Osteenification and What it Portends

Virtually every morning I try to catch up on news and sports while running on my treadmill. Often the running (mostly walking) is accompanied by the vigorous exercise of my remote. Recently, I flipped into an interview involving Singaporean mega-pastor Joseph Prince. The more I tuned in, the faster my heart rate. Disregard for the meaning and context of Scripture was simply breathtaking. It all led up to taking a shower and beginning work on a book now titled The Osteenification of American Christianity.

Why Osteenification? Because Joel Osteen is the prime provocateur of a seductive brand of American Christianity that reduces God to a means to our ends. A message that beckons multitudes to the table of the Master, not for the love of the Master but for what is on the table. He is the de facto high priest of a new brand of Christianity perfectly suited for a feel-good generation. And while a host of pretenders (including Prince) follow in his train, Osteen is clearly the biggest of the bunch—according to People magazine, “twice as big as the nearest competitor.” And his claim to America’s largest church is just a small part of the story. With one billion impressions per month on Facebook and Twitter, Osteen is the hip new personification of God-talk in America.      Continue at Hank Hanegraaff

See also: Whither the Prosperity Gospel?

Young, Restless and... Nietzschean?

Carl Trueman

Over at First Thoughts, Collin Garbarino offers some very perceptive comments on the Driscoll plagiarism affair.  He makes the point that such activity receives a failing grade at his university.  I would only add that at Westminster it also involves automatic suspension from the degree program followed by discussion with the powers that be about whether Christian ministry is really an option for the perpetrator.

One sentence in particular stands out: 'Ghostwriting is lying, and plagiarism is stealing, and there seems to be a lot of it going around.' No further comment is necessary, for that says it all.

For some time now I have been harping on and on about the corrupting effects of celebrity culture on conservative evangelicalism.  I think I was wrong: we are not dealing these days with mere celebrities; the ethical transgressions we are witnessing would indicate that we are actually dealing with a form of evangelical Nietzscheanism whereby the leaders of the movement are, to borrow a phrase, beyond good and evil. This should have been clear when Driscoll embraced T D Jakes as a brother.   Continue at Carl Trueman

The Boundaries of Evangelicalism

As I survey the contemporary church, one of my gravest concerns is the power and prevalence of mysticism. It appears in pulpits, books, and conversation. It is at the heart of Sarah Young’s bestselling Jesus Calling, it is in all the much-loved books by John Eldredge, it fills the pages of so many books on spiritual disciplines or spiritual formation, it is almost everywhere you look. Language that was once considered the distinguishing language of mysticism is now commonly used by Evangelicals.

Mysticism was once regarded as an alternative to Evangelical Christianity. You were Evangelical or you were a mystic, you heeded the doctrine of the Reformation and understood it to faithfully describe the doctrine laid out in Scripture or you heeded the doctrine of mysticism. Today, though, mysticism has wormed its way inside Evangelicalism so that the two have become integrated and almost inseparable. In an age of syncretism we fail to spot the contradiction and opposition.

Several years ago Donald Whitney attempted to define the boundaries of Evangelical spirituality--the boundaries of how we may rightly live out our Christian faith. His paper has been very helpful to me as I’ve thought this through.   Continue at Tim Challies

This Lent I am Giving Up . . . Reticence

I will make no bones about it: I am an Old World (for which please read 'continental European') Christian, of Puritan inclination, and a Dissenter - specifically, a Particular or Reformed Baptist. That means several things. By conviction and heritage I belong to those who left the Anglican communion as a matter of conscience, sick of its halfway reformation and unwilling to conform to the general shabbiness and unscriptural demands of the Act of Uniformity. My conscience with regard to the extra-Biblical trappings of mere religiosity is tender. My attachment to simplicity of worship as a gathered church is sincere. I am sensitive to those doctrines and practices over which my forefathers spent their energies and shed their tears and sometimes their blood, both from within and then from without the established folds of their day. I see things with an awareness tuned by walking the streets, graveyards and memorials of men and women who suffered and sometimes died for conscience' sake.

Out of such an atmosphere I cannot help but be sickened by the seeming obsession with Lent and Easter at this time of year, and Christmas at the end of the year. Please do not misunderstand me: conscience also demands that - where the cultural vestiges of a more religious society patterned to some extent on the significant events of the life of Christ provide for it - I take every legitimate opportunity to make Christ known. If an ear is even half-opened by circumstance, I willingly and cheerfully speak into it, and seek to make of it a door for the gospel. I do not see the point of making a point by not preaching about the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord if some benighted soul wanders into the church with at least some expectation of hearing about his humiliation and exaltation.  Continue at Jeremy Walker

IMAGE

See  also: To Lent or reLent? Some thoughts on a recent post at The Gospel Coalition

Is Open Theism a Type of Arminianism?

Is Open Theism a Type of Arminianism?

One of the reasons I started this blog was to provide a place to talk about Arminian issues, issues related to Arminian theology. (There is no “Arminian movement” as such, so all talk about Arminianism is about theology.) One of those questions is whether open theism, “openness of God” theology, is a version of Arminianism. Does it belong under the umbrella category “Arminian theology” or is it a “stand alone” theology vis-à-vis Arminianism? Are they separate or should Arminianism be regarded as the larger, broader doctrinal perspective and open theism a particular angle on that perspective?

Generally speaking, open theists want to be considered Arminians. Most of them were Arminians before becoming open theists; they still consider themselves Arminians. (A few open theist jumped right from some version of Reformed theology into open theism.)

Generally speaking, non-open theist Arminians do not want to include open theists among their ranks or treat open theism as a variation of Arminianism.

I think there are political reasons for that. Among evangelicals, anyway, Arminianism has long been accepted as a respectable tradition even by most Reformed evangelicals who strongly disagree with it. Arminians were among the founders of the National Association of Evangelicals. Who can seriously doubt that John Wesley should be considered evangelical? Yes, of course, there are those Calvinists and Lutherans who would like to own the label “evangelical” and exclude Arminians, but that’s not widely accepted by the movers and shakers of evangelicalism. If open theism can be considered Arminian, that gives open theists more of a voice, a place at the table, among evangelicals.  Continue at Roger Olson

John MacArthur - A Review by Jeffrey Riddle

The fact that the staunchly Reformed publisher Banner of Truth has released a biography of dispensational pastor John MacArthur is testimony to the fact that MacArthur is one of the most influential evangelical ministers of our times. This book¹ began in 2009 as a biographical portrait commissioned from Iain Murray by the elders of Grace Community Church to mark MacArthur's fortieth anniversary of ministry in that congregation. Murray has expanded that profile but concludes by noting that this is 'little more than a sketch; this is not the time, nor I the writer to give a full portrait' (229).

What do we learn about the life of John MacArthur? Murray begins by describing MacArthur's early years growing up in a minister's home in Southern California. As a young man he attended Bob Jones University and preached his first feeble sermon in a Spartanburg, South Carolina bus station. Uncomfortable with Bob Jones, MacArthur eventually transferred to Pacific College and then on to Talbot Seminary, where he came under the influence of Charles L. Feinberg. This transition reflected MacArthur's discomfort with the 'war psychology' of classical fundamentalism and his move toward more mainstream evangelicalism.   Continue at Jeffrey Riddle

Evangelicalism Really is Divided

The year was 1950, and evangelicalism was at a crossroads. For the previous 50 years evangelicals had fought to create an identity. Having separated from the main-line denominations, evangelicals now were an mish-mashed group lacking identity. The former generation of evangelicals was tired, having fought battles for the purity and proliferation of the movement. Feeling that the gospel’s integrity was at stake, they had worked to raise up a younger generation of like-minded evangelicals.

This new generation realized that their movement lacked identity. They also noticed that the previous generation had fought battles, some of which appeared to be little more than shadow-boxing as the former enemies had receded for the time being. As this new generation looked across the evangelical landscape, they saw a blank canvass. This new generation labored to create an identity for their group. Ian Murray, in Evangelicalism Divided, shows the struggles that ensued during the battle for the identity of this second generation.

This is one of those books that every American Christian needs to read. In fact, I bet many readers of our blog have already read it, and the rest probably own it. If you have not cracked it, then dust it off and break it out. Before I moved to Viriginia, the elders at Grace Church spent much of the year reading this book together. It was stunning how much of Murray’s details related directly to present controversy in evangelicalism.   Continue at Jesse Johnson

Rome Sweet Home?

In recent years, a trickle of members — even ministers — in confessional Reformed and Presbyterian as well as Lutheran churches have converted to Roman Catholicism. Graduates of solid seminaries, they nevertheless wrestled with the Reformation for a while only to conclude that Rome is “home.” Reviewing recently the testimonies on a parachurch website that seeks to draw evangelicals and confessional Protestants to Rome, the recurring response of fellow travelers was “welcome home.”

Having engaged recently in conversations with two friends who have been drawn to Rome, I have wrestled myself with the question, Why? What’s up?

I know there are some who have a superficial knowledge of (and concern for) theological issues. They may be attracted to the cultural resources: a long and deeply thought-out moral theology that at least in its official positions is pro-life in a fuller sense than single-issue politics. They’re tired of bandwagons and bellicose leaders who appoint themselves spokespersons for the whole church. Thoughtful, if untheological, many younger Christians are drawn to the more mature character of Roman Catholic reflection on these issues. With cultural refinement and upward mobility, the evangelical churches of their youth can seem, well, tacky or at least shallow in comparison with the tradition in which Dante, Michelangelo, and Raphael were shaped.

But why would people who seriously embraced Reformation theology be drawn to Rome? It’s uncharitable and unwise to presume to know all of the factors in any case, much less to make that a rule for all the others. However, I have a few speculations.  Continue at Michael Horton

Debatable: Is Complementarianism Another Word for Patriarchy?

[Note: "Debatable" is a new feature in which we briefly summarize debates within the evangelical community.]

The Issue: Is complementarianism another word for patriarchy? Egalitarians and many complementarians agree: It is indeed. But a recent debate attempts to determine whether this should be acknowledged as a timeless biblical norm or rejected as an outdated cultural standard.

Position #1: Russell Moore, dean of the School of Theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Seminary, recently said at the Together for the Gospel conference that complementarians should practice what they preach:

What I fear is that we have many people in evangelicalism who can check off "complementarian" on a box but who really aren't living out complementarian lives. Sometimes I fear we have marriages that are functionally egalitarian, because they are within the structure of the larger society. If all we are doing is saying "male headship" and "wives submit to your husbands," but we're not really defining what that looks like . . . in this kind of culture, when those things are being challenged, then it's simply going to go away.

Position #2: Rachel Held Evans, an author and blogger, agrees but says complementarianism is losing because it is "nothing more, nothing less" than patriarchy:

1. They are losing ground because more and more evangelical theologians, scholars, professors, and pastors are thoughtfully debunking a complementarian interpretation of Scripture and doing it at the popular level through books like The Blue Parakeet (by Scot McKnight), Discovering Biblical Equality (by Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Gordon Fee), How I Changed My Mind About Women in Church Leadership (by a who's who of evangelical leaders), through evangelical colleges and seminaries that celebrate women's giftedness to lead and are producing record numbers of female graduates, and through organizations like Christians for Biblical Equality.   Continue at Joe Carter

Complementarianism or Patriarchy? What’s in a name?

Rachel Held Evans recently made a splash with a blog post suggesting that complementarianism is merely patriarchy masquerading under a less offensive name. Her post generated a good bit of discussion not only on her blog but on Scot McKnight’s as well.

Evans is riffing on remarks that Russell Moore recently made about complementarians who are big on gender orthodoxy but not so much on orthopraxy. Here’s how Moore expressed his concern, “What I fear is that we have many people in evangelicalism who can check off ‘complementarian’ on a box but who really aren’t living out complementarian lives.” Evans agrees with this statement and then offers three reasons why she thinks complementarian practice is losing ground among those who profess complementarian principles.

1. Because more and more evangelical theologians, scholars, professors, and pastors are thoughtfully debunking a complementarian interpretation of Scripture…

2. Because their rhetoric consistently reflects a commitment to an idealized glorification of the pre-feminist nuclear family of 1950s America rather than a commitment to “biblical manhood” and “biblical womanhood”…   Continue at Denny Burk

Evangelicalism and Theological Mediocrity

Dr. Mohler’s recent article “Is the Megachurch the New Liberalism?” is thought-provoking along several fronts, but one in particular struck me. He writes:

What about theology? This question requires a look at the massive shifts in worldview now evident within American culture. Trends foreseen by researchers such as James Davison Hunter of the University of Virginia and others can now be seen in full flower. The larger culture has turned increasingly hostile to exclusivist truth claims such as the belief that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. One megachurch pastor in Florida recently told me that the megachurches in his area were abandoning concern for biblical gender roles on a wholesale basis. As one pastor told him, you cannot grow a church and teach biblical complementarianism.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the pushback I got for this half-serious post at The Thinklings blog last week, specifically on the #8 point in that list, where I reveal my position against women in pastoral authority. The comments became an exercise in vain disputations, and while the vast majority of the feedback was positive, the still sizable portion that wasn’t, was quite vitriolic. I’ve been called more “choice words” in the last two weeks in public than my whole life combined. (But, remember, I’m the graceless one.) Those disagreeable sorts who weren’t angry, were at the least flummoxed.

The post has been reprinted on a few other sites and was even mentioned on a radio show, and the questions it’s received are revealing. It’s not the accusations of misogyny or sexism that bug me — those are understandable and not unexpected. It’s the question behind the question — “Wait. What’s wrong with female pastors?”   Continue at Jared C. Wilson

See also: The Relevant Queries for Andy Stanley

 

Long-Term Consequences of Pragmatism in the Church

 

 

Has the Gospel-Centered Emphasis Gone Too Far?

R. C. Sproul, James Boice, and J. I. Packer were already stirring many evangelicals with the vision of a great God who saves sinners by a grace that is amazing from start to finish. Out of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology, chaired by Dr. Boice, a host of annual conferences sprouted up across North America. Ligonier Ministries gained a national platform. Inspired and nourished by these efforts, several of us started the White Horse Inn and Modern Reformation 20 years ago out of a concern that we need to recover the riches of the Reformation, with the gospel of justification in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone, at its heart.

Over these two decades, we’ve been through a series of controversies within evangelicalism about the character of God and his gospel: open theism, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and the “emergent” movement, to name a few. Along the way, we’ve engaged Robert Schuller, with the publication of his Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, at a moment when it seemed from the Christian best-seller list that Christianity was being radically re-written in the subjective and therapeutic categories of modernity.

There are still enormous challenges, of course. As our latest issue of Modern Reformation points out, the diet of Christian trade books doesn’t exactly point in the direction of widespread renewal of catechesis. Nevertheless, there has been a proliferation of gospel-centered resources. Groups like the Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel sponsor large national conferences. Reared on moralism, a number of younger pastors—many of larger nondenominational churches—are being gripped by grace.

Just think of some of the titles of late in this genre: The Gospel as Center, D. A. Carson; The Prodigal God, Tim Keller; Jesus + Nothing = Everything, Tullian Tchividjian; Gospel: Recovering the Power that Made Christianity Revolutionary, J. D. Greear; The Good News We Almost Forgot, Kevin DeYoung; What Is the Gospel?, Greg Gilbert. I’ve added a few of my own logs to the “gospel” fire, so I can only rejoice in what Charles Swindoll called a while back “the grace awakening.”     Continue at Michael Horton

The Legacy of Charles Colson

I don’t mean to be a curmudgeon and I don’t mean to be insensitive, truly. Perhaps there are rules that govern these things, and I am violating them, or maybe I am just missing some vital piece of information. I don’t know. But I have been to a wide variety of Christian blogs and news sites reading the obituaries and memorials and remembrances of Charles Colson and have been surprised to note that they are have been very nearly uniformly, unabashedly positive. 

I am not convinced that we are doing right here. I suppose I would rather wait a little while to say this, but then the opportunity will be gone. At least to my understanding, Colson’s legacy was both more and less than people are making it out to be. I didn’t really understand the man in all his inconsistencies and complexities while he lived—the combination of good and bad baffled me—and I certainly don’t understand him now that he has died.

Don’t hear me say that Colson was a complete villain, but do hear me when I say that he leaves behind a legacy that is far more multi-faceted, far more multi-dimensional, than most people have been saying. It is a legacy that includes some dark chapters, and not only prior to his conversion.

Charles Colson leaves behind a testimony of a man who encountered grace at his darkest hour. He leaves behind a legacy of a ministry that seeks to extend grace to those who are likewise in their darkest hour. He sought to teach Christians how to think—to describe and define a biblical worldview. And then he sought to lead in the application of that biblical worldview, and this is where things become hazy, where a positive legacy collides with a woeful one, where his work for the Lord encounters his work against the Lord’s church.  Continue at Tim Challies

Generation Me and Youth Ministry Today (Part 2)

This is a continuation of yesterday’s post on some of the concerns surrounding youth ministry as it is often practiced in Evangelicalism today. To read part one click here.

Some Practical Suggestions for Ministering to Youth

For those who may be weary of the extraordinary and want to invest more energy in rethinking how we engage in the ordinary ministry for all generations, including the next, here are a few suggestions. I’m sure others, more experienced than I, can come up with others.

1. Turn the youth group into a nursery for faith. In our culture, the “youth culture” is in the driver’s seat, with the goal even of older people to be “forever young.” According to the Scripture, though, sanctification is all about joining the rest of the church in “growing up in Christ” as our head, through the ordinary ministry of pastors and teachers (Eph 4: so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Eph 4:10-15). In The Lost Tools of Learning, Dorothy Sayers notes how children learn at first by parroting. This stage is perfect for rote memorization, building the stock of Christian grammar that they will use the rest of their lives. Then they begin to question things, looking for the logical connections between different beliefs and reasons for them. (We call this being a teenager!) Finally, they enter the “rhetoric” stage, where they understand, express, explain, and live the faith for themselves. We shouldn’t let our culture’s child-centered educational philosophy keep us from emphasizing rote memorization. However, we also should be ready to accept and even to encourage the questioning stage, so that they can embrace Christ and his Word for themselves.
2. Are we preparing younger believers for the communion of saints? When do they actually share in the public service, learning in growing stages to participate in the corporate prayers, confession, praise, giving, hearing, and receiving the Supper? When we include them in the service from the earliest possible years, they grow from fidgety toddlers to gradually appreciate what is happening and that they are equal sharers in it. We should not create alternative services for different age groups during the ordinary worship service, but bring them into the service and worship of the Triune God with his people.  Continue at Michael Horton

Book Review: Friends and Lovers by Joel. R. Beeke

There appears to be a marriage book renaissance going on within the Reformed-ish circles of evangelicalism and this is a very good thing indeed. One only has to look at the divorce rates both inside and outside the church to see that marriage is in crisis. But why? Why are we so unhappy in our marriages? In Friends and Lovers: Cultivating Companionship and Intimacy in Marriage, Joel Beeke argues it’s a gospel issue—and the true hope for a God-glorifying marriage is found in Jesus:

By nature we are ignorant of what true love and marriage should be, but Christ our prophet offers us guidance in the Bible. We are guilty of dishonoring marriage through our disobedience towards the God who designed it, but Christ our priest shed his blood for the forgiveness of our sins and now intercedes for us. We are rebels without the strength to overcome the evil that distorts and disrupts our human relationships, but Christ our king conquers sin and rules us by his mighty Spirit, making all things new—including our marriages.

In looking at Christ as the foundation of our marriages, Beeke divides his argument into two parts—the need for spouses to be friends and friendship’s impact on marital intimacy. This pattern is familiar, but worth repeating. On cultivating friendship within marriage, he writes:

Many people in our culture think that love is something you fall into and therefore can easily fall out of. That might be true of passing emotions, but true friendship relies on cultivation: uprooting bad attitudes, planting daily seeds of love towards one another, pulling out weeds and eliminating pests that threaten to choke the relationship, watering the tender plants with daily prayer, and then taking time to reap a harvest of love and enjoyment in each other’s company. . . . Friendship does not persist, deepen, and grow automatically. . . . [It] cannot be warmed up by thirty seconds in the microwave. So much today is instant, but friendship is not. It costs something. It costs you yourself, your commitment, and your vulnerability. There are no rush orders in friendship. It must be baked slowly, gently, and continually if we want the flavor we are looking for.  Continue at Aaron Armstrong

"Innovation" and Irrelevance

After five decades spent obsessing over a warped notion of "relevance," American evangelicalism is overrun with "change agents" who are so steeped in worldly values that they can't distinguish true relevance from mere trendiness. Their philosophies of ministry are complex, wrong-headed, counterproductive, and hostile to the notion that some things—namely God Himself and the truth He has revealed in His Word—are by definition not susceptible to change.

By contrast, what Paul bequeathed to Timothy in two brief epistles was a remarkably simple, straightforward, but comprehensive ministry philosophy. Not only did Paul not urge Timothy to be innovative; what he did urge Timothy to do flatly contradicts practically every ministry philosophy currently in vogue.

This is part 1 in a series of posts I intend to write in the days to come.

Consider the undue stress today's leading church-growth gurus invariably put on innovation. We are relentlessly told that pastors and church leaders must be novel, "contemporary," cutting-edge—architects of change within the church.

Evangelicals have been obsessing for at least four decades about "relevance." But that word as used in evangelical circles has become practically synonymous with novelty and fashionableness. It has little to do with actual relevance.

Of course, the church's only true relevance lies in her role as a community where God's Word is proclaimed, where the whole counsel of God is taught, and from which the gospel is taken into the world. But when a church nowadays advertises itself as "relevant," we know exactly what is meant—and let's be honest: it isn't about anything Paul told Timothy to do; it's about being "innovative."  Continue at Phil Johnson

The Discernment Gap: Showing a Lack of Passion for God's Honor and Glory

Reading the commentary on the Elephant Room 2 events, and in particular, the alleged rehabilitation (repentance?) of TD Jakes has truly been brought me sadness. Sure, I know that very few Evangelicals, even scholars, have much experience with modalists and Oneness advocates, but still, the general ease with which many have been taken in by such a shallow and brief discussion does not speak well of the depth of understanding of many today. It also speaks loudly to the fact that many in Evangelicalism disconnect the honor and glory of God from the truth He has revealed about Himself. That is, they do not see that to worship and honor God demands from us our utmost effort to accurately hear and to follow what He has revealed about Himself, primarily in Jesus Christ, and the holy Scriptures. To take lightly God's self-revelation is an affront to the divine majesty, and would not be the action of a heart that is consumed with passion for its Lord. The true source of a passion for sound doctrine comes first and foremost from a heart that has singular attention to the glory and honor of the object of its passion. Those who "argue doctrine" simply for the sake of ego or self-gratification do so to their own destruction. Sound doctrine isn't about personalities or men, it is about truth that transcends our brief time on earth.

Let's remember some of Jakes' words from ER2. Keeping in mind his statement of faith, which continues to use the modalistic language of "manifestations," and keeping in mind that Jakes does not baptize in the Trinitarian formula (he baptizes in Jesus name only---something oddly ignored by the tribunal who seemed to grant to themselves the ability to proclaim Trinitarian orthodoxy at ER2), let's consider his words. When asked if God manifests Himself in three ways, or exists in three divine Persons, he said that "neither one of them totally get it for me." Now there is a ringing profession of Trinitarianism if I ever heard it. Please, why are so many quick to pass over this direct statement that the historic profession of faith just doesn't quite "totally get it" for Bishop Jakes? Does that really sound like someone who has seen the error of their ways and is ready to abjure error for a sound profession of faith in the truth? Or does it sound like someone who really thinks he is in a position to pick and choose what is comfortable for him given his goals and aims? Continue at James White

See Also: Collateral Damage in the Invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room

AND -  Voddie Baucham and Shepherd’s Conference

 

Know Your Evangelicals: Francis Schaeffer

Name: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984)

Why you should know him: Schaeffer was one of the most influential figures in American evangelicalism in the period between World War II and the mid-1980s.

Previous roles: Founder of L'Abri Fellowship International; Lecturer and author of eighteen books.

Education:
B.A., Hampden-Sydney College
B.Div. Faith Theological Seminary
Honorary D.Div., Highland College

Area of expertise/interest: Apologetics, philosophy, Western culture, abortion, neo-Calvinism

Books: The God Who is There (1968); Escape from Reason (1968); Death in the City (1969); The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century (1970); The Mark of a Christian (1970); Pollution and the Death of Man (1970); The Church Before the Watching World (1971); True Spirituality (1971); Back to Freedom and Dignity (1972); Basic Bible Studies (1972); Genesis in Space and Time (1972); He is There and He is Not Silent (1972); The New Super-Spirituality (1972); Art and the Bible (1973); Everybody Can Know (1973); No Little People (1974); Two Contents, Two Realities (1974); Joshua and the Biblical Flow of History (1975); No Final Conflict (1975); How Should We Then Live? (1976); Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (with C. Everett Koop) (1979); A Christian Manifesto (1981); The Great Evangelical Disaster (1983)

Online essays and articles: Continue at Joe Carter

The Social Gospel, Yesterday and Today - Part 1

It becomes clear from such statements that Lausanne, which represents much of mainstream evangelicalism, is co-mingling a form of the social gospel with the biblical gospel. To be fair, the Lausanne leadership attempts to give evangelism the pre-eminence stating: “Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ. The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist.”[24]

This statement goes to the heart of the issue. The question is not if Christians should play a responsible role in society, nor if we should denounce evil and injustice, but whether or not both “evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty,” and if so, to what extent? Later in part two of this study I will try to address this question from Scripture, but for now I would like to document that whatever the intention, the drift of much of the evangelical movement has shifted to social-political involvement at the expense of the Great Commission. As much has happened around the turn of the 20^th Century, we are in danger of losing the baby (the true commission of the church) in the bath water of social activism.

First, we need to document that this concern is widespread and contagious. Some of the most popular Christian leaders and authors stress the social agenda. Francis Chan, in his wildly popular book Crazy Love, wants Christians to live as simply as possible in order to give more toward the alleviation of “suffering in the world and change the reputation of His bride in America.”[25] I think one of the reasons Chan’s book has been received with such enthusiasm is that he is not telling people anything that our culture is not already saying. When Bill Gates and Warren Buffett pledged much of their vast fortunes toward the same agenda, the world applauded, just as it has for Chan. Chan is concerned about the reputation of the church in America, and not without reason. However, the true church doing the true work of God (calling people to Christ) will never win the world’s approval. Our message is offensive (1 Cor 1:18-25) and once the world catches on to that we are far more likely to be vilified and persecuted than we are to be cheered – as Jesus promised (Matt 5:11-12). We should find it a source of concern, not a reason for rejoicing, when the world likes us, as Christianity Today in its lead article in August 2011 affirmed it did.  Read the rest HERE

 The Social Gospel, Yesterday and Today - Part 2

IMAGE

What Would Francis Schaeffer Say to the Gospel-Centered Movement?

As I recently read through Crossway’s collection of the Letters of Francis Schaeffer, I was struck by how applicable Schaeffer’s insights are today, particularly in regard to evangelical movements, leaders, and doctrine. His counsel deserves to be heeded by those of us in the “gospel-centered” stream of evangelicalism.

With this in mind, I have selected some favorite excerpts from these letters and woven them together creatively. Using Schaeffer’s own words, I am imagining out loud what counsel he might give us today.

What Francis Schaeffer Might Say to the Gospel-Centered Movement Today

1. Make sure your loyalty to Christ supersedes any loyalty you have for the “movement.”

[Brothers and sisters,] I see the need for Christians across the face of the earth who are indeed brothers in Christ, standing on the fundamentals of the faith and separated from unbelief, to come into personal fellowship one with the other to the praise of our Lord. And yet how quickly such a thing can grow into that which is merely cold, formal, and dead. The cry of my heart is that God may have mercy on us.

I increasingly see the dangers involved in organization, and I do think that most of us get the cart before the horse. That is, we organize first and then go forward, rather than growing close to one another through spiritual and personal contacts and then letting whatever organization grow naturally out of that-as the tree puts forth the leaf and then the bud and then the flower as the Lord leads.   Keep Reading >>>