Not a Political Post: Our Elected Officials Do Speak for Us, Whether We Like It or Not

This post isn't a political one, but I have noticed something over the past few years regarding how we talk about politics that I'd like to call out, partly because it's just incorrect, and partly because it has implications for how we read and understand the Scriptures.

For a long time now I've seen social media posts that read, 'He's not my President' or 'He/she/they don't speak for me'.  It's not just under the current administration that this kind of rhetoric has been common - many conservative/right wingers said the same kind of thing under the previous administration. Well, hate to break it to you, but they do - whether you like it or not. Again, this isn't a post in support of any politician or party, court decision or policy. I don't post political things (usually), and I'm not doing so here. It's just a post about reality.

The U.S. is a representative democracy - we elect representatives who represent us. They speak for us, enact laws on our behalf, appoint judges, make decisions, strike treaties, etc. I have never done any of those things, but my representatives have on my behalf. I don't always like their decisions, but they do speak for me. If Congress declares war on Canada [or the President; War Powers Resolution is iffy constitutionally], then we, including me, are at war.

It is a special expression of our western individualism [run amuck] that says things like 'PersonX doesn't speak for me' when PersonX clearly does. And this individualism makes it hard to accept a key principle of Scripture - federal headship.

Did I appoint Adam as my representative? No, I didn't have a say. Do I approve of what he did? No (but, slightly off point, I would have failed just as miserably - I do it daily).  But still Adam spoke and acted as my representative. He declared independence from his Maker, thrust himself and me into conflict with the Divine Judge/Jury/Executioner.  "But he doesn't speak for me!" Yes, yes he does.

And so does Christ. He speaks for me and all those who are 'in him'. He, as the second Adam, is our faithful and true representative who makes terms of peace for us, accomplishes the peace, and imposes a new law of love. At the same time, I am conscripted by him into an ongoing war against darkness, sin, and the devil.

Our western, individualistic presuppositions can truly make it difficult to understand texts written in the Ancient Near East, and to the degree that such presuppositions are fallen and twisted, they make it hard to understand how a holy God operates too.

[note: I will not engage political discourse in the comments, but if you have questions about the theology of this post, ask away]

Best Paragraph this Week

I haven't had time to post anything real this week as I'm out in St.Louis taking another class. It's a great class on our Union with Christ. Lewis Smedes writes a wonderful paragraph, my favorite in all I've read the past two weeks. Commenting on Ephesians 1:1-3 he writes (and where you read 'Paul' insert 'we'),

"There is no reason in heaven or earth why we should be so blessed. It is a gift. Paul ran from Christ; Christ pursued and overtook him. Paul resisted Christ; Christ disarmed him. Paul persecuted Christ; Christ converted him. Paul was an alien; Christ made him a member of the family. Paul was an enemy; Christ made him a friend. Paul was 'in the flesh'; Christ set him 'in the Spirit'. Paul was under the law; Christ set him in grace. Paul was dead; Christ made him alive to God. How does one give reasons for this? He does not give reasons; he sings: "Blessed be God who blessed us...even as he chose us in him." (All Things Made New: A Theology of Man's Union with Christ, pg 119)

The Cosmic Gospel that Speaks to Individual Sinners

How big is the gospel? Recently, more emphasis has been placed on the cosmic and corporate natures of the gospel. God is saving or redeeming all things in Christ. God has a cosmic plan to undo all the damning effects of sin. The good news spreads grace 'as far as the curse is found'. Yes, yes and Amen. In my upbringing, this great truth wasn't emphasized much, and I really appreciate the bigness of it.

But... Does the gospel have anything to say about how I, as a wretched sinner, will find a place in God's new world? With the emphasis on the bigness and cosmic nature of redemption, I feel we can go too far in that direction and end up overlooking and undervaluing the individual nature of gospel salvation.

The beauty of the new heavens and new earth is that sin and evil are obliterated, all of God's enemies are destroyed, nothing impure or unholy is permitted entrance. Wonderful. Oh, but wait, we're all sinners (Rom. 3:23), we're by nature God's enemies (Rom. 5:10; Eph. 2:3), and unholy (Rom. 3:10; Rom. 5:6).

A gospel that doesn't address the question of how an individual sinner is reconciled to a holy God is not gospel at all. The full gospel includes the good news that God is redeeming all things, undoing the effects of the curse, and has by grace through faith in Christ reckoned sinners to be saints and included them in his redemptive purposes.

For a great discussion of this, see DA Carson's article 'What is the Gospel? - Revisited' (especially the subheading 'The Gospel in Its Wide and Narrow Senses' starting on pg. 159). This essay appears in the book For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper.

Why do I think it's important to put faith after rebirth?

After my last post, Mark asked why it's important to put faith after rebirth. Is it practically important or just systematic theology gone awry? I think it's important for two reasons (feel free to add more).

First, it reminds us that it's God who saves. He takes the initiative. He follows through. He completes it. He doesn't just make salvation possible, he saves. He takes the first step towards us and enables every step we take toward him. Again, this is so we don't get the credit or the glory. It doesn't depend on us, but on God. Understanding this keeps us from putting trust in our faith. Mark commented that he doesn't see to many people proud of their faith. I agree. Kinda. Here's what I see - I see people who put their faith in their faith, as though it were saving without reference to the object of their faith. Some ask questions like, "Why would God save me and not someone like Gandhi. Is it really just because I said a prayer at church camp one summer?" In essence, this person is putting trust in their confession of faith, as though it was a salvific work. That comes out of a very recent conversation...but I've had dozens like it in the past. Sometimes it's spoken out of doubt - "really, just because I believe, I'm saved?" Sometimes it's false security, "I'm good cause I signed a card at a Cru meeting a couple years ago" or "I went forward at church back when I was a kid".

Different expressions of the same confusion - treating faith as though it was the basis of our salvation rather than the instrument of salvation. It is a form of works righteousness, that says, "Christ lived and died for us. Good. Now all that's needed is my faith and we've got a saving combo!". Understanding faith as a gift given and enabled by the Spirit (through regeneration) keeps us from viewing it as something we've done that contributes to our salvation.

The second reason I think putting regeneration before faith does have to do with evangelism. As I see it, if the Spirit has opened someone's heart, there's nothing I'm going to do to persuade them to repent and believe. It's just not possible to move someone across that decision line, truly, apart from the Spirit's work. So, the pressure is off. On the other hand, if the Spirit is quickening a person, they will respond to the gospel call, and by God's grace, I might have the privilege of being a part of that! So it keeps evangelism in perspective. It gives us hope, even when we don't have persuasive words. It also keeps us from beating ourselves up if someone isn't responding like we want. Finally, it should spur us on to prayer - asking the Spirit to do his work and prepare our friends, neighbors, family members, congregants, etc. to hear the word and enabling them to respond in faith.

Those are my rambling thoughts.

Does One Need Faith to be Born Again?

Does one need faith to be born again? No. Absolutely not.

Has Rob Bell gotten to me? Hell no! (Couldn't resist).

I say no, we don't need faith to be born again because faith is the result of being born again, not the cause. Scripture speaks of regeneration (being born again) as the completely sovereign work of God in which we are entirely passive. Just as we did not choose to be born physically, so we do not choose to be born again...

John 1:12-13, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

Speaking of this same regenerative work, God declared through the prophet Ezekiel, "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules" (Ezekiel 36:26-27 ESV).

Jesus, in his conversation with Nicodemus makes this clear too, "Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.'"(John 3:4-8 ESV).

Peter writes, " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3 ESV).

Maybe even more telling are the passages that speak of our inability to respond appropriately to God prior to a regenerative work by God.

Jesus says that no one can come to him unless "it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). Luke describes this in the life of Lydia as God, writing that "The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul" (Acts 16:14).

In addition, Paul tells us, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV). How does one become a spiritual person rather than a natural person? It is the sovereign work of God - the wind blows where it wills.

Likewise, Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-9, "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." See also Colossians 2:13.

I should clarify - I believe those who are regenerated by the Spirit will respond to the gospel call in faith. There's a whole bunch more posts possible on the notions of 'irresistible grace' and 'effectual calling'. Moreover, saying regeneration precedes faith isn't so much a statement of chronology as it is logic. From our perspective this work of God in regenerating sinners, calling them effectually, them responding in repentance and faith and being justified may seem to all come together. However, logically, our responses are possible only because of God's initiative.

Augustine referred to regeneration as 'prevenient grace' - the grace that precedes our outgoing of heart toward God (Packer, Concise Theology, 158). Why the emphasis on regeneration or rebirth preceding faith? Going back to the passage in Ephesians, Paul explains that God made us alive when we were dead and did it solely by grace "so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus". If faith becomes something we do on our own, there is the danger of viewing it in a meritorious way - as though our faith saves us. That's dangerous. if it's our faith that saves us, the object of our faith wouldn't really matter, as long as our faith was strong and/or sincere. But it isn't our faith that saves us - we are saved by grace through faith in Christ. Christ, the object of our faith, saves us. God's grace enables this faith so that no one will boast, no one who is saved can credit themselves, and God gets all the glory.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Calvin On The Supper

Book Fourth, Chapter 17.2:

Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from this sacrament, as being a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that everything which is his they may call their own. Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he has entered, can no more be taken from us than from him; on the other hand,that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from the guilt of which he absolves us, seeing he has been pleased that these should be imputed to himself as if they were his own. This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength Having, submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness.

Too Missional?

Kevin DeYoung has a great post over at his site. Apparently some were concerned with Kevin's comments about 'missional' language at the Desiring God Conference. Here's how he opened his comments on 'missional':

Let me say something at this point about the relatively new term “missional.” I do not have a problem with people putting “al” at the end of “mission.” More and more the word simply means “being involved in mission.” Or it is shorthand for “get out of your holy huddle and go engage your community with the gospel.” And I’m all for that. Every Christian should be. So I am not on a crusade to make people stop using the word missional, nor do I want you to be suspicious of everyone who does. Nevertheless, I have a few concerns with what I sometimes see in the missional mood...

He goes on to offer some good thoughts/concerns:

(1) I am concerned that good behaviors are sometimes commended using the wrong categories.

(2) I am concerned that in our new found missional zeal we sometimes put hard “oughts” on Christians where there should be inviting “cans.”

(3) I am concerned that in all our passion for renewing the city or tackling social problems we run the risk of marginalizing the one thing that makes Christian mission Christian: namely, making disciples of Jesus Christ.

Read the rest and then his clarifications here.

More on Gospel and Kingdom

The following is taken from the Theological Vision for Ministry of the Gospel Coalition. I think this summary statement strikes a really nice balance. Here it is:

(2) How should we read the Bible? (The hermeneutical issue)

a) Reading “along” the whole Bible. To read along the whole Bible is to discern the single basic plot-line of the Bible as God’s story of redemption (e.g., Luke 24:44) as well as the themes of the Bible (e.g., covenant, kingship, temple) that run through every stage of history and every part of the canon, climaxing in Jesus Christ. In this perspective, the gospel appears as creation, fall, redemption, restoration. It brings out the purpose of salvation, namely, a renewed creation. As we confess in CS–(1), [God] providentially brings about his eternal good purposes to redeem a people for himself and restore his fallen creation, to the praise of his glorious grace.

b) Reading “across” the whole Bible. To read across the whole Bible is to collect its declarations, summons, promises, and truth-claims into categories of thought (e.g., theology, Christology, eschatology) and arrive at a coherent understanding of what it teaches summarily (e.g., Luke 24:46-47). In this perspective, the gospel appears as God, sin, Christ, faith. It brings out the means of salvation, namely the substitutionary work of Christ and our responsibility to embrace it by faith. As we confess in CS–(7), Jesus Christ acted as our representative and substitute, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

How this reading of the Bible shapes us. (1) Many today (but not all) who major in the first of these two ways of reading the Bibleóthat is, reading along the whole Bibleódwell on the more corporate aspects of sin and salvation. The cross is seen mainly as an example of sacrificial service and a defeat of worldly powers rather than substitution and propitiation for our sins. Ironically, this approach can be very legalistic. Instead of calling people to individual conversion through a message of grace, people are called to join the Christian community and kingdom program of what God is doing to liberate the world. The emphasis is on Christianity as a way of life to the loss of a blood-bought status in Christ received through personal faith. In this imbalance there is little emphasis on vigorous evangelism and apologetics, on expository preaching, and on the marks and importance of conversion/the new birth. (2) On the other hand, the older evangelicalism (though not all of it) tended to read across the Bible. As a result it was more individualistic, centering almost completely on personal conversion and safe passage to heaven. Also, its preaching, though expository, was sometimes moralistic and did not emphasize how all biblical themes climax in Christ and his work. In this imbalance there is little or no emphasis on the importance of the work of justice and mercy for the poor and the oppressed, and on cultural production that glorifies God in the arts, business, etc. (3) We do not believe that in best practice these two ways of reading the Bible are at all contradictory, even though today, many pit them against each other. We believe that on the contrary the two, at their best, are integral for grasping the meaning of the biblical gospel. The gospel is the declaration that through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God has come to reconcile individuals by his grace and renew the whole world by and for his glory.

The Gospel and the Kingdom of God

The several posts I want to write this week are all interrelated in that they arose out of my preparation for and discussion in the Poiema ACG this semester. I'd like to write a recap of the semester, including this previous week where we discussed the Manhattan Declaration, which got us discussing the true nature of the gospel...So, like I said, their all interconnected which makes it tough to know where to find the logical starting point. I don't know if I've found it, but I'm going to start by trying to clarify my understanding of 'the gospel' and how it relates to the kingdom and the 'gospel of the kingdom'.

The discussion on the nature of the gospel began after I read a quote by Michael Horton regarding the Manhattan Declaration. Here's the quote, "This declaration continues this tendency to define “the gospel” as something other than the specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits." Some in the class questioned such a narrow definition of the gospel, pointing out that Jesus came and preached 'the gospel of the kingdom'. How does this broader understanding of the gospel, the announcement of the good news that God's reign is being established, relate to the more narrow understanding of the gospel as proclamation of forgiveness based on the atoning work of Jesus on the cross?

Remember the version of Robin Hood starring Kevin Costner as Robin Hood and Alan Rickman (aka Hans Gruber from Die Hard) as the Sheriff of Nottingham. I remember the Sheriff had his witch hag whom he consulted. At one point she sees the return of King Richard and the Sheriff is visibly disturbed. I think the line was 'that would be terribly inconvenient'. By way of contrast, those loyal to the king longed for his return, waited, looked to the horizon, dreamed of a restored kingdom and remained loyal subjects. So, for one group, the return of the king and the restoration of the kingdom was indeed good news while for another it was anything but - it was horrible news.

Here's my point. While we'd all like to identify ourselves with Robin and his band of noble thieves who are loyal to King Richard, we shouldn't. If we're up for being honest we should identify with the Sheriff and his followers. Why? Because we're rebels. We've turned our back on the king, thumbed our nose at his authority, disobeyed his decrees, trampled his honor and glory underfoot and have declared ourselves to be his enemies (Rom 5:10, Col. 1:21). So, in what sense is the coming of the king and the establishment of the a just and righteous kingdom good news? It isn't, not for unjust sinners!

The good news of the kingdom is that the king is coming and offering amnesty, forgiveness, mercy, grace, an inheritance and more to those who will accept the free gift (free to us, costly to him). He is welcoming rebels, beggars and vagabonds into his kingdom. Yes, he is establishing a kingdom, but apart from this grace and forgiveness that would not be good news. And this forgiveness comes from, and only from, the cross work of Jesus Christ where our sins are imputed to Jesus who suffers in our stead and his righteousness is imputed to us. The peculiar feature of this kingdom is that King Jesus ‘reigns from the cross’, as early patristic writers put it.

Coming at it from a different angel, the gospel is about what God has done in Jesus, not about what we do in following Jesus. The gospel is about indicatives (the mood of the verb that states facts); the gospel is not a new set of imperatives - it is not law. Their are plenty of imperatives that flow from the indicatives of the gospel, but the gospel is about what God has done, is doing, and will do - not how we act in light of that. The truth that God has redeemed us and that we have been transferred into the kingdom of light by the mighty act of God's love in Jesus changes things, and we are called to live in light of those things (i.e. Galatians 2:14), but it is the truths themselves that constituted the gospel (see 1 Cor 15 for a great summary). A clarification from Horton might help. He writes, "It's important t point out that law and gospel do not simply refer to the Ten Commandments and John 3:16, respectively. Everything in the Bible that reveals God's moral expectations is law and everything in the Bible that reveals God's saving purposes and acts is gospel." (Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church, pg. 109).

The only imperatives that we should connect with the gospel is 'repent' and 'believe' or 'receive'. Thus, the three passages in the Bible that speak of 'obeying the gospel' are equivalent to saying 'believe the gospel' or 'receive the gospel'. That is actually quite clear in one of the passages. Romans 10:16 says, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” (ESV). Even these imperatives should be acknowledged as impossible imperatives apart from the operations of God's grace in our lives (by Calvinists and Wesleyan alike), which is something he does, not us.

So, for example, the sermon on the mount, which is the mandate for how to live in the kingdom, is really law, not gospel. However, trying to live out the kingdom to merit entrance into the kingdom wouldn't work. Apart from God's forgiveness through Christ, the call that comes to us in the Sermon on the Mount would be anything but good news, for who can live up to that standard (or the standard of following Jesus' example). As J. Gresham Machen wrote, "Of what avail, without the redeeming acts of God, are all the lofty ideals of Psalmists and Prophets, all the teaching and example of Jesus? In themselves they can bring us nothing but despair. We Christians are not interested merely in what God commands, but also in what God did; in a triumphant indicative; our salvation depends squarely upon history; the Bible contains that history, and unless that history is true the authority of the Bible is gone and we who have put our trust in the Bible are without hope” (J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ).

So the coming kingdom of God is good news because Jesus died a substitutionary death on the cross for sinners like me and has transferred me, now a forgiven and holy saint, into his kingdom. With question, that will change how I live (by God's continued sanctifying grace) - and that needs to be taught and preached also. But the kingdom mandate isn't the gospel. Again Horton, "Not everything in God's Word is gospel; there are a lot of exhortations, commands, and imperatives. They are to be followed. However, they are not gospel. Not everything we need is gospel. We also need to be directed...[but] confused with faith as the means of inheriting God's gift, our 'good works' become the most offensive sin against God." (Christless Christianity, pg. 109). Preach that to unregenerate souls and one of two things will happen: 1) they'll be crushed with no hope, 2) in their pride (which we're all guilty of) they'll try to do it and become more self righteous than ever. Because we live in a positive culture where people are taught 'you can do it' (read with a Rob Schneider Cajun accent) the later is much more likely.

This may be the greatest flaw in the evangelical church today - it's becoming largely therapeutic, moralistic, and self help oriented. You can see it in the pragmatic 'five steps to' approach of the seeker church, in the emerging churches call for kingdom living, and in the prosperity gospel movement. Again, Horton writes, "Osteen speaks of salvation entirely in terms of prosperity here and now, while McLaren speaks of salvation primarily in terms of peace and justice in the hear and now...Whether we define the gospel as God's invitation to everyone 'to turn from his or her current path and follow on a new way' (with McLaren) or as 'becoming a better you' (with Osteen), we are confusing law and gospel, the command to follow Christ with the announcement from heaven that he has defeated death, condemnation, and sin's tyranny, and will come again in power and glory, first to judge and then to make all things new." (Christless Christianity, pg. 114).

I'll discuss why I think this is important in our evaluation of the Manhattan Declaration (and why I wouldn't sign it) in a subsequent post.

Why Piper (and I) Abominate the Prosperity Gospel!

There is plenty I disagree with Piper on, but I stand with him in his repudiation of the prosperity gospel. It is a plague on the Christian church and a dangerous one at that. Here's Piper's reasoning as to why he hates it so much:

Religious Illiteracy

A friend recommended reading Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn't, by Stephen Prothero and I've just begun the book. I loved this paragraph:

"When I first began teaching in the early 1990's I was a follower of Dewey and the Progressives [skill based learning vs. information based]. In high school I had come to see the subject of history as nothing more than the mindless accumulation of names and dates, and I vowed upon entering college in the late 1970's that I would study every subject I could manage except history. Happily, I came across a professor who taught me that the vocation of history is not about memorizing names and dates but about forming judgments and contribution to debates about what happened in the past. So when I finished graduate school and became a professor myself, I told students that I didn't care about facts. I cared about having challenging conversations, and I offed my quiz-free classrooms as places to do just that. I soon found, however, that the challenging conversations I coveted were not possible without some common knowledge - common knowledge my students plainly lacked."

We could spend our energies bemoaning religious illiteracy even in the church (which Prothero does point out). More interestingly, I'm wondering what this means for out work in evangelism. We hope to create an environment that encourages challenging spiritual conversations. We encourage people to initiate spiritual conversations with their friends on campus. But how can these conversations take place if we lack the common knowledge, even the common vocabulary, that is essential to conversation. If you doubt we lack the common knowledge, catch a Jay Walking spot on the Leno Show sometime!

The introduction of the book has reinforced for me the need to do a lot of 'pre-evangelism' before we plunge into evangelism. By pre-evangelism I mean exploring the story of Christianity, explaining key words and their meaning (like sin, grace, hope, etc). My question is, how do we effectively engage people in pre-evangelism. Much effort has been spent on developing evangelistic techniques, but what of the initial phase? If you have ideas or resources, send em my way!

Osteen's Alternative Gospel

Yesterday I finished up chapter 3 of Horton's book Christless Christianity. The chapter, "Smooth talking and Christless Christianity", is a detailed expose/refutation of Joel Osteen's theology - if you can really call it that. It wasn't what I expected when I picked up the book, but it was a good reminder of how unbiblical, pervasive, and dangerous the 'health & wealth'/'name it and claim it' brand of Christianity is.

It's the 'dangerous' element that struck me with a new weight as I read Horton yesterday. This is true at the corporate level (we celebrate the explosion of the church in the 2/3rds world, yet Horton points out that much of this explosion is of this 'health and wealth' variety where no real gospel is preached at all) and at the individual level. We laugh at Osteen and those who drink in his sweet drivel. The message Osteen preaches leaves people feeling good about themselves and their relationship with God. Osteen is never condemning, always positive, ready to encourage and tell people to live up to their potential as 'children of the Most High God'. While he seems like a nice guy, this message is utterly cruel on several levels.

First, as there is no preaching of sin and God's just condemnation of sinners, there is no sense in which Christ is offered (even needed) as one's mediator and atoning sacrifice. Horton writes, "There is no condemnation in Osteen's message for failing to fulfill God's righteous law. On the other hand, there is no justification. Instead of either message, there is an upbeat moralism that is somewhere in the middle: Do your best, follow the instructions I give you, and God will make your life successful." He continues, "...there is a determination to assimilate the gospel to law, an announcement of victory to a call to be victorious, indicatives to imperatives, Good News to good advice. The bad news may not be as bad as it used to be, but the Good News is just a softer version of the bad news: Do more. But this time, it's easy! and if you fail, don't worry. God just wants you to do your best. He'll take care of the rest." Horton does an excellent job detailing the various ways sin has been trivialized in Osteen's (and other like him) preaching and writing. It has lost it's vertical element (it's not sin against God). It's even lost its horizontal element (it's not against a neighbor). Essentially sin is against self - not living up to potential, robbing oneself of God's best for our lives, etc. In this climate, salvation isn't legal, it's therapaudic. The question is, 'how do I feel better about myself and get more out of life', not 'how can a sinner be right with God'. No one is being urged to repent of sin and throw themselves at the feet of Jesus pleading for mercy before a just judge. There at thousand, tens of thousands, of people who have heard Osteen preach and think they are ok with God because they're doing their best, or at least close to it, most of the time.

Essentially, the Gospel has been turned into a salvation by working (doing your best, obeying the instructions, etc.). This is also incredibly cruel. Horton comments, "to those who are burned out on trying to merit God's favor, Osteen's only answer - though said with a smile - is to do more. 'Believe more for your miracle and God will turn it around.' Is this the kinder, gentler God or a more than slightly sinister tyrant who keeps raising the hoops for us to jump through before he gives us what we want."

Moreover, it's cruel because it teaches people that all their problems are because they don't believe enough - even genetic problems. Horton quotes a sermon by Osteen (hard to believe he wasn't sued by the diabetes foundation): "you need to put your foot down and say, 'Grandmother may have had it [diabetes]. Mother may have had it. But as for me and my house, we're redeemed from diabetes. I'm going to live under the blessing and not the curse...This type of blessing is for believers, not doubters." Osteen's theology is utterly unable to deal with pain and loss in life, simply adding more to it by pointing the finger at the suffering individual telling them it's their fault - they should have more faith and stop being the doubting Thomas.

Finally, it's cruel because it robs people of the ultimately glory we have been promised and offers them instead cheap substitutes that tarnish, rust and get moth eathen. Instead of offering deliverance from God's eternal wrath and everlasting life free from pain, sin and death, Osteen offers salvation from feeling bad about ourselves and unhappiness. Horton quotes CS Lewis, "I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle fo Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity."

A fair chunk of this chapter is a reproduction of an essay Horton wrote a couple of years ago (Oct. 2007) after being interviewed on 60 minutes about Osteen. Looking ahead at the next chapter I don't see Osteen's name anywhere...but I do see McLaren. I'll keep you posted!

Training in Godliness vs. Silly Myths

I found this over at Justin Taylor's blog. I have not idea who this guy is but what he says very challenging. Since Connexion has been more topical this year this comes as a great reminder to keep the sermons Christian (preach in a way that a Muslim would disagree) and gospel focused. (Oh, and does he use a lot of hand gestures or what?).

What defines what?

"What would it mean if, instead of trying to explain the gospel in terms of our modern scientific culture, we tried to explain our culture in terms of the gospel?"

- Leslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, the Gospel and Western Culture

the Gospel Pool

I just picked up an article this morning by Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC, from LeadershipJournal.net called The Gospel in All its Forms. I read the first lines and put it down to come write this post. The article begins,

"The gospel has been described as a pool in which a toddler can wade and yet an elephant can swim. It is both simple enough to tell to a child and profound enough for the greatest minds to explore."

I love the "both/and" nature of that statement because it is a healthy corrective to several unhealthy tendencies I have seen recently in the church (and maybe even contributed too). Many seem to have an "either/or" mentality when it comes to the gospel. I've seen this play out in two ways that impact me directly and Connexion (the college ministry of ECC) also.

First, there is a pervasive attitude that you must choose between preaching the gospel and equipping the saints. I think this comes from an overly simplistic understanding of what the gospel is, assuming gospel summaries like "Four Spiritual Laws" are the sum total of the gospel rather than just a brief and incomplete outline of the gospel. Recently, I was accosted by a guy after a message in which I reconfirmed my commitment to preach the gospel and only the gospel. He felt that as a believer he wouldn't benefit or get anything out of such simple gospel messages. It's highly likely that I'm largely to blame for this - i'm sure it had to do with my lack of explanation during the message. I should've explained that I think the whole of the Bible is either gospel or preparation for hearing the gospel (law). But while I am largely to blame, so is a faulty understanding of the gospel. It is not something we learn and grow beyond. We initially learn and believe the main points, the summary outlines, and spend the rest of lives growing into it - into a deeper understanding of its doctrines, its implications, etc. In a ministry like Connexion that strives to be outreach oriented and at the same time equip students for ministry, we are constantly faced with the question "how do you reach and minister to both". The answer - preach and teach the gospel! There are delicacies there to please (maybe not the best word) every pallet.

That leads me to my second observation, very similar to the last but worded differently. In much Emerging Church literature there is a talk about the gospel of the kingdom. No problem there, Jesus talked about it a lot too. However, what emerging folk (and the liberal folk before them) emphasize is kingdom living, not entrance into the kingdom. For example, Doug Pagitt writes, "The good news is not informational...Instead we have an invitation into a way of life - life we constantly realize is not ours alone" (Preaching Re-Imagined, pg103). Commenting on this, Kevin Deyoung writes, "If the good news is an invitation to a Jesus way of life [which we're bound to fail at] and not information about somebody who accomplishes something on my behalf, I'm sunk. This is law, not gospel" (Why We're Not Emergent, pg. 114). Similarly, Machen described liberalism as beginning in the imperative mood ("do this") while true Christianity begins in the indicative mood ("this is true") and then moves to the imperative ("so do this").

There is a danger in overreacting to the gospel as imperative theology of liberalism and emerging churchism and totally neglecting the kingdom motif. That would still be to err by adopting the "either/or" mentality. Instead, we ought to recognize and teach that the gospel is about how one enters the kingdom (by faith in the one who purchased us by his blood) and how one lives in the kingdom (by the power of the Spirit and in conformity to Jesus' pattern of life).

Certainly there are enough jewels in the gospel rightly understood to occupy us for a few lifetimes, and fuel our worship for a few eternities.

Two Ways to Live Gospel Presentation

I know many of us struggle with clear and concise ways to articulate the message of the gospel. I, for one, am not a fan of many of the presentations such as Four Spiritual Laws, but this one seems to capture more of the narrative in which the gospel comes to us. Check out the Two Ways to Live (and if you want some tracts to share, I have some in my office!).

The Gospel Coalition Web Site

The new website for The Gospel Coalition just went live a few days ago. Some of the 'Stakeholders' of this new coalition are among my favorite authors, professors, pastors out there, including: DA Carson (my academic adviser at Trinity), Colin Smith (the senior pastor at the first church I ever worked at), John Piper (a mentor, even though I've never met him), Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, Philip Ryken, Ligon Duncan, Erwin Lutzer, Bryan Chapell, CJ Mahaney, and more. Check out the articles and the media sections for great stuff.