Between Two Worlds

In First Things Frank Beckwith (who co-edited The New Mormon Challenge [Zondervan, 2002]) reviews Hugh Hewitt's book on Mitt Romney's Mormonism.

Beckwith begins with a helpful overview of Mormon history and theology. He marvels at how it is both profoundly wrong and genius at the same time:

Even if one thinks that Smith was profoundly mistaken (as I do), one cannot help but marvel at the religious genius of this project: It has all the advantages of Reformation Protestantism and nineteenth-century Restorationism (“Let’s get back to what Jesus and the apostles originally taught”) with all the advantages of Catholicism and Orthodoxy—an apostolic magisterium within the confines of a visible church. Smith has both a priesthood of all believers and a priesthood managed by a church hierarchy. He offers a new gospel unconstrained by centuries of theological precedent, yet it he could claim that it is as old as the apostles. He could, without contradiction, reject tradition while claiming to be the true guardian of an ancient message. It may be wrong, but it was brilliant.

Hewitt rightly identifies and refutes what Beckwith calls the Creedal Mistake ("when a Christian citizen believes that the planks of his creed are the best standard by which to judge the suitability of a political candidate"). However, Hewitt does not address what Beckwith calls the Kennedy Mistake (when someone makes the "claim that his theology and church do not influence or shape his politics").

Beckwith's conclusion rings true to me:

If one does not support Romney’s candidacy, it should not be because he is a Mormon. It should be because one has good reason to believe he is not the best candidate for the office. That is the message of Hewitt’s book. It is one that would resonate with Martin Luther, who once tersely said, “I’d rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.”

If you have a son, be sure to read Albert Mohler's blog post on a book hitting the U.S.:

What do boys need to know? That question led brothers Conn and Hal Iggulden to write The Dangerous Book for Boys, and boys of every age will love it. The book took Britain by storm last year, and arrives this year just in time for summer reading. A boy armed with this book will have a very fun summer indeed.

A runaway bestseller in the U.K., the publisher expects to sell 4 million copies in the U.S.

Mohler closes: "So put this book in your boy's hands and turn off the television and the PlayStation. Then get ready to watch the paper airplanes fly and the water bombs burst. And, to be honest, it wouldn't hurt to keep a few Band-aids handy . . . just in case."

The winners are here.

Mark Dever's The Message of the Old Testament: Promises Made has won an award of merit in the biblical studies category of Christianity Today's 2007 book awards.

Christianity Today has published an excerpt, from Mark's sermon-to-chapter on Obadiah. CT also points out that MP3s of the sermons in The Message of the Old Testament, including Obadiah, are available online.

Tom Schreiner will be on the live web program tonight, Converse with Scholars, at 10 pm EST, talking about the case for believer baptism. Gregg Strawbridge, representing the paedobaptist position, was on last week, and I think the show is now archived if you want to listen to it as well.

The final session of the Gospel Coalition is by John Piper, on the theme of "The Triumph of the Gospel in the New Heavens and the New Earth." Don Carson introduced Piper by saying that with regard to the transcendence of God, Piper is our generation's Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Piper began by saying that, in his opinion, Lloyd-Jones is the greatest preacher of the 20th century. Piper listens to him every Monday morning. Every preacher should go to www.mlj.org.uk. We are shaped by those we hear.

Piper wishes every pastor could have been asked to preach this sermon. God loves to give insight to desperate pastors.

Gen 1:1: creation. Gen 1:27. Man created in God's own image. Gen 1:31. Very good. Gen 3: Adam and Eve reject God as their supreme wisdom, beauty, and desire. Then God curses them and the ground. Gen 3:15: I will put enmity between the creation-destroying serpent and the woman and her seed. The apostle Paul hears in that the hope expressed in Rom 8:20-21:

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 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.

God created the universe out of nothing and it was very good. Then Adam and Eve did something horrifyingly evil in their hearts: they preferred the fruit of a tree to fellowship with God. God not only sentenced them to death but subjected the entire creation to futility and bondage to corruption. Every human dies and suffers. As do animals. Rivers, volcanoes, tsunamis, storms, AIDS, malaria, cancer, heart disease, tornadoes, freak accidents. If we could see 1/10,000 of the world's suffering at the moment we would pass out or throw up. Only God almighty can bear that sight.

Why did God do this to the world? The creation didn't do anything--why did he subject it to such decay? God said: "cursed be the ground because of you." Why the kaleidoscope of tragedy?

God put the natural world under a curse so that the horrors we see around us would become a vivid picture of how terrible sin is. Natural evil is a signpost to the unspeakable wickedness of moral evil.

Our hearts are so dull and blinded to the exceeding wickedness of sin. Do you know anyone who feels the abhorrent evil our sin is? Almost no one is incensed or nauseated at how we belittle the glory of God? We don't see it or feel it. But let God touch my little finger and he's in the dock--what is he doing; where is the justice?

This is God's way to help you hate your sin.

(See also Piper's sermon, Where Is God?)

God mercifully shouts to us in our sickness and pain and calamities: this deformity or tragedy is like preferring television to me, or like wanting to be in heaven without me.

What do you say to the parent whose child will never have a mental ability beyond six months? You open your Bible to Romans 8.

Romans 8 is the greatest chapter in the Bible. Everyone should memorize it.

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. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Young pastors: this text is one of the most important texts to get clarity on, from the beginning of your ministry.

One of Piper's first sermons 27 years ago at Bethlehem was Christ and Cancer. Piper did a funeral every 3 weeks for the first year and a half. He did not want them thinking that if they just had faith, they wouldn't be in the hospital--because of v. 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." In your ministry, nail this on the front end. Your people need to know where you stand, so that when you stand by their bed, they have a theological framework for what you say. And if you've done it well, you don't have to say anything.

Four Observations

1. God promises that there will be liberation for this creation from its bondage and decay. V. 21: "the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption." This earth will be a new earth. Isa 65:17; Isa 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1; Acts 3:19. "New earth" means "renewed earth"--not in the way that you get a "new car."

Your disabled son will have an eternity to run and leap to the glory of God--and this world will have seemed like a light and momentary affliction.

2. This liberation from its natural order will be a participation in the freedom of the glory of God. V. 21: " the creation . . . will . . . obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." The creation follows man into corruption--and into glory. The creation is drawn up into the freedom of the glory of God. Note the order: the freedom of the glory of the children of God comes first; then, after glorifying our bodies, the whole creation is fitted as a suitable dwelling for the glorified family.

Your child will not be changed to fit the new glorified universe. The new universe will be changed to fit the glory of your child. He will not have to adapt anymore; everything in creation will be adapted to him.

The world (which we should care about) is not important in itself, but as the playground, temple, farm, craft store, of the children of God.

3. The arrival of the new liberated creation is compared to a birth; so there's not only continuity with this world, but also discontinuity. V. 22: "For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now." A child is human (continuity) but not his mother (discontinuity).

On discontinuity, see: 1 Cor 15:35ff; 2 Pet. 3:7-13; Rev. 21:1, 22. On continuity, see Phil 3:21; Luke 24:39-43;

Will my disabled son ever grow up? Will he eat on his own? Will he be able to make anything? God will make this world in a way that nothing is wasted. Your son will eat with Jesus. God will give him full development, for his maximum joy and God's maxim joy?

What's the deepest assurance and highest hope we can give these parents?

4. The hope of having redeemed bodies in the new creation is secured by our salvation which we received in the gospel--but this (receiving new bodies) is not our best hope. Vv. 23-24: "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. For in this hope we were saved." With reference to his hope, we are saved. When we were saved, this hope was secured for us. We are saved by banking on Christ crucified and risen (1 Cor 15:1-3). If there were no gospel for sins, we would not be included in the new heavens, and there would be no heavens and earth.

The ultimate gift and good of the gospel is not the redeemed bodies, not propitiation, not justification, not forgiveness of sins--these are all means. The ultimate good of the gospel is the glory of God himself in the his crucified and risen Son. 1 Pet. 3:18: "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God."

The risen Christ will never lay down his risen body, but will keep it as an emblem of Calvary, where God's grace was displayed most fully. We will sing of the slain lamb forever.

I missed Don Carson's brief session this morning explaining what the Gospel Coalition is. Justin Buzzard, however, took some brief notes.

The website will launch in a few weeks (mid-June). And the plan is for there to be a national conference during April of the off-years for Together for the Gospel.

The Gospel Coalition breakout session I attended was by Sandy Willson (pastor of Second Presbyterian Church in Memphis), whose topic was Christ and culture.

His experience is that the more he's been engaged in culture, the better he's come to know Christ. The whole world belongs to Christ. You cannot do theology without cultural contextualization.

Definition of Culture

Here is his working definition:

a social environment in which we define the meaning of life (including the meaning of truth, goodness, and beauty) through the means of worship, beliefs, values, traditions, language, social and political organization, art, technology, and social customs.

Culture is the corporate expression, in some ways, of what a human being is.

Our task is to proclaim and demonstrate Christ to the world, carefully engaging the culture without making inappropriate assumptions.

We are facing what Paul faced when he was called to evangelize Antioch (Acts 11). It was a very multicultural city, and the gospel just exploded there. It ended up being the staging ground for the Pauline mission.

We need to be aware of and avoid two dangers:

1. Assimilation (being co-opted by the culture--typically the danger of those on the Left; but at least they are addressing the dominant questions). The reason this happens is lack of confidence in the Gospel. An example of this error is the Colossian heresy.

2. Withdrawal. An example of this error is found in Galatians. Typically the danger of those on the Right--though it happens on the Left as well. John Sommerville on the irrelevancy of the secular university: they don't want to talk about religion, though that's what people care about and where they are at. Evangelicals paral

Willson has been influenced by Don Carson's forthcoming book on Christ and Culture Revisited (Eerdmans). Carson interacts thoughtfully with Niehbur, who used the following categories:

Nieburh's Categories for Christ and Culture

1. Christ against Culture. Tertullian (Christianity is a "third race"), medieval Judaism, Quakers, Amish. Perhaps Stanley Hauwerwas would fit in this category.

2. Christ of Culture. Schliermacher, Ritschel, mid-20th c mainline denominations. Christ is revealed in every culture. Sort of a gnostic view. Carson says that this is not even a Christian option. Niehbur has allowed a gnostic view to be considered a legitimate option.

3. Christ over Culture. Roman Catholics, Thomists, Christian Right. The church takes charge of the culture.

4. Christ and Culture in Paradox. Lutheran. Christians are to be in the world, but no confidence the world can be transformed, so we overwhelm it with salt and light. But there's no clear definition of what you do once you're in the culture from a worldview standpoint.

5. Christ Transforming Culture. Augustinian, Calvinistic. We are to reshape the world, creating fields of discourse in every discipline.

Carson's view: The proper approach is a blended approach, based on the circumstances.

How the Gospel Enables Us to Engage Culture Properly

The reason for this blended approach is because of the gospel itself. The gospel does five things that enables us to engage it properly:

1. The gospel enables us to affirm the positive aspects of every culture. Acts 17: Paul is apoplectic at the gods because God's glory is being stolen. But Paul starts by observing that they are religious people. He loves sinners, and because of the gospel he's able to see with new eyes. We need to go into culture and listen.

2. The gospel enables us to adapt to the neutral things in culture. If you don't put your focus on the main thing, it's amazing what else we will focus on (money, power, customs you don't like). It's the duty of every one of us to adapt to our culture, not for our culture to adapt to us. Christ experienced the ultimate culture shock in his incarnation. We must be willing to adapt to the neutral things around us. We have to learn to use what's around us. The theology of Christianity (as opposed to say, Islam) is to preserve culture.

3. The gospel enables us to denounce the evil aspects of every culture. Jesus and Paul do this regularly. When Jesus tell us that we are salt and light, what does this say about the world? It's dark and decaying, and the world desperately needs the truth of God.

4. The gospel enables us to build a model society. See the Gospel Coalition's theology of ministry statement. David Anderson (pastor in Maryland): to build a multicultural church you have to be able to die to your native culture in order to create a society within the church. Newbigin: the church is the greatest apologetic to the world. In Acts 2, people were asking what they must do to be saved. People aren't asking that anymore because of the nature of the church. Also, the church must also practice church discipline. There's almost no discipline in evangelical churches. If we are going to transform culture, we are going to have a transformed culture under our own noses. The gospel allows us to confront the sins in our own family without losing hope.

5. The gospel empowers to seek the shalom of every culture. Gen 1:28 (cultural mandate); Matt 5:13-16 (salt and light), model fo the ministry of Jesus (teaching the truth of God, proclaiming the gospel, and dealing with the tangible needs of people).

How Do We Do This?

1. We have to enter serious dialog with unbelievers around us. The gospel deals with the heart, and you don't know their heart till you listen. Why do they reject the gospel? What are their ultimate values? What do they really care about?

2. We have to preach the gospel into the broader culture of your people and the people you want to reach. Tim Keller: preach to the empty pew (the people you want to be in your church). When you start appealing to the arguments of the broader culture around you, you start appealing to your church members, too (who are influenced by the broader culture). You're engaging their culture and issues they are wrestling with, though they might never mention it in Sunday school.

3. We must serve the culture, particularly in partnerships. Jesus drew crowds through serving people, then he would interpret the meaning of his service. But if we're not serving, we have nothing to interpret.

You cannot engage Christ and culture without a cross: the cross of Chirst, and the cross of the Christian. The reason we don't engage the culture is because we are where Peter was before the resurrection: without a cross. When culture is engaged Christianly, by men and women bearing the cross, God is praised.

Crawford Loritts on "Passing on the Torch," using Psalm 78:5-7:

5 He established a testimony in Jacob
and appointed a law in Israel,
which he commanded our fathers
to teach to their children,
6 that the next generation might know them,
the children yet unborn,
and arise and tell them to their children,
7 so that they should set their hope in God
and not forget the works of God,
but keep his commandments.

The character of God and the content of Scripture must be poured into our lives. Don't ever get cute; don't ever wander away from it. Therefore Asaph reminded them of God's history in their lives.

1. a passion (for the character of God and the content of Scripture)
2. a process (looking to future generations, realizing it ain't about you)
3. a product. There are three outcomes ever succeeding generation needs:

(1) It will give them a sense of confidence, so that they will be "set their hope in God." (It's all about him, what he's doing).

(2) It will give them a sense of history. There's an absence today of strong leadership, lack of passion, lack of certainty--because the stories of God's faithfulness are missing.

(3) It will give them a will to obey, to "keep his commandments." We need not only theological accuracy, but also biblical transformation. The point of good theology is to give people a right vision of God.

• What signature are you writing on the souls of future generations?
• What's in your hands?
• Is there a clear pathway that can be seen in how you approach ministry back to the character of God and the content of Scripture?
• How are you thinking about what God has entrusted to you.

Rough notes on Tim Keller's address, "Gospel-Centered Ministry," from the Gospel Coalition conference.

What does ministry profoundly shaped by the gospel look like?

Peter was addressing a church being actively and passively persecuted. Peter is seeking to show how the gospel should shape how we should live.

Text: 1 Pet 1:1-12, 1:22-2:12.

Peter shows us that there are seven features used to describe the gospel:

1. The gospel is historical.

The gospel is good news, not good advice. Lloyd-Jones: Advice is counsel about something to do that hasn't happened yet, but you can do it. News is about something that has happened. If a king defeats an invading army, he sends back messengers (heralders, good-newsers) who bring a report: respond with joy and live in because it's all been the defeat has happened. Every other religion sends military advisors.: rites, rituals, laws so that the people can fight for their lives. One is a response of joy; the other is a response of fear. And in the short run, they look alike.

Ministry implication: the significance of declarative preaching is irreplaceably central. If Tim was teaching an advanced homiletics course, he'd make everyone read C. S. Lewis's Studies in Words. Last chapter: you don't use words to instruct someone how to tie a tie. But words are required to explain a historical event. How-to's require modeling. But if you believe the gospel is good news, declarative preaching will be irreplacably central.

"Preach the gospel--and if necessary, use words." That's a misunderstanding of the gospel.

2. The gospel is doxalogical. Doxology is the basis of the entire Christian life.

Luther's Larger Catechism: the first commandment summarizes all the rest. Underneath every sin is idolatry in general, and underneath that is some form of works righteous. First commandment: believe the gospel and you can't look to anything else for your justification--and that's the basis for everything else.

Everything from eating disorders to racism is functional worship--the heart's imagination dotes on something more than God (my thinness, my race, etc.). The only way to change is to worship.

Sometimes we have X on "video" and God on "audio." When audio and video are on at the same time, video wins. You say it but don't believe it. The solution is worship.

Ministry implication (from Edwards): the purpose of preaching is not just to make things clear, but to make them real. We need to make things vivid. The heart is one's core commitments, capturing our imaginations. JE is rational, persuasive, logical--but he uses images. We must teach Christ vividly and practically, from a change life. We can't just take a narrative approach or a commentary

The first and primary object of preaching is not only to give information. It is, as Edwards says, to produce an impression. It is the impression at the time that matters, even more than what you can remember subsequently . . . It is not primarily to impart information; and while you are writing your notes you may be missing something of the impact of the Spirit.

Thomas Chalmers:

It is seldom that any of our tastes are made to disappear by a mere process of natural extinction. At least, it is very seldom, that this is done through the instrumentality of reasoning. It may be done by excessive pampering - but it is almost never done by the mere force of mental determination. But what cannot be destroyed, may be dispossessed and one taste may be made to give way to another, and to lose its, power entirely as the reigning affection of the mind.

It is thus, that the boy ceases, at length, to be the slave of his appetite, but it is because a manlier taste has now brought it into subordination - and that the youth ceases to idolize pleasure, but it is because the idol of wealth has become the stronger and gotten the ascendancy and that even the love of money ceases to have the mastery over the heart of many a thriving citizen, but it is because drawn into, the whirl of city polities, another affection has been wrought into his moral system, and he is now lorded over by the love of power. There is not one of these transformations in which the heart is left without an object. Its desire for one particular object may be conquered; but as to its desire for having some one object or other, this is unconquerable....

Thus may we come to perceive what it is that makes the most effective kind of preaching. It is not enough to hold out to the world's eye the mirror of its own imperfections. It is not enough to come forth with a demonstration, however pathetic, of the evanescent character of all its enjoyments. It is not enough to travel the walk of experience along with you, and speak to your own conscience and your own recollection, of the deceitfulness of the heart, and the deceitfulness of all that the heart is set upon....

3. The gospel is christological. Jesus gave an advanced hermeneutics seminar in Luke 24: everything in the OT points to me. Here in Peter there is an echo in 1 Pet. 1:10-12.

Ministry implication: every subject of every sermon should be Jesus. Tim doesn't want to have a party spirit here. (I'm of Goldsworthy; I'm of Chapell; etc.) Kathy's feedback to Tim years ago: when you say "here's what you ought to do" I already know. Sometimes you say, "But you can't do it, here's one who did. If you believe in him, you'll begin to be able to do it, too--to the degree you truly understand the good news." That's when the "lecture" becomes a "sermon." You gotta get to Jesus. If you don't get there, you're just wailing on people's wills.

Read Sinclair Ferguson: Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Most people not only don't preach Christ in the OT, but not in the NT either. The Bible is mainly about Him, not about you:

Jesus is the true and better Adam who passed the test in the garden and whose obedience is imputed to us.

Jesus is the true and better Abel who, though innocently slain, has blood now that cries out, not for our condemnation, but for acquittal.

Jesus is the true and better Abraham who answered the call of God to leave all the comfortable and familiar and go out into the void not knowing wither he went to create a new people of God.

Jesus is the true and better Isaac who was not just offered up by his father on the mount but was truly sacrificed for us. And when God said to Abraham, "Now I know you love me because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love from me," now we can look at God taking his son up the mountain and sacrificing him and say, "Now we know that you love us because you did not withhold your son, your only son, whom you love from us."

Jesus is the true and better Jacob who wrestled and took the blow of justice we deserved, so we, like Jacob, only receive the wounds of grace to wake us up and discipline us.

Jesus is the true and better Joseph who, at the right hand of the king, forgives those who betrayed and sold him and uses his new power to save them.

Jesus is the true and better Moses who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a new covenant.

Jesus is the true and better Rock of Moses who, struck with the rod of God's justice, now gives us water in the desert.

Jesus is the true and better Job, the truly innocent sufferer, who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends.

Jesus is the true and better David whose victory becomes his people's victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.

Jesus is the true and better Esther who didn't just risk leaving an earthly palace but lost the ultimate and heavenly one, who didn't just risk his life, but gave his life to save his people.

Jesus is the true and better Jonah who was cast out into the storm so that we could be brought in.

Jesus is the real Rock of Moses, the real Passover Lamb, innocent, perfect, helpless, slain so the angel of death will pass over us. He's the true temple, the true prophet, the true priest, the true king, the true sacrifice, the true lamb, the true light, the true bread.

The Bible's really not about you – it's about him.

(HT: audio via gilbert)

4. The gospel is personal and individual. Imputation and the historic understanding of the gospel are in dispute right now. Packer: to understand grace, you have to understand both (1) how great your debt is; (2) the magnitude of the provision. They may only believe that Jesus died the death I should have died ( he died for our sins and paid our penalty, hence I better live a pretty good life"). But you must also believe that Jesus lived the life I should have lived.

Some people are changing the gospel in response to the misunderstanding-distortions of the legalistic moralists and the easy-believing liscentiousness.

The gospel is individualistic: individual sinners are saved from the wrath of a personal God. But...

5.The gospel is cultural. The gospel creates a culture--called the church. It's not just a collection of sinners. The gospel is massively transformational and creates a counter-culture, and also makes us relate to the people around us. Those of us who believe in an individual gospel often miss the communal implications.

1 Pet 2:11-12: "Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation."

The gospel says there are dangers of both cultural accommodation and cultural withdrawal. No one sees your good deeds of those who withdraw from the world. On the other hand, people who accommodate the culture are never persecuted.

We're to go in deeply, but to stay very different. We need to seek the welfare of the city (Jer. 29:7).

Those who want to be prophetic tend not to be priestly. Those who are servant-hearted tend not to talk about hell and wrath.

1 Peter depicts an effective, persecuted counterculture. You'll always be both attracting people and facing persecution.

6. The gospel is the basis for a worldview; it's massively transformational.

7. The gospel is wonderful. 1 Pet 1:12, "It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look." Tim's been thinking about this verse for 20 years. Angels are very smart people! They're like us except they don't die, so they know more. They "long" (Gk. epithumaio) to look into the gospel. Gospel ministry is endlessly creative, ever new, never boring. It's not the ABCs of Christianity. It's the A-Z. The gospel drives everything we do. It's the solution to every problem. Every theological category should be about expounding the gospel.

Some very rough notes on Don Carson's first lecture at the Gospel Coalition, using as his text
1 Cor. 15:1-19. (I believe a full manuscript will be posted later.)

"It is easy is to be prophetic from the margins; what is needed is to be prophetic from the center."

Eight Summarizing Words

1. The gospel is Christological. It is Christ-centered. Not a bland theism or an impersonal pantheism; it's irrevocably Christ-centered. "The gospel is not preached if Christ is not preached" (Stott). The gospel embraces not just Christ's person, but also his death and resurrection. It's not enough to emphasize Christmas and downplay Good Friday and Easter. Jesus is the promised messiah who died and rose again.

2. The gospel is theological. It makes no sent to pit the mission of the Son against the mission of the Father. Some surveys of redemptive history depersonalize the wrath of God. From the beginning sin has been an offense against God. When we sin in any way, God is invariably the most offended party (cf. Ps. 51:4). God gets most angry at idolatry, the de-Godding of God.
3. The gospel is biblical. Christ died, buried, was raised--"according to the Scriptures" (cf. Luke 24; Ps. 16; Isa. 53; Ps. 2).

4. The gospel is apostolic. There were 500+ witnesses, but attention is drawn in particular to the apostles.

5. The gospel is historical. The burial (death) and appearances (resurrection) are historical, in datable sequence. They combine to form a nexus. The claims are irreducibly historical. In other religions, there is nothing intrinsic in the leader that is required for its truth. But for Christianity, part of the validation of faith is the truthfulness of faith's object--in this case, Christ's resurrection. The Bible never asks us to believe anything that's not true.

6. The gospel is personal. The gospel is not merely a historical event, but also sets out a way of personal salvation.

7. The gospel is universal. Christ is the new Adam (vv. 22, 47-50). There is a comprehensive vision, drawing people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. It does not save every person, but it is gloriously universal in its comprehensive sweep.

8. The gospel is eschatological. Some of the blessings we receive now are end-time blessings brought back into today. But there is also a final transformation. All of the fruit of the gospel will appear in the new heavens and the new earth.


Five Clarifying Sentences

1. This gospel is normally disseminated in proclamation. ("I . . . preached to you.") There's almost always a connection in the NT between the "gospel" and words for "heralding" it. It must be announced and explained.

2. This gospel is fruitfully received in authentic persevering faith. Cf. Col. 1.

3. This gospel is properly disclosed in the context of personal self-humiliation. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:9. John Newton:

I am not what I want to be.
I am not what I hope to be.
But by the grace of God, I am not what I was.

When the gospel truly does its work, "proud Christian" is an unthinkable oxymoron.

4. This gospel is rightly asserted to be the central confession of the whole church.
Cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; etc. Be suspicious of any church that flaunts what it is doing differently than everybody else.

5. This gospel is boldly advancing under the contested reign and inevitable victory of Christ the King. Phil. 2. "Christ must reign until he has put his enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 15:25). Verse 58: "Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain."


Taking Stock

1. It is striking how cognitive the gospel is.

2. The gospel is not the gospel if it remains exclusively cognitive. Chapter 15 comes at the end of a book, the previous chapters of which work out the gospel in various ways and situations. For example: The gospel is not only God's wisdom, but God's power. There is no place for triumph in the place of the blood-bought. Where the gospel triumphs, relationships are transformed.

3. The gospel must transform all realms of our lives.

James Grant looks at one of the passages that caused him to leave behind his dispensational hermeneutic.

Mark Driscoll blogs about the Gospel Coalition conference, which gets underway today. He also mentions a meeting we had last night. For the purpose of soliciting your earnest prayers for Piper--for Spirit-filled, gospel-driven, Christ-centered, biblically based faithfulness, accuracy, energy, efficiently, and insight during the last leg of his writing leave--here's an excerpt from Driscoll's post:

Dr. Piper explained that he was in the midst of finishing his latest book which will critically examine N.T. Wright’s new perspective on the doctrine of justification. He said the project has required an enormous amount of research and is proving to be an intense book to write. To make matters more difficult, his computer crashed which cost him a few days of work. Next Tuesday he will begin the final week of writing the manuscript and selecting a title. I asked Dr. Piper if he would mind if I got the word out to those of us who have appreciated his work that May 29th through June 5th would be a strategic time to intercede for him in prayer. He said he would appreciate prayers as he believes this book is very important for the defense and articulation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and has come with some indications of spiritual warfare. So, on behalf of Dr. Piper, your intercession during his upcoming writing days would be greatly appreciated.

Michael Gerson (the president's former speechwriter) writes an outstanding article in today's Washington Post about the incoherence of Rudy Giuliani's view on abortion. It's worth quoting at length:

Giuliani is now attempting a political vault with the highest degree of difficulty: winning the GOP presidential nomination as a pro-choice candidate. . . .

There is, however, a question that comes before politics: Does Giuliani's position on abortion actually make sense?

In early debates and statements, he has set out his views on this topic with all the order and symmetry of a freeway pileup. His argument comes down to this: "I hate abortion," which is "morally wrong." But "people ultimately have to make that choice. If a woman chooses that, that's her choice, not mine. That's her morality, not mine."This is a variant of the position developed by New York Gov. Mario Cuomo in 1985. In this view, the Catholic Church's belief in the immorality of abortion is correct, in the same sense that its belief in the Immaculate Conception is correct. Both beliefs are religious, private and should not be enforced by government.

But the question naturally arises: Why does Giuliani "hate" abortion? No one feels moral outrage about an appendectomy. Clearly he is implying his support for the Catholic belief that an innocent life is being taken. And here the problems begin.

How can the violation of a fundamental human right be viewed as a private matter? Not everything that is viewed as immoral should be illegal; there are no compelling public reasons to restrict adultery, for example, or to outlaw sodomy. But when morality demands respect for the rights of a human being, those protections become a matter of social justice, not just personal or religious preference.

American history has tested these arguments. In debating the Missouri Compromise, Sen. Stephen Douglas said of slavery: "I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves." Abraham Lincoln differed: If faith and conscience tell us that enslaved Americans are men and brothers, then slavery must eventually be ended. Passing the 13th Amendment was not "imposing" our moral views on slaveholders; it was upholding the meaning of law and justice.

Giuliani's doctrine of individual sovereignty goes much further than did Douglas, logically preventing even states from restricting abortion. And this raises a question about Giuliani's view of the law itself: Can it be a right to violate the basic rights of others? Given American opinion, progress toward the protection of unborn life is likely to be incremental and partial. It would be foolish to prosecute women who have abortions -- and the law struck down in Roe v. Wade did nothing of the kind. But recognizing these limits and realities is different from asserting that the law should have nothing to do with the defense of the weak.

A number of pro-choice positions can be held consistently. It is possible to believe that human worth develops gradually and that the early fetus is merely a clump of cells. It is possible to accept professor Peter Singer's teaching that human worth arrives only with self-conscious rationality, opening up disturbing new possibilities of infanticide.

But Giuliani has chosen an option that is not an option -- a belief that unborn life deserves our sympathy but does not deserve rights or justice. This view is likely to dog him in the primary process, not only because it is pro-choice but because it is incoherent.

HT: Denny Burk

Part 3 of the Trueman interview is now up. An excerpt:

If I have made any contribution to the understanding of Reformed Orthodoxy, it is this: the Reformed faith at its best is a brilliant and catholic articulation of the Christian faith, as developed in the ancient church and Middle Ages, and then refracted though the necessary corrections made by Protestant exegetes and theologians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Only as the notion of 'scripture alone' has been wrested from context and come to be understood as 'we only need to read the Bible' has this catholic and historic dimension been lost. This has then been compounded by the abandonment of the great creeds, confessions and catechisms in our church practice. Reformed Orthodoxy gives you the best of the Christian creedal tradition, combined with vital Protestant insights such as justification by grace through faith, and the centrality of assurance to Christian experience.

The loss of historical rootedness and identity which evangelicalism seems to have experienced has left us vulnerable to the attractions of Rome and Constantinople; but it does not have to be that way. Evangelicalism has sold its birthright; we should reclaim it before it is too late.

Stephen Altrogge has posted a new song, Hail the Risen King, from a new Sovereign Grace album he and his dad are working on. (Click the play button.)

Part 2 of Martin Downes's interview with Carl Trueman is now online. (Also see Part 1.) Here is one exchange:

You once described the contribution of liberalism to the church as "emptying pews and lives." How did such a destructive movement succeed in capturing the churches?

At a theoretical level, easy: the truth will always be opposed; falsehood will always prove more attractive in the long-run to the unregenerate human heart. Of course, the path of liberalism was different in different nations and denominations since particular cultural, economic, social and political factors determined how the battle between truth and falsehood played out; but the basic moral dynamic is universal. I do think that the culture of evangelicalism itself has often not helped. Belief in the truth is always difficult – doctrinally and morally. We believe not because we find it easy or straightforward but because we are commanded so to do. Yet evangelical culture often fails to acknowledge the level of struggle involved in being orthodox and thus creates unrealistic expectations for the Christian life.

Berkouwer says of Herman Bavinck (perhaps the outstanding Reformed theologian of the last two-hundred years) that the people who most angered him were those who believed exactly what he did himself, but who failed to see the problems and difficulties, the sheer struggle, involved in so doing. I carried a copy of that anecdote in my wallet for many years as I worked in university departments where my faith was constantly under challenge from friends and colleagues as a reminder that the intellectual struggles I felt were precisely to be expected in the normal Christian life; but that I had to continue to believe not because it was easy or pain-free but because of God’s revealed command so to do.

The pastoral significance of this is that too often we fail to present orthodoxy as such a struggle, giving people unrealistic expectations and the false alternatives of believing easily or believing nothing at all. That is a cruel dilemma to place before people, and one that must in practice ultimately favour the `believe nothing’ option for as soon as a struggle arises, the believer has nowhere to go.

You can also read Martin's other interviews--with folks like Scott Clark, Derek Thomas, etc.

With Michael Moore's Sicko movie about to hit theaters, I'm sure we're about to hear quite a bit about the glories of the health-care system in Cuba. Rich Lowry explains the propaganda. Conclusion: "romanticizing Cuban medicine isn’t just folly, but itself qualifies as a kind of sickness."

Update: As Cap Stewart points out in the comments, here is a helpful article that covers some of the basics on Moore's deceptive/effective brand of filmmaking.

If you get a lot of email per day, you might find this helpful.

(HT: Layne Henn)

I'm not a humble guy. But I am a guy who is often humbled.

Some friends were recently recounting some of the dumb things I've done, and suggested a few of them might be worthy of a blog post.

Here are a few that come to mind:

In high school, a friend and I were invited to our local Lions Club to talk about the effect of drugs and alcohol on teens. I came home that day from school, ate a pepperoni pizza from Dominos with another friend, and proceeded to play three intense one-on-one basketball games with him. Not the best thing for one’s stomach. I showered quickly and went to the Lions Club meeting at a local restaurant. I was so thirsty from the salty pizza and the b-ball games that I downed a number of glasses of Orange Shasta fountain pop. As we were waiting for our meal, an old Lions member kept doing something I found amusing, and all of a sudden—in the middle of a big swig of Orange Shasta—I began to laugh uncontrollably. Unfortunately, everything came back up onto my plate (including a couple of pepperonis!) It was a strange and frightening mixture of laughter and vomit. One of the old guys wanted to know if he should call 911. Mortified, I managed to slip off to the restroom to clean the Shasta-pepperoni concoction off of my shirt before going home. My dad (the president of the Lions) came into the bathroom and made the helpful observation that the guys all thought I’d made a big splash! (To this day he doesn't tire of that joke.)

In college I had to do a group project for a senior capstone class on environmental science. (One of my partners in the project was this guy.) Two factors were at work going into our class presentation: (1) we clearly weren't prepared; (2) our third partner was a bit odd. Our partner's presentation was so long and rambling that it only increased my nervousness. And I used to have a very bad habit of laughing uncontrollably when I was nervous (which included one episode so bad that I won't even recount it here). So when it was my turn to speak, I started to make a bit of a joke, and out of my mouth yelped a feminine-sounding giggle. And once I started, I couldn't stop. I was unable to give the presentation because every time I opened my mouth I just laughed harder. (Recall that this isn't the third grade--it's a senior college class). I got a D on my paper--which was merciful.

In college I decided to make myself some lemonade. I didn't have anything to mix it in, so I found the blender and put in the scoops of powdered lemonade. I then added a couple of quarts of water, which immediately leaked all over the counter, creating a gigantic mess. When I complained to my roommates that no one told me the blender was broken, they responded that we didn't own a blender. Apparently I was trying to make lemonade in a popcorn maker!

The day before our honeymoon I decided I’d impress my wife by meticulously ironing all my clothes (getting the marriage off on the right foot). The first thing I tried to iron was my swimsuit, which instantly melted under the heat.

When we were first married I was often home from work earlier than my wife, so I tried my hand at making her some meals for a treat. One time I was trying to make her sweet-and-sour chicken. She came home before I was finished, so in order to surprise her I had her wait in the bedroom. Finally I had to go the room and say that I needed one bit of advice, because I kept burning the rice. She asked how much water I had added. I responded that the direction said nothing about adding water--I just kept putting a bowl of rice in the microwave and burning it to a crisp.

Another early-in-the marriage moment was when I tried to clean the little bathroom in our one-bedroom apartment. My wife happened upon me, on my hands and knees, using some some high-powered cleaner and furiously scrubbing the tile on the bathroom floor. Her happy look turned to mortification when she realized what I was using to clean the floor: our toilet brush!

When my wife and I lived in Minneapolis, we had a family vacation schedule in Park Rapids, MN (about 200 miles north of the Twin Cities). The problem was that we first had to drive down to Cedar Falls, IA (about 200 miles south) in order for me to stand up for a friend in his wedding. So we drove to Cedar Falls for the wedding. As I tried to open the doors to the church for the rehearsal, I was confused as to why the lights were off and the church was locked. I went back to the car to look at the invitation, and discovered—to my great chagrin—that the wedding was actually the next weekend. So (without air conditioning and in the middle of July) we had to drive back to Minneapolis. The next morning we went to Park Rapids, and then had to cut the vacation short so that the next weekend we had to drive back to Cedar Falls.

Doug Wilson reviews his son's new children's book, Leepike Ridge.

Michael Haykin recently edited--and Reformed Heritage Books published--a nice little collection of Jonathan Edwards's letters, with a particular focus on his piety. It's appropriately titled, A Sweet Flame: Piety in the Letters of Jonathan Edwards.

Steve Nichols and I each wrote blurbs for the back cover:

In this collection of letters Michael Haykin offers you a behind-the-scenes look into the life of Jonathan Edwards. As you look, you will see him dealing with sick children, trying to make sense out of the conflict with his Northampton congregation, and reveling in the serendipities of friendship. Read these letters and you will find Edwards becoming your own "most obliging and affectionate friend in the labors of the gospel."--Stephen J. Nichols

Jonathan Edwards was not only a brilliant theologian, but also a devoted husband, father, pastor, and friend. Underneath it all, he was a man passionate about living in joyful obedience to God. In this highly recommended collection of letters, skillfully edited and annotated by historian Michael Haykin, Edwards' warm-hearted piety shines through every page, giving us a glimpse into the heart and mind of this servant of God.--Justin Taylor

Here's a picture comparing a draft of the immigration reform bill to the Bible.

Wow!

Well, not really. Effective imagery but silly comparison. (The Bible is usually printed in 10 pt font, front and back, multiple columns, and on very thin paper. It has 750,000+ words.)

Anyway, for those who are interested in reading the (still very large!) document, here is an online version.

Hugh Hewitt spent the weekend reading the fine print and summarizes its problems in this series of posts:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7
• Part 8

Carl Trueman on the theologies of Barth and Berkouwer:

In practice, the theologies of Barth and Berkouwer have really proved sterile as ecclesiastical programs. The best one can say is that they failed to stop the collapse of vital church life in Scotland, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. For all of their criticisms of the 'static' God of orthodoxy, Barthian preaching is, in my experience, sterile and dull, and fails miserably to confront listeners with the God of the Bible. I personally know of no church which has really grown through Barthian preaching. So I would summarise by saying that I am very grateful to Barth and Berkouwer for directing me to serious dogmatics, for fuelling my interest in theology and doctrinal history, and for raising big and important questions in my mind; and I still enjoy reading them on occasion for the tremendous intellectual stimulation and challenge they provide; but I have ultimately found little of any real use, theological or practical, in the actual content of their theologies.

In my opinion, two of the best books to read to your children--outside the Bible itself--are The Jesus Storybook Bible and The Big Picture Story Bible. The author of the former acknowledges her debt to Tim Keller; the author of the latter specifically thanks Graeme Goldsworthy.

My 3-year-old daughter loves both of these. They have great illustrations, and they accurately present Scripture as a unified story of redemptive history that culminates in the person and work of Christ.

Both highly recommended.

Update: I should also mention a book by Starr Meade (a gifted Reformed writer): Grandpa's Box. It's for an older age group, but it seeks to tell the story of redemptive history in an imaginative way. There is a study guide available as well.