A word about "individualism" and true evangelical convictions
Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson
The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. I was reminded of the following excerpt because of something Paul Washer said on Saturday at the Reformation Montana Conference. The excerpt is from "The Warning Neglected," a sermon preached at London's Metropolitan Tabernacle on Sunday morning, 29 November 1857.
n religion men love far rather to believe abstract doctrines, and to talk of general truths, than the searching inquiries which examine their own personal interest in it. You will hear many men admire the preacher who deals in generalities, but when he comes to press home searching questions, by-and-by they are offended.
If we stand and declare general facts, such as the universal sinnership of mankind, or the need of a Saviour, they will give an assent to our doctrine, and possibly they may retire greatly delighted with the discourse, because it has not affected them; but how often will our audience gnash their teeth, and go away in a rage, because, like the Pharisees with Jesus, they perceive, concerning a faithful minister, that he spoke of them.
And yet, my brethren, how foolish this is. If in all other matters we like personalities—if in everything else we look to our own concerns, how much more should we do so in religion? for, surely, every man must give an account for himself, at the day of judgment. We must die alone; we must rise at the day of resurrection one by one, and each one for himself must appear before the bar of God; and each one must either have said to him, as an individual, "Come ye blessed;" or else, he must be appalled with the thundering sentence, "Depart, ye cursed."
If there were such a thing as national salvation; if it could be possible that we could be saved in the gross and in the bulk, that so, like the sheaves of corn, the few weeds that may grow with the stubble, would be gathered in for the sake of the wheat, then, indeed, it might not be so foolish for us to neglect our own personal interests; but if the sheep must, every one of them, pass under the hand of him that telleth them, if every man must stand in his own person before God, to be tried for his own acts—by everything that is rational, by everything that conscience would dictate, and self-interest would command, let us each of us look to our own selves, that we be not deceived, and that we find not ourselves, at last, miserably cast away.
[HOST]: What do so many of the churches have against homosexuals?
[FT]: I’m not sure what you mean.
[HOST]: I wrote a book about the gay rights movement because I was appalled by the oppression and the discrimination against homosexuals in my America. What about your church’s approach to homosexuals? Is it a sin? Are they going to Hell?
[FT]: Do you believe in Hell?
[HOST]: You can’t really answer a question with a question, Frank.
[FT]: No, but I also can’t answer a question I’m not sure I understand. You asked me if homosexuals are going to Hell – as if that’s an option, one possible outcome. Do you think it’s a possible outcome for anyone to go to Hell?
[HOST]: Well, I’m not a Christian. I don’t think in those terms.
[FT]: So why does it bother you that someone else might? See, here’s what I’m thinking: If I sat here and told you that I think, after our time here, that you’re going to Jupiter unless you agree with me, you’d think it was funny – even though I might honestly believe it, and going to Jupiter, even if possible, is an utterly unpleasant thing – too much gravity, no air, no water, no food. If you don’t agree with me, you’re going to Jupiter. Does that worry you?
[HOST]: No, but …
[FT]: yes?
[HOST]: That’s absurd. That’s minimizing my question for an absurd comparison. I’m asking you if you think there is anything morally wrong with Homosexuality.
[FT]: Yes, but you’re doing it by asking me about the ultimate consequence. That is: what happens to a homosexual? That’s a pretty scary way to ask me if I think homosexuality has some kind of moral value – right or wrong.
[HOST]: Well, let’s ask it that way, then: does Homosexuality have any moral value?
[FT]: Yes.
[HOST]: {pause} That’s it?
[FT]: Well, I think we agree on that statement – you do agree it has some kind of moral value, yes?
[HOST]: But we would disagree on the kind of moral value it has. In my view, there’s nothing wrong with it.
[FT]: So when two people of the same sex are in a relationship, and one of them has a sexual relationship with a third person who is also of the same sex, there’s nothing wrong with that?
[HOST]: {sigh} Of course not. Of course not – I’m not talking about infidelity, but homosexuality.
[FT]: You’re saying, then, that homosexual infidelity is not homosexuality? I’m not sure that makes any sense. Homosexuality is only monogamous behavior between two people of the same sex?
[HOST]: You’re still being a little coy – I’m not sure you’re being honest with me.
[FT]: I think I’m being brutally honest – and maybe a little unloving, but there’s a point that needs to be made here if we’re going to talk about the moral value of practice or inclination: it’s not fair at all to whitewash a thing in order to justify it. Look: at the root of your original question, you want to know why Christian people say Homosexuals are going to hell. Now, as it turns out, Christians are an odd lot because we also think heterosexuals are going to hell – Larry Flint, Hugh Hefner, Larry King, anyone you know who cannot stay faithful to their marriage, anyone who will not get married but sleeps around, people attached to porn rather than a spouse, etc. And most specifically: us. The thing we are really saying is that people are going to hell. So we can’t whitewash heterosexuality in order to justify it. And for you to set up homosexuality as the only thing we’re worried about in terms of sin is not entirely above-board.
[HOST]: Wait – you think everybody is going to hell?
[FT]: Do you believe in Hell?
[HOST]: {laughs, annoyed} you’re changing the subject. Just a simple yes or no: is everyone going to hell?
[FT]: Yes and no. Yes AND no.
[HOST]: OK – explain that.
[FT]: In my view – which is, it seems to me, the historically most-common Christian view – God is going to judge all people. Everyone – at the end of all things, God is going to judge the living and the dead. The Bible says the books will be opened and the lists of what we have done in our lives will be accounted for. And it also says that when we are under that kind of scrutiny, nobody can stand before the judgment of God – so in that sense, every single person is in danger of going to hell.
[HOST]: really.
[FT]: Yes. Unquestionably – because look: the world is the way it is because people want it to be this way. Here’s what I mean: we probably don’t want it to be as utterly disappointing as it is, but we all continue to do the things which we know, at some level, are wrong in spite of them being wrong. The piling up of that, day after day, makes the world the kind of place it is. It’s the kind of place where children die both of malnutrition and parental abuse. It’s the kind of place where people die old and alone. It’s the kind of place where hearts are broken, and life savings get wasted on stupid investments, and mothers are killed in car accidents, and sons and fathers are killed in war. It’s a place where people commit suicide.
The world is the way we have made it, and while we can find some good things in it, we all know that the problem of evil exists. And the problem of evil is us – not something apart from us.
[HOST]: and in your view, that means we are all going to hell?
[FT]: It means, for sure, that we all deserve it. And let me be clear about this: the problem at its root is not that we make other people suffer for our own desires. It is that God is offended by our disobedience toward him. The real, greater problem is that there is a God, and we don’t do what he wants us to do: we do what we want to do, and we love ourselves more than we love him.
[HOST]: So your religion is that everybody goes to hell?
[FT]: Nope – I said the answer is Yes AND No. Yes: we all deserve to go to Hell. But as it turns out, God will not stand for it and has done something for the sake of this disobedient and willful race of creatures we call mankind. We all deserve Hell, but Jesus Christ saves men from Hell.
[HOST]: So does Christ save homosexuals from hell?
[FT]: Well, do you believe in Hell? Because that’s not much of a question if you don’t believe in Hell.
[HOST]: Let’s say I do.
[FT]: I don’t want to put works in your mouth.
[HOST]: In your view of it, since you believe in Hell, does Christ save Homosexuals from Hell?
[FT]: Yes.
[HOST]: {pause} … and? … But?
[FT]: But what? Look: if we were talking about sex in general here, and I said to you, “everyone who has unprotected, serial casual sex will eventually get an STD – and the worst case is like Africa where AIDS is ravaging the population,” what would your reaction be? Either you’d believe that this is likely, or you’d doubt that the cause has that effect, right? Now: if you believe the cause has that effect, you have to ask: “so how can we be saved?” The state of things causes you to look for a solution – if you believe in the cause and effect. In this hypothetical case, the cause is causal sex and the effect is life-threatening diseases. And when you ask, “how can we be saved?” the answer can strike at any part of the problem. One solution would be to permanently keep all people segregated from each other so that there is no chance of sex ever – and that’s a pretty terminal solution. Not likely to catch on, prolly. Another solution is to somehow clean up the sex act so that there’s no disease involved – some sort of protection or vaccination or other form of attacking the actual diseases. Self control might be a solution – the idea that I can keep myself from doing stupid things with my body. But at the end of it, it seems to me that if we are honest, the solution can’t come from ourselves – because we are naturally the cause of the problem.
We need a solution. In fact, because the problem is not clinical, we don’t need a diagnosis and a treatment: we need a savior. And Jesus is that savior – for the heterosexuals, for the greedy, for liars, and to make sure I don’t discriminate against anyone, for the homosexuals.
[HOST]: So Jesus is the savior from Hell.
[FT]: Yes. If you believe in that sort of thing. If not, you shouldn’t be offended. The Apostle Paul said that if Jesus Christ did not die and raise from the dead, our faith is joke, and our so-called “Gospel” is a lie – we’re not to be admired, but pitied as utterly hopeless. If you don’t believe that Hell is a real place, and Jesus actually died for sin so that people don’t have to go there, then me or anyone telling you that homosexuals or republicans or anyone is going to hell shouldn’t upset you.
I lifted these questions from the Keller video that the best and greatest of all known Franks has featured twice:
What do so many of the churches have against homosexuals? And what about your church’s approach to homosexuals? Is it a sin? Are they going to Hell? There are many evangelicals who say that it is listed as a sin in the Bible, and these people are going to Hell.
Are committing homosexual acts sin [sic] against God? Committing homosexual acts will get you to go to Hell?
Is it really that hard to give a straight, comprehensible, Biblically faithful answer to those questions? Let's try. Ahem.
My brief answer in 3... 2... 1...
Yes, homosexuality is a sin; and yes, people who pursue homosexual desires will deserve Hell, and they'll be sent there righteously and justly and deservedly by the holy God. Sin, after all, is a violation of God's laws. Sin is what God says it is. Sin isn't what the latest Gallup poll says sin is.
But I hasten to say that Jesus Christ delivers people like you and me from both the guilt and the grip of sin. Homosexuals, liars, thieves, self-absorbed narcissists, idolaters of all stripes and brands — the whole lot of us: Jesus came to save exactly such people. When a person says he is a homosexual, he brands himself as just the sort of person Jesus came to deliver. The gospel is the message about just how Jesus does that, and that's what I'd like to explain, if you'll give me a moment to do so.
Now the longer version:
It's difficult to answer a question about "churches," so let me go straight to your second question: my church's approach to everyone who doesn't know Christ is to tell them the truth about Jesus, to tell them what they need to know about God and themselves. And let me answer your other questions, if I may, then return to this topic.
Yes, homosexuality is a sin. Yes, if people commit homosexual acts, they absolutely do deserve Hell. Every evangelical — not just "many" — should say precisely that, because evangelicals are supposed to believe in the Bible, and that is what the Bible says. There is no way to pursue homosexual desires and imagine that you can expect anything from God but well-deserved wrath, judgment, and condemnation.
Having said that, let me take a step back and say that "sin" is any want of conformity to the will and nature of God. Sin is rebellion against God's Lordship. It is refusal to do what God commands, or insisting on doing what God forbids, or rejecting what God enjoins. It had its birth in Adam and Eve's insane desire to "be as God." Every sin is an attempt to be God instead of God.
All such attempts are doomed from the start, because there is in fact only one God, and He won't give up the throne. He will absolutely and certainly judge every rebellion against Himself. If He did not, He would not only not be a good God, He wouldn't even be a sane God. And really, if you'll think about it, how scary is that?
Since that is what sin is, we can easily see that homosexuality is not the only sin. It is one of many. But I do not see great groundswells of support and sympathy and rationalization being built for rapists, child molesters, or murderers. Some sins are popular and winked-at among people, some aren't. Sex outside of marriage, wrongful divorce, lies and the like are in the former category, and now homosexuality is forcing its way there as well, with the help of slick PR, a complicit media, and "useful idiots" among the religious.
But the Bible is perfectly straightforward: all such things as these, popular or unpopular, bring the wrath of God (Eph. 5:5-6; Col. 3:5-6). What God says is right and wrong reflects God's holy nature; it isn't the result of His having taken a poll of the sinners frolicking below.
It is important to understand that this sin-brush paints us all. I may not be driven by perverted desires to have sex with someone of my own sex. Instead, I may be driven by perverted desires to try to be god in some other way, by other sexual expressions that violate God's laws, or by living my life in materialism or self-entertainment or self-indulgence, whiling away every spare moment in video games or fishing or watching wrestling or attending political rallies to save the country, and never bowing my knee in submission to the Lordship and absolute centrality of God. Sin comes in many varieties, and you and I have bought and consumed and advocated and proselytized for it.
See, that's where Jesus came in. He came and lived the life we should have but didn't, and died a death He shouldn't have had to die but did, that we might be freed not only from the penalty of sin, which is Hell, but from the power of sin — which is the life we all live, apart from Him.
So I don't want to play down homosexuality, or play it up. It is a repulsive outrage against God's design, and there is nothing good to be said for it. But trying to be a god unto myself is also a repulsive outrage against God's design, and there's nothing good to be said for that, either. I would hardly be loving to people or to God if I tried to soften or alter those truths.
But He has nothing to offer to anyone who insists on disagreeing with God about the definition and horridness of sin, and who thus refuses to come to Christ for deliverance — nothing to offer, that is, other than the fearsome assurance of God's final and inescapable judgment, which is a topic He returned to over and over again.
Which is why we do that, too, insofar as we're faithful to Him.
I think that does it, doesn't it? And if a dim bulb like me can do it...?
Last week, I put up two videos to compare and contrast -- with the requirement that the readers of this blog (somehow watching videos has now made you "readers"; nice work, internet), find something good to say about both videos. These are the videos right here, for reference:
First, from John Piper:
Second, from Tim Keller:
Before we get to the red meat here (such as it is -- I think it's not what most people would say that it is), let me say that the one thing I expected absolutely happened, and that is that some people couldn't find anything edifying in the work of people whom they have decided (for right or wrong) to abhor. That should be instructive as a stand-alone point without any further deep-diving into the content of these two videos, but it won't be -- because they will all hide behind DJP's lack of enthusiasm toward the Keller video [which is not motivated by a pre-condition of disdain] and say, "see? Even someone with good intentions toward Keller ought to have a hard time finding good things in this video. Ergo, Keller should [insert denunciation of Keller here]."
That, of course, also speaks for itself.
So here's the thing: what's the point of contrasting these videos at all? Why do it? The first reason is found here, in an old post by me on the subject both of these videos are treating. Both of these videos are wildly successful at overcoming the question of guilt by association which true Christians face at the hands of violent and moralistic posers. Whatever you may think about the approach of both these videos, they both understand that the real person of Jesus has to speak to the real person of the sinner in order for the real sin to be made clear and the real reconciliation to take place.
The reason that is important is that we don't live in the 1920's anymore when people, as debased as they were, at least knew that there was a difference between men and women which ought to be in some way understood as necessary. The topic is homosexuality and public life. See it plainly: this is not about the right to privacy, and to do what you will behind closed doors, but about how one sort of lifestyle must be treated publicly, by all people, as dictated by the law. It is frankly never going to go away until Christ returns or Western Civilization goes the way of the Medo-Persian Empire. This arrangement and all the permutations of it now created by "science" (a topic for another day) are stuck with us, and we must learn how to speak to it and speak to the people who believe in it as dearly as they believe in happiness.
That said, let me first offer my very small and incidental critique of the Piper video out of the way. Dr. Piper's video is plainly made to speak to those who are believers, or those who think they want to be believers, and therefore uses the Bible in a way which, it seems to me, that only believers can receive. Here's what I mean by that: it's irrefutable that Dr. Piper spells out the essential case for the sinfulness of homosexuality in completely-certain terms, and does a fatherly job of saying these things graciously and seriously. He takes the listener from the provocative basic case to the right and true applications of those things -- but he puts every argument up on the theological shelf (except maybe one -- the part about self and sex) where the unbeliever, it seems to me, can't reach it.
Now, I say that guardedly because it also seems to me that this video is intended for believers who are trying to reason through this issue and not, as the Keller video is, a presentation to a hostile audience. We say things in Sunday school which are intended for a different kind of people than the average person you might sit next to on the airplane, or find at the NYU or Columbia Student Center. So the approach is warranted, and it is not a shortcoming as much as it is a feature of the context of the video.
That said, the context of the Keller video is much different. He's not speaking to believers at all -- regardless of what some of them might present as a self-identification. He's speaking directly to the lost, and fielding their questions about our faith and our beliefs about God. So as a primary virtue of this video, let's be honest: he's got a platform here that nobody at TeamPyro is likely to ever get. Additionally, his host is plainly interested in Dr. Keller as an example of the Christian faith -- not just a religious person or someone with a with moral opinions or good advice. And let's face it: this fellow hosting puts the issue on the table plainly: is homosexuality a sin?
From that perspective, Keller says some really great things in this video:
The definition of Love is to give yourself up for people who are actually opposing you, actually your enemies.
Is homosexuality a sin? Yes.
Is it the only sin? No.
Greed is a more-insidious sin because it is harder to identify -- but it tells us about how sin works. "What sends you to hell is your own self-righteousness."
Gay people have a different view of sexuality (vs. the Bible) in the same way that the Hindu has a different view of who or what God is -- these are the same sort of thing.
And the reason these are great things to say is that they take the assumptions of the lost people listening and turn them completely inside-out, pointing them back at their own lives and moral standards to see what they ought to see -- namely: some truth about themselves.
That's what's good about this video.
What's really, deeply disappointing is the real failure of Dr. Keller to get seriously biblical on this subject. For example, when he reasons, "I think it's unavoidable ... that you read the Bible and the Bible has reservations, the Bible says homosexuality is not God's original design for sexuality," he doesn't really connect to what God explicitly says about this sin. He does himself a disservice in speaking to the question he was asked because what he then says sounds more like his opinion and his assessment rather than something objective and therefore compelling.
Let's face it: the question David Eisenbach asked was not, "what is the moral reasoning behind Christians decrying homosexuality?" It in fact was, "Is there really condemnation by God for those who are homosexuals?" And the right answer -- which Keller kinda gives -- is "Yes, and no." Yes: clinging to any sin rather than to Christ will get you to Hell. No: Christ forgives the repentant, the forlorn, those who are broken by their own brokenness before God. In all seriousness, this is the glaring difference between the Piper video and the Keller video: Piper makes it absolutely clear that we are not just dysfunctional or that we fail to thrive when we do things God has "reservations" about. He makes it clear we are headed toward a judgment by God because we have done wrong to God.
Worse still, I think, is that Keller says this: "Will greed send you to hell? No. What sends you to hell is self-righteousness, thinking that you can be your own Savior and Lord. What sends you to Heaven is getting a connection to Christ because you realize you're a sinner and you need intervention from outside. That's why it's very misleading even to say, 'homosexuality is a sin,' because all kinds of things are sins ... which nonbelievers hear as, 'if you're Gay you're going to hell for being Gay."
That statement, it seems to me, does far worse damage than bold-face vilification of gay people -- because it misses the point about sin. What the Bible says, plainly, is that we are sinners because we want what we want, and out of our hearts comes all manner of things which show we are sinners. The Law and its prohibitions really tell us more about what we are by comparison than saying, "geez, you're not going to thrive." We do the things we want to do because of who we are. As Piper so eloquently put it in his video, "In other words, if you know that it's wrong, and you say, 'I don't care that its wrong, I don't care what God says, I am doing this anyway,' that's an indication that you're not going into the Kingdom of Heaven," and then, "the idol that you have is yourself."
Lastly, making this only about sin as a diagnosis of a failure to thrive forgets this biblical truth: all kinds of people thrive. One complaint from the Old Testament of Israel to God is, "hey: where is your justice? Why do those who scoff at you and hate you do so well in this life?" It's disingenuous to say that sin is about God's assessment of what will allow us to thrive when eventually we have to account for the problem of evil and the problem that in every case, and relating to all kinds of sin, people who are guilty seem to also get away with it and do pretty good.
So there you have it. There are some other things I could say here which would line out other faults I perceive in this video, but this is already longer that you can read during coffee break.
So should we now start campaigning for Pastor Keller's trial at the next session of his presbytery and see to it that he is removed from leadership? Is that really the answer we're looking for here -- to drum out the guy who is encountering unbelievers and giving them some sort of grain of truth when they ask him hard questions? Because while I will be the first one to say I think Keller did not deliver the actual Gospel in this video, he did deliver some of the fundamental truths necessary for the Gospel to people who probably actually heard them for the first time -- and by "heard" I mean, "listened, and had to think again about what they were hearing."
If we had to draw lessons here, one of them ought to be about us -- those of us who are not getting invited to the Veritas forum to speak to unbelievers. What we ought to ask ourselves is this: how come Paul and Tim Keller get invited to their respective versions of the Aeropagus, but we are stuck here on our blogs? One self-congratulatory answer is that there is woe to us when everybody thinks we're fine fellows -- and I think that answer can be undone by thinking about Keller's implication of self-righteousness. Another answer is this: maybe we are people who haven't mastered love of neighbor even though we know it's the second greatest commandment.
What I think we have to do with this video is not to tear it to shreds and walk away satisfied with our own apologetic Kung Fu: I think we have to read it for what it does well, and then do better. We should seek the chance to do what was done here, and then do it better.
That is: unless we don't care about lost people as much as Keller does.
Recently I went through the books of Joshua and Matthew in my daily reading, and noticed an interesting parallel/contrast in missions.
Note the opening words of Joshua. Yahweh says this to the newly-minted general:
"Moses my servant is dead. Now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the people of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, just as I promised to Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory. 5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you. 6 Be strong and courageous, for you shall cause this people to inherit the land that I swore to their fathers to give them. 7 Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. 8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. 9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go." (Josh 1:2-9)
We could enumerate the elements like this:
Moses is dead
I (own the earth and) have given you land in Canaan as your possession
(Exercise My dominion by) driving out or killing all the inhabitants, and take the land
Be careful to learn and do My commandments, and
I will be with you
Some 1400 years later another "Joshua" comes along. He also gives a commission, and this commission is also occasioned by death. However, in this case, the death was His own, and death was not the last word. Also, in this case it is not He who receives the commission with Yahweh's authority, but He who gives the commission with Yahweh's authority.
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:16-20)
Note the similarity and contrast in the elements.
I have died -- and risen again
All authority in heaven and earth has been given Me, and therefore...
(Exercise My dominion by) making students from all nations
Be careful to teach them to keep My commands, and
I will be with you
The two "Joshua's" had missions that were at the same time very similar, and very different.
Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson
The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "A Young Man's Vision," a sermon preached at a special Thursday-evening event at London's Metropolitan Tabernacle on 16 April 1868.
any visions have led to the most disastrous results. When Napoleon had a vision of a universal monarchy over which he should preside, with the French eagle for his ensign, he drenched the lands in blood.
Many visions have been wretchedly delusive. Men have dreamed of finding the fairy pleasure in the dark forest of sin. Carnal joys have danced before their eyes as temptingly as the mirage in the desert, and they have pursued the phantom forms to their misery in this world, and to their eternal ruin in the next. Mistaking license for liberty, and madness for mirth, they have dreamed themselves into hell.
Many dreams have been enervating—sucking the life-blood out of men as vampires do. Men have passed from stern reality into dreamland, and while seemingly awakened, have continued like somnambulists to do all things in their sleep.
Many pass all their days in one perpetual daydream, speculating, building castles in the air, thinking of what they would do—if, and vowing how they would behave themselves—suppose. With fine capacities they have driveled away existence: as their theory of life was born of smoke, so the result of their lives has been a cloud. The luxurious indolence of mere resolve, the useless tossings of regret—these have been all their sluggard life.
love the idea of unity built on a gospel foundation, but the success or failure of that idea hinges on our understanding of and commitment to a true, unadulterated, biblical understanding of the gospel. We know from both Scripture and the hard-fought lessons of church history that not everyone who says he is committed to the gospel really is. Not everyone who claims to stand with us in affirming gospel truth is really interested in doing the work of the Great Commission. Not everyone who signs an evangelical confession of faith actually preaches the gospel.
Some people who use a lot of gospel words actually peddle a different gospel that is nothing like the apostolic message. Invariably, the very same people who openly advocate (re)imagining Christianity also seek mainstream acceptance. The Emergent(ing) Church Movement melted down as a movement, but it hasn't gone away. Multitudes who thought the emergents' New Kind of Christianity was a Truly Great Idea have simply been dispersed back into the large shallow end of the evangelical community—where hardly anyone is willing to engage in any kind of controversy to stanch their influence.
But if we truly want any kind of gospel-based unity, we have to be willing to defend the gospel together. The gospel is not only the ground on which we unite with other believers, it is also ground we must earnestly defend against false teachers. You cannot achieve true unity unless you vigorously pursue both of those goals.
PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.
Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.
If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.
n religion men love far rather to believe abstract doctrines, and to talk of general truths, than the searching inquiries which examine their own personal interest in it. You will hear many men admire the preacher who deals in generalities, but when he comes to press home searching questions, by-and-by they are offended.
any visions have led to the most disastrous results. When Napoleon had a vision of a universal monarchy over which he should preside, with the French eagle for his ensign, he drenched the lands in blood.
love the idea of unity built on a gospel foundation, but the success or failure of that idea hinges on our understanding of and commitment to a true, unadulterated, biblical understanding of the gospel. We know from both Scripture and the hard-fought lessons of church history that not everyone who says he is committed to the gospel really is. Not everyone who claims to stand with us in affirming gospel truth is really interested in doing the work of the Great Commission. Not everyone who signs an evangelical confession of faith actually preaches the gospel.
But if we truly want any kind of gospel-based unity, we have to be willing to defend the gospel together. The gospel is not only the ground on which we unite with other believers, it is also ground we must earnestly defend against false teachers. You cannot achieve true unity unless you vigorously pursue both of those goals.
