can expect criticism because people can be proud and ungrateful.
•A pastor can expect criticism because, well, it is a sinful and fallen world.

But we as pastors often forget one more important reason:

•A pastor can expect criticism because it is part of God’s sanctification process—a tool that he uses to reveal idols and accelerate the pastor’s growth in humility.

Read the entire post HERE.

The Supreme Court, Kermit Gosnell, and Roe's "fine print"

Justin Taylor links to an important article by Clarke Forsythe in The Weekly Standard. Forsythe demonstrates the connection between the Supreme Court's actions in Roe v. Wade and the "house of horrors" which was Kermit Gosnell's abortion mill in Philadelphia.

Can we honestly claim any longer that there is no direct connection between the people we elect, the policies they enact (and judges they appoint) and the devestating evil of abortion?

"All things to all men"

Kevin Bauder has written a helpful article on an oft misunderstood passage of Scripture. It is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. The line that is routinely misinterpreted is from verse 22 which concerns becoming "all things to all men." Unfortunately these words are often used as a pretext for behaving like the world in order to "reach them." But this verse is not a call for us to imitate the people around us in order to evangelize them.

Dr. Bauder demonstrates clearly that Paul's words have a very specific application - that we avoid doing anything that would unnecessarily offend those around us. So, for the one who is offended by meat sacrificed to idols, Paul will not eat meat. For the one who is not offended by meat sacrificed to idols Paul will eat for "an idol is nothing."

Read Dr. Bauder's article HERE.

So there it is folks. Context is king. Let us not use Paul's words to justify silliness or worse in evangelism.

This picture demands a caption...

Speaking Truth to Power

Al Mohler weighs in on the President's troubling celebration of the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

As he concluded his brief statement, the President said: “And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

That paragraph is just a recitation of the feminist argument that was enshrined in Roe v. Wade — that women, no more than men, should be encumbered by the professional and personal limitations required by a pregnancy. That logic is enshrined as orthodoxy within the Democratic Party, and President Obama is one of its most ardent defenders.

Ever since Barack Obama emerged on the national political scene, he has been promoted and protected by a corps of preachers and religious leaders who have tried their best to explain that he is not so pro-abortion as he seems. Nevertheless, his record is all too clear — as is this most recent statement. There was not one expression of abortion as a national tragedy, even as a report recently indicated that almost 60 percent of all pregnancies among African American women in New York City end in abortion.

Read the entire post HERE.

Will our leaders stand for life?

I stay away from partisan politics on this blog and in my preaching. However, I have not and will not shy away from addressing abortion. I will also not shy away from the connection between who we elect for public office and abortion policy. The following is from a statement from President Obama on the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade:

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.

And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

I am left a bit speechless. I know this is not a new view from our President but I am shocked at the lack of moral clarity displayed in that statement. All of us, including (especially?) our leaders must have the moral clarity to oppose, not champion such an unmitigated evil.



HT: Justin Taylor

A Bitter Anniversary: Roe v. Wade at 38

Justin Taylor has some excellent, albeit disturbing posts concerning abortion:

This is Abortion

The abortion industry thrives on remaining in the dark, behind closed and (usually) sanitized doors.

The following video is very graphic, but it depicts the reality that is happening in our neighborhoods, at the rate in the U.S. of:

•1.37 million unborn children killed every year.
•3,700 unborn children killed every day.
•1 unborn child killed every 23 seconds.
When you stop to realize that the US only accounts for 3% of abortions worldwide, you realize that there is a relentless global slaughter underway. May God exercise both his mercy and judgment, and may Christ return quickly.

Pro-Life Aplogetics for the Next Generation

A helpful post from Scott Klusendorf on four ways Christian leaders can help the next generation think clearly about the most pressing moral issue of our day:

1.Clarify the nature of moral reasoning.
2.Clarify the one question that really matters.
3.Clarify the scientific and philosophic case for life.
4.Clarify the path to forgiveness.
Read the whole thing.

"My Embryo Your Eyes Saw"
Bruce Waltke’s translation of Psalm 139:16.

An Interview with Robert George on Roe v. Wade

"Truth stands up to the storms of experience"

Michael Horton on his outstanding book A Place for Weakness:



I reviewed A Place for Weakness for the the Gospel Coalition. Check it out HERE.

A Theology for Pilgrims

Michael Horton's long anticipated systematic theology is now available. Very stoked!

Connecting the dots

Well, it will not be surprising if the national media conveniently neglects the unholy and very clear nexus between pro-choice politicians, local bureaucrats, and monsters like Kermit Gosnell.

Michelle Malkin writes:

In the City of Brotherly Love, hundreds of babies were murdered by a scissors-wielding monster over four decades. Whistleblowers informed public officials at all levels of the wanton killings of innocent life. But a parade of government health bureaucrats and advocates protecting the abortion racket looked the other way —until, that is, a Philadelphia grand jury finally exposed the infanticide factory run by abortionist Kermit B. Gosnell, M.D., and a crew of unlicensed, untrained butchers masquerading as noble providers of women’s “choice.” Prosecutors charged Gosnell and his death squad with multiple counts of murder, infanticide, conspiracy, abuse of corpse, theft, and other offenses...

Already, left-wing journalists and activists have rushed to explain that these abortion atrocities ignored for four decades by abortion radicals and rationalizers are not really about abortion. A Time magazine writer argued that the Philadelphia Horror was “about poverty, not Roe v. Wade.” A University of Minnesota professor declared: “This is not about abortion.”

But the grand jury itself pointed out that loosened oversight of abortion clinics enacted under pro-choice former GOP governor Tom Ridge enabled Gosnell’s criminal enterprise — and led to the heartless execution of hundreds of babies. Mass murder got a pass in the name of expanding “access” and appeasing abortion lobbyists.

As the report made clear: “With the change of administration from [pro-life Democratic] Gov. Casey to Gov. Ridge,” government health officials “concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay.”

Deadly indifference to protecting life isn’t tangential to the abortion industry’s existence — it’s at the core of it. The Philadelphia Horror is no anomaly. It’s the logical, bloodcurdling consequence of an evil, eugenics-rooted enterprise wrapped in feminist clothing.

Yes, it does matter who we vote for. It does matter if the men and women we vote for are pro-life or not. They write and enforce policy that either increases or decreases the numbers of abortions. Let us not kid ourselves any more that we can support pro-abortion politicians with a clear conscience. When a politician publicly supports and even champions the death dealers like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the reverberations are devastating.

COS This Week

Check out the weekly newsletter for Church of the Saviour HERE.

Understanding Roe v. Wade

When you get a chance, take time to read Francis Beckwith's excellent explanation of Roe v. Wade and America's abortions laws.

Abortion and Pastoral Responsibility

If you lack the conviction or the courage to stand up and say to your church, who you are accountable to lead, “It is wrong to kill unborn babies, God hates it and God will judge it,” then you should not be a pastor. If you don’t have the guts to say “These are children—we must stop killing them” then you need to do something that doesn’t even pretend to take on a biblical and prophetic mantle.

- Randy Alcorn

HT: Justin Taylor