How Many Churches Will Egalitarianism Claim?

Albert Mohler penned an essay today looking at the new "Illumination Project" report out of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the splinter group formed in response to the Southern Baptist "Conservative Resurgence". His essay, All Other Ground is Sinking Sand: A Portrait of Theological Disaster, is a good history lesson, although one must keep in mind that there is a partisanship about it given that Dr. Mohler was one of the pivotal figures in the Conservative Resurgence and remains one of the steadfast proponents of biblical authority in the SBC.

Mohler's essay reminds us yet again of a simple truth: there is a fork in the theological road that all denominations and local churches must eventually choose, whether to call women as elders (or ordain  them as pastors to use the institutional language). When one chooses to ignore the teaching of Scripture and call women into positions of authoritative leadership in the church there is a nigh inevitable downgrade that follows. As Mohler wrote:

This is also the logical consequence of adopting a hermeneutic that allows for the service of women as pastors — for many CBF congregations, the key issue of outrage at the SBC. The same negotiation and “reinterpretation” of the biblical text that allows for the service of women pastors will logically lead to the acceptance of the LGBT revolution. How can it not? Individuals and congregations may refuse to take this next step, but they have surrendered the only binding argument that would offer an objective truth claim. Eventually, the revolutionaries will win, and they know it. Clearly, some appear unwilling to wait.

I am not aware of an example where a denomination chose to call women as elders while remaining faithful to Scripture in other places over the long term. There is no path where women elders and orthodoxy walk hand in hand. This is the inevitable result of practical egalitarianism...

Two "married" lesbian "Senior Ministers and Co-Pastors", the "reverend" Maria Swearingen and the "reverend" Sally Sarratt who head up Calvary Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., an "ecumenical, multi-racial, multi-ethnic Christian body". The "co-pastors" wrote a screed in response to the "Illumination Project" report, where they express anger and not without reason for the CBF's schizophrenic treatment of homosexual sin, allowing open homosexuals to be hired for some positions but not for others. Their open letter includes the obligatory MLK quote, langauge about "colonialism", "violence" (Scriptural faithfulness is now violence apparently), "imperialism" and the "exportation of violent theology all over the world in service to Empire". Mixed in with a grab-bag of "progressive" nonsense is am ominous statement from these "co-pastors" (emphasis in original).

First, while all people may be equal, all opinions are not equal, nor should they be given an equal place at the table. This is a morally debilitating myth we keep telling each other to pacify conflicts and coddle our fears over disagreement and loss. Jesus did not think all opinions were equal. Jesus’ witness and example demonstrates that the opinions, better yet the lives, of the dispossessed were worthy of more time and attention than calculating mathematically equal air-time for everyone. The fact that we think decision-making in light of the gospel of liberation should look like “equally valid opinions getting equal time” is not only absurd, it is a striking example of the “banality of evil,” as Hannah Arendt describes it.

Read that again. Behind the "progressive" language of tolerance and the nice smiles of the two lesbian "pastors" there is a far more insidious message here, one I have run into personally on social media. All people may be equal (and then again they may not) but not all of their opinions are equal. To paraphrase the warning words of George Orwell, all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. In other words, these women have decreed that some opinions are just not worthy of being held and are not worth being considered. Someone with a firmly held belief, as the church has held for 2000 years, that homosexual behavior is incompatible with full inclusion in the Christian community, much less leadership, is not only mistaken but they are not even worthy of being heard. This is a sinister belief. I have been told online that because of who I am, my opinions are automatically invalid and unworthy of being heard, regardless of the merit of what I am saying. Here we sit in 2018 and a couple of women who fancy themselves married and elders have declared that the essentially unanimous position of the greatest pastors and theologians of the church for 2000 years, from Paul and Christ Himself to present day, are null and void and are not even deserving of being given "equal time". It is pretty easy to win an argument when you don't allow your opponent to speak at all.

This is the state of the "progressive" church.

It is anti-Scriptural, anti-intellectual, illiberal and authoritarian in the extreme. Ultimately it is anti-gospel and in the spirit of anti-Christ.

Is it "progress" that debates over the application of Scripture are closed down without even so much as consideration? I am glad to discuss any topic with any person with an open Bible because I am confident in my positions and hopefully humble enough to be corrected by Scripture where I am wrong. The oxymoronic phrase "progressive Christianity" is just code for a religious veneer of respectability slapped over old fashioned authoritarian thought policing. Maria Swearingen and Sally Sarratt are representative of the totalitarian progressive impulse to push an agenda by shutting down conversation and attempting to control speech and thought itself.

Like the mass media shedding the last vestige of impartiality and journalistic integrity in the Trump era, the "progressive" religious authoritarians have given up even pretending to engage in Scripture, however clumsily, and have openly resorted to demanding that certain opinions, no matter how Scripturally supported and historically grounded they may be, be considered Thoughtcrime. It is high time we stop pretending these are wayward members of the church and start to call them what they are: heretics and false prophets, wolves among the sheep. What Maria Swearingen and Sally Sarratt and Rachel Held Evans and the majority of the mainline denominations and even apparently in a clumsy sense the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship are championing is not a variation of Christianity, a mistaken but sincere expression of the faith, but another "gospel" entirely where sin is celebrated and faithfulness is silenced.

Why Go To Seminary For A Denomination That Won't Exist In Ten Years?

The Gospel Coalition had an interesting look at the largest seminary programs in America, Why We Should Be Grateful for Flourishing Evangelical Seminaries. No surprise to me, the top ten list is mostly conservative and contains all six of the Southern Baptist Convention seminaries, with Southern Seminary headed by Al Mohler in the second overall spot, behind only venerable Fuller Theological Seminary. Also little surprise that the bottom of the list is a who's who of liberal and dying denominations:

Among the smallest accredited Protestant seminaries in the nation are three Episcopal seminaries: Bexley Hall Seabury-Western Theological Seminary Federation with 17 full-time students enrolled, General Theological Seminary with 34 full-time students, and Episcopal Divinity School with 35 full-time students. IRD’s Jeffrey Walton reported Episcopal Divinity School will no longer grant degrees after the coming academic school year. “A menu of recycled 1960s-era liberation theology themes garnished with radical sexuality and gender studies proved unappealing to prospective seminarians,” Walton noted. 

Meanwhile, it’s two Cooperative Baptist Fellowship-associated seminaries that reveal another interesting contrast among evangelical institutions. Unlike the chart-topping conservative SBC-affiliated seminaries, the more liberal CBF-affiliated Baptist Theological Seminary of Richmond counted 42 full-time students and Baptist Seminary of Kentucky had only 31 full-time students in 2015-16.

It is not a stretch to say that the Episcopal Church here in America is on life-support, stumbling forward by sheer historical inertia and I am quite serious that ten years from now I doubt that the Episcopal Church will even exist as a meaningful organization. I would not be surprised to see them joined in the ash heap of religious history by the United Methodists (a huge group so it might take longer), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Mennonite Church - USA, not to mention many other smaller groups. Schism is already devastating the ranks of the above denominations and nothing happening currently would lead me to believe that will change. Quite the contrary, many leaders of the groups above are doubling down on embracing heterodoxy in a breakneck race to the doctrinal bottom. It turns out that when it comes to something like the nature of man, the existence of God and what eternity holds, people are more interested in being among other people who seem serious about the topics, rather than the social justice/progressive agenda dressed up in religious finery. The dying seminaries and denominations listened to the voices that said their survival was dependent on going wherever the broader worldly culture takes them and even when that has been proven disastrous,  the battle cry is still "If we only will compromise on one more doctrine, then the world will love us, our churches will fill back up and our seminaries will swell with new students!". With each new compromise these denominations lose more and more members. Will the last Episcopalian left please turn out lights?

I am glad to see the larger conservative schools, especially Southern, relatively thriving amidst a culture growing ever more hostile to the Gospel. Whatever my feelings about a religious vocational school degree being a pre-requisite for many leadership positions in the church, you can't discount the academic work being done at these schools. Conservative seminaries like Southern, Westminster Calfornia. Reformed Theological Seminary, etc. are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in theological questions and I appreciate their scholarship and dedication.

Remember kids, when someone tells you the only way to survive is to deny everything that makes you who you are, they are probably speaking nonsense.

Singing Men (Or Not)

Albert Mohler, posting from Together for the Gospel, makes a point I have long believed.

Men won’t sing in church? Give them songs of conviction and gospel & then listen to the resounding joy. #t4g2016 pic.twitter.com/9hHnz9vvUV

— Albert Mohler (@albertmohler) April 13, 2016

A lot of people assume men won't sing in church but I think the reality is that men will sing "songs of conviction and gospel" rather than sappy, effeminate songs. The same is true with sermons and other forms of teaching. Give a man some lame morality lesson wrapped up in religious jargon and little wonder he falls asleep. Give a born-again brother the unadulterated meat of the Gospel and if he is a believer he will be riveted. The problem is not a lack of interest, the problem is a lack of content, of conviction, of the power of the Gospel, the magnificence of the Kingdom and the glory of Jesus Christ our King and Savior. Give us that and watch us grow!

Conforming To "Christian Values" Is Not The Gospel

I am just going to leave this here. Thanks to Tim Challies for another profound picture.

Book Review: The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists

Featuring an eclectic mix of contributors from Rick Warren and Emir Caner to Malcolm Yarnell and Albert Mohler, The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity, is a collection of essays giving us a solid look at important lessons for contemporary Baptists and others from the Anabaptists.

This is not a "Trail of blood" style book that attempts to create a Baptist version of papal apostolic succession. It is more of a historic look back at a group with a lot of similarities to Baptists. The book argues, successfully in most ways, that Baptists today can learn from the Anabaptists and explains how they can speak to our contemporary setting, something I have advocated for over the course of the last few years amid seismic shifts in our religious culture and the church itself. These essays are, as noted by the title, written in honor of Paige Patterson and come from megachurch pastors as well as seminary teachers and students. I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed Rick Warren's chapter, I am not a big fan of his but taken on the merits of the chapter it was excellent although some of it was hokey as can be ("I want to build the bridge of love between my heart and theirs so that Jesus can walk across." (Kindle Locations 2113-2114) Save it for Hallmark!)

The chapters range from highly accessible to very academic. One of the greatest strength of this book is also often its greatest weakness. Some of the later chapters contain great information but are pretty deep, scholarly articles that I felt like I was wading through and they may not be as accessible to the average reader as some of the earlier, more popular level chapters. I admit to skimming a bit in these chapters, the academic minutiae was a bit much for me and I would imagine that is true for a lot of even above-average Baptists who are familiar with church history. 

This is book is especially well suited for those with minimal background in Anabaptism. Especially useful are the chapters dealing with Balthasar Hubmaier, a powerful theologian who gives us a glimpse into the thinking of the Anabaptists and, if I can be permitted an editorial comment, shows that the contemporary neo-Anabaptist movement has very little in common with the Anabaptists. We also see some of the more questionable theological notions of Anabaptists, something I give them a lot of latitude for since they were a little too busy being hunted, tortured and murdered to sit down and work out the niceties of theological positions. For the historic Anabaptists, their most powerful theological statements are read in the blood, not in their books.

Below are a couple of choice quotes:

The modern generation is largely rootless. They are fatherless and rootless, and so they get blown around like tumbleweeds. When I talk about Radical Reformers, I am talking about people who say, “We have to go back to the root.” The Magisterial Reformation did not go far enough. You must go back to the New Testament, to the apostolic church. The Anabaptists and other Radical Reformers were “radical” in the truest sense, not as being extreme but in the sense of returning to their roots. (Rick Warren)

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Kindle Locations 1993-1996). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Emphasis Mine

From 1520 to 1560 approximately three thousand legally sanctioned executions for heresy occurred. The Anabaptist movement accounted for almost two-thirds of those executed. (Thomas White)

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Kindle Locations 1788-1789)

That was staggering to read. Almost 2/3 of the executions were of Anabaptists. I knew the percentage would be significant but not that high.

In his discussion of the “church,” Hubmaier noted the importance of “love” in the practice of church discipline or fraternal admonition. He had Leonhart ask, “What authority do those in the church have over one another?” Hans replied, “The power of fraternal admonition.” Leonhart then inquired, “What is fraternal admonition?” Hans answered, “One who sees his brother sin goes to him in love [zu ˚ im geet auß liebe] and admonishes him fraternally and quietly [strafft in bru ˚ derlich in der still] to abandon such sin. If he desists, he has won his soul.” Hubmaier emphasized “fraternal admonition [bru ˚ > derlich straff]” or “brotherly love,” which instilled mutual accountability within the congregation. His Anabaptist ecclesiology was set apart from the priestly admonition in the Catholic Church, which lacked mutual accountability between clergy and laity.

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Kindle Locations 2770-2777), Emphasis Mine.

Living at a time of many changes and much duress in the ecclesiological sphere for someone of his convictions, Hubmaier saw moral laxity as the “besetting weakness of Protestantism.”(Simon Goncharenko)

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Kindle Locations 3557-3558)

Luther becomes a reformer because he cannot attain assurance of salvation in the system of the Roman Catholic Church; Oecolampad becomes a reformer because he cannot find the new creature in Christ sufficiently realized in the Roman Catholic Church. Luther deals with justification; Oecolampad, following 1 Thessalonians 4: 3, says voluntas Dei est sanctificatio nostra. For Luther, the focus is on faith; for Oecolampad, on that which flows from faith— Piety, holiness, love— as well with the individual as with the overall entity of the corpus Christi mysticum. Luther emphasizes a Christianity more affected by Paul; Oecolampad one more affected by John.

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Kindle Locations 4818-4822)  

That is pretty representative of what you should expect. For anyone who is a Baptist, Anabaptist or just a student of church history, The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists is a great resource to build those bridges we need to learn from the past and hopefully avoid repeating some failures.

Married White Male Seeking Another Male Or Three To Share A Hotel Room Next April For Together For The Gospel

Advertising on my blog that I am looking for other dudes to share a hotel room in a somewhat unfamiliar city. How could this go wrong?

Eight years after I went to Together for the Gospel I am planning on going again next April. The venue has changed and one prominent voice, C.J. Mahaney, is absent and some new voices are in his place. I am curious to see what the atmosphere is like. When I was there it was laced with a lot of triumphalism, all the cool kids were there and knew stuff that the rest of the church didn't. There was a top secret resource for attendees so we could network together. It all seemed kind of cliquish in retrospect.

As we head for 2016 the Reformed movement has taken some prominent hits and the fervor seems to have cooled a bit. With prominent names getting some bad press, from founder C.J. Mahaney stepping away amidst legal troubles to Mark Driscoll (never a speaker at T4G, to the credit of the conference organizers) stepping down and seeing "his" ministry implode to Tullian Tchividjian stepping down from Coral Ridge after a short and controversial stay as pastor amid revelations of marital infidelity. Much of the Reformed world seems to be victims of their own success, sniping and backbiting becoming prominent. Some perhaps some humility is in place. We will see. The main guys are still there, Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Piper, Anyabwile, MacArthur and that plus the fellowship and "free" books makes it worthwhile. As a bonus I very likely will be able to take some Amish to southern Indiana to help defray the cost of driving.

So anyway, if you are thinking of or definitely going to Together For The Gospel next April and need to split some of the costs, give me a holler. I am willing to split with as many as 3 other guys assuming we can find a couple of air mattresses.

I haven't gone to T4G since the first time I went, partly for monetary and health reasons and largely as a protest against the notion of a "conference for pastors and church leaders" which seemed to be intended to exclude "lay members", although an awful lot of the guys there in 2008 were not clergy. The speakers are generally all defenders of the institutional church status quo and that rubs me the wrong way. None of that has changed but I am secure enough in where I stand in regards to ecclesiology that I can go and just enjoy the teaching, the singing and the fellowship without feeling the need to make some sort of protest statement (like the nutjob charismatic that crashed the stage last weekend while John MacArthur was speaking). I am more hungry and thirsty for solid teaching and comradeship around a common understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ than I am for a protest against a deeply flawed church system. When they are talking about issues of the Gospel rather than church specifics or baptism I am in complete agreement with everything they are saying and I am in agreement with the T4G affirmations and denials (with the exception of article V on the centrality of expository preaching but even there I would prefer expository sermons over any other kind).

So there you go, hit me up if you wanna shack up in Kentucky.

On Being The Evangelical Equivalent of A Certain Dog Owned By A Guy Named Pavlov

Apparently Newsweek is still a going concern. Who knew? I thought that thing died a long time ago and thought it should have died a long time before that. Anyway they recently posted yet another futile and risible attempt at a scholarly look at the Bible, with the faux clever title: The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin. Ba-zinga, cue the rimshot! You have to laugh out loud, literally, at the opener.

They wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming their condemnations of homosexuals. They fall on their knees, worshipping at the base of granite monuments to the Ten Commandments while demanding prayer in school. They appeal to God to save America from their political opponents, mostly Democrats. They gather in football stadiums by the thousands to pray for the country’s salvation.

They are God’s frauds, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch. They are joined by religious rationalizers—fundamentalists who, unable to find Scripture supporting their biases and beliefs, twist phrases and modify translations to prove they are honoring the Bible’s words.

This is no longer a matter of personal or private faith. With politicians, social leaders and even some clergy invoking a book they seem to have never read and whose phrases they don’t understand, America is being besieged by Biblical illiteracy. Climate change is said to be impossible because of promises God made to Noah; Mosaic law from the Old Testament directs American government; creationism should be taught in schools; helping Syrians resist chemical weapons attacks is a sign of the end times—all of these arguments have been advanced by modern evangelical politicians and their brethren, yet none of them are supported in the Scriptures as they were originally written.

I guess that is supposed to be hard-hitting and profound but it comes across like it was written by someone who has a) never read the Bible and b) never met an actual evangelical. It almost seems like someone trying to form a caricature but I think the author, Kurt Eichenwald, is being serious. I really liked the next line: Newsweek’s exploration here of the Bible’s history and meaning is not intended to advance a particular theology or debate the existence of God.

Here is a journalism tip for you. When someone says: "Newsweek’s exploration here of the Bible’s history and meaning is not intended to advance a particular theology or debate the existence of God.", you can be 100% sure that is precisely what they are intending to do, especially when the next line claims that the Bible is "abused by people who claim to revere it but don’t read it". You might think that they are incorrect in application or interpretation but the fundamentalist/conservative evangelicals I know read the Bible. A lot. A statement like that sets the stage that this article has no interest whatsoever in being an actual, "journalistic" look at the topic of the Bible.

There was a time when I would have been incensed by something like this but now I just kind of shrug. So an unbeliever writing for a secular magazine aimed at a largely unbelieving audience writes a polemic against the Bible. So what? In the historical record of persecution against the church, this is not even a footnote of a footnote. It is a poorly written, vindictive screed that will comfort unbelievers and should rightly be largely ignored by the church. So I was kind of surprised that Al Mohler weighed in on the article and was uncharacteristically smarmy. Here is an example:

What is really going on here? Did some fundamentalist preacher run over young Kurt Eichenwald’s pet hamster when the reporter was just a boy?

That is so un-Mohlerlike, so juvenile, that I almost wonder if he wrote the article himself. In fact most of his response was pretty decent but the occasional lapse into those sorts of comments hurt his overall point. In fact I daresay that is exactly the sort of reaction that Eichenwald is hoping for because it plays into his clumsy stereotype of evangelicals. Snark is not Al Mohler's strength and he should stay away from it. The rest of us shouldn't be too concerned about stuff like Newsweek's article in the first place. Even the most well-written response from Al Mohler, and he is capable of some majestic rhetoric, isn't going to change the mind of Kurt Eichenwald or others. That is something we need to rely on the Holy Spirit to accomplish. We can't go charging of into the fray every time some wannabee deep thinker pushes out a clumsy attack on the Scriptures and the church. We should know by now that the heathen will mock and ridicule. Let them. We have a far greater mission than engaging in mud-slinging with the world.

Even Daniel only went into the lion's den once

Last October Dr. Albert Mohler, long time president of Southern Seminary and one of the great Christian minds of this or any era, visited Brigham Young University (BYU), flagship school of the so-called "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", better known as the mormon church. I wrote at the time that a post, The Enemy Of My Enemy Is Not Always My Friend. I felt it was a serious error in judgment on part of Dr. Mohler. I say that as an admitted admirer of Dr. Mohler even when I disagree with some of his positions. This was one of the few times when I felt that he had greatly erred and did so at a serious cost to the mission and message of the legitimate church. Today I was aghast to see that he appeared at BYU again.

The answer to encroaching secularism is increased Gospel faithfulness even to the point of the ageless Christian witness of persecution and suffering. It is not to join forces with religious organizations that espouse aberrant theology and certainly not to seek alliances with outright pagan groups like the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint". Dr. Mohler's message of the day, Strengthen the Things that Remain: Human Dignity, Human Rights, and Human Flourishing in a Dangerous Age — An Address at Brigham Young University, focuses on the three issues in the title.

In spite of this caveat...

The presence of the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary behind the podium at Brigham Young University requires some explanation. I come as an evangelical Christian, committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the trinitarian beliefs of the historic Christian faith. I come as one who does not share your theology and who has long been involved in urgent discussions about the distinctions between the faith of the Latter Day Saints and the faith of the historic Christian church. I come as who I am, and your leaders invited me to come knowing who I am. I have come knowing who you are and what you believe and my presence here does not mean that the distance between our beliefs has been reduced. It does mean, however, that we now know something that we did not know before. We need to talk. We can and must take the risk of responsible, respectful, and honest conversation. We owe this to each other, and we owe this to the faiths we represent. And we had better talk with candor and urgency, for the times demand it.

....I found his message to be bitterly ironic in that there is at least as much danger in a fuzzy ecumenism, a "big tent" religious coalition where the church of Christ is seated with polytheistic pagan faiths like mormonism, as there is in "secularism". We certainly need to talk to mormons but what we need to tell them is not "we are your partners" but rather "we bring you warning of the coming judgment and call on you to repent and turn from your idolatry". It does not help the Gospel cause to join arms with mormonism, speaking at the their school that propagates "another gospel" as we are warned about in Paul's introduction to his letter to the church in Galatia. It does not clarify and distinguish more clearly the true church from the pagan pretender to honor the leaders of mormonism with the title "elder", a perversion of a Biblical function that has been twisted and warped by Joseph Smith and his successors.

Religious liberty is not a Kingdom issue. Freedom of conscience as it pertains to providing contraception is not a Kingdom. Human rights are not a Kingdom issues, odd as that sounds. We preach a message of human dignity with all human beings being equally made in the image of God. We also don't expect that message to resonate with the unregenerate. We will not advance the Kingdom by fighting political battles, win or lose. We do not proclaim the Gospel by engaging the culture side by side with unbelievers and blasphemers. The issues of the day raised by Dr. Mohler are not new. They existed in the child sacrifice of the pagan nations of the Old Testament. They also existed in the days of the apostles. They have been a part of the fallen human experience since the very beginning when brother rose up to murder brother but through it all the people of God did not join forces with the pagan religions of their day to change laws or impact public opinion. In the midst of a pluralistic paganism, the saints of the early church stood firmly for the Gospel, and nothing else but the Gospel. They faced jail, persecution, torture and even murder for the sake of winning the lost to Christ. Should we shrink away from the hard road, carrying our own crosses for the sake of Christ and rejoicing in our suffering, our alienation from the world and the shedding of our blood? I fear the church, even among the most brilliant and stalwart defenders, seem more concerned with preserving a religious standard of living than in forsaking all for the cause of Christ. Our affluence, our comfort, our partnership with Caesar has made us soft, weak and willing to compromise rather than face walking that lonely road.

Dr.Mohler is a brilliant man, a precious regenerate adopted child of God and my beloved brother in Christ but in spite of the eloquent words and passionate speech he has erred once again in seeking allies among those who are by nature still the children of wrath and the enemies of the Gospel. I urge him to change course for the sake of the lost of the world and the witness of the church. The church is at our most powerful when we are the weakest and we are weakest when we compromise ourselves for any cause other than the Gospel

The Enemy Of My Enemy Is Not Always My Friend

As someone who admires from afar the President of Southern Seminary, Al Mohler, I was a little concerned when I saw a link to a talk he gave at Brigham Young University on the topic of religious liberty: A Clear and Present Danger: Religious Liberty, Marriage, and the Family in the Late Modern Age — An Address at Brigham Young University. Dr. Mohler is a staunch defender of Biblical orthodoxy, an unapologetic advocate for God's design in gender, a fearless champion for the doctrines of grace and many other positions I support and respect his advocacy for. But to go before the audience of Brigham Young University with anything but a call to repent and turn from their false religion? That had me concerned. I was pleasantly surprised to see this paragraph in the opening of the transcript of his talk:

I come as a Christian theologian to speak explicitly and respectfully as a Christian—a Christian who defines Christianity only within the historic creeds and confessions of the Christian church and who comes as one committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the ancient and eternal Trinitarian faith of the Christian church. I have not come as less, and you know whom you have invited. I come knowing who you are—to an institution that stands as the most powerful intellectual center of the Latter-Day Saints, the most visible academic institution of Mormonism. You know who I am and what I believe. I know who you are and what you believe. It has been my great privilege to know friendship and share conversation with leaders of the LDS church, such as Elder Tom Perry, Elder Quentin Cook, and Elder Todd Christofferson. I am thankful for the collegiality extended by President Cecil Samuelson at this great university. We do not enjoy such friendship and constructive conversation in spite of our theological differences, but in light of them. This does not eliminate the possibility of conversation. To the contrary, this kind of convictional difference at the deepest level makes for the most important kind of conversation. This is why I am so thankful for your gracious invitation.

I think that is well said. He is a Christian and speaks as a Christian who only recognizes Christianity within the historic creeds and confessions. He singles out the Trinitarian faith, something anathema to the mormon beliefs of his audience. Unlike some Christians who have gone out of their way to gloss over the insurmountable gap between the pagan polytheistic religion of mormonism and orthodox confessional Christianity, Dr. Mohler is quite clear that he speaks as a Christian to religious people that are not. I was glad to see this stance because it is critically important that as the civil religion of America dies that the church be crystal clear about who we are and what we believe in.

In spite of his gracious and clear statement above, I remain troubled by his very presence at BYU in this context. Religious liberty, Biblically defined marriage and strong families are all very important and are under daily assault. They are however, and let me be clear, not Gospel issues. In other words no matter how important they are, we are called to a very particular calling, the proclamation of the Good News of Jesus Christ, His redeeming work on the cross for propitiation of sins and His Kingdom. That is our calling and everything else is secondary. I don't for a second think that Al Mohler or other men I respect like Russell Moore are elevating religious liberty or traditional marriage to the level of the Gospel but many people may not see the distinction. Those seeking to assault marriage or silence the faithful count as their enemies evangelical Christians and mormons alongside Roman Catholics, Jews, muslims and others. In this case the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

We are warned in Scripture to not be yoked with unbelievers ( 2 Cor 6:14 ) and that admonition goes beyond simply not marrying unbelievers. When a Christian stands in front of an audience that likely held few if any Christians our message should be obvious: repent and believe. I don't think that means that every single time we talk to an unbeliever we need to say nothing other than "Repent!" but for a Christian of the prominence of Al Mohler in a public venue like this one I am afraid that the cause of mormonism gets more of a boost than the cause of the Gospel. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has become a master marketing organization and the contemporary iteration of their marketing strategy is built on shared values and "we are not that different from you" messages.  Events like this bolster their strategy.

As the days of Christendom finally come to an end, the church will find our former "friends" in the secular world will be nowhere to be found. I understand the impulse to seek alliances where we can to advance causes we feel are important. Amidst this seismic change to the religious climate we must be ever more vigilant to not lose sight of the peculiar and unique Gospel, a Gospel that leaves no room for imposter religions. Mormonism and other aberrant false religions are a far greater threat to the faith than the ACLU or activist judges creating a right to "gay marriage". My sincere hope is that Christian leaders would choose to be persecuted for the faith before we link arms with unbelievers.

Is Islam Our Greatest Challenge?

That assertion is the basis for Albert Mohler's recent post, Islam—The Great Challenge to Christian Evangelism of Our Time. In his essay Dr. Mohler makes some very helpful statements, especially his refutation of those who criticizes President Obama for stating that...

One of the great strengths of the United States is . . . we have a very large Christian population—we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.

That is one of the  few public utterances by President Obama that I agree with wholeheartedly even though many Christians undoubtedly took great umbrage to his statement. What caught my interest was the title and premise of his essay, the notion that Islam is the greatest challenge to our evangelistic mission in this era.

Is that true? Is Islam the greatest challenge to our evangelistic mission and efforts? That certainly is the popular narrative. Islam, a religion that to a great many people is synonymous with the dread "other" and the threat of Islamist terrorism and instability in the Middle East, is the convenient enemy of the day and gives us a tangible opponent. Certainly from a civilization standpoint, Islam is a grave threat although the reason it is a threat has more to do with our self-driven cultural disintegration. But from a Great Commission standpoint is Islam our greatest challenge?

In a word, no.

Not when the vast majority of Christians are neither equipped nor encouraged in a tangible way to make disciples, preferring instead to make going to church as convenient and comfortable as possible.

Not when professing, sincere Christians ally themselves with groups that deny the Gospel with the excuse that they share certain cultural moral positions in common.

Not when churches invest untold millions on buildings and staff to cater to the needs and whims of church attenders.

Not when Christians see our enemies as people to be feared, controlled and even killed to protect a certain economic and socio-political lifestyle.

No, the greatest challenge to Christian evangelism today is not Islam. It is not even a new challenge. The greatest challenge is us. The church. God's people. In the immortal words of that sage and prophet Pogo: We have met the enemy and he is us.

But while it is easy and perhaps perversely satisfying to despair, a trap I fall into over and over, it is also true that God's chosen tool is His church, His people. Flawed, prone to wander, often distracted, a foolish people preaching a foolish message about a foolish cross. God has indeed chosen the weak and foolish things of the world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27). While we are not only not up to the task but often are our own worst enemy, our message is inextricably linked to the sovereign power of our Creator God. If by a mere word He can speak the universe into existence He certainly can use a flawed sinner such as I to accomplish His eternal purpose in calling, regenerating, saving and redeeming a people for His own possession.

We need to worry a lot less about Islam and a lot more about ourselves but we should also not spend all of our time wringing our hands and instead putting those hands to work, each and every one of us, in our foolish and weak service on behalf of our glorious and holy Lord.

More On Mourdock From Mohler

Al Mohler weighs in with his usual clarity and candor on the Richard Mourdock kerfuffle, The Mourdock Moment: Life, Death, and Lies on the Campaign Trail. As is usually the case when Dr. Mohler speaks to issues like this he brings a forceful but thoughtful argument.

The entire essay is great but this paragraph is just outstanding:

The issue of exceptions that might justify an abortion cannot be discussed carelessly. Furthermore, any reference to rape must start with a clear affirmation of the horrifying evil of rape and an equal affirmation of concern for any woman or girl victimized by a rapist. At this point, the defender of the unborn should point to the fact that every single human life is sacred at every point of its development and without regard to the context of that life’s conception. No one would deny that this is true of a six-year-old child conceived in the horror of a rape. Those who defend the unborn know that it was equally true when that child was in the womb.

It requires a muddled and convoluted mind to assert that life begins at conception and at the same time putting forth circumstance when that life may morally be snuffed out. Even the "life of the mother" clause is intentionally vague as virtually any pregnancy carries with it risks that are life threatening. Again Al Mohler lays out the truth...

First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare.

That is a pretty strongly worded statement. Dr. Mohler admits that Richard Mourdock didn't express this sentiment very eloquently but he was at least trying to be honest, something those seeking to capitalize on this media driven non-issue cannot be accused of. I guess when you have nothing else to run on you try to distract the electorate.

I don't expect those who do not have hearts and minds renewed by the Holy Spirit and do not affirm all life as created in the image of God and therefore precious at every age and every stage of life to understand or agree with this mindset. What disappoints me is the reaction by some Christians who seem willing to make the same charges for political gain.

Furthermore, although this conversation is almost completely absent from political discourse among those who are "pro-life", there is the question of reconciling the idea of all human life being precious at every and any stage with the general acceptance of war as a legitimate way to spread ideals and policies. Evangelicals are one of the most universally approving audiences for America's wars of preemption and aggression and this bald hypocrisy is not lost on the world.

We have so far to go on this issue. Whether "our guy" wins or loses in November our mission to the world will not change and our efforts must not falter. Standing up for the innocent especially the unborn and affirming the dignity of all human life even when in a foreign country or a prison cell must mark every moment of our lives. Not merely or even specifically by voting Republican but in our actions and deeds ministering to the crisis pregnancy, in how we treat and support orphans and adoption, in the visitation of the sick, the widow and the wounded in our community. Affirming life is much more than words or bumper stickers or campaign signs in our yard.

The world is watching.

An inevitable schism?

A storm is brewing in the Southern Baptist Convention. Not a storm over women pastors or gay marriage or evolution or Biblical inerrancy. This storm is over the centuries old debate about Calvinism. It has been coming for a long time, and like many major engagements it has had a series of skirmishes leading up to the main event. As someone who used to be part of Southern Baptists churches and church life, I watch these events from afar with a mixture of fascination and sadness. Many peripheral players have been poking at this issue for a decade or more but recently a shot across the bow has prompted a more serious response and a path that I am afraid only ends one way .

Recently a manifesto of sort was published by a number of well known and respected Southern Baptist leaders, men like Malcolm Yarnell, Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines as well as other characters like Emir Caner, brother of disgraced former anti-Calvinist crusader Ergun Caner. The manifesto is rather grandiosely titled A Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation and is really just a statement of why Southern Baptists have allegedly traditionally understood God's plan of salvation in a way that is, well it is not Calvinist.

The responses have been fast and furious. Nothing is quite like a bunch of Calvinists who feel disenfranchised responding on the internet! Of those responses, two stand out. Tom Ascol of Founders Ministry has been putting a comprehensive response together and Al Mohler weighed in this morning with a sober piece that warns of the danger of creating theological traibalism within a group, a warning that he rightly applies to both Calvinst and non-Calvinist alike. These are important issues to be sure but not issues that should divide us from one another and distract from our common mission.

Unfortunately I don't see this as a friendly debate. There are lines being drawn and words being said that cannot be undone. As someone who is more clearly sympathetic with the Calvinist camp and as someone who has been a part of the SBC, I have long felt there is something of a witch hunt going on.  In my opinion the instigators have almost always been on the non-Calvinist side. I don't think I have heard any Reformed Southern Baptists pushing to drive non-Calvinists out of the convention or muzzle them but plenty of that talk coming from the Arminian side.  I think I somewhat understand why. As the "Conservative Resurgence" wound down and Southern Baptists found themselves with a Bible everyone affirmed, it wasn't long before issues of interpretation started springing up. While more old school capital "S" Southern Baptists are generally Arminian at best, the younger men coming up are more and more Reformed, thanks in large part to the influence of Al Mohler at Southern Seminary and other notable leaders like John Piper and John MacArthur. There is a disconnect between the young, enthusiastic and zealous (often overly so) Calvinists who are filling the clerical ranks in the SBC and the more traditional older men who sit in the positions of power and the pulpits of the biggest and most prosperous churches.  This conflict I believe can only end one way, ultimately a functional if not a overt split of the Southern Baptist Convention followed by unseemly squabbling over the vast wealth of the SBC.

As a sideline observer I watch this with a great deal of sadness and headshaking. When you look at the vast resources of the SBC in terms of seminaries, local churches, academic powerhouses, money and most of all people and think about those resources being used to start and refute a pogrom of purging over an admittedly important theological issue but one that does not rise to the level of the Gospel, it is nothing short of tragic. When people bemoan the powerlessness and the irrelevance of the church in America, events like this are Exhibit A. The lost among us are really not interested in the doctrine of God's sovereignty in salvation or man's free will. They are watching us and what they see all too often are a people who fight and squabble and split and hate one another . When the world looks at us, they certainly aren't seeing Jesus and they likewise don't see anything they are interested in learning more about. Who can blame them? It is not the foolishness of the cross they reject, it is the pride and foolishness of man that they reject and rightly so.

There was a time not too long ago that I would have been out on the electronic front lines waving the banner for Reformed theology, smiting Arminians with righteous fury. Those days are past and I repent of the pride that drove that attitude. I make no apology for affirming what I firmly believe is the clear witness of Scripture of the sovereign election, predestinating, effectual calling and keeping of the elect. I also make no apology to others who affirm these truths when I say I would rather stand side by side in the work of ministry to help the poor and reach the lost with an Arminian than sit around talking theology with a Calvinist who agrees with me safely surrounded by the walls of a "church".  My voice holds no weight in the Southern Baptist Convention but I plead with my brothers who do have a voice to stop the infighting before it goes too far. The SBC has plenty of issues and problems but a divided SBC is not going to improve our witness to a lost and dying world in desperate need to hear about the Lamb who was slain and rose again. Brothers I humbly ask you to step back from the brink before it is too late.

On calling and ministry among Christians: limited or universal?

I deeply appreciate Al Mohler, reading his blog whenever he posts anything, listening to both of his podcasts on a regular basis, etc. (Now you know that whenever someone says that, they next thing they say is going to be a disagreement! That is true here.) Dr. Mohler posted the text of his talk to be delivered at the 208th commencement of Southern Seminary. Most of the talk is a fairly typical application of Paul’s letters to Timothy as directly and uniquely applicable to professional ministers but one thing he wrote late in the talk jumped out at me.

In every believer, the perfect patience of Christ is demonstrated, but in the life and calling of the minister, it is demonstrated all over again.

Did you catch that? God’s patience with us is demonstrated in each person who believes, presumably the patience of withholding His wrath against the unrighteousness of sinners. But a guy who goes to seminary and gets a certificate of ordination? That is a second demonstration of God’s patience that is apparently unique to clergy.

It is gravely disturbing that the commencement address heard by seminary graduates this morning tells them that they are unique in the church by virtue of the sheepskin they will receive in return for gobs of money and the ability to pass graduate level coursework. What does that tell the Christian who cannot afford seminary for whatever reason or lacks the academic prowess to pass Greek or Hebrew classes? Good enough to sit in the pew and contribute, not qualified for "real" ministry?

What is it about professionally trained clergy that demonstrates God’s patience a second time? This notion that there is some sort of divine, supernatural calling that is unique to those Christians who feel compelled to pursue a seminary degree is so foreign to Scripture that to proclaim it requires an enormous assumption based solely in our traditions and church culture. Yet we hear it over and over again even from those who ostensibly hold to a doctrine of the priesthood of all believers that in practice means the priesthood of all some believers more than others.

Again and again we see on the one hand bemoaning of the general apathy of the Body of Christ and on the other  hand embracing church traditions that provide fertile soil for the exact sort of apathy we decry. When we describe those who have elected to attend seminary and pursue vocational clerical ministry as being called in the same manner as Paul: “In the same way, they, like Paul, know that the ministry they have received is just as much a demonstration of God’s grace and unmerited favor.”, we should expect to get the results we see all around us.

I have no intrinsic problem with seminary. If someone wants to spend a bunch of money and three years of their life to get an advanced degree, that is their business. I do have a problem with those who do so being treated as somehow above the rest of the church. Even if we dress it up with the language of service, the reality is that we still see certain men as uniquely called and apart from the rest of the church and that dichotomy is unhealthy and unbiblical. Church leaders, elders and deacons, are servants who lead by example, not rule by virtue of an amorphous “calling” or educational achievement or ecclesiastical paperwork.

Mohler on reparative therapy

Just an outstanding essay from Al Mohler on the controversy swirling around Michelle Bachmann's husband and rumors of the use of "reparative therapy" to reorient sexual orientation: Reparative Therapy, Homosexuality, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Dr. Mohler hits all of the right points here regarding the Bible's unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality, both acted upon and the desire itself, along with the reality that the only "therapeutic" for sin is a progressively sanctified that comes from a regenerate believer. I think this is must reading because it avoids the frequent extremes on this highly visible and emotionally charged issue: either complete acceptance and embrace on one side or unequivocal and angry condemnation on the other.

Here are his concluding comments:

Christians cannot avoid the debate over reparative therapy, nor can we enter the debate on secular terms. We must bring to this conversation everything we know from God’s Word about our sin and God’s provision for sinners in Christ. We will hold no hope for any sinner’s ability to change his or her own heart, and we will hold little hope for any secular therapy to offer more than marginal improvement in a sinner’s life.

At the same time, we gladly point all sinners to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, knowing that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. [Romans 10:13] We hold full confidence in the power of the Gospel and of the reign of Christ within the life of the believer. We know that something as deeply entrenched as a pattern of sexual attraction is not easily changed, but we know that with Christ all things are possible.

And, even as Christians know that believers among us struggle to bring their sexual desires into obedience to Christ, this is not something true only of those whose desires have been homosexual. It is true of all Christians. We will know that those believers who are struggling to overcome homosexual desires have a special struggle — one that requires the full conviction and support of the body of Christ. We will see the glory of God in the growing obedience of Christ’s redeemed people. And, along with the Apostle Paul and all the redeemed, we will await the glory that is yet to be revealed to us.

Dr. Mohler weighs in

Al Mohler has a lengthy essay regarding Rob Bell’s book and he correctly places his review in light of the larger historical context. As the title of his essay states, We Have Seen All This Before: Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology, we have been down this road before. There is nothing new under the sun and those who seem convinced that they have found a new and innovative theory are always merely parroting a very old heresy.

I loved this paragraph (emphasis added)

Like so many others, Bell wants to separate the message of Jesus from other voices even in the New Testament, particularly the voice of the Apostle Paul. Here we face the inescapable question of biblical authority. We will either affirm that every word of the Bible is true, trustworthy, and authoritative, or we will create our own Bible according to our own preferences. Put bluntly, if Jesus and Paul are not telling the same story, we have no idea what the true story is.

Paul and Jesus are on the same team people! When we start to carve up the Word based on what we find palatable, we may as well chuck the whole thing, claim to have received a special revelation that trumps the Bible and follow the path of Joseph Smith. This holds true in so many places: hell, justification by faith, gender, etc. and there are plenty of people willing to take a Sharpie to certain passages and a highlighter to others. I don’t think any of us are immune to this but that doesn’t excuse us from continuing to study the Word and hold what we believe up to the light of Scripture.

This conversation is not really about Rob Bell at all, although his book is the trigger. Long after Bell has faded into obscurity and been replaced by someone new, more winsome and more hip, these conversations will continue because they get to some core issues about the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures, about the sovereign nature of God, about the urgency of the Gospel in light of our brief lives and a limitless hell. These are conversations we must have and not so that we can find a lowest common denominator. All of Christian life must start with solid doctrinal footing. When the footing is squishy the results will be bad, no matter how well intentioned they may be. While I think that (based on the reviews I have read) Rob Bell’s book Love Wins sounds like a dangerous work for the Scripturally unsound, I do appreciate the conversations and thinking that it has spurred.

Give Dr. Mohler’s essay a look, it makes for deep and intellectually stimulating reading as all of his works do.

An important essay from Al Mohler

Dr. Mohler posted an important essay this morning in response to Newsweek magazine. Titled What the Bible Really Says About Sex . . . Really? Dr. Mohler takes on a couple of revisionists who have declared, in different ways, that everything we think we know about what the Bible says about human sexuality is wrong (to the point of suggesting that David and Jonathan were homosexual "partners"). This is Al Mohler at his best, standing up for the authority of the Bible and also pointing out the inherent errors of those who presume to rewrite it. I believe all efforts to reinterpret the Scriptures all come down to one simple goal: providing cover for sin. Whether it was those who tried to twist Scripture to support slavery or Joseph Smith perverting the Word to cover his own lecherous behavior, all of these men had the same purpose. Thanks once again to Dr. Mohler for being a clear and unflinching advocate for the truth.

Very interesting video

Check out this conversation between Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler and Kevin DeYoung.

DeYoung, Duncan, Mohler: What's New About the New Calvinism from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

Very interesting stuff. Here you have a very traditional older Presbyertian leader, a young Reformed guy and a Baptist leader. I found the way they were dressed amusing as well. DeYoung, the Young, Reformed, Restless guy is wearing an open collared dress shirt. Duncan is also but he has a sports coat on. Mohler as always is wearing a suit and tie. I am not sure I have ever seen Dr. Mohler NOT wearing a tie. I liked what Ligon had to say in the middle, we are in an increasingly secular culture and as Christians look around we are perhaps more concerned about fellowship with other believers than we are with feuding over secondary doctrines.

If I may be so bold, I see a "new, New Calvinism" taking root among those who hold to the Five Points of Calvinism to varying degrees, the authority of the Scriptures, a high view of God's holiness and sovereignty as well as His mercy and grace and the Five Solas of the Reformation (faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone, to God alone be the glory!) but don't hold to the church culture and traditions normally associated with being "Reformed". It is that jettisoning of these church traditions that makes arbiters of "Truly Reformed" so incensed because in spite of the calls for semper reformanda, that only applies as far as constantly returning to the confessional standards in the eyes of the "Truly Reformed".

It is encouraging to see that so many people are embracing the Doctrines of Grace but see no need to cling to the traditions that surround it. These three brothers hold to those traditions but they have been profitable to learn from for many who don't. Our focus should be on the sovereignty of God in salvation, not on whether piano playing is allowed or the mode and recipients of baptism.

Albert Mohler ending his radio show

I just heard yesterday that Dr. Mohler is ending his daily radio show and replacing it with a daily podcast. Makes perfect sense but I am still sad to see it go. I used to listen to his show faithfully every day and always found it informative and enriching. I found out that Dr. Mohler will be on the Paul Edwards show at 4:00 PM to talk about his decision to leave his daily radio show, you can listen in via streaming audio which I plan to do if we get released from work early.

Desiring God conference 2010

I am pretty much swearing off theology conferences but I have to admit I am tempted by this one. I love the topic and the idea of seeing Al Mohler, Rick Warren, R.C. Sproul and Francis Chan sharing a stage makes me giggle!



What do you think? By the way, that might be the highest production value conference trailer I have seen.

.

Mohler on Beck, social justice and the limits of political discourse

Dr. Albert Mohler published a very sober and thoughtful essay in response to the comments by Glenn Beck calling on Christians to flee churches that focus on “social justice”, Glenn Beck, Social Justice, and the Limits of Public Discourse. I think Dr. Mohler strikes the right balance here, does so with a reasonable tone and also provides a very brief introduction to the background of the “social justice” or “social gospel” message. From his essay:

My concern is very different. As an evangelical Christian, my concern is the primacy of the Gospel of Christ -- the Gospel that reveals the power of God in the salvation of sinners through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church's main message must be that Gospel. The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement. Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ and planted Gospel churches. Our task is to follow Christ's command and the example of the apostles.

There is more to that story, however. The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have social implications.

Faithful Christians can debate the proper and most effective means of organizing the political structure and the economic markets. Bringing all these things into submission to Christ is no easy task, and Gospel must not be tied to any political system, regime, or platform. Justice is our concern because it is God's concern, but it is no easy task to know how best to seek justice in this fallen world.

And that brings us to the fact that the Bible is absolutely clear that injustice will not exist forever. There is a perfect social order coming, but it is not of this world. The coming of the Kingdom of Christ in its fullness spells the end of injustice and every cause and consequence of human sin. We have much work to do in this world, but true justice will be achieved only by the consummation of God's purposes and the perfection of God's own judgment.

Until then, the church must preach the Gospel, and Christians must live out its implications. We must resist and reject every false gospel and tell sinners of salvation in Christ. And, knowing that God's judgment is coming, we must strive to be on the right side of justice.

Ultimately the Gospel is not about politics and the church is not a political party, either on the Left or on the Right. The Kingdom was not advanced when Barack Obama was elected President nor when George W. Bush was elected as our President. Our charge is to submit to those in governmental authority and to seek to live out our lives quietly and peacefully under that authority. Our charge is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to serve one another in love. Under no circumstances are we called to seize the government or impose a theocracy on America. We are not called to win elections or form political action committees. We are certainly not called to stand shoulder to shoulder, unequally yoked, to unbelievers (like Glenn Beck) no matter how noble the cause.

Does that mean we shouldn’t vote? I don’t think our participation in elections is prohibited at all. Should we not be involved in social change movements? Again no but there is a danger when we spend so much time fighting gay marriage and abortion that we forget to preach the Gospel. I would say that we often place undue emphasis on the political process and ascribe overly optimistic motivations to politicians. We in the church too often have a naive and unseemly faith in politicians. Politicians are by and large politicians because they seek power. That means they will use any means available to gain an advantage, including appealing to religion. I am increasingly suspicious of any man who seeks prestige, titles, power, authority over others because I see the desire for power and the exaltation of self at the heart of those goals. It is dangerous in politics and infinitely more so in the church.

Preach the Gospel. Love your neighbor as yourself. Do good for others in your everyday life. Stand for what is right and proper based on the Word of God. Trust God that He will enact justice in every sense of the word.