Between Two Worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture



Saturday, May 10, 2008

What Is the Most Crying Need of the Church in America Today?

83 comments | Permalink
I noticed tonight on the Gospel Coalition website that a number of the council members answered that question. Here are some of the answers:

D. A. Carson
:
Much depends on the context of the question. If the context is hunting for a universal need, such that the phrase “in America today” assumes that whatever the local phenomena we should focus on human needs that are found everywhere (including “in America today”), then we must return to fundamentals: the most urgent need is to know God as he has disclosed himself, by the means he has given to know him, and thus be reconciled to him, both for this life and for the life to come. That means a focus on Christ Jesus, on the full-orbed gospel of which he is the center. But if the context of the question focuses on “in America today,” such that there is an implicit comparison with other places (e.g. Rwanda, France) or times (e.g. America in the nineteenth century), then one thinks of the sweep of challenges particularly characteristic in America at the beginning of the twenty-first century: rising biblical illiteracy, relativism steeped in the more extreme forms of postmodernism, formulaic forms of “evangelical” belief characterized by neither delight in God nor obedience to him, the seductive power of the strange mix of secularization and assorted “spiritualities,” the perennial invitation to live in fear or be snookered by visions of imperial strength, the world awash in an astonishing diversity of entertainments to fill up all the moments when we are not being seduced by either power or sex, and much more of the same. And finally, if the question becomes distributive — “in America today” demanding that we think through the various sectors of American life — then there are peculiar challenges in different geographical parts of the country (e.g. north versus south, coasts versus Midwest, etc.), in different racial sectors of the country (not only traditional black/white divisions, but the newer alignments triggered by recent immigration patterns), in different social arrangements in the country (especially rural/urban), in different theological loci in the country (e.g. Arminians attracted to “open” theology, Reformed people attracted to theonomy or the new perspective, and cultural conservatives, in a pendulum swing, to the “emerging” movement). Faithful pastoral ministry demands that we think through all of these contexts simultaneously.
John Piper:
One could answer at different levels of ultimacy. I choose to assume the urgency of the two ultimate levels (heart-felt passion for Christ, and radical obedience to Christ), and move one level down: To the end of pure and passionate lives of Christ-exalting mercy and world evangelization, the greatest need of the church is to know and understand the full biblical witness of God’s love (including the grace that raises the spiritually dead, Ephesians 2:4–5; and justifies the ungodly by faith alone, Romans 4:4–5; 5:8–9), the full biblical witness of God’s wisdom (including the knowledge of all future events, Isaiah 41:23, 26; 42:8–9; 44:7–8, 26–28; 45:21; 46:10; 48:3), the full biblical witness of God’s power (including his rule over every bird that dies, Matthew 10:29, and every role of the dice, Proverb s 16:33, and every act of man, Jeremiah 10:23), and the full biblical witness of God’s justice (including his everlasting wrath upon the impenitent, 2 Thessalonians 1:9). “My people go into exile for lack of knowledge” (Isaiah 5:13); “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand” (Isaiah 1:3); “A people without understanding shall come to ruin” (Hosea 4:14); “Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD” (Hosea 6:3). The assumption here is that American Christianity is plagued by truncated views of all God’s attributes. And a truncated view of God will give raise to truncated Christian living and truncated awakenings. Therefore the awakening and revival that I pray for will be not just for the fullness of the Spirit’s power, but for the fullness of the Spirit’s illumination of God in the word.

Ron Sider’s recent article in Books and Culture, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience,” contains the too familiar stats on how evangelicals and born-againers live lives a millimeter above the pagans in America, or sometimes below, in the Bible belt. Nine percent of born again people (who say they have made a personal commitment to Jesus which is still important in their lives) have biblical world view (absolutes exist, God is the all-knowing, all-powerful, Creator who still rules the universe; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; Satan is a real, living entity; salvation is a free gift, not something we can earn; every Christian has a personal responsibility to evangelize; and the Bible is totally accurate in all it teaches). However, this group of people stand out with significantly different behavior from the worldly “born-againers” and “evangelicals.” Here is Sider’s comment:
"Barna’s findings on the different behavior of Christians with a biblical worldview underline the importance of theology. Biblical orthodoxy does matter. One important way to end the scandal of contemporary Christian behavior is to work and pray fervently for the growth of orthodox theological belief in our churches” (Jan/Feb, p. 42).
Indeed, orthodoxy was the only factor the article pointed out correlated with a significant difference in Christian behavior.

Truncated theology > truncated lives.

C.J. Mahaney:
The greatest need in the American church today is the recovery of the church’s central message, the gospel. Far too often in evangelical churches the gospel is simply assumed and, being so assumed, its voice is muffled, its entailments are ignored, and its power is drained. More significantly, when the gospel is assumed it is in grave danger of being displaced. The church is, therefore, in great need of a thoroughgoing return to gospel-centrality. The measure of such centrality will be the extent to which the gospel is functional, determining the nature of the church’s life, the substance of its teaching, the content of its worship and the core of its proclamation.
Mike Bullmore:
Not just a biblical/theological literacy but a functioning biblical/theological literacy, especially a functioning gospel. I believe a local church is healthy to the degree that: 1) its pastor-teachers are able—accurately, effectively and broadly—to bring the gospel to bear specifically into the real lives of the people; and 2) its people have a deep personal understanding of and a deep personal appreciation for the gospel so as to be able to live in the good of the gospel daily and thus call attention to the glory of God. “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” One of the greatest challenges, yet one of the most important tasks, of pastoral ministry is to help people actually see the connections between the gospel and the thinking and behavior that make up their everyday lives. We know well the centrality of the gospel message but in order for it to have a functional centrality it must be clearly, carefully and consistently connected to the real issues—issues of thought and conduct—of people’s lives. This kind of ministry is most greatly needed.
Mark Dever:
For pastors to know and understand what a local church should and can be and for pastors to teach this to their congregations. Much of the blessings and benefits of good teaching in evangelical churches in America goes into the hearts of individuals and then perhaps into the lives of their family and friend but is then largely lost in the sands of American individualism. If the preaching of the gospel and expositional preaching are the glorious founts of life, the local church is to be the bowl, the container, in which that life is caught and held up for display to a thirsty world. That pastors should know and understand and teach this is the most crying need in evangelical churches in America today.
Ligon Duncan:
There are many ways this question could be legitimately approached and answered. Furthermore, the condition of the Christian church in various parts of our nation and world would dictate different responses corresponding to the local situation. However, for this local church pastor, the biggest need is for a biblical doctrine of the church to be lived out in the local churches, and for a theological center to be restored in evangelicalism, under the steadying influence of Reformed pastor-theologians with a high doctrine of Scripture.

To elaborate on the first point, the church needs to what God says the church is to be in Scripture. That is, we need to be what God intends us to be, rather than what the world wants us to be (or what the latest evangelical fad or “model” tells us we need to be). For instance, the church is called (among other things) to be salt and light in the world. Yet in order to do this, in order to have a beneficial impact upon the world and an effective witness to the world, we have to be different from the world, we have to love something more than the world, we have to march to the beat of a different drum. However the American church is worldly (in our methods and membership), and that is the single greatest defect in our witness to Christ in this ailing culture.

So what’s our need? To think Christianly. To live Christianly. To be transformed by the renewing of our minds according to the Word of God and no longer be conformed to this passing world and its way of thinking and living. How can we be this way? By God’s grace, of course. By desiring Christ more than anything. And by following God’s plan for the church, where there is (1) Expositional Preaching – preaching which expounds what Scripture says in a particular passage, carefully explaining its meaning and applying it to the congregation; (2) Biblical Theology – the people of God must be committed to know the God of the Bible, as he has revealed himself in the Bible, rather than to worship a god of our imaginations. There is a god we want and the God who is, and the two are not the same, says Pat Morley; (3) Biblical Understanding of the Good News – the Gospel is the heart of Christianity, not just an additive to give us something we naturally want (i.e. joy or peace); (4) Real Conversion – the spiritual change each person needs is so radical, so near the root of us, that only God can do it. We need God to convert us. Conversion need not be an emotionally heated experience, but it must evidence itself by its fruit if it is to be what the Bible regards as a true conversion. (5) Christian Discipleship – the only certain observable sign of growth is a life of increasing holiness, rooted in Christian self-denial. These qualities are increasing rare in American churches. Recovered for today, true discipleship would build the church and promote a clearer witness to the world.
Tim Keller:
I’m throwing in with Jim Boice on this one (cf. his Two Cities: Two Loves.)

The evangelical church must stay true to its biblical foundations, and it must maintain and enhance the effectiveness of its expository preaching, the holiness of its members, the ‘thickness’ of its counter-cultural community, the fervor of its evangelism. But if it doesn’t learn how to do this in our biggest cities then we don’t have much hope for our culture.

If our cities are largely pagan while our countryside is largely Christian, then our society and culture will continue to slide into paganism. And that is exactly what is happening. Christians strengthen somewhat away from the cities and they have made some political gains, but that is not effecting cultural products much. It is because in the center cities (NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Washington DC) the percentages of people living and working there who are Christians are minuscule.

Jim Boice proposed that evangelical Christians need to live in the major cities at a higher percentage than the population at large (See Two Cities, p.163ff.) Currently 50% of the U.S. population live in urban areas (and 25% lives in just the 10 largest urban areas.) Boice proposes that evangelicals should be living in cities in at least the same percentages or more. As confirmation of Boice’s belief consider how much impact both the Jewish and the gay communities have had on our culture. Why? Though neither is more than 3-4% of the total population, they each comprise over 20% of the population of Manhattan (and in other center cities. )

So we have two problems. First, evangelicals (especially Anglos) in general are quite negative about U.S. cities and city living. Second, you can’t ‘do church’ in exactly the same way in a city as you do it elsewhere, not if you want to actually convert hard-core secular people to Christianity. There are churches that set up in cities without adapting to their environment. Ironically, they can grow rather well anyway in cities by just gathering in the young already-evangelicals who are temporarily living in the city after college. But that is not the way to make the cities heavily Christian—which is the crying need today.

83 Comments:

Blogger Michael.Gabriel said...

This post has been removed by the author.

5/11/2008 12:07:00 AM  
Blogger Michael.Gabriel said...

Amen! and AMEN!

Can we all read these insights and pass them on to those in our churches whom we love?

I particularly appreciated Dr. Carson's intricate insight into the multifacetedness of the American situation as it is so diverse across the country in all its cities and sections. And especially in the particular "circles" of practice.

This article was edifying!

I must say that the insight given by Dr. Duncangets my heartiest amen. I would echo the citation of a crying need for discipleship in our local churches. My friends and I were discussing this earlier today, as a matter of fact. I believe that we all concluded that the knowledgable pastor who teaches his congregation, and especially teaches those men whom he can cultivate a possible future ministry in, would gradually turn the American church around and place us in the groove that we should be in.

I pray the Lord will bring this about by burdening our generation with this goal, and continue this trend until all the Bible college and seminary professors are out of a job.

5/11/2008 12:12:00 AM  
Blogger John said...

And what does Justin Taylor say?

5/11/2008 06:31:00 AM  
Blogger maddog said...

Mahaney nailed it. Without the power of the gospel constantly changing the hearts of men and conforming us to Christ, all of the other things will remain unattainable.

5/11/2008 07:13:00 AM  
Blogger donsands said...

It's as simple as expositional teaching the truth of God, with the Gospel of Christ always as the ultimate truth of truth.

Christ-centered hearts, which lead to loving Christ and His Word, vs. human-centered hearts, which puts people above Christ, or of equal value, is our dilemma as well.

Thanks for the encouraging post. Now off to church.

5/11/2008 08:15:00 AM  
Blogger Jeff Kerr said...

D.A. Carson never fails to hit the nail on the head.

5/11/2008 12:42:00 PM  
Blogger Bruce Sabin said...

I have a question about Tim Keller's idea of Christians moving into the cities. I have also heard Mark Driscoll preach on that topic. While I understand the importance of cities, and realize the value of Christians in cities, I wonder about the tradeoffs. Should Christians really make the family sacrifices necessary to live in cities at the levels of non-Christians?

By living in an average mid-sized town, I can work at a middle-class job (a school teacher) and actually afford to have a wife who stays at home with our children. We can even afford to home school. And there are many similar advantages to not living in NYC.

I just wonder about the tradeoffs. The movers and shakers can live in Manhattan mostly because they delay marriage and have few, if any, kids. Similarly, they tend to give little, if anything, to charity.

Of course, there are Christians who can afford to live in those cities and have children and even a stay-at-home spouse. But, those are going to be a small percentage of those cities.

There are reasons gays are much more likely to live in major cities. When I lived in New Orleans, the city started a campaign to attract gays to move to the city. One of the arguments that gays made good prospects for relocating was the New Orleans schools scared away families, but many more gays don't have kids and therefore don't care as much about the quality of the schools. Gays also represent a larger segment of the professions than they represent of the society as a whole because they are more able to make the time and financial sacrifices necessary to enter professions.

I actually don't know the answer to whether more Christians should move into the cities. I would completely support any Christians who felt called to those mission fields, and I greatly respect those who have made such commitments. But, I am also not sure I would call moving into the cities the greatest need for the Christian church in America.

5/11/2008 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger Michael.Gabriel said...

I'm not overly confident that the answer is for more Christians to move into those big cities either, Bruce. Though, that is definitely a ministry that the Lord has given to select individuals, and I believe that financial woes will not be an issue if the Lord has given those individuals that call. Granted, they may have a few difficulties, but as you know, the Lord will give the grace and supply all their other needs.

Personally, I think that filling the big cities with laborers for the harvest or for them to be a shining light will be in vain if they continue to neglect the importance of equipping the saints with sound doctrine from the pulpit and discipling them continuously.

5/11/2008 11:18:00 PM  
Blogger SBC said...

I can't help but chuckle, whenever I see one of these panels, at the predictability of each person's answer.
Did you really think that Carson wouldn't answer as intricately as he did?
Did you really think that CJ wouldn't center on the gospel?
Did you really think that Keller wouldn't emphasize the city?

I'm not knocking a bit of it. All excellent. Just humorously predictable.

5/12/2008 12:33:00 AM  
Blogger Guy said...

Bruce,

I think what Keller is saying can be understood on various levels. He reads this blog, so might even post something for clarification. :-) If I can summarize what I think he's saying, and translate what I judge him to be thinking as I improvise and fill in the picture a bit.

Christians have abandoned trying to reach the cities on the cities terms and for very practical reasons (which you've done well to clarify), have found other reasons to justify not moving to the city. Regardless of their decisions, we should observe that the cities are trendsetters for the society at large, and agree that there should be Christians there carving out a space and making the spaces better for all people. They should obviously be doing this everywhere, but cities are unique places for culture and the arts, not just high powered and rich organizations. A big part of living in the city, as should be for Christians anywhere, is evangelism. Cities are post-Christian, and many if not most people inhabiting them have had either no experience with Christianity, or negative experiences with Christianity. If Christians abandon the cities, they leave millions of people out to dry and abandon these people to the liberal churches which have fully assimilated with the culture, and have lost the salty taste of orthodoxy. For instance, if I walk to a church within a few blocks of me, there is a Jesus fish outline filled in with a rainbow, to indicate that they are gay-friendly. The real rub of Keller's quote is that there are two ways of being church to the city. 1. Being church with the values of the suburbs, attracting already-evangelized Christians who don't engage people who are different than them very well. These people will ultimately go back to the burbs and disengage from the city, to choose a more carefree, stressfree life, with a bigger house, and their SUV. 2. Being church with the values of the city, attracting people who are curious to know more about Christianity, skeptics, and showing them on their own terms why Christianity has more to offer them. To see the manifestation of the gospel relationally, the mark of generous and engaged people, selflessly living, and thoughtfully engaging and beholding the apologetic for faith. Having respectable Christians living Christianly as an example to the world should not ever be underestimated. Also, just from personal experience, there is a lot more "control" that I had over my own life living in the burbs, and more "tribulations" here in the city. I don't drive my car wherever I want, whenever I want. I don't just see white people when I leave my building, but I'm confronted with broken lives beyond my personal capacity to help. Frustrations and sufferings are exposed more publicly and there needs to be an apologetic for hope, and for how to cope with the sufferings and birth pangs of this world. The suburbs need this. All people need this. But the cities are being neglected. I'm hopeful, though because the outworking of faith may be enough to open eyes and hearts to inquire deeper. The Bible calls us to have an answer when asked, and if there are no Christians, then there are no Christian answers. For, how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? The answer from Romans 10 is that, we are sent as an implicit call of the gospel to bring this good news. And yes, Bruce, there will be sacrifices. Paul talks about sacrifices, and Christ's life is a testimony of sacrifice. Would you be willing to give up on your own rights (to privacy, your $$$, your comfort zone) to be a part of something difficult, but needed? I'd hope so. I think our faith is sufficient for even this. :-)

5/12/2008 12:53:00 AM  
Blogger SBC said...

Really great post, Guy.

Although Keller's answer may not be most appropriate to the question, I appreciate his emphasis.

Cities set societies' tone. That is indisputable.
Not that "the main thing" is to set societies' tone (that will be a byproduct)...but the city does provide a unique venue through which to reach people of unique influence.

5/12/2008 01:47:00 AM  
Blogger Bruce Sabin said...

Guy, thanks for the reply. I understand the premise that Christians should have an interest in cities. Paul's ministry was city-focused, especially on Rome as the hub of the Empire. And I wholeheartedly agree this is a good cause for the church to look toward.

For me, it is not matter of sacrificing money, or the SUV. After all, to be a single-income family on a teacher's salary means giving up the large house, the large cars, and the Hawaiian vacations. For me, it is a matter of deciding what I am willing to sacrifice from my family. I feel an understanding of Paul's statement:

"An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the things of the world—how he may please his wife—and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world—how she may please her husband." (1 Cor 7:32-34)

My wife and I have considered foreign missions, and still consider it. Moving to an unreached country would require sacrifices of many more American conveniences, and those sacrifices don't concern us that much. But I don't think I would sacrifice my time with and goals for my family. I know many missionaries send their kids to boarding schools, and while I cannot say they are wrong--and don't want to judge their decisions--I personally do not think I'd be willing to do that. My first priority is to raise my own children to love God with all their hearts, minds, souls and strengths.

I know Tim Keller personally made the sacrifice to move into NYC to start a church, and I praise God for the amazing work being done there.

5/12/2008 04:41:00 AM  
Blogger SBC said...

Let me hasten to clarify that I, despite my appreciation for Keller's emphasis and Guy's post, am not heading for the city myself.

My wife and I intend to make Christ known among Alaska Natives...not exactly urban :-)

And yes, Bruce, the kids' education is a toughy to wrestle through. We have just one infant for now, but that issue will become more pressing in the years to come.

Btw, the concept of strategically reaching major population centers can apply not only to modern Western society, but also to the North Slope of AK (even if the major population center is 5,000).

The principle is sound.

5/12/2008 07:57:00 AM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Being church with the values of the city, attracting people who are curious to know more about Christianity, skeptics, and showing them on their own terms why Christianity has more to offer them.

I'm sorry guys, but I just don't see how this is biblical evangelism, nor do I see how it's any different than the seeker movement.

How can we reach unbelievers on their own terms? How can we do that? They have no categories for the things we're talking to them about. Without the Spirit of God, they understand nothing of the Spirit of God.

It's for these reasons that I can't agree with strategies that Keller's talking about -- about strategically reaching the cities because they have the "societal influence." That's worldly influence! We don't want that influence! We want to preach the Gospel to people in the cities, but not because we think they'll be more effective in shaping the culture or society for Christ. Christ's kingdom isn't of this world, and we're not going to usher it in by rearranging society top-down. Doing something like that reminds me of the people who say, "Oh Christianity would really be booming in the world of Islam if someone like Osama bin Laden were converted."

But our job, brothers, isn't to make Christianity boom. It's to gather in the sheep that Christ has foreknown, set apart by His particular love, and has purchased with His own blood. That's going to happen in the cities and in the suburbs regardless of which has the most societal influence.

I'm not trying to start a fight, and I don't have the time to deal with the missional onslaught that may result from this comment. But I'm pleading with you guys to really examine yourselves and the Scriptures in regards to the kind of message Pastor Keller is preaching. I think it is effectively making the Gospel larger and more public than it is, cf. Dever's T4G talk, and causing great confusion just as he says.

Brothers, nothing other than the Gospel preached _on the Gospel's terms_ will achieve the mission of Christ charged to the church. How terrible and misguided we are if we miss that!

5/12/2008 10:01:00 AM  
Blogger Philip said...

I fear that the upshot of Dever's talk is going to be an ever increasing winnowing effect until there are actually only a handful of people "together" for the "gospel." I mean, if Tim Keller's philosophy of ministry (which is not actually "his" in any substantive way) can be described as "terrible" and "misguided" then we are in a world of hurt.

5/12/2008 10:22:00 AM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

If that's true, Philip, that would only mean that nobody ever really was "together" for the "gospel." Maybe they said they were, but it would mean that they meant different things by "the Gospel." That means that we're already in a world of hurt.

I think the upshot of Dever's talk is that Christians are going to finally start bringing this up and get clear on the Gospel. Sure, it'll mean that some people will reject it. But the effect will be positive for Christianity if Christians will evaluate these kinds of "strategies" biblically and then in true humility surrender their own conceptions -- perhaps tainted by postmodernism -- to Scripture and the Gospel, glorious in its singularity and exclusiveness even with its global effects and impact.

5/12/2008 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger Alex said...

I liked Keller's response. More people in the city, so we need more Christians to reach them. If they are converted it will influence our culture for the sake of the Gospel.

5/12/2008 10:38:00 AM  
Blogger aaron said...

Mike,

good to "see" you over on this thread.

Might I humbly submit that you check out "Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism; the battle for Gospel preaching" by Iain H. Murray.

I'm not sure where you stand theologically,(not the point) but this book was great for me just to value the proclamation of the gospel in an evangelistic way, using culture, meeting people where they are at. Spurgeon, Piper, Graham, Moody,Keller et . al. are all pastors who don't fall over into the realm of "seeker sensitive" or "liberal", but are simply trying to be persuasive (Pauline) in their gospel approach.

I'm not sure why we would come against that. (while agreeing with you that we should come against seeker-sensitive, overuse of culture, loss of doctrine, etc. )

Aaron

5/12/2008 10:59:00 AM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

But then, Alex, doesn't the end become influencing our culture instead of simply gathering in Christ's sheep?

If all of the elect get saved, but the culture is thoroughly evil and anti-Christian and anti-Christ, have we failed at our mission? I don't think we have. I think that God's purpose of reconciling the world to Christ means that His elect will come to faith in Him. If that is accomplished -- which we know it will be -- then Christ has succeeded in building His church. Our job is simply to be the means of that by preaching the Gospel in the Gospel's context on the Gospel's terms.

Now, of course, it's great if our society's morals become more closely approximated to Christian morals. But I believe that the Bible teaches that won't happen. As best as I can tell, the Bible teaches us that this world will get decidedly worse before Christ establishes His kingdom on earth.

And I think that's backed up by New Testament examples. One doesn't see the Apostles looking to transform the culture of those they were preaching to. They were concerned, not about the structure of society, but with simply preaching and making disciples.

Thanks, fellas, for interacting with this in not too 'biting' of a way.

5/12/2008 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Aaron,

While not having read the book, but having read some of the preachers you cite there, I can tell you that I see a big difference between Spurgeon & Piper and Keller. I think that it's obvious just from the quotes from the men on this original post that Keller's emphasis is different than the others'.

As far as my theology goes, I'm not a hyper-Calvinist. I am a 5-point Calvinist (or a 7-pointer, if you like Piper's designation of two other natural tenets of a Reformed theology). I do think that we ought to be radical in our evangelism. I don't think we don't evangelize. I think Calvinism calls us to evangelize with the confidence that God saves by His message and we preach that message. I think it distinguishes missions work and evangelism from the notion that we can win people to Christ by engaging them in their fallenness. Anything about them apart from Christ is useless in winning them to Christ because the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit.

And I also agree that we should be persuasive as Paul and Peter says we are to be, but I believe (specifically) you and I disagree on what it means to be persuasive, and what kind of persuasion accords with our biblical mission. What I am saying by bringing up the seeker movement is that the principles upon which both paradigms are based are similar, if not the same.

5/12/2008 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger GUNNY said...

Admittedly, I have not read the prior 20 comments, so forgive me if this is redundant.

But, although I wasn't asked, FOR ME the most crying need of the church in America today is ...

More Cowbell.


Sure, I like what those other folks said too, but I could've used a little more Cowbell.

5/12/2008 11:35:00 AM  
Blogger aaron said...

Mike,

I don't want to take this off-topic. But, I"ll just say in conclusion (for me) that there is "pre-evangelism" work to be done by us,. . building relationships. . . serving. . letting our light shine.. .

That, the Spirit uses those things to send a preacher to proclaim the Gospel to a soul that He (the Spirit) is drawing to the Lord. We can't be heard if we're not there, or if their pre-conceived notions about the church are keeping them away.

Agreed,. . only the Spirit gives life, only Jesus changes a heart. But, he ordains the means as well, and we can be about being missionaries and witnesses in a myriad of ways to find out where the Spirit is always working. For some, that might mean moving into a city.

Aaron

5/12/2008 11:37:00 AM  
Blogger Philip said...

Mike,
Thanks for the response. I don't have a dog in the fight over "together for the gospel" and think that, in general, conferences like these do relatively little in terms of tangible goods for the Church universal.

That said, Dever is certainly free to lecture as he will and well-meaning folks can be on either side of his declarations. My concern, however, is that some of Dever's more adventurous claims about the evils of pragmatism and the like will have the effect of an even more narrow understanding of who is "with us" (and therefore "for the Gospel") and who isn't. Seeing Keller's thought/ministry being forced into one of these hasty and untidy binaries gives me great pause and should make us all think a bit about Dever's lecture.

Keller is not John Dewey. He's not Richard Rorty. He also is not so foolish as to think that "postmodernism" is some sort of uniform, hermetically sealed whole that you could point to and say, "there it is, can't believe that guy showed up again."

I am truly not trying to be polemical. I am simply trying to follow the logic of Dever's lecture all the way through, and in so doing, show that the net effect of his message is an ever dwindling circle around "us" against an ever increasing number of "them." This is why Augustine thought that the relation of sin and privacy was so close...what we are all ultimately convinced of is our own self-sufficiency and requisite disdain for others.

5/12/2008 11:49:00 AM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

I don't want to take this off-topic. But, I"ll just say in conclusion (for me) that there is "pre-evangelism" work to be done by us,. . building relationships. . . serving. . letting our light shine..,

I don't see this in the New Testament. Maybe I'm just ignorant, and you can show me where we see this, but I just don't see it. I see John the Baptist living in the desert and just preaching. I see Jesus' beginning preaching the gospel as, "Repent." I see Peter confronting the Jews in their synagogues. I see Paul going from city to city and confronting everyone with the message after being there an hour, and getting stoned and beaten and kicked out of just about every city for it. Philip sees the Ethiopian and he preaches to him. He doesn't invite him to his house and get to know him for six months. Cornelius doesn't know Peter from Adam. God prepares him, and Peter just preaches the word.

We can't be heard if...their pre-conceived notions about the church are keeping them away.

Aaron, this is what I'm talking about bro. All unbelievers' preconceived notions are keeping them away. Their preconceived notions are always hostile, always contrary. We can't change their preconceived notions without their regeneration. That's what total depravity or absolute inability is.

That's also why I say this is similar to the seeker movement. The ideology there was to "just get them in the door." "How can we preach the Gospel to them if they're not there? So we need to figure out how to get them there." It's the same thing. But the point is you go out to preach the Gospel... still on the Gospel's terms... on Christ's terms. That is, acknowledging that their preconceived notions are only changeable by the new birth (effected by the Gospel) itself.

I don't disagree that we should be moving into cities. I just don't think it's sound to say that we should be targeting cities because that's where the cultural influence is. We don't want cultural influence. We want the influence of the truth and the truth alone. Because if we have any other influence, there will be a question about what effected the change. Was it the truth of the Gospel or was it the societal influence of the culture?

5/12/2008 11:57:00 AM  
Blogger Daryl said...

"there is "pre-evangelism" work to be done by us,. . building relationships. . . serving. . letting our light shine.. ."

I don't see this in Scripture and, if my life is any indication (not saying that it is mind you) I'd go so far as to suggest that "pre-evangelism" is really a euphemism for folks like me who are plain and simple, afraid to evangelize.
This way we can avoid the hard work of actually spreading the gospel and convince ourselves that we're doing "pre-evangelism" when, in fact, what we're doing is what everyone, non-believers included, do everyday. We're making friends because life is better with friends.
Nothing wrong with that, so long as we don't fool ourselves into believing that we're doing "pre-evangelism".

My question for sincere "pre-evangelists". At what predetermined pointm will you give the gospel?

5/12/2008 12:02:00 PM  
Blogger aaron said...

Mike,

I hear you. . . but, this is a false dichotomy.

" I don't disagree that we should be moving into cities. I just don't think it's sound to say that we should be targeting cities because that's where the cultural influence is. We don't want cultural influence. We want the influence of the truth and the truth alone. Because if we have any other influence, there will be a question about what effected the change. Was it the truth of the Gospel or was it the societal influence of the culture? "


the answer is, . . . Yes, it was the truth of the gospel, causing societal change via the work of the Spirit through Christians.

5/12/2008 12:05:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Seeing Keller's thought/ministry being forced into one of these hasty and untidy binaries gives me great pause and should make us all think a bit about Dever's lecture.

I don't think it's all that forced. It seems that it's quite naturally going there. If you check out JT's post, "Is our Gospel too big or too small?" that CT article is saying the same thing I'm saying: that Keller's position is in between NT Wright's and Dever's.

what we are all ultimately convinced of is our own self-sufficiency and requisite disdain for others.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If by "we" you mean "me," I'll ask you to substantiate that. Even if you're not, I'll say that we can be passionately concerned for winning the souls of the elect and understand that as being the mission of the Good News of Jesus Christ without being self-sufficient and having disdain for others.

5/12/2008 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Daryl,

Thanks dude. You hit the nail on the head.

Aaron,

Where in the Bible do we see societal change accomplishing the mission of the Church?

5/12/2008 12:07:00 PM  
Blogger aaron said...

Daryl and Mike

Don't get hung up on the term, "pre-evangelism" By, Pre-evangelism. . I mean things like. . . . walking down the street, having coffee with a non-Christian friend,. . building relationships. . . moving to a city.

Basically, being obedient to God's call on your life. And, then, yes, declare the gospel in the context of those relationships and situations.

You guys are looking for chapter and verse, and I'm just saying that Paul went to Mars Hill, he stood up. . . he used their poets. . . Jesus fed people, he healed their sick, he loved them.

And, yes, all of those things were followed up by a gospel presentation. Keller is right, that in the cities, there is often a) no church to preach the gospel and b)no church for a person to go to that would radically alter their worldview (thus afftecting their life, their job, and their culture shaping influence in their city).

It could be over-indulged as pragmatism, to be sure. But, I hear Keller just being strategic and declaring that when we go after the cities, missionally, there is the potential for a larger effect on the culture at large, for the gospel. Billy Graham, had meetings in large world centers, Paul, went to Rome. . . .

Aaron

5/12/2008 12:14:00 PM  
Blogger aaron said...

Mike,

that's backwards. . the gospel causes societal change, (ideally).

I'm not arguing for the social gospel here. I'm arguing that evangelicals have largely abandond the cities (cultural shaping centers) and so our culture is being influenced from a largely gospel-less place. (generalities, to be sure)

Aaron

5/12/2008 12:17:00 PM  
Blogger aaron said...

Mike and Daryl,

(ok, so we're unashamedly off topic now :) )

Is the only method of evangelism Xenos, stranger, man on the street proclamation?

Or, in your view, is there a place for Oikos, building relationships, living prophetically in a place, and "tilling the soil" in our missiology and evangelism.

I'll give three references for it.

Romans 10:13-15
Acts 16:31
I Corinthians 3:5-10

Aaron

5/12/2008 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger donsands said...

Yep, More Cowbell, that's what's missin' alright.

5/12/2008 12:47:00 PM  
Blogger Daryl said...

Aaron,

Perhaps it's merely a terminology thing. Where I was taught it, it became clearly a cop-out.

Perhaps a better way to say it is that we have a responsibility to evangelize our friends and acquaintances just as surely as we have a responsibility to evangelize strangers.

I equate the term 'pre-evangelism' to those people who say a man makes a "sacrifice" to go to work each day for his family. In both cases nothing new is being done. The "pre-evangelist" is merely living his life, just as a married man goes to work just as surely as he would if he was single.

As a wise man once pointed out, if all our evangelism was "friendship evangelism" we'd never reach all the lost because that takes too long...

5/12/2008 12:54:00 PM  
Blogger Daryl said...

Anyways, as has been pointed out this statement "But that is not the way to make the cities heavily Christian—which is the crying need today." is a particularly non-Calvinistic thing to say.
The need is to preach to clear gospel. Jesus will make the cities heavily Christian or not, as he sees fit.
(For the record, notice that I said we need to preach the gospel, just in case someone tries to make that last sentence Hyper-Calvinistic. It is not.)

5/12/2008 12:56:00 PM  
Blogger Philip said...

Mike,
Thanks for the comment-that clears a bit of it up for me. I think the issue may well be that I saw Dever's lecture as more of a warning about the dangers of adding in stuff about cultural transformation etc...than you did. You seem to be more concerned with issues of the Church's mission, whereas my concern is with the winnowing effect of "us" and "them" within the Church itself.

For this reason, I am greatly concerned with attempts to "place" Keller as if, once we understood him to be either "this" or "that" or somewhere "between" people on a continuum, we could then do away with actually reckoning with his claims concerning the value of urban living. I think that whole enterprise is the dangerous temptation that, sadly, has become the story of Protestantism in the US. Does that help clarify things?

5/12/2008 01:20:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Is the only method of evangelism Xenos, stranger, man on the street proclamation?

Certainly not.

Or, in your view, is there a place for Oikos, building relationships, living prophetically in a place, and "tilling the soil" in our missiology and evangelism.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I mean... sure we can be in our own context of life, and therefore have relationships with people. But when we don't proclaim the Gospel to those people we're being disobedient. That is, I don't think we can take refuge for our reticence by saying, "Well, I'm planning on proclaiming, but now I'm in the building-relationships stage." I think that we have to see our not proclaiming the Gospel as unbelief.

Just another comment about "tilling the soil." Again, this shows to be non-Calvinistic. The soil of unbelievers' hearts is always the packed soil of the path until the Sower breaks it up through the spreading of His seed. To think that our building relationships or getting to know people or talking to them about their interests is somehow preparing their heart to receive the Gospel is simply unbiblical.

With that, I'll go to your references.

Romans 10:13-15 is simply saying preach the Gospel. How will they hear without a preacher? Not "How will they be ready to listen without pre-evangelism?" This supports of a paradigm of simple proclamation of the Gospel. It makes no room for specific contextual relationships because the Gospel is to be preached in all contexts.

In Acts 16:31, Paul is hardly meeting with the jailer for coffee every Thursday. Paul was imprisoned for his unabashed, counter-cultural, and continuous proclamation of the Gospel. In jail, he met a jailer, who witnessed the work of God. Paul proclaimed to him (without knowing him for longer than he'd been in jail) salvation by grace through faith. The jailer took him to his house to care for them and his household believed. Again, that's simple proclamation. There's no "tilling the soil." ::Glory revealed:: "What must I do to be saved?" "Believe." And he believed and was baptized.

1 Corinthians 3:5-10 speaks of building on no other foundation. This also supports what I've been saying. The foundation upon which all kingdom work is to be built is the Word of God (Matt 7:24ff; 1Pet 1:23-25). That means if my relationship with an unbeliever is not based around my preaching the Word to him, I'm disobeying the model set forth in 1Cor 3. When you seek to engage someone based on their fallenness -- based on who they are as natural people -- you are attempting to build on a foundation other than the one which was laid.

Again, I don't think the only legitimate form of evangelism is one where people are strangers. However, the verses you quoted seem to actually support that view. I do think there's a place for preaching to our neighbors and friends in the context of our relationships with them. But that's only because we are to be preaching the Gospel all the time and in every situation. We don't say, "I'm not going to give him the Gospel yet because I haven't effectively 'tilled the soil.'" That works fine for Arminians who think their presentation will affect the response. But for those with a biblical anthropology, hamartiology, and missiology, we will preach the Word promiscuously -- to everyone in all contexts --, and God will gather in His elect. And HE will get all the glory... not our strategies and methods of presentation.

5/12/2008 01:56:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Philip,

I think I might see your point. I'll think on it a bit more though. For now, let me say that I think it's important to preach the Gospel in the cities. I agree with Keller that this should be done. I just disagree (strongly) with why he says this should be done.

We should preach the Gospel in the cities for the same reasons we should preach the Gospel in the countryside, the suburbs, everywhere. It's because Jesus Christ has set apart for Himself a people whom He means to purify and be presented with as His bride to glorify Himself. He has given the church the glorious task of preaching His words that call His sheep into their pen. Those sheep are scattered in the city and in the country.

So that's where I'm coming from. I do want to guard against self-sufficiency, isolation, and an us vs. them mentality... because only Christ is sufficient, He's sent us into the world, and I don't know who the elect are. There is an "us vs. them." Otherwise we couldn't be commanded to love our enemies. So my mission is to preach the Gospel to all, thereby loving my enemies, and also thereby preaching the Word by which Christ calls the elect to repentance.

Hope that clears things up.

5/12/2008 02:01:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

One of the pastors at my home church has said that he thinks one of the biggest issues in the next 10-20 years in reformed circles will be related to issues of contextualizing the gospel. I think you could expand that into the larger question of what is the gospel, exactly?

While we might all share a common confession, there are some, like Keller, who affirm a broader understanding of the gospel as being, "Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from the judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever.” Others, like Dever, are going to argue that the essence of the gospel is salvation of souls.

Personally, I fall on the former side, but to get into why opens up questions not only about the nature of the gospel, but of how we read scripture. (Having read the comments, I think Mike and I would likely read the Scriptures differently, and I think those differences would do a lot to explain our different conclusions. I think the Bible is a story of redemption, comprised of many different genres. I'm not sure how Mike would define it, but if I had to guess I'd say his definition would focus more on didactic, propositional teachings, that Scripture tells us who God is and who we are, or something along those lines. Mike - please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your position at all! I think we've spoken before either here or at team pyro and it was helpful to me so I trust that you'll do that :). )

Ultimately though there's no way that everyone will convert to one position or another, so what I think is best is for those of us on the side of a broader understanding of the gospel (which, I'm guessing is going to be a lot of PCA people because this understanding is heavily influenced by covenant theology) to spend time talking to those advocating a narrower understanding of it (which I'm guessing will be more Baptists and non-denominational Christians) and vice-versa. In the end, we'll probably still disagree, but hopefully we understand where the other side is coming from and can continue to pray for them and serve them as brothers and sisters.

5/12/2008 02:07:00 PM  
Blogger Daryl said...

Jake,

I fear that this idea of "the broader understanding of the gospel" is not so much a broader understanding as it is a conflating of the gospel and the necessary results of the gospel.
When to join the two, we confuse those to whom we are preaching into believing that they are somehow "Christian" because they are actively pursuing the results of the gospel while leaving the real gospel behind.
It's that kind of thinking that makes Mother Theresa and Ghandi examples for people to follow if they wish to be Christian.
The pure gospel is simple, Jesus came and lived, fully human, fully divine, died and rose again to save his people from their sins according to the Scriptures.

The results of the changed life that the gospel brings are an entirely other thing and a completely natural thing. We dare not preach the results to the lost and expect them to become saved, when it is the gospel alone that saves, not the life that follows.

This is where we need to differentiate what we are preaching to whom. That is, we give the gospel to the unsaved. We preach both the gospel and the necessary result of the gospel to those professing to be already saved.

I daresay we tend to preach the results as though they are the gospel because it sounds good to unbelievers so they'll give us less grief over it.

Remember this, the gospel is supposed to be offensive. Where is the offense in "feed the poor"?
On the other hand the offense in "all other ways lead to hell" is fairly offensive on the face of it, if you're part of another way.

In short...that's why I think agitating for a "broader understanding of the gospel" is no such thing, but rather a transparent capitulation to the spirit of the age.

5/12/2008 02:31:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Jake,

I would say the Bible is the written revelation of God in Christ, given to us for us to see Him in His glory. When that happens (i.e., when we see what He's like), it follows that we do necessarily see what we're like too. So what you said you think I believe about the Bible is true. But it's also incomplete. I also believe the Bible contains a story of redemption, because it was composed over long periods of time, and all of history is a history of redemption. But I don't think it's right to approach the Bible as solely a story. In fact, I know it's not right. If that's how we were supposed to read it, it'd all be narrative, but it certainly isn't.

We have to think about the character of God when thinking about the nature of the Bible. God is a God whose ultimate purpose it is to get glory. He does that by revealing Himself, because He is worthy of that glory. He does not merely "share thoughts," or "give insights." He makes declarations. His Word is like a fire, a hammer, a two-edged sword. So we must read the Bible as the instrument by which God speaks to us (Heb 1:1-3), to reveal Himself.

Next, I don't think we can treat this issue so nonchalantly. We're talking about the nature of the Gospel here, not whether we should eat meat vs. vegetables, or have guitars vs. organs in church. What is the Gospel? Does it include X? Or is it only Y? These are fundamental questions to answer. I appreciate your desire for unity and deference, but unity is a sham if it's not based on truth. How can we be united when we disagree on the nature of the Gospel?

I'm not trying to pick a fight. Honest. What I'm trying to do is demonstrate the urgency of this topic. We simply cannot be content to let this go as a peripheral issue, when we could have people running around effectively preaching different Gospels! So again, I'm not trying to divide and call Keller and all those who agree with him non-Christians. What I am trying to do is to persuade you brothers to see that this philosophy of ministry is based on error, and I want to call you away from that in love and in truth.

We're confusing the effects of the Gospel with the Gospel. That is, indeed, "a world of hurt." I want to see Christians come to an agreement on what the Gospel is, not be polite about having different Gospels.

5/12/2008 02:33:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

I daresay we tend to preach the results as though they are the gospel because it sounds good to unbelievers so they'll give us less grief over it.

Amen.

5/12/2008 02:34:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

Man, it's tough to know how to respond because the conversation here is hitting on so many different points, I don't know where to begin....

Daryl - I'm not advocating the social gospel here by any means, but rather the same definition of the gospel that Keller offers and that I quoted in my last post. And while I would say that the examples of Mother Teresa and Gandhi are useful to us as Christians, I would not say they are perfect examples, obviously there are significant problems in both cases with their understanding of God, human beings, and sin. However, in terms of understanding how churches might be able to function as voices for the poor, I do find tremendous help in their examples.

In terms of a compromise to make the gospel more palatable, I don't think that's my motivation. I pray that it isn't. I'm just trying to be faithful to the scriptures, and when I look at the scriptures as a whole, I see a trajectory of redemption that includes human beings (and to which human participation is integral) but which goes far beyond only human beings. I read a quote once (by, I think Michael Williams of Covenant Seminary, but don't quote me (har har) on that) that said, "The scope of God's redemption is as broad as the scope of his creation." And I think that's true and I think that's the goal of God's work in the world. Obviously that includes the judgment of sin poured out on Jesus at the cross, by which repentant human beings are forgiven of their sins and made right with God. I don't question that for a moment, I fully affirm penal substitutionary atonement. However, I do question whether that is "the essence" of the gospel.

As far as how we understand scripture goes, I think we agree on what scripture is, we just disagree on what to emphasize. I would put greater emphasis on the story of redemption. It's not that I wish to marginalize correct doctrine, correct doctrine is essential. I'm just leery of a doctrine-for-doctrine's-sake way of thinking. But, I do fully agree with all that you said about the Scriptures.

Last thing, I don't mean to make it appear as if this is an insignificant difference. Obviously, the definition of the gospel is something for which we must fight and fight hard because the church lives and dies on a pure understanding of the gospel. However, I think the disagreement here is not so much about the definition of the gospel as it is the scope of the gospel. In which case I do think it's fair to say, "look, we're brothers united together for the gospel. however, the difference in our perspectives might be sharp enough that we need to serve in separate ministries due to our own biblically-based convictions."

Does that help? If it makes you feel better Mike, I don't get the sense that you're trying to pick a fight. I get the sense that you're a passionate follower of Jesus who cares about the gospel. And that's a commendable, praiseworthy thing :).

Last thing - Full disclosure, I'm still very much in process on this issue and much of my understanding of it has been formed just over the past 6 months through interactions with a few PCA pastors in my hometown, reading Tim Keller, and listening to Michael Williams "God and His Word" class available online at Covenant Seminary's website. If you want a more articulate explanation of what I'm trying to say, you might check out the transcripts of Williams' lectures (especially his lectures on the biblical storyline)

Thanks for responding, I love talking about these kind of things :).

~jake

5/12/2008 02:57:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

You're right Jake. Many points. Too many to respond to. I'll pick one.

However, I think the disagreement here is not so much about the definition of the gospel as it is the scope of the gospel.

I think you're wrong about this. This disagreement about the definition of the Gospel might have its scope in full view, but there are still differing answers to the question, "What is the Gospel."

Keller answers that question this way, "Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from the judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever."

That's a definitional statement, and I disagree with it. The "and" makes it do too much. It is most certainly conflating the effects of the Gospel with the Gospel.

Just one thing, though. Could somebody point me to the Scriptures upon which we say God is restoring the creation? I know we have Col 1 where God is reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, but I still think that's talking about people and not the creation. After all, isn't this creation going to be destroyed, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth, not this one revamped?

5/12/2008 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Daryl said...

Jake,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. If I may, I'd like to key on one thing you said.

"I would put greater emphasis on the story of redemption."

To which I would say, if the story of redemption is not the story of God redeeming from the nations, a people for himself, then what is it?
That is, redemption is, by definition, a buying back. I understand the whole Bible to be teaching a re-purchase, if you like, of God's people. As rescuing of them from the wrath of God they (we) so richly deserve. Everything else centres on that.
The redemption of the earth, if anything, is for the sake of the elect and for God's glory.

So when you say "I would put greater emphasis on the story of redemption." and at the same time you say "I fully affirm penal substitutionary atonement. However, I do question whether that is "the essence" of the gospel." I see a huge disconnect.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is redemption. I have a hard time seeing what you are saying as somehow being a more fully orbed gospel in the light of "you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins".

I see feeding the poor as a good thing, and sometimes a necessary thing, but I don't see it as presented anywhere as part of the gospel per se.

Help me out here.

5/12/2008 03:07:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

Wow quick responses... awesome.

In terms of pointing to a specific text that teaches what I'm talking about, this is where the difference in how we read scripture comes in, I think. I don't have one verse that explicitly says this. It's more a work of trying to synthesize multiple scriptural principles and it's something I'm honestly still trying to grasp myself. Again, citing Williams, he's written an entire book on this idea called Far as the Curse is Found. One of the points he makes here, and I think it's worth considering, is that sin enters the world in Genesis 3 but God doesn't begin working with the people of Israel till Genesis 12.

Williams argues that the flood, which along with the Tower of Babel is much of what happens between those two accounts, is ultimately representative of God's desire to preserve his created world by ridding it of those who are hurting it, while still preserving a remnant through which he will continue his plan of redemption.

Daryl - That's a really good question and one I'm still trying to figure out how to answer. I guess I'll try starting here: The point to which scripture is building is the restoration of all things. Obviously that includes individuals brought into right relationship with God. Those individuals then exist within a culture of shalom, in which all things co-exist in peace and harmony. (Hopefully the fact that I'm sounding a lot like a hippy isn't going to throw either of you ;). ) So when we talk about God redeeming all things we don't mean that he redeems rocks in the same way that he redeems human beings. He doesn't redeem nature because nature isn't fallen. What we mean when we say he redeems all things is that God's redemptive work isn't focused on making a bunch of individual people in right relationship with him, period. We mean that God's redemptive work means creating a world in which God's intent for creation is fully realized as people live in joyful submission to his covenant lordship for his glory. Is that helpful?

Mike, I don't mean to answer a question with a question, but I don't know any other way to proceed: If the second half of Keller's definition is something other than the gospel, in what category do we place it?

Is it something we do? Or something God does that isn't part of the gospel? I guess I'm not really sure I understand where you're coming from here. Are there redemptive things God does that we shouldn't call the gospel?

~jake

5/12/2008 03:30:00 PM  
Blogger aaron said...

Well,

I think if one's missiology and evangelism doesn't leave room for tactics, persuasion, and "moving into the city to affect culture with the gospel", . . .then I think it has gone too far.

The definition of the gospel is a smaller one than "the whole scope of creation".

But, the good news does/should affect the whole scope of creation as saved humans interact with said creation. So, I think that as long as we say that everything STARTS with redemption of sin, and the soul being made alive in Christ, than I don't have a problem with those conclusions following after that.

Mike, I would just like to point out, that in this and other threads, you have distanced yourself from Billy Graham, Tim Keller, and Charles Spurgeon(and perhaps others). You're a smarter guy than I am, and you have every right to have a position and hold to it. I just think that perhaps there should be more room for a diversity of belief on some of these issues (not the gospel).

Thanks,
Aaron

5/12/2008 03:42:00 PM  
Blogger pduggie said...

"God is a God whose ultimate purpose it is to get glory."

That's not a trinitarian understanding of God.

5/12/2008 04:08:00 PM  
Blogger donsands said...

The Gospel, pure and simple, is the Cross, Jesus Christ crucified, and risen.
It's foolishness to the heathen, gentiles, and non-religious. It's a stumbling block to the religious minded. Both groups hate it. It takes away the good works from the self-righteous religious types, and is foolish to believe a man dying on a Cross can save, and that he rose from the dead.

The gospel is an offense, and must be, except to those who are being saved it is a sweet smelling fragrance.
The culture in the Body of Christ, the church, which in many ways is an offense, ought not to be.

5/12/2008 06:40:00 PM  
Blogger Caleb said...

Mike,

Here in Romans 8 we see Paul talking about the redemption of the creation:

"18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved.

5/12/2008 06:50:00 PM  
Blogger Kenny Clark said...

I think this is a great list for elders of a church to read through and ask "Are these things found among our body?" I'm printing them out and passing them out at our elder team meeting tonight.

5/12/2008 08:12:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Jake:If the second half of Keller's definition is something other than the gospel, in what category do we place it?

An effect, result, or consequence of the Gospel.

Is it something we do?

No.

Or something God does that isn't part of the gospel?

Yes. You understand fine.

Aaron:The definition of the gospel is a smaller one than "the whole scope of creation". But, the good news does/should affect the whole scope of creation as saved humans interact with said creation.

Yes. This is what I've been saying. The Gospel has implications and effects for the whole scope of creation, but these things are effects and implications, not the Gospel itself. That God will one day destroy the creation and bring a new heavens and a new earth upon which His people will glorify Him forever, is an implication of the Gospel that God has called anyone "His people" who once were never His people.

So, I think that as long as we say that everything STARTS with redemption of sin, and the soul being made alive in Christ, than I don't have a problem with those conclusions following after that.

Good. The Gospel has to do with the Father bringing glory to Himself by creating life out of that which was dead, and redeeming and purchasing a bride for His Holy Son... a bride who could not present herself spotless and worthy... a bride which the Godhead Himself devised all of history to cleanse and purify and sanctify and glorify and finally to present as a worthy servant of His glorious Son.

Mike, I would just like to point out, that in this and other threads, you have distanced yourself from Billy Graham, Tim Keller, and Charles Spurgeon(and perhaps others).

Aaron, I do not believe I have said anything that Spurgeon would disagree with. You're welcome to produce a quote of a sermon or book passage that might show otherwise. Until then, I'll have to disagree strongly with that notion. I believe Spurgeon would say the very same things I'm saying if he were to be asked such questions... even in the late 19th century, let alone right now.

As far as Keller and Graham, I'm OK with distancing myself from them. If you're not sure as to why by now, I fear much our discussion has been in vain.

I just think that perhaps there should be more room for a diversity of belief on some of these issues (not the gospel).

But again, Aaron, you beg the question. "Some of these issues" are being mistaken for the Gospel. I don't disagree with the notion that God wants us to be all about preaching the Gospel to all we encounter. I don't disagree with the notion of moving into a different environment because one is called to preach the Gospel to people there. I do disagree with calling the "restoration of the creation" the Gospel, and saying we should move into cities because they have the biggest societal influence. I do disagree that Jesus calls the Church us to re-shape society. If people disagree with me, fine. But if people disagree with me while saying what they're saying is the Gospel (thus necessarily saying that I'm denying the Gospel), well then there's no room for disagreement unless one of us wants to concede that we're a heretic.

pduggie:"God is a God whose ultimate purpose it is to get glory."

That's not a trinitarian understanding of God.


Sure it is.

Caleb,

Thanks for that. Is that the only passage the "restore-the-creation" folks turn to? If so, I think the remedy is just a bit of clarification. The creation will be set free from its corruption by its Divine destruction and Divine recreation. We read in 2 Peter:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

So we see clearly that this present creation will not be restored in the way that the "restore-the-creation" folks are saying it will be. In fact, Peter makes it clear that we're not looking for such a thing, but rather we're looking for new heavens and a new earth, which is to be the fulfillment of the restoration of God's creation by God Himself, not us.

It's imperative that we understand that we will do nothing to usher in the kingdom of God. That is God's prerogative. It's just as imperative to understand that we will do nothing to restore the creation. How preposterous to think that as fallen creatures ourselves we could ever restore a creation that we didn't even create! Again, the restoration of God's creation is God's work and His alone.

Our work is to preach the message we've received. That's all. We are to preach that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. That means, among other things, that God is absolutely pure and holy and so cannot permit that which is not holy to be in communion with Him.

Because all of humanity sinned in Adam (Rom 5:12ff, 1Cor 15:22), we are born into a human nature that is corrupt, and by nature opposed to God (Eph 2:1-3). The result is that we cannot enter into God’s presence. We’re “darkness,” that has no fellowship with Light.

Then, wonder of wonders, God, in His infinite mercy, sends His Son who lives a life worthy of God’s standard of Light and purity and holiness! And God’s Son willingly lays down His perfect life as a sacrifice for the imperfect lives of a people, whose humanity, with its corrupt nature, is bent away from God and incapable of being with God or pleasing Him. His sacrifice imputes His life — His record of holiness — to those who believe in Him… to those who acknowledge their total inability to be truly good, who acknowledge their moral bankruptcy, and trust in a righteousness outside themselves for justification before God's terrible holiness.

Where’s the glory in this? It's in the fact that God, who is Holiness and Light and Purity, can only be pleased with that which meets His own standard. But no one does… except Jesus Christ… except HIMSELF. So what does He do? He takes that which is dead and utterly contemptible (us) and gives them HIMSELF. Now, those humans which were dead, live by faith because He has given to them what He requires of them. And the culmination of this life by faith in God will be the day when we see Him face to face. For Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, to dwell in His presence forever, enjoying consummate satisfaction in Him, giving Him the glory He deserves.

That's the Gospel. That's what we are called to preach. When we preach the Word of God as if it is powerful to save, everything else's insufficiency becomes so evident. And Christ then is glorified and exalted, because it wasn't the methods that did anything, it wasn't the messenger that did anything, it was the message that did everything. If you'll forgive my dramatics, brothers, I call you to crucify both your methods and your messengers (yourselves), and to preach this wonderfully sufficient, all-powerful message, that e made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

5/12/2008 08:49:00 PM  
Blogger SBC said...

When I first expressed appreciation for Keller's emphasis, I failed to discern what was in some people's minds.

Reaching large population centers just makes sense, from an evangelistic POV.
Influencing culture, on the other hand, may be an indirect result of our mission (though my eschatology leads me to doubt it), but it is not the direct goal of our mission.
I am not comfortable with talk of a "broader" gospel.

So let me clarify: if evangelicalism is heading toward another social-gospel controversy, I side firmly with Dever.

5/12/2008 11:23:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

One final comment, because I'm afraid something I said earlier may have been unhelpful.

I do not mean to pit this as an issue of Keller/major evangelical leader vs. Dever/major evangelical leader. The way I phrased an earlier comment suggested that I did, and I'm sorry for that.

I hope my comments don't derail this into an I-of-Paul, I-of-Cephas debate. If I did, I apologize. The point I was trying to make is that, from my understanding at least, Keller and Dever seem to have different - though I wouldn't say mutually exclusive - notions of what is meant when we use the term "the gospel," and I think it'd be helpful to dialogue about those differences, and I think that's been done here.

My only other request to those still of the opinion that the gospel is primarily about the salvation of souls is that they would read Michael Williams book Far as the Curse is Found so that they can be better-familiarized with the argument being made, as he is a far better defender of the idea than I am. Also, if there's any other resources that would be helpful for me to better understand your perspective, please let me know and I'd be happy to check them out.

5/13/2008 12:23:00 AM  
Blogger Jake said...

One last thing - I've ignored the comments so far, but I wanted to address them before we're done: I don't know how many ways to say this but I am not advocating for the social gospel. I am not advocating for any form of theological liberalism. I'm as reformed as they come. I'm five-point, Covenantal, I affirm the Westminster Confession and the Fundamentals of the Faith. I'm not a theological liberal trying to spread false teaching in the church. If this were a conversation about theological liberalism, I would stand right next to every one of you who condemns it as a religion other than orthodox Christianity.

I don't know how to say this any more clearly than I already have, yet I continue to see people equating what I'm describing to the social gospel and it isn't. The social gospel was a teaching that rose up in the late 19th century in New York in response to the widespread poverty of the day. However, it eventually came to ignore individual sin and tended to see all evil as systemic in nature and therefore turned the Christian life into a sort of works-based philanthropic endeavor. I'm not advocating this position in any way, shape, or form.

Please, some of you have done a wonderful job of being civil and engaging with me as a brother, but others of you continue to misrepresent what I'm advocating, despite continued attempts by myself and others, as well as our frequent reference to respected theologians who hold these views. I'm not quoting Fosdick when I advocate for these ideas, I'm quoting ordained ministers in an orthodox, historically and confessional reformed denomination. We're not wolves trying to feed on the flock. The pejorative "social gospel" label is getting really old.

I'm trying as hard as I can to be fair to the views of those who disagree with me. I'm asking sincere questions with a desire to understand your point of view. I really am. And if it's come across as anything besides that, I'm sorry. But, as a brother, I'm imploring you to show the same courtesy to me. So please, can we drop the social gospel label? That's another conversation entirely and it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

OK, sorry about that. /rant :D

5/13/2008 01:31:00 AM  
Blogger SBC said...

This post has been removed by the author.

5/13/2008 02:09:00 AM  
Blogger SBC said...

I don't think that anybody has accused anybody of affirming or practicing a "capital S" Social-gospel.

Nevertheless, common denominators between "capital S" social-gospel and Keller-esque "broader" gospel have been noted.

Keller has not moved away from the centrality of sin, penal-substitutionary atonement, faith, and Justification.
However, he has added--at least peripherally--some kind of social element to the gospel itself.

It is the trajectory that raises eyebrows.

Nobody denies that the Scripture is 70% narrative.
Nobody denies that the gospel will produce compassion in the lives of those who embrace it.
Nobody denies that the redemption of creation is a major theme in redemptive history.

What we deny is that the word "gospel," as used in the NT, means (even in part) social action.

The Bible is full of "good messages." The question is, which "good message" did Paul have in mind when he preached the "good message"?

5/13/2008 04:27:00 AM  
Blogger Daryl said...

Jake,

This has been a good discussion. I won't answer your last direct answer to me, simply because Mike Riccardi already gave a masterful response. I could hardly add to that.

One thing I will address however, is the social gospel thing.

(Incidentally, while I've enjoyed the discussion, the claim that people are labelling your belief as a "social gospel" is completely unfounded. I just did a search and, until you mentioned it, only Aaron even said it, and then to reassure everyone that he, like you, was not advocating it...)

I know you've said several times that you're not advocating a social gospel. I'm happy and relieved to hear it, but I think you're overlooking something.

That something is just this. The advocates of the social gospel way back in the early 1900's when it began (and all of it's various reappearances since then) didn't set out to make the gospel a purely social thing. What they set out to do is (as you are here advocating) to expand the gospel to include social issues.
The plan wasn't to change the gospel but to push it beyond salvation from sin of a people set apart from God since before the foundation of the world, to doing good and caring to the uncared for and loving people. Good things all.

The thing is, confusing categories (and terminologies) is a problem because, despite our best intentions, we, being people and all, like results. That's not an indictment per se, but we just do. Preachers want conversions, firemen want less fires, police want slower drivers.
So, as a result, we all tend to the pragmatic, and when we expand the gospel to include ,as gospel, all those good things that belong in another category, we will naturally and inevitably tend toward the parts of our newly redefined "gospel" that bring the most visible and "countable" results.
Which is easier, to convince people to repent of their sin and turn to Jesus as the ONLY way of salvation, or to convince people to feed the poor, drive eco-friendly cars and give money to organizations seeking justice for the oppressed?

Thats why this is such an important issue, and why you will continue to hear "social gospel" in reaction to what you are saying as long as you confuse the categories.

This is a spiritual battle and, frankly, the devil doesn't really care if we feed the poor and help the oppressed, what matters is the eternal souls of people, so that's why the "social gospel" will always inevitably obscure the real need for people to flee the wrath (of God) to come.

Follow?

5/13/2008 06:37:00 AM  
Blogger aaron said...

Mike and Daryl,

Well, we disagree on much. Thanks for the wonderful dialogue, though. One thing I will take away is that I need to be more declarative of the gospel in my relationships. Not just living the gospel, but speaking it as well. Thanks for that.
I still would heartily recommend "Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism; the battle for Gospel Preaching" Iaian Murray for some of the Calvinistic method talk that has been tossed around here.

God bless,
Aaron

5/13/2008 07:52:00 AM  
Blogger Jake said...

SBC and Daryl - Reading my last post, it came across way too defensively and I didn't mean for it too, I just felt like I'd read the label social gospel being applied to this broader understanding of God's redemptive plan in the world and I was feeling frustrated and I let it get the better of me. Thank you both for gracious responses.

Also, like Aaron, I think I'm just going to have to say we disagree on a lot. I do appreciate the discussion though and I'm sorry if my last little rant above marred an otherwise helpful discussion. Thanks for your responses, they have been encouraging to me :).

5/13/2008 09:02:00 AM  
Blogger SBC said...

If you're up to humoring me just a little longer, I wouldn't mind continuing this discussion. I'm curious.

What do we mean by "gospel"?
I know, I know, that's what this whole discussion is about, right? It sounds as though I just regressed to the beginning of this whole thing.
But that's not what I mean. I'm going back further than that.
Let me put it this way-- In trying to define the gospel, what exactly are we trying to define?

In other words...we are trying to discover just what is entailed in this thing called, "the gospel." Kind of like discovering just what packages are kept in a particular room. But if we don't know what room we're looking in, how will we ever learn anything more about it?

For instance, some of us are trying to discover whatever it is that Paul was referring to.
Others of us are equating "gospel" with "evangelism."
Others of us are looking at the lexical meaning of "gospel" apart from the contextual meaning.
Others of us use the word "gospel" to refer to anything that plays a part in redemptive history.

So what is it? What are we trying to define? Whatever it is that Paul is referring to? A doctrine? A way of communicating that doctrine? Redemptive truth as it applies to individuals? Redemptive truth as it applies to the entire meta-narrative?

Everybody is throwing around the word "gospel"... but for all I know, each one of you independently invented the word "gospel," and now you're deliberating over what it should mean.
Was the word used prior to you? If so, what did it mean? When somebody said it, what was he referring to?

5/13/2008 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger Jacob said...

This post has been removed by the author.

5/13/2008 10:09:00 AM  
Blogger Jacob said...

This post has been removed by the author.

5/13/2008 10:09:00 AM  
Blogger Jake said...

(Sorry for repeated posts, having some computer problems on my end of it... or, as is more likely the case, user problems.)

SBC - I was actually thinking the same thing as we were discussing, and I'm definitely up for continuing it.

When I use the word "gospel" I'm referring to the over-arching meta-narrative of redemption told in the Scriptures of which the atonement is an essential aspect, but which is broader than just the atonement. It's the creation of shalom in the world as God continues to establish his kingdom through the work of his people made possible by the atoning work of his son.

I think this quote sums up the Christian message, which I would say is synonymous with "the gospel" as well as any I've ever heard: "The essence of the Christian religion consists therein: that the creation of the Father, destroyed by sin, is again restored in the death of the Son of God and recreated by the grace of the Holy Spirit to a Kingdom of God." -- Herman Bavinck, a 19th century Dutch Reformed theologian, who was heavily influenced by Abraham Kuyper. (Kuyper is the guy who said, "There is not one square inch of creation of which Jesus Christ does not say 'Mine!'"

My argument for using it in this way is that, on a real basic level, the word gospel comes from a Greek word simply meaning good news. Further, I believe the original context was that an "evangel" or good news was issued across the empire at the birth of the emperor's heir. The idea was that the son of God had been born and he would bring peace to the world. Consequently, early Christians adopted this term to describe their message - that the literal son of God, the Messiah of Israel, had been born - the one who would bring peace and prosperity to the world.

What do you mean when you use the word, SBC?

5/13/2008 10:12:00 AM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Aaron,

I gotta tell ya... I'm a bit bugged by your repeated insinuations that I'm a hyper-calvinist. Since you seem to have the book (one that I probably won't get around to reading any time soon), why don't you produce some selection of what Spurgeon has said is hyper-calvinism, and then match it up with things that I've actually said. We'll engage from there. Until then, please leave ad hominem insinuations of my errant theology at the proverbial door.

5/13/2008 10:20:00 AM  
Blogger aaron said...

Mike,

nothing ad-hominem here. I don't claim to know that you are a hyper-calvinist, or anything else. Sorry if I came across that way. . .

My recommendation of this book is simply because I feel that Spurgeon's standing up for Gospel preaching and method can be applied in many different circumstances,. . some of which we've talked about here.

The point of the book is not theological camps. . but the point is that we should be preaching the gospel, being creative, persuasive, and loving in our methods.

So, please don't hear me placing anyone in any theological camps. I'm recommending the book for it's applications.

Apologies,
Aaron

5/13/2008 10:25:00 AM  
Blogger Daryl said...

Jake,

The gospel according to Paul:

1 Cor 15:1-4

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

And here in 2Tim 1:8-11

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity..."

Pretty clear.

And this is why we're so concerned that you get it right:

Galatians 1:6-9

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

Before saying that you aren't planning on deserting Him, remember that the Galatians, strictly speaking, hadn't either. They had added the doing of good works to the gospel and a necessary requirement (not result) for salvation. That's why I insist that the gospel is one thing and one thing only, and that doing good is another category which results from the gospel and is not the gospel itself.



Do you have any reference describing the "expanded" gospel you are talking about?

5/13/2008 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

I think the Bavinck quote places just too much emphasis on man (and creation) as the primary beneficiary of the Gospel.

On the Desiring God website, John Piper has a headline entitled, "Good News: God loves Himself." I think he gets to the heart of the distinction we're making here. Below is a quote from the article.

-------
But notice that this ultimately loving act has at the center of it the vindication of the righteousness of God. Good Friday love is God-glorifying love. God exalts God at the cross. If he didn't, he could not be just and rescue us from sin. But it is a mistake to say, "Well, if the aim was to rescue us, then we were the ultimate goal of the cross." No, we were rescued from sin in order that we might see and savor the glory of God. This is the ultimately loving aim of Christ's death. He did not die to make much of us, but to free us to enjoy making much of God forever.

5/13/2008 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger Casey said...

Michael,

The Banvinck quote is clearly a Trinitarian expression of the gospel. Can you explain how it is emphasizing man too much?

I do think you bring up something by quoting Piper. When you said "God is the primary beneficiary of the gospel", it made me think this is where the tension lies. I think some would call God the benefactor and us the beneficiary but you via Piper make God both the benefactor and the beneficiary.

To use an imperfect analogy, it's like a dad sweeping his kid up out of the middle of the street before an on rushing car. Now, the good news can be seen three different ways:

1.) the child lives

2.) the dad gets to remain a dad

3.) the child and dad get to spend life together as a family.

Its three different ways of expressing the same event. Clearly the central act is the saving but that doesn't negate the other two from being good news, it just magnifies the saving act all the more.

Is it not true that we get different expressions of the gospel in the NT? Good news of the kingdom and good news of forgiveness of sins? An expression of those two together seems ok.

5/13/2008 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger Casey said...

Mike,

I hope it was ok that I called you Michael. It was meant for Mr. Riccardi.

5/13/2008 02:15:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

Mike - Interestingly, I agree with every word of that Piper quote, and I'm not really sure how that contradicts what I'm saying. I agree that Christ's death on the cross was to accomplish the ransoming of his church for the sake of God's glory. That's what the atonement is all about and I fully agree.

Daryl - I'm not attempting to confuse justification with sanctification. Nor am I saying that the creation of God's kingdom is something we accomplish of our own strength. Simply put, I'm not trying to add any sort of works to the gospel.

I'm saying that the gospel, God's good news for the world, is that he is restoring all things (making all things new, is the language in Revelation, I believe) and he accomplishes this through his people, the church.

As far as verses arguing for what I'm talking about: In Ephesians 1, Paul writes the following:

Eph. 1:10-12:
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."

I think if you start in verse 3 and read that whole sentence through verse 12 it says exactly what I'm (hopefully) saying above.

Also, Col. 1:18 says, "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

Again, the idea here is that the redemption of the church (by which I mean God's covenant people sovereignly elected before the foundation of the world) is integral to God's redemptive plan in the world, but not the extent of that plan. It's a subservient, rather than ultimate end. The ultimate end is God's glory, but an additional subservient end, just as much a part of the redemption narrative as God's redemption of his church, is God's restoration of the world.

Finally, Romans 8 was already mentioned.

Also, I would again point to God's concern for his whole creation as seen in his actions in Genesis 6-9. Further, if you look at the end toward which the Scriptures build in Revelation 21 and 22, you see the creation of a culture of shalom that I've been describing.

Part of the problem is that, as Keller has said, you have to read the Bible synchronically and diachronically. To read synchronically is to look at individual texts and exegete them on their own - it's like reading an encyclopedia for Lord of the Rings. To know what the atonement is you need to read synchronically. Likewise if you wish to know what the Kingdom is, or the Covenant, or God's sovereignty, etc.

However, I think we must also read diachronically, which is to read with an eye toward the over-arching narrative of redemption taught in scripture. This is like reading the actual novels that comprise the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And you need both.

If I just misread the Lord of the Rings encyclopedia, I know all the terms and concepts, but I probably won't enjoy it very much because it's all just disconnected or thinly-connected information. But if I just read the books themselves, I'm going to get lost too many times to count simply because of the sheer span of the story.

Anyway, the diachronic approach to reading the Scriptures is where much of my argument is based. Therefore, it's difficult to point at just one verse that explicitly says exactly what I'm saying. Obviously, there are some that say it more clearly than others and I've listed them above, but much of the argument comes from reading the Scripture as one large story.

Last thing - I wonder if the issue here is that we agree on the message of Scripture, we just use different words for it. We agree on the atonement, God saves his people through Christ's atoning work on the grace by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. We agree there's an over-arching narrative of redemption taught in the scriptures.

I think I started the discussion under the impression that we had different ideas about what God's good news - the Gospel - actually was. But I'm starting to question that. It seems like we agree about what the scriptures teach about how human beings are made right with God and what God's ultimate goal is. We just disagree on the language we should use to describe it.

This might just be my English major and harmonizer personality coming out, but as I read your posts I find myself agreeing with all the ideas you're expressing, just wanting to use different language to describe it.

5/13/2008 02:39:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

Casey - You nailed it. Thanks for jumping in, that's a much more succinct way of saying what I've been trying to say this whole time!

5/13/2008 02:40:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Can you explain how it is emphasizing man too much?

It's quite simple. "The creation" is the subject of the entire sentence. I don't think we get to have that place in the story of redemption. The Gospel is primarily about God. In my opinion, that sentence doesn't give God the emphasis He has given Himself.

I think some would call God the benefactor and us the beneficiary but you via Piper make God both the benefactor and the beneficiary.

That's right. I think "some" are missing the point and I think Piper gets the point very well. Have you read the article?

To use an imperfect analogy,

The analogy is indeed imperfect. Especially because the Gospel is not like anything else in the world.

The Gospel is the good news that we are set free from the bondage of our sin that keeps us from seeing God, and are freed to love and serve and enjoy Him forever. That sounds like we're the "end" of the Gospel, but we're not. God has done all of that for His own glory -- to make much of Himself, not to make much of us. We get some ineffably amazing benefits because of His grace, and so can properly be called beneficiaries. But make no mistake, He is the primary beneficiary.

Is it not true that we get different expressions of the gospel in the NT?

Perhaps. But you'd have to give me an example.

Good news of the kingdom and good news of forgiveness of sins?

This the same good news. These are not separate messages. That seems to be a humongous point that nobody wants to talk about. The kingdom is not primarily for man, whether Israel or the Church. The kingdom is for Christ, to the glory of the Father. The Father will bring about the kingdom for His Son because of the holiness of His Name and His Word. He won't lie to His servant David (cf. Ps 89:28-37). Similarly the forgiveness of sins is ultimately for God and to His glory. He has provided repentance and forgiveness of sins so that He will get what He is worthy of from His creation -- so that He will be glorified (cf. Ezek 36:22ff).

So the good news of the kingdom and the good news of forgiveness of sins are the same message: God loves Himself. He is just such an amazingly gracious, merciful, and benevolent God that we reap unspeakable benefits in His glorious plan of salvation.

5/13/2008 02:49:00 PM  
Blogger Daryl said...

Jake,

"I'm saying that the gospel, God's good news for the world, is that he is restoring all things (making all things new, is the language in Revelation, I believe) and he accomplishes this through his people, the church. "

This is where precision of language is so important. The gospel is the good news of salvation, only. The recreation of the new heavens and the new earth isn't the gospel. That doesn't make it less true.
In fact, I would argue that Jesus' making all things new is bad news for the world, not good news. For those not in Christ, it is vey very bad news. The gospel is simply, if you repent, God will forgive you.

If anything, your emphasis on the coming "making all things new" would push you towards narrowing the gospel to eternal issues and not the other way. (Not saying food for the hungry isn't good, just that it's not the gospel)

Question:

In one sentence (or two) how would you present this larger gospel?

5/13/2008 03:02:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

I'm saying that the gospel, God's good news for the world, is that he is restoring all things (making all things new, is the language in Revelation, I believe) and he accomplishes this through his people, the church.

Jake, this is just simply not the Gospel. Again, the scope is too broad. I don't think any instances of NT's description of the Gospel accords with what you've written here. The Apostles in Acts are not proclaiming the good news of the restoration of all creation. They're proclaiming the good news of repentance for forgiveness of sins. No amount of calling for a diachronic reading of Scripture will be able to change that into something that wasn't happening.

And Jake -- the making all things new point is totally out of context. He makes all things new after destroying this present creation because of its inability to restore itself or be restored by the church. Please tell me how fallen human beings could ever participate one ounce in restoring a fallen creation, if they can't contribute one ounce in restoring themselves!

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.

Can the church make the holy city come down from heaven? Certainly not! It even says, it comes down out of heaven from God, not from the church.

And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."

The first things have passed away; they have not been re-vamped, or progressively restored by the actions of the church. It's a cataclysmic event wrought by God Himself.

And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new " And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true."

Who is making all things new? He who sits on the throne is making all things new. And He's doing that after He destroys the old things (cf. 2 Pet 3:10ff), not now. Which means the church does not bring about this "restoration." Christ destroys this cursed creation, and then creates a new one.

5/13/2008 03:14:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

Daryl - That's a great question, but it's a very tough question because the way I explain the gospel is going to depend on who I'm talking to because I want to communicate in a way that will be sensible to the listener. So if you're thinking of how I'd present the gospel to a non-Christian, I can't really answer that question cause I want to know more about who I'm talking to. If you're asking me what is the gospel in one or two sentences, I really like the response Derek Webb gave in an interview last year: "my instinct is to say that it's Jesus coming, living, dying, and being resurrected and his inaugurating the already and the not yet of all things being restored to himself…and that happening by way of himself…the being made right of all things…that process both beginning and being a reality in the lives and hearts of believers and yet a day coming when it will be more fully realized. But the good news, the gospel, the speaking of the good news, I would say is the news of his kingdom coming the inaugurating of his kingdom coming…that’s my instinct. " In terms of what that looks like in conversations, I can't really say without knowing who I'm talking to.

Mike - The making new of all things is the restoration of the present world, not the destruction of this world and creation of a new one. The word used for making all things new refers to restoration, not destruction followed by new creation. It's closer to Lewis' idea of "death working backward," than the idea of creating something new altogether.

Second, I agree. God makes all things new. How does he do this? Through his people, the church. In terms of "who causes the New Jerusalem to descend from heaven?" It's Jesus. That's the full arrival of the kingdom and complete eradication of sin. Only Jesus does that. But we live in a tension in which the kingdom is both present and not yet fully present. We aren't going to create some sort of utopian society. Sin is never going to be fully eradicated till Jesus comes back. But that doesn't mean the church is impotent or that God is incapable of working through us today.

One other thing - Daryl, I think to say what you are about working for what is "eternal" as if that is just some sort of individual salvation bred by right belief, reflects a really platonic or gnostic approach to the gospel - the "soul" is what matters, having the right knowledge matters but the body and physical needs aren't real important. I hope that's not what you're saying, but that's what I hear when you talk about eternity and heaven.

5/13/2008 03:34:00 PM  
Blogger Daryl said...

Jake,

I can only conclude from your answer to my question, that you have no clue what the gospel is.

It's simple and it's the same for everyone. Jesus died and rose again to turn away God's wrath from sinners. If you repent, you too, will be forgiven and spend eternity with Him.

2 sentences. Plain and biblical.

Nothing gnostic about it. Eternity doesn't mean non-bodily. And in no way does the Bible indicate that we will help restore the earth. It will be recreated and only those individuals who have repented of their sin and placed their faith in Christ, alone, will be there.

Not even those who feed the poor.

Again, not that feeding the poor isn't good, but it won't save anybody. ever.

5/13/2008 03:46:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Jake,

Now you're just being dishonest with the text.

This present world will be destroyed. We've already been through this. 2 Peter 3:10-13:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

Revelation 21:3-5:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new " And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true."

I could go through and italicize and bold specific words, but I'm too tired. You simply cannot read these texts honestly and say that this present world will not be destroyed.

5/13/2008 03:50:00 PM  
Blogger Michael.Gabriel said...

OH...my word!

I certainly can't keep up with this thread traveling at this speed. And I certainly don't know how in the world it got to this point when it started out with the article that it did...

Holy guacamole!

Well, I just hope that you all are doing all your reading and posting during break time at work and not robbing your employers of the time that they are paying you for...

Wow...

5/13/2008 05:03:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

Mike and Daryl - Guys, I don't really know what to say. I'm sorry you feel like what I'm saying indicates that I have no idea what the gospel says or is being dishonest with the text. That's not my heart at all, I'm trying to be honest to them and I'm trying to be faithful to what they teach.

This is going to be my last comment, though. We've spent enough time going back and forth and I feel like we're going around in circles at this point. Plus I feel like I'm getting frustrated and I don't want to make any more posts from a sinful desire to validate myself rather than to faithfully describe what the scriptures teach. I already did that earlier and I struggle enough with pride and arrogance that I don't want to give myself further opportunity.

Thanks for the dialogue, it really has helped me, even if we still disagree.

your brother,
~jake

5/13/2008 06:26:00 PM  
Blogger SBC said...

Let's get some eschatology strait, guys.

#1. There is a sense in which the kingdom exists now. Although I'm premillennial, I acknowledge that almost everything that Amillennialists say about the present kingdom is true.
You could call my position "Pre-mill Post-kingdom," and it is best expressed in the following way:

God inaugurated His kingdom spiritually and will consummate it geo-politically.


#2. There is a sense in which this earth will experience "death working backwards." The lion will lie down with the lamb, etc.
This will happen during Christ's Millennial reign (as opposed to this phase of the kingdom). It will happen to this earth (as opposed to the next earth). And it is not brought about by the Church.


#3. This earth will be destroyed and replaced by a new earth, after the Millennium.


Moving on--the gospel is sometimes called the "gospel of the kingdom" because it is the gospel of the King. It is the same gospel:

The King came, beat death in the decisive battle of the war, established His spiritual kingdom, and commands you to enter that kingdom by means of faith and repentance.

The "gospel of the kingdom" is the gospel in kingdom terms.

Finally, I love the meta-narrative of the Bible. The Bible is 70% narrative. Studying systematic theology to the neglect of Biblical narrative and meta-narrative is sad. And one of the most thrilling parts of the narrative is the redemption of the created order.

But the question is this: is the word "gospel" ever used in reference to the redemption of the created order? Or is it only used reference to the redemption of people?

Is the redemption of the created order a gospel (good message)? Yes! Did Paul talk about it? Yes! But is that what he was referring to when he used the word "gospel"?

I believe that it is extremely helpful to use the whole meta-narrative of the Bible in evangelism. I love the "Creation to Christ" approach, and I love to throw in the final subjection of all things under Christ's feet.
These things are the context in which individuals are saved.

But usefulness in evangelism does not the gospel make.
Context for the gospel does not the gospel make.
Paul may have talked about many things, but when he used the word "gospel," he meant the Person and work (both active and passive) of Jesus Christ, and what that means for those who come to Him.

5/13/2008 07:54:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Amen, SBC. That needed to be done. I hesitate to comment, because I think that's a great way to end this discussion (if only everyone agreed!). But I had to just add my agreement and thanks.

5/13/2008 08:02:00 PM  
Blogger pduggie said...

I really think Piper is overdoing it to be provocative or something.

Sure, God's primary concern is for his good name. In Ezekiel 36, God says I'm saving you, not for your sake, but for my name's sake/.

But what is God's name?

"The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

God is "other" oriented in his economy, as an expression of the Trinity's ontological glory-sharing (NOT glory-hounding, which is why "God is all about self-glory" is incomplete and non-trinitarian if that's ALL you say)

He loves US with the economic expression of the same ontological love he has between Son and Father (John 17)

5/14/2008 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Riccardi said...

Pduggie,

I'm sorry you see things that way. If you'll let me, I'd like to attempt to persuade you otherwise.

I'll say first that the Father glorifying the Son and vice versa is God glorifying Himself, which is what I'm saying here. But there's also nothing wrong with the Father glorifying Himself.

Secondly, I think you should let God be God. There's no problem with Him being a "glory hound," because He deserves the glory. If God's ultimate purpose is to bring glory to Himself, how does that make Him less glorious? It doesn't. The love of God does not have to be other-centered to be glorious. The fact that it is Him-centered is what shows Him to be ultimately glorious.

Let me explain it this way. God is the entity most worthy of glory. That's an ontologically true statement in all contexts of everything. There is nothing that is worthy of more glory than God Himself. If that's the case, for God not to seek to (and accomplish to) glorify Himself would be idolatry. It is idolatry to withhold glory from that which is most worthy of glory. In order to honor His own holiness, God must glorify Himself.

Here are a bunch of passages that speak of God glorifying Himself.

It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.

The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Our fathers in Egypt did not understand Your wonders; They did not remember Your abundant kindnesses, But rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea. Nevertheless He saved them for the sake of His name, That He might make His power known.

What if God, willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory.

Daniel prays, "O my God, incline Your ear and hear! open Your eyes and see our desolations and the city which is called by Your name; for we are not presenting our supplications before You on account of any merits of our own, but on account of Your great compassion. O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and take action! For Your own sake, O my God, do not delay, because Your city and Your people are called by Your name."

For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy.

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace.

Go up to the mountains, bring wood and rebuild the temple, that I may be pleased with it and be glorified," says the LORD.

Bring My sons from afar And My daughters from the ends of the earth, Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory.

He said to Me, "You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory."

These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our testimony to you was believed.

For the sake of My name I delay My wrath, And for My praise I restrain it for you, In order not to cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction. For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.

Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again."

---

There are far more, and that was probably already more than enough. My desire for you, pduggie, is to see that it not only is permissible, but extremely loving and glorious for God to take pleasure in Himself and to glorify Himself. Don't try to enforce an anthropomorphized view of love and glory on God. Like I said before, let Him be God and let Him honor that which is most worthy of honor. This is such a crucial issue for the Church, because we finally see God's ultimate purpose, and so see Him clearly.

And again, I just want to let you know that I don't deny the trinitarian love story... the Father glorifying the Son, the Son the Father, both of them the Spirit, and the Spirit the both of them. But any One person of the Trinity is God, and so is worthy to receive glory. And since any one person is God, they are utterly holy, and will not withhold glory from that which is worthy to receive it.

So I don't think Piper's being overly rhetorical to be provocative. I think the Bible is actually that provocative when it displays clearly God's own love for and pleasure in Himself. I pray that you would delight in that for His sake and for yours.

5/15/2008 10:07:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home