Replacing the Gospel with the Periphery

This a summary of a point made by D.A. Carson in a lecture given in 1994:

Carson says that it takes three generations to completely replace the passion for the gospel with a passion for the things on the periphery (such as the abortion issue, poverty, etc). The generation of the early 1900's had theological differences but their passion was still the gospel. They were passionate about substitutionary atonement, the inerrancy of Scripture, and the Diety of Christ. Carson then says that we have moved into a new generation where if you ask someone if they believe in these same things they will say yes , but when you probe them and find out where their passion is, it is not precisely with the gospel anymore. It is with the abortion issue, or homeschooling, or womens ordination. He then makes it very clear that these are important issues that should not be ignored, but if we lose the center, we lose everything. "We have a move toward a kind of evangelicalism that assumes the gospel but is passionately focused on one or more things on the periphery: single issue Christians. And then you are only one generation from displacing the gospel with the peripheries."

Carson's point is profound, especially since it came twelve years ago. In this new age of the "social gospel," we drift futher and further from the Christ-centered gospel that is so evident in the fourth and fifth chapters of Revelation. While social action is extremely important for Christians, it cannot be mistaken for the gospel.

"Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and glory and blessing." -- Rev. 5:12

If anyone is interested in listening to a two-part lecture by D.A. Carson on those chapters, here are the links taken from Monergism.com http://www.careyconference.net/audio/1994-carson/1994-1-Carson-ATranscendantGod.mp3
http://www.careyconference.net/audio/1994-carson/1994-1-Carson-ATranscendantGod.mp3

David McCullough on John Adams

So I am wrapping up my reading of David McCullough's book, John Adams (Simon and Schuster, 2001), and must say that it is one of the best books I have ever read. I don't mean that it is one of the best biographies I have ever read, but one of the best overall books I have ever read. This is the second book by McCullough that I have read (1776 being the other) and I have fallen in love with his writing style. I usually find biographical and historical works to be dry and blandly written, but McCullough's works are different; his books read more like a story.

From his massive contributions to our country during the American Revolution, through his time as foreign diplomat, and to his presidency and beyond, the book takes the reader on a journey through a large portion of the second president's life. One of the great side stories of the book is the one that familiarizes the reader with Abigail Adams, the president's fiercely loyal and brilliant wife, who was a woman before her time.

So if you've got the time or even if you don't, I recommend picking this book up and getting to know Mr. and Mrs. Adams as you never have before. Enjoy!

(I believe that Powell's bookstore in Portland has the book on sale for $8.)

Relatively Risk-Free

Can a man’s faith be measured by the amount of risk he takes for the kingdom of God? John Piper told a story that went something like this: “In one of the former Russian republics, a group of children were playing in a field when a land mine exploded, tragically killing several of the kids. One girl survived the initial blast. She was hurt badly by the blast and could not move. She cried for help, for someone to come save her. The problem was that she was lying in a minefield and no one wanted to risk moving into that field to save her.” What would I have done? Jesus said a couple things that when put together make me think the proper action would have been to head into that field. He said, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 19.19), and “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28.18). So what do I think the neighborly thing to do would be? Well, that seems obvious, but the key is in the Matthew 28 passage. If I believe Jesus to have “all authority,” then I should proceed with confidence to help the girl. Not with confidence that I will return unharmed with the girl in hand, but confidence that Christ is in control and if I perish this day, then it is under his authority. I don’t know if there is a direct correlation between faith and risk, and in some selfish way I hope there isn’t. Because if there is, my relatively risk-free life is a dead giveaway.

“Show me a place where hope is young and a people who are not afraid to love.” – Aaron Tate

Defining Grace

In light of some recent study on the actual meaning of grace, I have reconsidered a position I have held for the last couple of years. Those of you who know me are well aware that on the issue of immigration I have always held that the borders must be better secured, their should be no amnesty granted, and that any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants must take into account those who are already in the citizenship process and allow for those people who are here legally to have precedence. I still believe that the borders need to be secured but on the other two I have some modifications.

Contrary to the opinion of the modern-day humanist, America is a Christian nation and therefore we should understand grace, but we don’t. We have an egalitarian, democratic view of what grace is; we think that grace is earned. Now of course, most professing Christians would tell you that the definition of grace prohibits it from being earned, but we do not act that way; if one person receives grace from another, everyone else thinks they are entitled to the same. It is this type of thinking that led me to the view that we cannot simply provide amnesty for those illegal immigrants that are presently inside our borders: If we grant it to them now, we’ll have to continue to give it to anyone that manages to get across the border. But that is not true. America should show the rest of the world what the true definition of grace is and grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants that currently reside inside our borders as well as those who are currently on the legal path to citizenship. After a background check and some paperwork, they will be made citizens. Then we say that from this point forward, anyone caught as an illegal immigrant will be immediately deported or prosecuted for breaking immigration laws. As Christians, we understand that grace motivates. These people who have received unmerited grace will be more inclined to blend into American society as citizens as the United States of America.

I know that this plan would require a lot more refining but the principle is that we have received unmerited grace from our Father and why should we not reciprocate. I know it does not sound fair and that people will say, “It is not fair to those who have been in the citizenship process legally to have illegal immigrants suddenly brought to an equal level.” I would refer those people to Mathew 20:1-16, the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. As a sovereign nation, it is our option, perceived as fair or not.

With several of the major Christian denominations holding their denominational conferences this past week, there has been a lot of controversy in the Christian world. One that is drawing particular attention is the decision of the SBA to restrict their pastors from the partaking of any alchoholic beverages. In light of this descision, I have decided to draft my own psuedo-bi-law for a fictional denomination. That bi-law follows:




First, I want to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to read and fully understand our position on this matter. While some in the world may think our position trivial and possibly even legalistic we will show that it is not trivial and will only deepen our commitment to the faith. In the most recent update of our bi-laws, we added the resolution that prohibits all licensed pastors of our denomination from attending or viewing movies or films with a rating over the MPAA rating of G. We have had a fair amount of feedback both positive and negative on the matter. Some have praised the decision as a “substantial gain,” while others have called it “pharisaical” and have asked us to present our rational for the decision; that rationale follows.

The Motion Picture Association of America is the group responsible for determining the ratings of motion pictures here in America. The criteria for a “G” taken from the MPAA’s website are: “This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. that would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a certificate of approval nor does it signify a children’s film. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present, nor is there any drug use content.” While we still feel that adults should exercise caution in what G-rated movies they choose to see (because of the potential violence and sexual undertones) we do believe that a vast majority of these films, while not edifying, are at least clean.

A look at the PG guidelines forces a different take: “This is a film which clearly needs to be examined by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies. The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. However, these elements are not considered so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. As long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning.” Most adults would be able to discern what is viewable and what is not, but because of the temptations offered by “brief nudity,” “violence,” and “profanity” to some people, we feel that it is safer to prohibit our pastors and leaders from attending or viewing these films. While most would be able to handle the situation, the chance that a weaker brother may be put into a position in which they may stumble is not worth the liberty. We hope that this adequately explains our position and that you will prayerfully adhere to this new guideline.

Well, everyone else is doing it so I figured I should too. Blogging is all the rage. I have never been one to share my thoughts in an open forum but decided that it might not be a bad idea to have those ideas challenged by intelligent people from time to time. So if anyone reads these things it would be cool to get feedback. I'll probably spout off about a number of things, but mostly religion/spirituality (I am a Christian), politics, social issues, and music. Thanks for reading.