"As the people of God, we are being gathered. But we cannot be gathered without being gathered together. And once we are gathered together, we face the glorious calling of life together. But in order to maintain this, we have to keep emphasizing the basics—gospel, love, forgiveness, truth. And the fact is that in the time of the coronavirus scare, these truths about koinonia must be prioritized by us, and not placed on the back burner.
"One of the things that has happened over the last couple of months is that we have started to accept some unbiblical definitions of words like "essential". The only way to say that our gathering, our worship, our singing, is unessential is by saying that the church is unessential.
"We cannot invite Christ to accompany us without inviting His bride to accompany Him."
Subtle Unbelief Which Perverts the Gospel of Christ
Here is a powerful analysis we came across the other day.
A new and more powerful proclamation of [God's Law] is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr Legality, which is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens.
Mr Legality has indeed in our day disguised himself somewhat, but he is the same deceiver as the one of whom Bunyan wrote. "Making Christ Master" in the life, putting into practice "the principles of Christ" by one's own efforts--these are the new ways of earning salvation by one's own obedience to God's commands. And they are undertaken because of a lax view of what those commands are. So it always is: a low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace. [J. Gresham Machen, quoted in Ned B. Stonehouse, J Gresham Machen: a Biographical Memoir (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987], p. 396.]
Our post-Christian world is still awash with people who live in the village of Morality. want to obey the "Golden Rule" or claim they respect the Ten Commandments. They will speak of the need to respect parents, of honesty and truth-telling, and of respecting the property of others. Deep down they harbour a belief that these things will earn them merit and take them beyond the grave and win the approval of God in the Day of Judgement. They don't claim to be perfect, or without faults. But they believe that when the scales are brought forth on the day of judgement the Balance of God will show more righteousness than evil in their lives.
Against this false view stands the clear, unambiguous statement of God: "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it." [James 2:10.] To repeat Machen's words: "So it always is: a low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace."
If you don’t live in Evangelical-world, you probably missed this news. An influential Evangelical author and pastor named Joshua Harris announced on Saturday that he was in the process of “deconstruction.” His statement was clear. “By all the measurements I have for defining a Christian,” he said, “I am not a Christian.” He apologized to the LGBT community for not affirming gay marriage and for the ways that his writing and speaking “contributed to a culture of exclusion and bigotry.”
For Christians, it’s a sad statement, but it’s also full of real integrity. Rather than try to jam Christianity into his evolving worldview, he respects orthodoxy by opting out.
Harris burst into prominence as a young Christian with every author’s dream: a giant, influential first-book bestseller. It was called I Kissed Dating Goodbye, and it sold almost a million copies. If anything, however, the sales numbers understated its influence. It was part of the foundation of Evangelical “purity culture,” and it revolutionized parenting and dating for countless Christian parents and families.
I remember it well. I was a youth pastor for a few memorable months at the height of the courtship craze. The year was 1998, I was a youth volunteer at a small church in Georgetown, Ky., when our youth pastor left. Until we could find a new youth pastor, I was in charge. I preached the youth service every week, I led the youth Sunday school, and I led the youth prayer groups. I was also a commercial litigator in a big law firm, and suddenly I had two full-time jobs. It was one of the best times of my life.
Yesterday we commended David Farrar for publishing a guest post by Jeremy Dawson defending Israel Folau and his comments upon the destiny of unrepentant sinners, including homosexual unrepentant sinners.
Dawson's post made a good argument. Farrar is to be honoured for giving Dawson the opportunity, for, as is generally the case, Farrar endeavours to be scrupulously fair in his public positions. But a Christian he is not.
Sadly, however, Farrar let himself down. He added an editorial post script to Dawson's piece. He calls Folau an idiot and criticizes him for "his choice of words". He slams him for being an "offensive ass". He writes:
Christian scripture also has pre-marital sex as a sin. Does Folau go around saying everyone who has had pre-marital sex is going to hell? If so, I doubt any of his rugby colleagues will be safe!
This is an uncharacteristically lazy and gross distortion of Folau's position and his statements.
[Kiwiblog host, David Farrar has published a guest post on his website. It is written by Jeremy Dawson.]
The ongoing assault on Israel Folau has reached absurd levels. Keep in mind that the comment that triggered this fury occurred on 3 April – 16 days ago. Yet the media continue to pimp for new voices to condemn him.
The question that needs to be asked is why? Why has the media reaction been so extreme in the case of Folau that they keep trying to find new ways to feed the story more than two weeks later? Anthony Mundine, earlier this year, made a comment where he said the only way to solve the problem of homosexuality was capital punishment. That story fizzled within a few days.
One guy says gay people should be killed. Another says it his belief that gay people will go to hell unless they repent their sins and choose God. It isn’t hard to spot which statement should cause the greater offence. It also isn’t hard to see what the difference is between Folau and Mundine – to spell it out, one is Christian, the other is Muslim.
What troubles me in particular about the Folau case is the willingness of commentators to throw around terms such as bigot, homophobe and hate speech. Except Folau is not a bigot, nor a homophobe. And neither is saying sinners go to Hell hate speech. I am not going to defend his choice of words in his initial response to an obvious social media troll. If he changed just two words he would have got his message across in a more positive fashion. It would then have read: “Heaven… If they repent their sins and turn to God.” Because that is the truth – reaching heaven is no different whether you’re gay or straight. It is a choice to give your life to God, and each individual is accountable for themselves.
The article Folau penned to explain himself is far more articulate and deserves to be respected. You can disagree with his biblical interpretation, but it is clear there was no malice, no hate, intended. He wants to speak the truth, as he believes it.
Preaching a crucified Jesus to be the Lord of glory was indeed a stumbling block. Paul was right on point when he declared,
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [I Corinthians 1: 22-25]
When the Jews demanded signs, they wanted miraculous confirmation that the claimant was indeed the Messiah. They were given plenty of such confirmations, but chose to "explain" them away. For them--when they heard the Gospel preached- by the church-all that was left was the horror and humiliation of a public crucifixion. It was a stumbling block because they had believed that Messiah would deliver them powerfully from Gentile oppression--even as David had delivered them from the Philistines centuries before. A crucified Messiah was a mockery, a blasphemy.
For the Gentiles, following a crucified saviour was similarly the acme of foolishness. Why? Because the "rite" of crucifixion was the archetype of degradation. Sarah Ruden carefully re-situates crucifixion in its ancient Greco-Roman setting.
I received this message from a self-described pastor a few days ago:
Hi Matt, I’m a pastor and I have to say I’ve read your work for a while and I find it very troubling. There is no tolerance, inclusiveness, or love in your writings. It’s hateful towards the LGBTQ community and others who don’t share your views about gay rights, reproductive rights or many other issues. Matt churches should be focusing on how to welcome people in, whether they happen to be gay, trans, feminist or any other group you denigrate. “Christians” like you and all the rest on the far right have pushed these people away for so long. Matt no matter what you or your ilk say in your backwardness and bigotry, Christians in a committed same-sex relationship and others in the LGBTQ community are following God’s design for their lives. That’s the message the church needs to spread. God is love. Love is love! Your message of hatred and exclusion should be left in the dark ages where it belongs. You should be ashamed. I will pray for you.
Hi, pastor. Three things:
One: These aren’t “my views” about gay rights and “reproductive rights,” as you refer to them. I am merely agreeing with the One who has already made His position on these subjects known.
Two: It’s not the church’s job to make us comfortable, pastor. Its job is to help to make us holy.
Yes, it should welcome all. In fact it should not only welcome but actively seek those who are lost. It should venture into the world, find the wandering sheep, and guide them back into the fold. But what it cannot do, pastor, is welcome our sin.
It should welcome the penitent thief, as Christ did, but it should not and cannot welcome his thievery. Remember, only one of the thieves crucified next to Christ was invited into paradise. The one who renounced his crimes was promised Heaven. The other, who clung to his wickedness even up until the moment of death, was not offered an invitation. I wonder, if you were there on Calvary that day, would you have lectured Christ for not being sufficiently inclusive?
I have other things to write about, but it appears to me that the
Lord doesn’t have other things for me to write about. I don’t mind
because this is actually a subject that gives me full opportunity and
scope to preach the gospel. But be forewarned, this opportunity is
actually an opportunity to preach a scandalous gospel. But that is all
right also, because that is actually the only kind of gospel there is.
As some would like it . . .
This scandalous gospel has to be declared in a world that loves lies and distortion. . . . [J]ustice is one thing, mercy is another, and because Christ came to
live among us, and both died and rose here, those two divine attributes
have to occupy the same screwed-up world together. That reality gives us
complicated pastoral problems. To complain about them is to complain
against His wisdom.
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9–11).
Since, therefore, we
have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him
from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled
to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled,
shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God
through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received
reconciliation. (Romans 5:9-11)
John Piper
What do we need to be saved from? Verse 9 states it clearly: the wrath of God. But is that the highest, best, fullest, most satisfying prize of the gospel? No. Verse 10 says "much more . . . shall we be saved by his life." Then verse 11 takes it to the end when it says, “more than that, we also rejoice in God.”
That
is the final and highest good of the good news. There is not another
“more than that” after that. There is only Paul’s saying how we got
there, “through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received
reconciliation.” The end of the gospel is “we rejoice in God.”
The highest, fullest, deepest, sweetest good of the gospel is God
himself, enjoyed by his redeemed people.
God in Christ became the price (Romans 5:6–8), and God in Christ became the prize (Romans 5:11). The gospel is the good news that God bought for us the everlasting enjoyment of God.
David Garrett, former ACT MP
Republished from Kiwiblog
When the three strikes (3S) bill was making its way through
parliament I told Clayton Cosgrove – in response to an interjection –
that it might be ten to fifteen years before 3S would really start to
bite. Although Cosgrove immediately tried to make capital from my
answer, I was not unhappy with that prediction – in fact I thought it a
little optimistic. In my view we have taken a generation to get into
the mess we are in with violent offending, and it might take a
generation to reverse it. It seems I was unduly pessimistic.
Unless there are extremely good reasons which would preclude such a
result, we are about to get our first “strike” offender sentenced to
Life Without Parole ("LWOP") for murder as a second strike. Justin Vance
Turner, aged 28, has pleaded guilty to murder. It is his second “strike”
offence, and accordingly, he should be sentenced to LWOP in accordance
with s.86E (2) of the Sentencing Act. That section requires that a stage
two offender guilty of murder should serve a sentence of LWOP “unless
the court is satisfied that given the circumstances of the offence and
the offender, it would be manifestly unjust to do so.”
The “manifestly unjust” provision was one of the conditions the National Party required in order for them to support the 3S Bill beyond first reading.
The sodomy challenge — and all related sexuality challenges —
present us with a glorious opportunity. It is a glorious opportunity
that the Spirit has cleverly disguised as a real hazard to our future
comfort and well-being.
For the gospel is a troublemaker. Let me explain that first and then come back to the sodomy challenge.
It is quite true that the gospel is good news. It is true that the
gospel is a message of salvation and redemption. It is a message of
buoyancy and hope. All this is true, and the one who preaches the
message should be lifted up by the glory of God’s everlasting kindness
to us. It is kindness.
Liturgy and Worship - Exhortation Written by Douglas Wilson
Saturday, 02 March 2013
One of the things we have to learn as Christians is that, when it
comes to appearances, we clean up real nice. But we also have to
remember that this is also true of whited sepulchers. They clean up real
nice also.
When new Christians join us, still reeling and recovering from all
the problems they have had, they are presented with the same optical
illusion presented to children who grow up among us. That illusion tells
you that you “are the only sinner here.” If people knew what my thought
life was like, they wouldn’t have anything to do with me. If people
knew the state of my heart, they would shun me. If people knew my past,
they would stay out of the cootie contagion radius.
. . . . It’s Tuesday. I’m on vacation (which is why I’m ahead on blogging).
And someone has sent me another note chastising me (mildly) for not
concluding a post with “the gospel.”
It doesn’t matter what the topic is. Men and women struggling to get
along in their marriages? ”The gospel.” Someone struggling to find
work in this economy? ”Believe ‘the gospel’.” The mechanic just
“fixed” your car–again–and charged you–again–for the same problem you
noticed last week? Think of “the gospel.” The Russian high court
sentencing a punk rock band to two years in prison for a flash mob
performance in a Russian Orthodox cathedral? ”They need the gospel.”
Want rock hard abs? Try “gospel” aerobics. I smashed my little toe
against the dresser? All together now, “the gospel.”
It’s ubiquitous. And it’s becoming an inflexible law. We dare not
face any issue without the requisite hat tip to “the gospel.” If we do,
there’s bound to be someone to write us a ticket for our verbal
violation, to insist we missed a “gospel” opportunity.
Do Preachers Expect a Response to the Preaching of the Gospel?
St Paul expected his hearers to be moved. He so believed in his preaching that he knew that it was “the power of God unto salvation” [Rom. 1:16]. This expectation is a very real part of the presentation of the Gospel. It is a form of faith. A mere preaching which is not accompanied by the expectation of faith, is not a true preaching of the Gospel, because faith is a part of the Gospel. Simply to scatter the seed, with a sort of vague hope that some of it may come up somewhere, is not preaching the gospel. It is indeed a misrepresentation of the gospel. To preach the Gospel requires that the preacher should believe that he is sent to those whom he is addressing at the moment, because God has among them those whom He is at the moment calling: it requires that the speaker should expect a response.
—Roland Allen, Missionary Methods—St. Paul’s or Ours? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 74.
The concept of "social justice" has its origins in socialism. Fairness or equity in society is believed to require a fundamental equality of outcome: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The achievement of this more just outcome requires the compulsion of the state to redistribute forcibly, through a progressive taxation system, taking from some to bestow upon others. In doing so the state necessarily claims the right to suspend the eighth and the tenth commandments.
When Christians buy-in to this non-Christian worldly ideology they often do so because they think it is a means of complying with the biblical injunction to take care of the poor and the needy. They could not be more mistaken.
As Unbelief grows stronger in our Western culture, which languishes under the curses of the Covenant, Christians are finding out first hand the enmity that exists, by Divine placement and decree, between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.
A natural response is for Christians to seek peace. The response is biblical in some important ways. Paul says, as far as it is possible, live at peace with all men (Romans 12:18). But more often than we would care to admit the search for peace with Unbelief comes at the expense of the Gospel. Modern Christians want to assure Unbelievers that the Living God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives. When this is taken out of a proper biblical context, it makes the Gospel anodyne. It also does nothing to remove the enmity that exists between Belief and Unbelief.
We saw an example of this in much of the public Christian commentary on the Christchurch earthquake. Official Christians emphatically affirmed that the earthquake was not an act of God. Bad news for insurance companies then who routinely attempt to avoid paying out on damages caused by such divine acts. But more seriously what on earth were these erstwhile representatives of God trying to say? If the earthquake was not an act of God, who then caused it? Did amorphous, impersonal nature cause the earthquake? Did the Devil? Did it happen without the express will and purpose of God? If so, then of all people, Christians are the most pitiable on the earth.
We are sure that these official Christians were attempting to communicate that, despite the earthquake, God still loves the people of Christchurch. To suggest otherwise would be to invite their anger and wrath--which Christians would rather not face. But when living at peace with all men leads us to hide the truth something is terribly wrong. Maybe we should remember that several times during His public ministry the Lord Himself--the Prince of Peace--so outraged his listeners that they sought to kill Him. Maybe we should consider that His death occurred because the High Priest and his fellow conspirators hated and despised the Christ for what He said. Maybe we should bear in mind that our Lord clearly told us that if the world hated Him it would also hate us. Maybe we Christians should just harden up, become more faithful to our Lord, and expect the inevitable loathing and anathema, counting it as nothing.
Modern Christians have forgotten, or have preferred not to hear, that the Gospel is bad news before it is good news. Or, to put it another way, the Gospel only becomes good news when people realise just how wretched and lost they truly are. Without that realisation--which the ancient divines called "conviction of sin", the Gospel is not good news at all--it is an irrelevance at best, a provocative nuisance, at worst. Why tell me God loves me when I could not care less? As useful and relevant to tell me the outer Mongolian dung beetle has nocturnal habits. Quaint, but an irrelevant waste of breath.
In John 3:36 we are told that, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Now that is very bad news indeed. Christians generally don't want to say this to Unbelievers, even though they know it is true, because they fear the opprobrium and wrath that would descend upon their head.
Now, to be sure, there is an appropriate time and place for all speech. But when it is time to speak of our relation to the Living God, we must not fail to remind our listener that he abides in and lives under the wrath of God as long as he remains stubborn, independent, and unrepentant. The good news, the Gospel, is that today God will yet be merciful, if he repents of his slights toward God, and seeks His forgiveness offered in Christ. But, tomorrow? Who knows.
This message, this Gospel, cost the Lord His life. Far better that we stand in His steps, instead of lusting for the approbation and approval of Unbelief.
The essay deconstructs the attempts by rationalistic theologians of his day to re-interpret the Gospel of Christ to make salvation a synergistic work between man and God. Here is an excerpt:
We must always be accepted for Christ’s sake, or we cannot ever be accepted at all.This is not true of us only “when we believe.” It is just as true after we have believed. It will continue to be true as long as we live.
Our need of Christ does not cease with our believing; nor does the nature of our relation to Him or to God through Him ever alter, no matter what our attainments in Christian graces or our achievements in Christian behavior may be.
It is always on His “blood and righteousness” alone that we can rest. There is never anything that we are or have or do that can take His place, or that can take a place along with Him. We are always unworthy, and all that we have or do of good is always of pure grace.
Though blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ, we are still in ourselves just “miserable sinners”: “miserable sinners” saved by grace to be sure, but “miserable sinners” still, deserving in ourselves nothing but everlasting wrath. That is the attitude which the Reformers took, and that is the attitude which the Protestant world has learned from the Reformers to take, toward the relation of believers to Christ.
There is emphasized in this attitude the believer’s continued sinfulness in fact and in act; and his continued sense of his sinfulness. And this carries with it recognition of the necessity of unbroken penitence throughout life. The Christian is conceived fundamentally in other words as a penitent sinner.
But that is not all that is to be said: it is not even the main thing that must be said. It is therefore gravely inadequate to describe the spirit of “miserable sinner Christianity” as “the spirit of continuous but not unhopeful penitence.” It is not merely that it is too negative a description, and that we must at least say, “the spirit of continuous though hopeful penitence.” It is wholly uncomprehending description, and misplaces the emphasis altogether.
The spirit of this Christianity is a spirit of penitent indeed, but overmastering exultation. The attitude of the “miserable sinner” is not only not one of despair; it is not even one of depression; and not even one of hesitation or doubt; hope is too weak a word to apply to it. It is an attitude of exultant joy. Only this joy has its ground not in ourselves but in our Savior.
We are sinners and we know ourselves to be sinners, lost and helpless in ourselves. But we are saved sinners; and it is our salvation which gives the tone to our life, a tone of joy which swells in exact proportion to the sense we have of our ill-desert; for it is he to whom much is forgiven who loves much, and who, loving, rejoices much.
).