Pretty much he is up to all his old tricks. Here are some fairly word-for-word quotes:
The Bible is really about helping the poor and oppressed.
Bono has done more to articulate the Christian faith than most preachers.
Jesus will judge you on whether or not you helped the poor, not on if you believed in the virgin birth.
Jesus was always partying. He loved to party!
I don't see how you can believe in capital punishment and believe in mercy.
Get to the red letters. [This referred to his ridiculous idea that we need to skip other parts of the Bible and only read the red font. In many Bibles, the red font identifies the words of Jesus.]
Nothing surprising here if you know Tony. He does not represent the Jesus of the Bible.
UPDATE: 4/7/07 I have closed the comments to this post.
The red letter comment grows out of his being in a group calling themselves "red letter Christians". It really is a misnomer because they are even selective which red letters they follow. They focus on the statements Jesus made regarding the rich and the poor, which is fine, except that they overlook the red letters that talk about hell, dying for sinners, seeking the lost, ... . Here is a quote from the Sojourners website:
ReplyDelete"The Red Letter Christians are a network of effective, progressive, Christian communicators urging an open, honest and public dialogue on issues of faith and politics. We believe and seek to put in to action the red letter words in the Holy Bible spoken by Jesus. The goal of the group is to advance the message that our faith cannot be reduced to only two hot button social issues - abortion and homosexuality. Fighting poverty, caring for the environment, advancing peace, promoting strong families, and supporting a consistent ethic of life are all critical moral and biblical values".
So, while the religious right is trying to make the US a Christian nation through one means, the left is trying to do it with other means. Funny how they both neglect the Gospel.
Ken and Paul,
ReplyDeleteI wish those who emphasized both gospel and helping the poor were more common!
I too cringed at the Red Letter thing.
Some of Tony's comments made more sense in context:
-Tony stated that the Bible has 2,000 verses about the poor. It isn't the central message of Scripture but it is an important theme.
-I'm a Bono fan - I know that makes me suspect - but this may be true depending on what preachers you're talking about!
-Tony wasn't saying the virgin birth is unimportant. He was saying that Matthew 25 links judgment to how we treat the poor. It's hard to defend ignorance, but there will be people in heaven who likely wouldn't pass our theology exams.
-Jesus did have a reputation as someone who partied.
-Campolo was referring to Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount that supersede the eye for eye retribution of the OT. I'm aware of the issues of interpreting it this way, but it's not completely out there.
-I can't possibly defend the red letter idea
He did say some good stuff. I like people like Ken and Tim Keller etc. who are socially minded like Campolo but also focused on the rest of the gospel and what Christ has done. May their tribe increase!
Darryl –
ReplyDeleteI will just reply to two of your observations.
You said: “Tony wasn't saying the virgin birth is unimportant. He was saying that Matthew 25 links judgment to how we treat the poor. It's hard to defend ignorance, but there will be people in heaven who likely wouldn't pass our theology exams.”
I am not sure we watched the same video.
What Tony said was that Jesus would not be in heaven with a clipboard seeing if people “agreed” or “disagreed” with the virgin birth. He suggested that people will be judged on whether or not they helped the poor.
Hoogly.
No one will stand in heaven unless he has been justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. What Tony said was that men will be saved by works. That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You also said, “Jesus did have a reputation as someone who partied.”
Did he? I recall Jesus being at a gathering at Matthew’s house and being referred to as the “friend of tax gatherers and sinners,” but I don’t recall Jesus waking up with a hangover after a night of drunkenness and sexual immorality. When Tony Campolo looks his interviewer in the eye and says that Jesus was a partier, just like him – that is blasphemous. To the average 20-something hearing him speak, Tony just said that Jesus did meth and mosh pits. That is what it means to be someone who parties.
I spent time this week with a partier. She hates her life. The last thing she needs to hear is that Jesus is just like her. Not only is that a lie, it gives no hope. I was happy to tell her about the sinless Son of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Tony Campolo is up to his old tricks. Positing false dichotomies, erecting pathetic (and very flammable) straw men and using his incredible communication gifts to point people away from the real Jesus.
I stand by my first conclusion, more firmly than ever: Tony Campolo does not preach the Jesus of the Bible.
Hey Paul,
ReplyDelete"No one will stand in heaven unless he has been justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone."
Absolutely agreed. It seems, though, that Jesus said that ignoring the poor, prisoners and strangers is evidence that we have not been justified by grace through faith in Christ alone.
I said, "Jesus did have a reputation as someone who partied." You said, "I don’t recall Jesus waking up with a hangover after a night of drunkenness and sexual immorality." That's quite a jump!
Jesus was called a glutton and a drunkard and scandalized the religious, but of course he never sinned.
I'm not prepared to defend all that Campolo teaches, but saying he doesn't preach the Jesus of the Bible may be overstating things quite a bit.
Darryl, my friend:
ReplyDeleteYou said: “(quoting me)"No one will stand in heaven unless he has been justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone." Absolutely agreed. It seems, though, that Jesus said that ignoring the poor, prisoners and strangers is evidence that we have not been justified by grace through faith in Christ alone.”
Right.
But who is ignoring them?
And when we are not ignoring them, what are we “doing” with them? I am discontent to feed a hungry man and not tell him of Jesus. And I think that the way Tony presents his case, he suggests that it is far more important to feed a man’s belly than preach Christ to him. That is a false dichotomy. Tony does this all the time and it is more than just annoying some lethargic, middle-class Christians.. .it is manipulative at best. I want the Truth to drive my actions and the actions of my Christian friends... not some guilt trip set up by a great communicator.
Maybe I am overreacting, Darryl. I know I do not like engaging in this conversation with you on my blog as opposed to in person. You are a friend and I happen to like you. But I am really tired of all this bending over backwards to give a pass to guys like Campolo or worse.
He is not preaching the whole counsel of God. You admit this when you agree with my assessment of his “red letter” nonsense. I have no time for these antics anymore. I want to fill my head with all of the Word and all of the Gospel.
Campolo strikes me as a deceptive peddler of half-truths and shined up moralism. You may disagree with my assessment, but the video in question only confirms this in my mind.
"Who is ignoring them?" Unfortunately, a lot of evangelicalism! I'm sure you will agree that this has sometimes been a blind spot due to our reaction against a social gospel. At least it has been in my past.
ReplyDeleteI agree that social action is not enough. It's a tragedy if we don't also share the reality of what God has done through Christ.
"I am really tired of all this bending over backwards to give a pass to guys like Campolo or worse." Paul, I agree. Campolo, etc. do proclaim hoogly at times, and it's right to call them on it.
To say that someone preaches a different Christ implies that he trusts a different Christ and is therefore anathema. Perhaps that's not what you intended and I'm misreading you.
I'm a whole lot more comfortable saying that he isn't preaching the whole counsel of God or that he misrepresents Jesus in some of what he says.
I remember an experience from my seminary days. We used to throw around the term heretic pretty loosely. Dr. Haykin reminded us that a heretic is someone who is so far off base that they are cursed. He said that we should use the term heretic extremely carefully. (I realize you haven't called Campolo a heretic.)
Since then I've tried to be careful in how far I condemn somebody. Of course, it also won't suffice to ignore bad teaching as well!
I'm all for ministry to the poor, prisoners and strangers. However, let's remember what defined Jesus' ministry to these folks. Quoting Isaiah's prophecy , He said, "The Spirit... anointed me preach the Gospel to the poor, He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, etc.
ReplyDeleteI think Paul is bang on when he says, what are we “doing” with them? I am discontent to feed a hungry man and not tell him of Jesus. I think too often, from folks like Campolo and his ilk, Jesus' ministry to the poor, the hungry etc. has been characterized and changing their physical condition without seeking spiritual transformation. That is indeed hoogly. When we begin to see all the unregenerate as the poor, the prisoners and and the blind who are in the need of the Gospel, release and sight, will we really be ministering as Christ did.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteWas Jesus in Matthew 25 only talking about the spiritually poor and imprisoned? And is the cup of cold water symbolic, representing offering people something spiritual?
I am all in favor of both spiritual transformation and concern for physical conditions. To do only one of these and not the other is to be unfaithful to the Gospel.
First a correction to a typo on my last comment. It should have said, I think too often, from folks like Campolo and his ilk, Jesus' ministry to the poor, the hungry etc. has been characterized as (not "and") changing their physical condition without seeking spiritual transformation.
ReplyDeleteDaryl - Thanks for pointing me to Matthew 25. I agree that evidence of a person's salvation is to care for people's physical needs.
Maybe we're just arguing semantics here, but I do not see Jesus' concern for people's physical conditions as "the Gospel." Whatever we do with the poor cannot be classified as "the Gospel" until we address a poor person's spiritual bankruptcy. Would you agree?
Ah Darryl, Have you been wondering where I have been through all this? I have been reading with rapt attention.
ReplyDeleteWe should never get our theology from Campolo, because it stinks, for the most part. (Having said that it needs to be pointed out that our church has a ministry that was founded by him and before we let them in we insisted that whenever there is a theological dispute between us and them - we win). The disturbing thing is that if an evengelical wants to learn about effective social ministry he has to search pretty hard to find sound theology coupled with a God pleasing social conscience. My own experience has been that to simply confess a concern for the physical well being of the poor, abused women, racial equality etc. is to court questions regarding my orthodoxy. This is understandable to a point because the very phrase "social Gospel" has been kidnapped by those who do not hold to the Gospel of faith alone in Christ alone. It is interesting that "Amazing Grace" opens tonight in Canada and Wilberforce was a man who dedicated his life to alleviating the physical suffering of a whole race of people because of his commitment to the biblical Gospel. John Wesley had a vibrant social conscience that demonstrated itself in social ministry and so did Charles Spurgeon. These men did not wrestle with the polarities that so mark us today. The dichotomy that was created by the modernist controversy of the early twentieth century still lingers. We need to be able to say regardless of who takes issue with us, that real faith in Christ demonstrates itself in concern for the physical well being of, first of all, Christians, and then others (Gal. 6:10)This will be demonstrated in real measureable help. And we need to be able to say that the help we offer is because we believe that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners and that salvation is
sola x 5. Campolo et. al. miss the mark on this last part and far too many evangelicals miss the mark on the first part.
Campolo et. al. ignore the biblical Gospel. And many evangelicals ignore the compassion for the needy that it inevitably produces.
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou're asking a great question. I like Keller's definition of the gospel being about the God redeeming and restoring all things in and through the work of Jesus Christ. It's much more than individual personal salvation - that's an important part, but it's only a part. It's about God restoring all things to the praise of His name.
Evangelicals like us tend to emphasize the individual salvation part. The emerging movement and liberals tend to emphasize concern over physical creation. Keller makes the point that the gospel is concerned with both. The gospel, I believe, deals with both. (I understand the physical world will never be fully restored until the consummation.)
To put it another way, we really often act like dualists who value the spiritual and devalue the material. A true biblical understanding of this world values both.
I don't want to de-emphasize the need for reconciliation with God at all, but I would argue that the gospel is also about orphans and widows in distress, etc. God is also the God of the physical, not just the spiritual.
Ken:
ReplyDeleteI always find it scary when you and I agree! ;)
The only consolation is that I think you find it even more scary. This could start to affect your reputation.
Ken and Darryl:
ReplyDeleteYou guys think you agree?
;-)
I agree with every word of Ken's post! My only caveat is that I think all of us tend to ignore parts of the biblical Gospel. We all tend to be reductionistic.
ReplyDeleteOf course, whether Ken agrees with me or not is his to deny! If he's smart he'll do that soon. :)
More examples of the same. Is this really necessary?
ReplyDelete"Published: February 28, 2007 10:49 am
Does anyone give a sh&#?
By Mark Thornton
While you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition ... and most of you don’t give a sh&#. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said sh&# than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”
And with that, Tony Campolo — the Reverend Tony Campolo — made what I believe is the greatest sermon intro in history. Campolo is way off base with most of his politics, but he was joltingly profound with those words. In two sentences, he summed up what’s wrong with the church, and much of society, these days."
Such is one newspaper editor's take on Campolo. You can read the whole article here http://www.starherald.net/opinion/local_story_059104934.html?keyword=topstory
In response to my name being bandied about I quote the great Bilbo Baggins:
ReplyDeleteI don't know half of you half as well as I should like and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
There. That settles it for me.
My secretary, better known as my wife, wants to go home now. I'll pick this up there.
I'm not sure about the personal dynamic going on "between the lines" with Daryl and Kenny, but you both make good points, and I think I'm on board. I definitely will do some reading on Keller in regard to redemption/restoration.
ReplyDeletePerhaps another way to frame the question is in regard to chronology. What is of first importance? Is it addressing the spiritual need? Or do we address the spiritual need by first addressing the physical need? Or do both happen concurrently?
I'm asking without having the answers. I'd like to take the time to go through Jesus' ministry, especially His healings. But I have a sermon to prepare and Paul's post has been successful in getting me sidetracked.
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou ask some very good questions!
I think if we aim to do both, how we respond will according to the situation. But I'm going to have to think more about that.
Ken's example of Wilberforce is a good one. Some of us might have started a missions thrust to slaves, arguing that their most pressing need was spiritual freedom. But the gospel has implications too for their physical condition, so it was entirely appropriate for Wilberforce to devote his efforts to outlawing slavery.
Darryl (apologize for misspelling your name previously)
ReplyDeleteI agree when you say the gospel has implications too for their physical condition (emphasis mine). That's what I see as being the correct order.
But we could say that the gospel has implications for them spiritually too...it's both.
ReplyDeleteOh definitely. But aiming for physical improvement without aiming for spiritual transformation is no Gospel. In other words, the Gospel has far more than "implications for them spiritually." The Gospel represents their fundamental need.
ReplyDeleteI think we're saying the same thing, aren't we?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure we are.
Paul said: "I want the Truth to drive my actions and the actions of my Christian friends..."
ReplyDeleteThat is it. A Christian believes the truth and his actions comport with that belief. If works are not done to God's glory they are worthless. We don't just give a cup of water, but we give a cup of water IN JESUS NAME. The obvious implication of Campolo's statements, and his books if you've read them, is that works will save. Campolo does not believe the truth and how anyone can say he does is beyond me. He is just a regurgitation of the popular 19th century social gospellers who holds to universalistic sentiments (which are denials of the gospel), who holds to unbiblical views of sin denying that certain things are sin (homosexuality), who believes God is powerless to control things (see his statements on God not being able to do anything to stop Katrina), and the list goes on.
Darryl, Jesus liked to party? Come on. Nowhere does scripture teach what Campolo was inferring in that interview; and consider how deadly to souls that inference was. There he was conferring that the sin of the interviewer and audience was what Jesus did as well. Blasphemous is right. I understand those who want unity with all those who name the name of Jesus, but if it is not the Jesus of the Bible then it is a deadly unity that will deceive many. Campolo did his best to do that to his audience in that interview.
D.R.:
ReplyDeleteDid Jesus love to party? That puts it more crassly than I would, but I know what he's trying to say.
Jesus went to social gatherings that weren't safe and he befriended people who gave him a reputation. He broke the religious conventions of his day and did what good religious people weren't allowed to do. He did all of this without condoning sin or sinning.
Campolo may have overstated his point, but he has a point. We too have painted an inaccurate and sterile picture of Jesus, and that too is deadly to souls.
The main problem in the interview for me is the fact that Campolo sees no need to talk about faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. People could come away from it believing that if they agree with Bono they're Christian; if they feed the poor they're Christian and if they agree with very selective passages printed in red they are Christian. Take a look at the comments in "the Hour" blog and you will see that is exactly what happened. People rejoicing that they have finally heard a Christian say what they think. Campolo, in that one small interview may have actually convinced people that they are right with God when in fact they are lost.
ReplyDeleteDarryl,
ReplyDeleteMy friend, I love to love people. I love to have mercy on people and I love to forgive. These are things that I really want to do and delight in doing. But at the same time the Bible draws a fine line between things like forgiving and accepting (Matt. 18:15-20 and 21-35). When I read your posts I read over and over again things like, "Maybe Campolo overstated himself." Maybe that's a possibility but when you read the things he says they are blatantly untrue. My friend I would encourage you to love Campolo but do not accept the things he says. By doing so warning passages in Scripture become void. When we read Jude, Galatians, Matthew 18 or 1 John the writers never say things like, "Well maybe they are saying bad things but maybe they are overstating themselves a bit." No we never find that. Instead they use words like antichrist, anathema, and liar. Do not make these Scriptures void;but thats what happens when we simply excuse people like Campolo. The things that he says are lies. They are not merely innocent mistakes but he is compromising the gospel and confusing people, leading them astray. I love Campolo but he is not a fellow worker. I am not going to excuse the things he says but I will love him, even forgive him. I am not just saying that to sound humble but I truly mean it. I would encourage you to sincerely love Campolo but do not excuse the things he says.
What about those who understate things?
ReplyDeleteI find myself having to excuse almost everyone I hear at some point, including me. There is a line - I'm just not sure Campolo crossed it in this interview!
By the way, I heard him on video today affirm the need for the proclamation of Christ as well as social action.
All that interview says is: Don't worry about little things like doctrine (who really cares what you believe about the virgin birth) and if you want to be right with God treat the poor nice. The thing is.....you could have not talked about Jesus at all and I would have gone away from that interview as if it was just some guy telling me to treat the poor nice. It says nothing about being in great need of Christ and that you can do no true good apart from him. You could say it says that but it doesn't. You are reading that into it. No the message is clear. JUST TREAT THE POOR NICELY AND EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE!
ReplyDeleteWise words from Spurgeon:
ReplyDelete"It now becomes a serious question how far those who abide in the faith once delivered to the saints should fraternize with those who have turned aside to another gospel. Christian love has its claims, and divisions are shunned as grievous evils; but how far are we justified in being in confederacy with those who are departing from the truth?...The house is being robbed, its very walls are being digged down, but the good people who are in bed are too fond of warmth, and much too afraid of getting broken heads, to go downstairs and meet the burglars...Inspiration and speculation cannot long abide in peace. Compromise there can be none. We cannot hold the inspiration of the Word, and yet reject it."
Spurgeon also said, "It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretence of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin."
ReplyDeleteThe interview wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. He just answers the right question with the wrong solution. But, guys who tell the whole truth, and don't swing too far either way, aren't very popular. And they don't get invited to say things on trendy shows.
ReplyDeleteI feel like a lot of the comments separate the physical and the spiritual as if they are two different things. Why can't giving a meal be "preaching the gospel'? Why does preaching the gospel actually mean talking words to them, I'm pretty sure the actual the word that is translated to "preach" is the verb for of "the good news" so basically it is just saying enact out the good new, which it is my understanding that the good news is a lot more than a cognitive understanding of what Jesus has done for us.
ReplyDeleteHey Nathan,
ReplyDeleteNice to have you blog here again!
You asked: “Why can't giving a meal be "preaching the gospel'?”
To this I would give one quick answer, although a whack more could be said.
Romans 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
Gospel preaching by definition is communicating the Truth about Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.
An atheist could give some food to a poor man – that ain’t the Gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures...
I have to admit that I scratch my head at times. Some at other blogs are debating whether you have to be premil to be Calvinist; others are debating whether or not the person who said that is really Calvinistic.
ReplyDeleteWhen good theological thinking is so important, it's tragic to trivialize theology and to miss the whole point of that theology.
I think a lot of us generally agree here: Campolo doesn't get everything right - agreed. Proclamation of Jesus Christ is essential - agreed. Because God cares for justice, we should too - agreed.
When we start debating whether Campolo is a heretic because he said something like "Jesus liked to party" - that's when I think we're losing a little focus.
I'd hate to miss the bigger picture, such as the fact that those of us who love God should be more committed to social justice than atheists. That really shouldn't be a matter of debate.
Hey Paul.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time using the verse in 1 Corinthians as a complete summary of the entire gospel. The gospel seems to carry a lot more weight than what that verse says, like in Romans 15:19 where Paul says that the gospel was proclaimed by the power of signs and miracles (without words), again many times the word preach in the New Testament does not mean to "talk" it is the verb of good news, so it basically it to put this good news into verb form, into an action. So whenever i see something that says to preach the good news, i think we have to leave open the fact that he might not be saying to preach a sermon or to announce on a street corner about this news but instead just start being bringing the good news into existence in people's lives and I think this exemplifies itself in all sorts of ways. at one point i think somewhere in the nt it refers to the gospel as the one prophesied by the prophets and in the scriptures, in which this message was extremely wide in range and i don't think we can narrow it down. It's as simple as giving a glass of water to someone in need or as complex as Jesus redeeming all of creation.
And yes I do believe that an atheist giving food to a poor man is the gospel just as much as the Samaritan taking care of the beat up man is the gospel.
Sorry to have disappeared after my first comment but we had a missionary by the name of Rod Conner staying with us for the weekend. He told us some incredible stories of conversions in New Guinea that just occurred after more than a decade of labour there. These men went to an unreached people and helped with their physical needs and earned the right to share the gospel with them. These people were told that they were sinners in need of a Saviour and unless they repented of their sin, and turned from it to Jesus Christ, they would go to hell. Four chiefs were just recently baptized saying, "Our forefathers died as enemies of God, we want to live and die as friends of God." These missionaries understand that to go in and only address the physical needs of these people in no gospel at all and does them no eternal good.
ReplyDeleteThese missionaries didn't go in and say, "Let me tell you about the greatest partier of all time. Let me tell you about someone who thinks feeding the poor is the most important thing you can do. Let me tell you about someone who is just like you the sinner. Let me tell you about Jesus' theories of social justice." No, they said, "There is a God who loved sinners so much that He sent His Son to die for them. If you turn from that sin and obey God, you will have eternal life." They didn't do as Campolo did on that show, an obvious evangelistic opportunity, "Hey, Jesus was a great partier; he's a lot like us. Have concern for the poor, do good works, and everything will be fine." He said nothing of turning from sin and relying on the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ as our only hope; and he NEVER does! In fact, he denied the very gospel he purports to believe! He is a false teacher of a false gospel. Plain and simple. And as a previous commenter said, to give him a pass on this is to participate in his sin.
Meeting a person's physical needs and spiritual needs are NOT equal and the Bible NEVER portrays them as equal. Our flesh will perish after 75 years but our souls will never perish. We can meet the physical needs of a person in order to gain a hearing for their spiritual needs. If we concentrate on the former with not much thought to the latter and think we have given them the gospel, we deceive ourselves. And that is exactly what Campolo has done; he has deceived his listeners. I remember reading his book The Kingdom of God is a Party in the early 90's and to this day I don't think I have read a worse book. This stuff has been his schtick for years. It is not Christianity that he preaches, although he uses a lot of the same words. It is a works-based social benevolence that winks at sin and is devoid of repentance and *true* faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Nathan wrote: "And yes I do believe that an atheist giving food to a poor man is the gospel just as much as the Samaritan taking care of the beat up man is the gospel."
You may think that, but it doesn't make it true. The Bible clearly states that the unbeliever can do nothing to please God. If one doesn't even believe that God exists, how is it remotely possible that He can share the good news of God? How can he believe that there is no God, yet there is good news to hear from this nonexistent God? That position is completely illogical and makes no sense. The bible doesn't say, 'Give a cup of water,' but 'Give a cup of water IN MY NAME.' Where there is no mention of the person and work of Christ, there is no gospel.
Nathan,
ReplyDeleteRomans 15:19 does not mean that Paul performed a miracle and then left people without speaking to them. Have a look at Acts 14:8-18. Here, Paul healed a man and the people who witnessed it wanted to worship Paul and Barnabas. The miracle alone led them into blasphemy! Paul's response to this was to tell them about who God really is.
The Gospel IS NEWS. Those who believe it do good things for people. But those good things are not in themselves the Gospel. They are the inevitable results of trusting Christ. But the good works alone cannot convince anyone of his need for Christ.
The thing I'm struggling with is this:
ReplyDelete"Our flesh will perish after 75 years but our souls will never perish. We can meet the physical needs of a person in order to gain a hearing for their spiritual needs."
I don't think this is biblical at all. Paul talked about a corruptible seed and an incorruptible one, but both are physical. I really think we haven't taught our people biblically if we devalue the physical world - that's closer to Greek thought than it is biblical thought. The resurrection and the new heavens and earth are physical, and a reminder that God is redeeming the physical world.
But the other idea is that meeting people's physical needs is just a method to get to their spiritual needs. Actually, we meet people's physical needs because God commanded us to, and because we want to care about the things that he cares about. Jesus said that if we don't, that is evidence that we never really belonged to him.
P.S. It's back to the loving God/loving neighbor summation of the law - both are key. Gospel enables us to do both, and to make disciple who will do the same.
ReplyDeleteDarryl,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your assessment on the physical/spiritual distinction and don't think Paul teaches that at all. I'm not sure to what you are referring in Paul actually. Peter talked of 'being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible...which liveth forever;' which speaks of the second birth being spiritual and eternal, not physical and temporal. That seems to prove my point. The eternal nature of the soul is far more important than the temporal nature of the body as is obvious in Matt. 10:28. (And that is not to say the latter is unimportant).
All the biblical writers elevated the eternal above the temporal at every turn. And to say that the physicality of heaven is similar to here is to blur an extremely important distinction between the two and to state something we do not, and cannot, know this side of glory.
But that's not really the point of all this, Campolo is. He doesn't address the spiritual at all. You might think he does, I'm sure he thinks he does, but what he teaches is demonstrably false according to the Bible. If you can show me where he consistently teaches repentance from sin and faith in Christ as necessary for salvation I will retract my charge of Campolo being a heretic. If an unbelieving child of yours were dying in a hospital and you couldn't be there, would you want Campolo at their side telling them the "good news", or someone like Paul Martin there? You don't have to answer but I can tell you with eternity facing my unbelieving child, the latter would be my choice every time. A social gospel would do them no good on their deathbed as it does no one any good while healthy.
No one here is denying that we are to take care of the poor. The issue is that Campolo wants to take care of their physical needs and all but mocks Christians who place a greater emphasis on a persons eternal needs.
You wrote: "Actually, we meet people's physical needs because God commanded us to, and because we want to care about the things that he cares about."
No one is debating this. But do you honestly believe that giving someone a meal is just as important as telling them of their need of Christ? The disciples certainly didn't.
Again: "Jesus said that if we don't, that is evidence that we never really belonged to him."
Agreed. But that also goes for those who supplant Matt. 28:19-20 with a food kitchen and shelter that speaks nothing of the Saviour.
Hi D.R.,
ReplyDeleteI was actually referring to 1 Corinthians 15 on the resurrection body.
My point is the eternal *is* the physical. We often make the mistake of thinking spiritual=eternal, but the physical is eternal as well (although it will be transformed).
The Bible begins with creation that is good and ends with new creation. In between, God shows great concern for people not just as souls but as bodies as well.
The Greeks had this idea of the physical world being bad and the spiritual world being more noble and important, but that's not a biblical idea.
There's an article by George Eldon Ladd on this here:
http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXIX/29-2.htm
I was encouraged to hear Campolo affirm the necessity of proclaiming Jesus Christ this past weekend; I wish he had made that clearer on the show.
I certainly agree with you on your last point. It's a mistake to replace making disciples with social action. We're called to both.
Somewhat related: Craig Carter from Tyndale comments on Campolo today:
ReplyDelete"While all this has been going on, people like Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren have been watching the Religious Right monopolize the discussion and so have decided to imitate all the worst features of the Religious Right's tactics in the name of "balance." They have formed a Religious Left, as closely aligned with the secular Democratic Party as the Religious Right is with the secular Republican Party. Again, Wallis and company have some good issues - poverty, the environment, justice for immigrants - all very good issues to be concerned about. But they are silent about abortion and are endorsing the campaign to normalize homosexual behaviour. They can no more oppose the Sexual Revolution than the Religious Right can oppose militarism. They can't seem to bring themselves to disagree with the Democrats any more than the Right can bring themselves to disagree with the Republicans."
"Both the Religious Right and the Religious Left are polarizing politics, bringing shame and reproach on the Gospel and are basically giving the world the message that Christianity has nothing unique to declare."
http://politicsofthecross.blogspot.com/2007/03/hypocrisy-of-religious-rights-family.html
D.R. Brooker
ReplyDeleteI guess we'll just disagree with this, cause I see the scriptures, especially Jesus' life saying all sorts of things of what it means to live in the kingdom, and loving god and loving people is far more than this cognitive understanding of salvation in which you seem to think it is completely wrapped up in.
You told a long story about the missionaries and they are beautiful and I'm glad these tribes are coming to a knowledge of Christ, but I could tell you similiar stories right here in Sarnia, where it is the opposite, people came to Christ because he would go in ugly places (like parties) and love them anyway, and the Holy Spirit touched them in ways I never could have with four steps. But then you would tell me that that's not really Christ and that I'm preaching a different gospel because i would just spend hours on end with them in their homes while they did drugs and got drunk. I just wish you could see the beauty in Tony's arguments about caring for the poor and needy and making them feel loved, because even you said it, its definitely an important step to helping them with their spiritual condition. Why do you have to get upset about what he's not saying instead of just appreciating what he is saying?
kenny,
i don't think that he just was a mute the whole time, i was just trying to show that the gospel still can be portrayed with more than words, it can be portrayed in actions as well.
Nathan,
ReplyDelete>I guess we'll just disagree with this, cause I see the scriptures, especially Jesus' life saying all sorts of things of what it means to live in the kingdom,
Nathan, we've been through this before. You just pick and choose those things about Jesus that you like, discard the "red letters" you don't like, and construct a theology. It was Augustine who said, "If you believe what you like in the gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself." You don't even see the scriptures as bindingly authoritative so to even make that statement is to elevate your opinions above God's.
>and loving god and loving people is far more than this cognitive understanding of salvation in which you seem to think it is completely wrapped up in.
Have you even been reading my comments? I have never once intimated that loving people is unimportant. It just won't save any of us! The Bible does say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." That should be our ultimate goal: to bring souls savingly to Christ. It does not say, "Go feed a man and be a buddy to someone who is down and out and you shall be saved." Salvation comes through faith alone in Christ alone. "It is not of works lest any man should boast!" Imagine the thoughts of those in hell for eternity: 'Campolo fed me, but he told me nothing of salvation and faith in Jesus Christ to avoid this.' Little good it will do them then.
>where it is the opposite, people came to Christ because he would go in ugly places (like parties) and love them anyway, and the Holy Spirit touched them in ways I never could have with four steps.
I'm not sure what you mean by "four steps." Did He "touch them" or did He save them? Did He cause them to leave their sinful lifestyles behind and follow Jesus in obedience to what the scriptures teach? I don't know the answer, but if they've merely tried to make their lives better apart from a living relationship with the Son of God they really are no better off. I admire you for going in to the "ugly places," for not everyone has the ability to do so. But if all you do is get them off drugs and alcohol, which is good for the body only for a time, and do nothing to bring their soul to Christ, then you really have done nothing for them from an eternal perspective.
Acts 20:25-27 says, "And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God."
Should not we all be like Paul and declare the gospel to men in all its fullness so that we too can say, "I am pure from the blood of all men." In other words, their ultimate condemnation cannot be held to our account because we proclaimed Christ to them. If we only feed their bodies, and do no good for their souls, God will most certainly hold us accountable.
>But then you would tell me that that's not really Christ and that I'm preaching a different gospel because i would just spend hours on end with them in their homes while they did drugs and got drunk.
Nathan, that's great. Really. But it is only the first step. Once you've gained their favour, if you don't tell them to leave their sin and put their faith in Jesus Christ, you've done nothing for them of an eternal nature. Imagine for a moment those people standing before God and hearing the awful judgment pronounced against them. Would they not then say, "Nathan, you helped my body but not my soul; why did you not tell me of repentance and faith in Christ." I don't think any of us would want to hear our friends say that to us.
>I just wish you could see the beauty in Tony's arguments about caring for the poor and needy and making them feel loved, because even you said it, its definitely an important step to helping them with their spiritual condition.
I do "see the beauty" in that aspect. It's just not the gospel! It will save no one. It will help for a time, then condemnation. I just wish you put as much fervour in bringing souls to Christ as you do caring for their physical needs. It is commendable work that you do, but it falls far short of what is required by God.
>Why do you have to get upset about what he's not saying instead of just appreciating what he is saying?
Because by ommitting, or rather denying, the importance of turning from sin in faith to Christ, which he did with a smile on his face in that interview, is to deny the gospel he purports to teach. Every one of his listeners was in fact led further away from Christ by the false gospel he conveyed. Yes, I do find that upsetting.
Thanks for that last comment D.R. it made me think through some stuff!
ReplyDeleteHey D.R Brooker.
ReplyDeleteI think after looking at our last two comments that we are both fighting with the person on the other side thinking that they are not on our side enough. Where I would put more emphasis on loving people and taking care of them and you would put more emphasis on having their souls saved. However, I don't think its safe to stay where either of us are, because both are equally important. The gospels are full of 'requirements' to be saved. He who stands firm to the end, he who believes, he who is baptized, someone's faith, he who enters through Christ. But the gospels are also full of commands to love people and to treat them like we would treat ourselves. I don't think that leaving salvation out is an option, I think it is just as important as loving people, it's all part of the same package, to truely love them would to help bring them into the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
I guess its just in the way you argue I see you willing to sacrifice love for saving souls (that could be me just judging you) and I just don't see them as separable. I don't see taking care of someone's physical needs as separate from taking care of their spiritual needs and vice versa, I think the Holy Spirit can use our words and our actions to bring someone to the same knowledge.
I don't mean to belabour the discussion so I'll let this be my last comment unless you need me to answer something.
ReplyDeleteNathan: "Where I would put more emphasis on loving people and taking care of them and you would put more emphasis on having their souls saved. However, I don't think its safe to stay where either of us are, because both are equally important."
Both are important, but they are not equally important. That is clearly not what Jesus or the Apostles taught. I've already provided scripture references that clearly teach the preeminence or importance of the soul over the body; the eternal over the temporal.
"I guess its just in the way you argue I see you willing to sacrifice love for saving souls (that could be me just judging you) and I just don't see them as separable."
Nathan, I've made it abundantly clear that I am sacrificing nothing for the other. We should place the greater emphasis on the spiritual condition of people as both Jesus and the disciples did.
John 6:33-35 "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."
What is better? Bread that causes you to never hunger, or bread that fills you only for a time? Clearly, Jesus is teaching us that the bread that comes down from heaven (Himself) which will cause the soul to never hunger is far greater than the bread that will only sustain the body for the day. The point he is making is the one Paul and I have made throughout: BOTH are important, but feeding the soul with the bread of heaven is the far greater of the two. If you are doing both great. If you are emphasizing the physical needs over the spiritual you are not doing what Jesus did.
i stumbled upon this blog by accident and i am rather amused and doubtful with some of the things said earlier in the comments. sorry to say that i did not have the strength to read all the way through the comments.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all: you have to look at the context of the interview. to say that Tony was saying Jesus participated in things that were sexually immoral or was a drunken partier all the time is false. he was pointing out the other side of the Gospel that is rarely ever touched on. the church has feminized Jesus so much that some men find him completely repulsing and are afraid they will have to become a girly man (for lack of a better word) if they chose to follow him. Tony was speaking to a man who i am sure has many times been judged because of his appeared lifestyle. Tony was showing him that God would not have dismissed him without a second thought. Tony was revealing a Jesus that has maybe never been shown to many before. He was reaching out towards George in an effort to show him the true Jesus. someone who spent time with the outsiders and loved a glass of wine now and then and loved all people. even the ones that today a lot of us chose to ignore. if you watch the hour normally you have probably seen George eat up some preachers. George seemed to pay attention and listen to him. I believe he reached George and maybe thats what he was supposed to be there for. but for you to judge Tony and almost call him un-Christian (as i read it)....that is not for you to judge.
just my thoughts
In Luke 4, Jesus inaugurates his public ministry with a passage from the book of Isaiah. He reads the following:
ReplyDelete"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Sounds as though Jesus believed the Gospel included the physical and social, unless that is you don't believe that Jesus is speaking of the Gospel here. Which would be sort of odd, given that the word shows up right in the middle of verse 18.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget that the words "poor," "prisoners," "blind," and "oppressed," are all words used throughout scripture to describe the spiritual condition of men. It was to that condition that Jesus is preaching here. That passage, read in context, hardly supports the over-emphasis of the social-gospellers on physical needs vs. spiritual needs.
Jesus is quoting a passage that takes its context from the practice of Jubilee. This passage, read in context, is not at all about spiritual needs. Jubilee is about physical, political, social, and economic freedom in the Kingdom of God. To say that this is about spiritual needs is twisting the context to suit an interpretation that you've already determined before you come to the text. It is far more natural, far more contextual, to read this as meaning exactly what is said - poor, prisoners, blind, and oppressed in the natural sense of the word - not in the spiritual sense. What in this passage would lead you to read this outside of the natural range of meaning of these words? Why would you state that these are metaphors, except to defend a conclusion that isn't based on the text at all but rather is intended to support an interpretation that has already been determined?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that the gospel is not about the spiritual. What I am saying is that denying that the gospel includes the physical and social is a gross misreading of the text and, frankly, borders on gnosticism.
ScottB
ReplyDeleteAs I tried to demonstrate (much) earlier in this thread, its a matter of priority and emphasis (dr brooker has made my point far more articulately and forcefully). Spiritual and physical are not, (the way I read the whole counsel of God) equal parts of the Gospel. For example, giving a cold person a coat is not, by itself, the Gospel. It's not the Gospel until the spiritual need is addressed. This will sound redundant, but the Good News is the Gospel, not a coat.
If I grant you that the gospel "includes the physical and social," would you say at least say that the spiritual takes priority in what can rightly be defined as "The Gospel?"
My problem is that scripture never - never - bifurcates the physical and social from the spiritual. To say that one has priority over the other is to make a distinction that simply isn't in the text. The gospel is for the whole person - a "spiritual" gospel without the physical and social is also no gospel at all. Why do we need to play these things against each other as though they are in competition?
ReplyDeleteLet's call a spade a spade. If we're going to say that those who emphasize justice without repentance are not proclaiming the gospel, then let's be honest and say that those who proclaim repentance without justice are likewise not proclaiming the gospel.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThe same charge you level can also be levelled against you: you are reading scripture through your presuppositions which places a much greater emphasis on social justice that the text or Jesus ever does. It cuts both ways. A number of texts have been adduced in this discussion if you've followed from the beginning that makes it eminently plain that Jesus and the disciples place a greater emphasis on the eternality of the soul over the temporality of the body. And the charge that this borders on gnosticism is absurd. I just perused a few commentaries on the Luke 4 passage you cited and none of them even make mention of your tortured rendering of the text.
No one has said that the social/physical aspect is unimportant. It is necessary. But it pales in comparison to the eternal worth and value of the soul. Scripture is so clear on this it is simply irrational to deny it.
D.R.
ReplyDeleteI don't think your reading of Luke 4 holds up. Did Jesus mean to spiritualize the poor and prisoners etc.? I don't think the rest of the chapter sustains that view. He was literally healing people and ministering to people's physical needs. The Year of Jubilee, to which Jesus was referring, wasn't just spiritual.
Tortured reading of the text? Hoogly! I think it's more like the plain reading of the text. You almost have to do cartwheels to read it otherwise.
John later asks if Jesus is the one to come. Luke 7 says:
At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy1 are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”
I think we're doing violence to the text if we take all of that and spiritualize it.
Here's the thing. Sin didn't just ruin our relationship with God. Sin destroyed that plus ourselves, our relationships with others, and the external world. It's four dimensional. To reduce the gospel to one dimension is reductionistic. It's all of these.
Scott is right in saying that the gospel is for the whole person.
As for the physical, someone's said that many of us are used to reading our Bibles from Genesis 3 to Romans 3. We need to start at Genesis 1 and end at Revelation 22 and realize the Bible begins and ends with earth the way it was meant to be, and humans in physical bodies.
You are right that our present bodies are temporal, but we need to be careful not to let that speak louder than the rest of Scripture which values the physical life, promises that it will continue in our resurrection life, and in the meantime emphasizes justice and care for the poor as part of the gospel.
To cite just one of the commentaries I mentioned, John Gill says on Luke 4:18:
ReplyDeleteto preach the Gospel to the poor: in Isaiah it is, "to the meek"; which design the same persons, and mean such as are poor in spirit, and are sensible of their spiritual poverty; have low and humble thoughts of themselves, and of their own righteousness; and seek to Christ for durable riches and true righteousness, and frankly acknowledge that all they have and are, is owing to the grace of God: and generally speaking, these are the poor of this world, and poor in their intellectuals, who have but a small degree of natural wisdom and knowledge: to these the Gospel, or glad tidings of the love, grace, and mercy of God in Christ, of peace, pardon, righteousness, life and salvation by Christ, were preached by him; and that in so clear a manner...
he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted; whose hearts are broken, and made contrite by the word of God, under the influence of the Spirit of God, and with a sense of sin; and are wounded with it, and are humbled for it; and are in great pain and distress, and even inconsolable, and ready to faint and die; for a wounded spirit who can bear? now Christ was sent to heal such persons by his own stripes, by binding up their wounds, by the application of his blood to them, which is a sovereign balm for every wound; by the discoveries of pardoning grace to their souls, and by opening and applying the comfortable promises of the Gospel, by his Spirit, to them:
to preach deliverance to the captives; who are captives to sin, Satan, and the law; from which, there is only deliverance by him; who saves his people from their sins, redeems them from the law, and leads captivity captive; and which liberty and deliverance are preached and published in the Gospel, and by Christ the author of them:
and recovering of sight to the blind; which in the prophet is, "and the opening of the prison to them that are bound"; and which the Septuagint render, as here in Luke, and the Chaldee paraphrase in part agrees with it...now because persons in prison are in darkness, and see no light, therefore they are represented as blind; and both are the case of sinners, they are in the prison of sin and of the law, and are blind, ignorant, and insensible of their state; until Christ both opens the prison, and sets them free, and opens their eyes, and gives them spiritual sight...
This is but one example. When the scriptures are considered as a whole, this is the meaning of the gospel: to save the spiritually poor and blind.
Here is John Piper's take on this passage in a sermon he preached on Luke 4 back in 1984. After giving a caution to not misuse this text in two ways - 1. limit poverty to physical/social and 2. Make no effort to relieve physical/social poverty - he says this...
ReplyDeleteLet it be declared unashamedly and reasonably that the greatest and most loving thing we can do for anyone is release them from the captivity of sin (Romans 6:22–23), heal them from the blindness of unbelief (Acts 26:17f.; 2 Corinthians 4:4), and set them at liberty from the oppression of Satan (2 Timothy 2:26). Efforts at social improvement that neglect this great goal will be looked back on by poor people in hell as a horrible form of ecclesiastical malpractice.
This is all I'm trying to point out. I would never deny that Christians ought to try to relieve physical and social ills, but it is not "the greatest and most loving" thing we can do.
Yes, there is a long history of spiritualizing passages like this. I think Piper gets it better than Gil.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Piper a little though. The greatest and most loving thing that could have been done with the victim of Luke 10:30 would be to look after this physical needs as the Samaritan did.
At other times, the most loving thing to do is to share the gospel. It's actually rare that we have to choose between them.
It's puzzling that Jesus didn't always "share the gospel" the way that we would define it, which leads to all kinds of bigger questions.
I happen to believe that the gospel is about far more than forgiveness. If we leave forgiveness out of it, we're dead wrong; if we stop with forgiveness, we're very wrong as well.
"Yes, there is a long history of spiritualizing passages like this."
ReplyDeleteYes, that history goes back to the early church. And novel approaches come and go almost as often, and sometimes never heard of again.
Darrin,
ReplyDeleteSome of the approaches that were taken toward Scripture, such as allegorical interpretations, are now understood to have been bad hermeneutical practices.
In any case, I just did a quick survey of a number of commentaries, and they seem to all say something like this:
"In Luke the term 'poor' *does* refer to an economic condition, but *not merely* to economic status, for the poor and humble hope in God."
I think Piper does get it right in what he says: it's not just economic poverty but it includes economic poverty.
Piper writes:
ReplyDelete"If [globally speaking] the lost are the poor, and the poor are the lost, then a holistic ministry, one in which compassion, social transformation, and proclamation are inseparably related, would seem to be the strategy for this time in human history. If incarnation is the model practiced by the One who ministered to such as these, then holistic practitioners, people whose lives are eloquent concerning the values and worth of the Gospel, would seem to be the messengers of the hour...
And when he entered his ministry he did two things: he declared with is mouth that he was sent to the poor; and he declared with his life that he would be among the poor. In Luke 4:18 he said, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor." And in Matthew 8:20 he said, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."
...May God give us a mind to dream and a heart to love—so that we spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples—especially the poor."
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1995/936_Good_News_to_the_Poor/
Cornelius Plantinga writes,
ReplyDelete"At their best, Reformed Christians take a very big view of redemption because they take a very big view of fallenness. If all has been created good and all has been corrupted, then all must be redeemed. God isn't content to save souls; God wants to save bodies too. God isn't content to save human beings in their individual activities; God wants to save social systems and economic structures too...
Everything corrupt needs to be redeemed, and that includes the whole natural world, which both sings and groans...The whole world belongs to God, the whole world has fallen, the whole world needs to be redeemed - every last person, place, organization, and program; all "rocks and trees and skies and seas"; in fact, "every square inch," as Abraham Kuyper said. The whole creation is "a theater for the mighty works of God," first in creation and then in re-creation."
Again, your (and Piper's) interpretation of that text leaves out an entire group of people, ie. the 'not poor.' In my view Jesus came to all types of men; the poor, the rich, etc. In the literal interpretation there are types of men you would have to admit Jesus did not come to minister to. ALL men outside of Christ are spiritually poor and blind and in need of the gospel; not just the physically poor. This literal interpretation just does not work with the rest of scripture and should thus be rejected.
ReplyDeleteIn that last quote by Plantinga you get yourself into a bind. Christ is the redeemer of souls and Christ will also be the redeemer of creation. Men don't redeem souls, neither do they redeem creation. The means by which men are redeemed is entirely different than the means by which the creation will be (and by that I do not mean to imply the work of Christ). We take the gospel to men so that they can be saved. We do not take the gospel to the creation. The gospel is a MESSAGE from God to fallen men about the redemption of their soul. Men have no ability to save a soul, and despite what Greenpeace would have us believe, we have no ability to redeem the creation either. These are both Christ's doing and the latter will most certainly happen in the end.
But there is a greater danger you've gotten yourself into that I mentioned in the thread on your blog. You have brought works into the gospel and mixed it with grace. (Not purposely I would add).
You said: "But if we reduce the gospel to the forgiveness of sins only, it's still wonderful news - but it's a truncated gospel."
The gospel is the forgiveness of sins and sinners being made right with God. You are confusing the gospel with the things that are the fruit of a believed gospel. 'Feeding the poor' is not part of the gospel, but something that comes from the heart of a believer who has been transformed by the gospel. Jesus never said that 'feeding the poor' would save any man; but it is a sign that that person MIGHT be saved. One can 'feed the poor' and not be converted at all. I don't think you are trying to mix grace and works, but that's what's happening when you say that the GOSPEL ITSELF includes things like social justice, feeding the poor, etc. The good news is that sinners can be made right with God. We must not confuse the message of the gospel with those things that the gospel itself produces.
You wrote previously: "I am all in favor of both spiritual transformation and concern for physical conditions. To do only one of these and not the other is to be unfaithful to the Gospel."
If there is no "spritual transformation" there is no gospel; it is a necessary result of the gospel. Transformation of "physical conditions" are not part of the gospel; they are the fruit of a believed gospel. The gospel changes the heart; the heart then, out of love for souls, helps the poor. Hopefully this distinction is clear.
Darrin,
ReplyDeleteI don't think Piper's definition (and mine) leave out a whole group of people. For one thing, we acknowledge two types of poor in Luke 4 - spiritually and physically. In any case, in saying that Jesus has good news for the poor, we are not implying that he doesn't have anything to say to the rich.
"The gospel is a MESSAGE from God to fallen men about the redemption of their soul." That's part of it. When I read Colossians 1 - "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" - I see that the scope of the gospel is much bigger. The message is much bigger than only the redemption of souls, as if that was not big enough.
I understand that when I serve the poor, that is works that are fitting for a believer and that doesn't save me. But that isn't to deny that the Gospel I can proclaim, by word and action, is that Christ came to do what no human or relief agency could ever do - to set things right again and to overthrow Satan, as well as to bear God's wrath for our sins. I am not offering what I can do by human strength; I am announcing what God has already done through Christ.
Darryl,
ReplyDeleteWhile I take very little issue with what you just wrote, I still have difficulty reading it in light of these two previous statements. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean.
"But if we reduce the gospel to the forgiveness of sins only, it's still wonderful news - but it's a truncated gospel."
"I happen to believe that the gospel is about far more than forgiveness. If we leave forgiveness out of it, we're dead wrong; if we stop with forgiveness, we're very wrong as well."
The gospel is a *message* from God to fallen man about salvation in Jesus Christ. We are told that if we believe certain things that are revealed about both the person and work of Christ, who He is and what He has accomplished, we will be saved. That salvation is secure and certain for those who truly believe. Nothing need be added, nor anything need be taken away from that message. It is pure as delivered, as it is based solely on the person and work of Christ. By grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone; that is the gospel.
Now, if this, what I have just written, is a "truncated gospel" as you indicate, that means something is missing, and in essence, according to Paul, it is no gospel at all. To say that this message is incomplete is to say that what I have just said in the previous paragraph will do nothing to save a man; there must be something else that I'm missing. What is that something else? I honestly don't think you believe that anything should be added, but that to me seems the obvious implication of a statement calling the message of salvation by faith through Christ a "truncated gospel."
Please hear me. The above is the gospel God's people believe. The ramifications of that believed gospel are immense, but reside in a *completely different category*. Justification and sanctification must not be confused or overlapped. There is a huge difference between 'Christ for us' and the 'Spirit in us'. 'Christ for us' is our justification and peace with God. The 'Spirit in us' is our sanctification and holiness. It is out of the former that our peace with God comes and a soul is saved. Out of the latter, our good works flow. It is the 'Spirit in us' that causes us to love God and do those works of obedience required by those called to be His people.
Now, if a man says he has faith, yet has no regard for the poor, that may very well be the evidence that his faith is in vain. If a true child of God fails to regard the poor out of ignorance or feeble excuse, it is a sin which he will be held accountable for; not something that will necessarily damn him. A man with true faith can sin by disregarding the poor yet still be saved; just as a man can regard the poor, have no faith, and die in his sin. If you agree with that last statement then logically you have to agree that our regard for the poor plays no part in our salvation and thus by omitting it from the gospel it does in no way "truncate" that gospel. As I said previously, our works flow from a heart and mind that has believed the gospel; our works are not part of that gospel.
It is this important distinction which makes this comment from another just plain wrong: "And yes I do believe that an atheist giving food to a poor man is the gospel just as much as the Samaritan taking care of the beat up man is the gospel." In no way whatsoever are these things the gospel. The first are works done not to the glory of God, and the second are works done (presumably) by one who has already believed on the Lord Jesus.
Horatius Bonar had this to say on the importance of the distinction:
"Others of your difficulties spring from confounding the work of the Spirit in us with the work of Christ for us. These two must be kept distinct; for the intermingling of them is the subversion of both. Beware of overlooking either; beware of keeping them at a distance from each other. Though quite distinct, they go hand in hand, inseparably linked together, yet each having its own place and its own office. Your medicine and your physician are not the same, yet they go together. Christ is your medicine, the Spirit is your physician. Do not take the two works as if they were one compounded work; nor try to build your peace upon some mystic gospel which is made up of a strange mixture of the two. Realize both, the outward and the inward; the objective and the subjective; Christ for us, and the Holy Spirit in us."
Darryl, I don't get the impression you disagree with this. I hope it serves to show that the gospel itself is different than those things which flow from a believed gospel. If that is true, then the message of Christ's redemption of fallen men is not a "truncated gospel."
I'm not sure I'd have much left to say on this issue so the last word is yours. Blessings.
Hi Darrin,
ReplyDeleteI've appreciated this exchange, even though it looks like we may have scared everyone else away!
I think you're right that this thread may have run its course.
If I'm right, I think you are focusing on Christ's work as saving individuals, and from there these individuals go on to care for the poor. I am saying that on top of saving souls, Christ's work is also to save this physical world. This will happen fully at his return, but even now we get glimpses of Christ's restorative work. Already, but not yet.
So in other words, you are emphasizing forgiveness of sins; I am saying that Christ's work is about that but also in setting this world right, fully at the resurrection but also today wherever his kingdom shows up.
As I've said, I've appreciated this exchange, and for Paul's good humor in allowing it to happen.
Thank you, Darrin for that last response. I've also appreciated this exchange and being able to interrupt here and there.
ReplyDeleteBefore Darryl responds, I would just like to set his last citation from Piper in its proper context, having finally located that sermon. First, it was Piper quoting another study, but here is what he said immediately before and after the first paragraph Darryl cited (bold emphasis is mine)
If our mission is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in the salvation of the lost, what does the staggering reality of poverty imply? The study quoted above concluded like this
"If [globally speaking] the lost are the poor, and the poor are the lost, then a holistic ministry, one in which compassion, social transformation, and proclamation are inseparably related, would seem to be the strategy for this time in human history. If incarnation is the model practiced by the One who ministered to such as these, then holistic practitioners, people whose lives are eloquent concerning the values and worth of the Gospel, would seem to be the messengers of the hour.
This is the conviction behind Fresh Initiative #5—proclaiming good news to the poor.
To Piper, the Gospel proper is not making the poor rich; it is giving the poor the Good News.
Note: Oops. I see Darryl responded while I was in the middle of typing up my response. You have not scared me away yet. I'm following this discussion very carefully. I think it is a very important discussion on defining the Gospel. By the way, what happened to Paul? When it comes to this discussion, he is akin to the Deist's view of God. He gets the clock going and then leaves it to run on its own.
In response to your last comments, you said...
I am saying that on top of saving souls, Christ's work is also to save this physical world.
I would re-word that to say, "underneath saving souls, Christ's work is also to save this physical world."
You said...
So in other words, you are emphasizing forgiveness of sins; I am saying that Christ's work is primarily about that but also in setting this world right, fully at the resurrection but also today wherever his kingdom shows up.
I would agree, with the addition of that one word.
The problem begins with a truncated definition of sin. If sin is merely an offense against God, then a spiritual gospel might suffice. But if sin is a condition into which the entire cosmos is plunged, resulting not only in separation from God but also separation from and oppression of one another - not to mention destruction rather than stewardship of creation - then the gospel must address those elements, or it isn't dealing with all of sin.
ReplyDeleteScott,
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are getting at when you say "If sin is merely an offense against God, then a spiritual gospel might suffice" but it needs to be pointed out that
"separation from and oppression of one another - not to mention destruction rather than stewardship of creation" are offences against God. If something is not offenseive to God then it is not sin. If oppression of others does not cause me to be separated from God, then I have not sinned in doing it. The fact is, oppression is first of all, even before it is damaging to those I hurt, offensive to God. David's confession, after adultery and murder was "against you only have I sinned..." We can never say "merely" an offense against God.
So, in terms of this discussion: neglect of the poor is an offense against a holy God that demands the wrath of God and that Jesus died to save people from. Having been saved from it through hearing the Gospel and turning to Christ in faith, we now live a holy life and make progress in holiness. Part of that holiness is a heart for the poor that grows out of a desire to glorify God. Where that does not exist, it is doubtful if the Gospel has been truly received.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say, but I still fear we are narrowing the work of Christ to the vertical dimension (our relationship with God) and then including the rest as an afterthought.
The Bible is clear in Genesis 3 that sin unleashed complete brokenness in every area of life, not just the vertical dimension with God but in our relationships with the physical world, each other, as well as in our societal structures.
Maybe some of us are used to emphasizing that the cross restores our relationship with God, which is absolutely true. But is that all? Nobody really believes so.
For instance, all of us agree that it also accomplished much more: it also conquered death, defeated Satan, and made it possible for an alternate community (the church) to exist. So nobody really believes it only restored our relationship with God. We all agree that it conquered physical death. It did far more than just make us right with God again. All of that is the gospel.
I would really push everyone to ask what Christ accomplished through the cross. He didn't just deal with reconciliation with God and leave us with the rest of the mess. He dealt with every dimension that sin damaged.
Once we believe that, then we become people who live backwards, anticipating the time when God will set everything right. But we also become, here and now, participants in the kingdom in which the reign of God is already breaking out and putting things right. That is the gospel.
"then the gospel must address those elements, or it isn't dealing with all of sin."
ReplyDeleteThe gospel (good news) is a *message* about the person and work of Jesus Christ to be believed by those separated from God by sin. The creation does not have sin of its own and has no faculty to believe this message. The creation is cursed because of man's sin (Gen 3:17), which indeed does constitute ALL sin. Hence the necessity of dealing first and foremost with man's sin with the gospel; a gospel directed at the spiritual condition of men.
God subjected the creation to the curse of sin because of the sin of man. Christ's atonement paid for the sin of His people and secured the removal of the curse of man's sin from the creation in due time. Unbelievers will pay for their own sin for all eternity apart from God. In other words, all sin will be paid for; some by Christ's blood, and the rest by unbelievers themself in hell. This will constitute the "dealing with of all sin." Only when sin is dealt with finally in man can the created order be restored. Christ's atonement has secured and assured that the creation will indeed be restored.
It's our duty to be good stewards of all that God has given us but we have no restorative power over the creation. Recycling our pop cans is a good thing, but it does nothing to bring the creation back to its pre-fall condition. It's good stewardship that flows from love to God from a believing heart, but it is not part of the gospel. We can only deal with our fellow man (social justice) as God intended, once the sin in our own hearts has been dealt with; hence the primacy of a gospel that deals with man's spiritual condition. Social justice is one of the benefits that flows from an already converted/believing heart; it is not part of the message.
Darrin:
ReplyDeleteProgress! I think we are finding common ground.
I agree with you right up until the point that you say, "Only when sin is dealt with finally in man can the created order be restored." Here, I like Ladd's "already but not yet" tension. The created order will not be fully restored until Christ's return BUT it is already being restored. The kingdom of God (the reign of God) is both a present reality (here in part) and a future hope.
"Recycling our pop cans is a good thing, but it does nothing to bring the creation back to its pre-fall condition." I agree. But the gospel breaks into human history and does more than recycle pop cans. It makes possible new ways of relating to each other and allows us to live as citizens of heaven and to participate in the kingdom here and now.
Darryl,
ReplyDeleteI don't see how your comments relate to what I said. Seeing sin as always an offence to a holy God is not narrowing the work Christ to the vertical dimension. No matter what I do, on the vertical or horizontal level, sin offends God. Your fear of the Gospel being held in too narrow a way has nothing to do with the fact that all sin offends God. No matter what the work of the cross accomplished, sin offends God. All sin offends God and anything that does not offend God is not sin.
The vertical relationship with God effects everything. Genesis 3 does show the immense effects of sin. But it also shows us that it was all brought about by disobedience. The broken world is caused by the broken relationship. Adam's sin brought about cataclysmic changes in the created order.
You fear the Gospel is defined too narrowly. I fear you are making things separate that belong together. You want people to not neglect the horizontal level. The horizontal will only be made right through the vertical being made right. My concern for the poor is not because Jesus died to forgive my sins AND give me a social conscience. The absence of a social conscience IS sin - a broken vertical relationship. Once restored to Him I gain His heart for a broken world. The Gospel is never more than the restoration of a relationship with God because a right relationship with God embraces everything.
Of course it may be that I am missing what you intended to say. If so, now's your time to enlighten me.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteOK, I can see what you are saying. You are saying that in restoring a right relationship with God, Christ has also dealt with all the other dimensions as well, including our horizontal relationships and cosmic restoration. I think I can buy that.
"A right relationship with God embraces everything." That is the key. The minute we exclude the right relationship with God, or think that it stops there, we're in trouble.
God is setting this world right, and we get to be part of it. That is pretty exciting.
Darryl,
ReplyDeleteAre we agreeing again?
Yes, but don't let on. ;)
ReplyDeleteD.R. said, "The gospel (good news) is a *message* about the person and work of Jesus Christ to be believed by those separated from God by sin. The creation does not have sin of its own and has no faculty to believe this message. The creation is cursed because of man's sin (Gen 3:17), which indeed does constitute ALL sin. Hence the necessity of dealing first and foremost with man's sin with the gospel; a gospel directed at the spiritual condition of men."
ReplyDeleteNobody disputes that the gospel is a message, so I'm not certain why you keep hammering away at that. The question is what is the content of that message. You contend that the content is merely that God has dealt with the spiritual condition of mankind. I contend that the content is that God is in the process of restoring all of creation through the death and resurrection of his son, who is now exalted as King. For you, the gospel is about securing some spiritual future in the afterlife. For me, the gospel is an invitation into a way-of-being in which the new creation is even now coming to pass. For you, the gospel has no ethical content, merely a proposition to which one must mentally assent. For me, the gospel is an ethical summons, a call to take up The Way (as Christianity was first called) and enter into the life of the ages now, in this present age, through faith in Christ. And I think that Paul, when he writes that creation itself awaits redemption, is speaking of the gospel - that creation will be restored through the person and work of Christ. That is the gospel of the New Testament. Is it a message? Absolutely. But it is a message that is bigger than just how to get into heaven when you die.
Kenny -
ReplyDeleteSo the gospel has nothing to say about our relationships to each other? Why then does Paul tell Peter in Galatians that he was denying the truth of the gospel, because he didn't practice table fellowship with believers who were Gentile? If the gospel is only what you suggest, Paul's argument in Galatians 2 is nonsensical.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteIf you think I said that the Gospel has nothing to say about our relationships, then you read something different from what I wrote.
Peter gave in to pressure from Jewish Christians who said that works of the Law were necessary in order to be saved. The reason Paul criticized Peter was for succumbing to the pressure. What Peter was doing wrong was giving the impression that the Gospel was more than faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone. Since the Gentiles were not circumcised he wouldn't eat with them. Nothing can be added to the Gospel of free grace and still be the biblical Gospel. It would be like saying that helping the poor contributes to our salvation.
Kenny -
ReplyDeleteThe reason Paul accuses Peter of denying the gospel is not because he was suddenly trying to attain salvation through meritous works such as circumcision. The reason Paul says what he does is because Peter has allowed cultural identities to separate him from his Gentile brothers. This social disconnection is itself, according to Paul, a denial of the gospel - the gospel, in this case, being the message that all are reconciled in Christ. "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." This is the reality that Peter was denying - the bringing together of Jew and Gentile in the new creation of the ecclesia.
My point is that, for Paul in Galatians, this reality is central to the gospel. It isn't peripheral or an implication. The gospel in Galatians takes on social and ethical dimensions. It isn't simply, "Give mental assent to the doctrine of justification by faith." It is rather, "Live now in the reality that justification by faith represents."
I understand what you're trying to say when you say that all sin is vertical. My concern is that, although you're suggesting otherwise, this can't help but collapse the gospel into just being about me 'n Jesus. It's more than that. Perhaps I'm not reading you correctly but you seem to resist saying that sin is just as much horizontal as it is vertical. You say that oppression is sin because it offends God. But I think that's backwards - I think it offends God because it's a broken horizontal relationship, a disruption of the creational intent. I think God is offended precisely because of what it does to the other - I read the scriptures as saying that God is offended on behalf of the oppressed.
Maybe this is a chicken/egg scenario. I just don't get why it's so challenging for folks in this thread to agree that the gospel is social and ethical as well as spiritual, and perhaps I'm allowing that frustration to color my reading of your comments.
Scott,
ReplyDelete>Nobody disputes that the gospel is a message, so I'm not certain why you keep hammering away at that.
Because according to your original comment about my alleged "truncated definition of sin" you seem to be implying that the gospel actually does something good for the creation in time. It is the final reconciliation for a reason; it happens at the end! But the gospel is a message to rational creatures in time; it is not to the brute, inanimate creation. God cursed it because of man's sin so it is man's sin that must be dealt with FIRST in order that the creation may be restored. That is why I keep harping on the primacy of converting souls to Christ as the purpose of the Gospel. How is man's sin dealt with? By grace through faith in Christ! Only in FIRST dealing with the sin of man can the creation be restored; and that happens at the very end. That is why it is so utterly critical to be about the business of telling men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel as our first and most important duty!
>The question is what is the content of that message. You contend that the content is merely that God has dealt with the spiritual condition of mankind. I contend that the content is that God is in the process of restoring all of creation through the death and resurrection of his son, who is now exalted as King.
No. The content is that man's sin is dealt with in Christ and when all of man's sin is FINALLY dealt with, ONLY then will the creation be restored. Paul never talks about a "process of restoring the creation" but a final reconciliation (Rom 8:18-25) that both God's people and the creation await. Read that passage. "...then do we with patience wait for it." We are told that the restoration of the creation will come at the end, and we are to patiently wait for it, putting our own sin to death by the power of the Spirit living within us in the meantime.
>For you, the gospel is about securing some spiritual future in the afterlife.
Again, you caricature all that I have said. The gospel is about how a man is made right with God. ONCE THIS OCCURS, only then can a man do those things that are pleasing to God. To borrow Kenny's language: The horizontal relationships can only be addressed AFTER the vertical relationship with God has been dealt with. It is not both at the same time. The gospel deals with the vertical, and the outworking/ramifications of a believed gospel or mended vertical relationship, is that the horizontal can then also be mended. To make them both part of the gospel is to conflate our justification and our sanctification and introduce a deadly error.
>For me, the gospel is an invitation into a way-of-being in which the new creation is even now coming to pass.
That's certainly not what the Bible teaches. God cursed the creation because of man's sin and the final reconciliation of all things is just that: FINAL! What is coming to pass now is the creation of new hearts in men, not the process of a "new creation coming to pass."
>For you, the gospel has no ethical content, merely a proposition to which one must mentally assent.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31). The gospel is really that simple: believe and be saved. Believe the truth about the person and work of Jesus Christ and you will be saved. The scriptures are crystal clear. But, as I have said all along, the story doesn't end there. One can only live as Jesus lived AFTER they have been saved.
>For me, the gospel is an ethical summons, a call to take up The Way (as Christianity was first called) and enter into the life of the ages now, in this present age, through faith in Christ.
Sadly, this is not the gospel. Once again you have intermingled justification and sanctification to make them indistinguishable from one another. You are bringing works into the gospel. The gospel is man being made right with God through repentance of sin and faith in Christ alone. The "ethical summons" (to use your term) is part of our sanctification, the living of a holy life of obedience out of love for God. To reiterate the point, here is the quote from Bonar I used earlier:
"Others of your difficulties spring from confounding the work of the Spirit in us with the work of Christ for us. These two must be kept distinct; for the intermingling of them is the subversion of both. Beware of overlooking either; beware of keeping them at a distance from each other. Though quite distinct, they go hand in hand, inseparably linked together, yet each having its own place and its own office. Your medicine and your physician are not the same, yet they go together. Christ is your medicine, the Spirit is your physician. Do not take the two works as if they were one compounded work; nor try to build your peace upon some mystic gospel which is made up of a strange mixture of the two. Realize both, the outward and the inward; the objective and the subjective; Christ for us, and the Holy Spirit in us."
That is the point: First and foremost it is CHRIST FOR US; the restoration of the vertical relationship between God and man. That is the gospel message: repent and believe. ONCE THAT IS DONE, we can then proclaim THE SPIRIT IN US, which causes us to grow in holiness and restore those horizontal relationships.
Please consider this question: If the gospel is an "invitation into a way-of-being", what exactly does that "way-of-being" include and when can you be certain you've done enough? That way of thinking is a gospel conditioned on your works, your ability to do enough in the "way-of-being", not a gospel conditioned solely on Christ.
>And I think that Paul, when he writes that creation itself awaits redemption, is speaking of the gospel - that creation will be restored through the person and work of Christ. That is the gospel of the New Testament.
Sadly, it's not. The gospel deals with the sin of man. Once the sin of man is dealt with either through Christ's blood or eternal punishment, God will then lift the curse placed on the creation.
>Is it a message? Absolutely. But it is a message that is bigger than just how to get into heaven when you die.
It is a message indeed. It is a message than deals with sin and changes the heart of man IN ORDER THAT HE MAY THEN, and ONLY THEN, do those things "which God hath before ordained that we should do" (Eph 2:10). The gospel restores the soul to a right standing before God, and the outworking of that believed gospel and restored soul is a life marked by holy living and obedience to how Christ would have us live in relationship with others. Both distinct, yet inseparable. One necessarily must precede the other, yet they go together.
>I just don't get why it's so challenging for folks in this thread to agree that the gospel is social and ethical as well as spiritual, and perhaps I'm allowing that frustration to color my reading of your comments.
ReplyDeleteBecause it's not. The gospel is spiritual. And out of the spiritual flows the social and ethical. It is an error to conflate our justification with our sanctification.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteYou and I have a fundamental disagreement regarding the theme of the Book of Galatians. This letter is not about cultural identities. It is about adding to the Gospel. Paul makes this clear in 1:8,9,11; 2:4-5,15-21; 3:1-3, 5-9, 10-14,18, 21-29; 4:8-11, 21-31; 5:1-6, 7-12.
You quote 3:26-29 but to catch the meaning of this text you need to consider at least as far back as verse 23&24 which state "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith." All people - slaves, free, men, women, Jews, Greeks, are all saved the same way - there is no difference. Grace through faith plus nothing.
There was, no doubt, some bigotry involved in those who influenced Peter, and Paul wants to deal with that. But his chief concern is the purity of the Gospel. Peter is dealing with legalistic Judaizers who want the law to be a contributor to salvation. And he should (he does) know better. Perhaps he didn't realize the far reaching implications of his actions. He buckled, just like he did the night he denied Jesus.
You said: "[the Gospel] isn't simply, "Give mental assent to the doctrine of justification by faith." It is rather, "Live now in the reality that justification by faith represents." I wholeheartedly agree and I don't understand how any of my comments could be understood to mean that I believe that the Gospel is mere mental assent to justification by faith.
You said:"My concern is that, although you're suggesting otherwise, this can't help but collapse the gospel into just being about me 'n Jesus." Seeing sin as always an offence against a holy God can never be understood properly and lead people to ignore the world they live in. I cannot please God and ignore people. Ignoring people is sinful.
If I gave the impression that we need never be concerned that sin against people hurts THEM then I want to correct that impression. Of course we hurt with those who hurt. It is part of what makes us image bearers of God and evidence that we are His. But what I said is that if hurting other people does not offend God it can't be wrong. It DOES offend God and therefore it is wrong. Is it wrong because it hurts them? Of course. But if you take God out of the picture then what makes oppression wrong? Why should an atheist care about social justice? The fact that they do is because they are made in the image of God. But they cannot give a consistent argument as to why it is wrong. It is wrong because it is fundamentally opposed to the nature and will of God. It is wrong because the oppressed are made in God's image and should be treated as such.
What I was objecting to in your previous post was the use of the word "merely" in reference to sin against God. Sin can never be said to be "merely" against God. It is supremely against God before it is against anything else. To understand that is not to live a life of "me'n Jesus".
I hope I haven't added to the befuddledness of things with this. I would love to keep on talking but tomorrow is Good Friday and Sunday is Easter. I have much work to do. I'll talk to you again after the weekend, Lord willing.
Thanks for this.
I still don't understand the contention that the Gospel is only spiritual.
ReplyDeleteA couple of questions, I guess for Darrin.
What does it mean that the Kingdom of God is a present reality? And what are we praying when we pray, "Your Kingdom come; your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?
What is the significance of the healings that took place in the ministry of Jesus?
After reading through a good amount of what's been posted here (not all) one thought rises to the surface within.
ReplyDeleteOccasionally, I've heard a wise preacher denounce the unbiblical--but popular comprimising term known as 'balance' to remind people that Truth needs to be taken to its farthest reaches, in whatever area we're looking at.
[I'm reminded of something Bruxey mentioned in his book, End of Relegion: he said fundamentalism isn't the problem. It's that fundamentalists don't go far enough with their understanding of truth. He wants to be known as a radical fundamentalist, because he knows that when he gets there, there will be radical righteousness, and radical love.]
How about a theology that is so absolutely centered on rugged, full-bore biblical truth, that it brings us to the end of ourselves--which is, as Christians, to come to the beginning of God.
And out of that Beginning, to find ourselves so filled with overflowing compassion, zeal, creativity, and concern for the needs of others (which we are so easily and often blinded to apart from His fullness) that we become known as a people characterized by outrageous acts of lovingkindenss, grace, mercy, and bold testimony.
Could it be that our overly-weighted theological Gospel, that often functions so poorly in the social realm, is not a problem of imbalance afterall, but rather of not being taken far enough-- indeed, of not being taken all the way?
I, for one, fear so, think so, and believe it is so.
Paul's last post, on a church using Desperate Households as a marketing tool on Easter, reinforced that we may not really understand each other yet. Paul used that as an example of why it's important that we define the gospel, and I agree. Yet I suspect that he thought that post countered what has been said here.
ReplyDeleteWhenever our preaching starts to sound like Dr. Phil, that's a good sign that we're not preaching the gospel. Al Roxburgh says that this type of preaching "offers people analgesics borrowed from the wider culture that are baptized with biblical texts...The image of Jesus calling Lazarus from the grave comes to mind; most preaching is about how to cope with a life wrapped in grave clothing that is never removed."
Preaching the gospel is about announcing what God has done through Christ. It's not about recycling or adding zest to your marriage (although the gospel will have implications for our marriage).
I would respectfully submit, however, that there's plenty to announce in the category of what God has done in Christ. I hope that in arguing that Christ's work at the cross has cosmic implications, I am not going to be understood as advocating do-good, moralistic, or self-help messages. That is not the Kingdom of God.
D.R. -
ReplyDeleteIf Paul and the other NT writers wanted to communicate a spiritual gospel, they used a miserable word to do so. "Gospel" - euaggelion - in the ancient context of early Christianity was an imperial proclamation about the birth of a king or his victory in battle. It is a political and social word. When emissaries of Rome would come to a subject nation to announce the "good news" of the accession or Caesar or his birthday, they were announcing the euaggelion. His subjects were commanded to have faith (pistis) in him as lord (kyrios) and look to him for salvation (soteria). Occasionally he would come to visit a city (parousia), resulting in feasts and celebration.
Any of this sound familiar? Does it sound like the NT authors are using this sort of language to refer to a "spiritual" gospel? Or is it more likely that they are using Kingly (social, political) language to describe the accession of the world's true King - Christ the Lord?
I'm not trying to remove faith in Christ from the equation, or to somehow say that we are justified by works. I don't buy that, and I've never said so. What I am arguing for is a gospel that is larger than just an individual, spiritual, eternal one, because I don't believe that's in the text. And the result of preaching such a gospel is a neo-gnosticism where ethics are seen as unconnected to spirituality and that justice is a bonus on top of justification. The gospel is about the Kingdom of Christ, which has broken into this present age, even as we await its final fulfillment. It is bigger than just a message about individual justification - the language that the NT authors used wouldn't even make sense if that were its referent. You accuse me of conflating justification and sanctification - that's in no way true. I suggest you're conflating the gospel and justification, when justification is only a part of the whole message.
Hey guys...this is surely my last comment in this thread as I think progress has gone as far as it is going to go.
ReplyDeleteDarryl,
>A couple of questions, I guess for Darrin.
>What does it mean that the Kingdom of God is a present reality? And what are we praying when we pray, "Your Kingdom come; your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?
The kingdom is the reign and rule of God and the reality of this kingdom is manifested on earth when people are saved and transformed into the likeness of Christ. Christ exercises His rule now on earth and will until all evil is fully and finally eradicated by God. Notice in Rev 12:10 how salvation and the kingdom of Christ are inextricably linked. The kingdom is undoubtedly spiritual and its members are the people of God. When Jesus says "Your kingdom come" He is praying for the end of the age when evil will be no more, and the righteous will be with Him in glory. There is a sense in which the kingdom is here now as men and women are converted by the Spirit and waging a spiritual war against sin and Satan, but the kingdom will be fully realized at the final reconciliation when sin is done away with for good. Christ's kingdom is a spiritual kingdom and it is through the gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone that people are added to the kingdom. That is why it is a matter of life and death that we proclaim the gospel to everyone in the hopes that God is merciful to them and saves them. And to relate this back to how this thread began, this needs to be our highest priority, not Campolo's social gospel of good works. We advance the kingdom by seeing souls saved.
>What is the significance of the healings that took place in the ministry of Jesus?
The miracles were to affirm to people who He was; to authenticate Jesus as the one He claimed to be, the Son of God. I generally dislike the word "proof" but the miracles were proofs that He was indeed God. If His purpose was to heal in order to make peoples' lives better, why didn't He just go around and heal everyone He came to? No, His purposes were spiritual. He came to save sinners. What better time than at Jubilee in Luke 4 to show how this celebration typologically pointed to Christ! Those who had "eyes" to see and "ears" to hear understood it wasn't about their physical healing, but rather, their spiritual healing; having their sin and guilt taken away.
Scott,
The first paragraph of your last comment has so humanized the gospel it isn't even recognizable anymore. I daresay if you were to enlighten us as to your views of scripture we would most likely get to the root of your problem. I briefly took a look at your blog and it appears that you also deny the doctrine of substitution. If Jesus was not my substitute then my sin is still on me. No substitution, no salvation. It seems you embrace many of the modern errors. But that is a whole other discussion.
Despite your redefining of words that have meant something for millenia, the truth of scripture and the gospel is that Jesus "came to seek and to save those that were lost." If I'm to read that literally as you do with many things (see Luke 4 comment), does that mean Jesus came to save people who were playing hide & seek? No. They were spiritually lost and Christ came into the world to save sinners from sin and death. That is the gospel! Plain and simple. He didn't come to fill their bellies or heal their ailments, although He sometimes did do that in order to miraculously show men who He was: the promised Messiah. He came to save sinners! And what of the Great Commission? Go into the world and feed men food and take up social justice causes? No. Go make disciples; go tell men how they can be made right with God. Then, and only then, have we done what we have been called to do.
>You accuse me of conflating justification and sanctification - that's in no way true. I suggest you're conflating the gospel and justification, when justification is only a part of the whole message.
Conflation is taking two different things and adding them together to make one, like justification and sanctification. By your own admission you have taken justification and added a social and ethical component to it and called it the gospel. Intermingling the two is a false, powerless gospel. I have "conflated" nothing. At worst, I have overemphasized a part of the gospel more than it should. But alas, I have not done that. I have maintained the historic, orthodox gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone as taught on the pages of scripture. The modern, liberal, conflated gospel of social justice won't save one soul! And I fear that many on that side of the aisle will be those spoken of in Matthew 7:21-23. They'll stand before God and say, "Lord, Lord, we have fed the poor, we have fought for social justice, etc.," and He will say to them, "Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." Workers of lawlessness? Who are they? They are those who do "good works" without a living, saving faith in Christ.
On one of my blogs I have made Horatius Bonar's book, The Everlasting Righteous, available for download. Click here. It is simply the best and most straightforward book on justification you will read. I hope everyone finds it a helpful read.
I've enjoyed the conversation. That's all from me.
DR - you are correct; this conversation is over. If you can't even take the time to present someone's arguments as they've presented them then I feel sorry for you. If you'll read my blog carefully, you note that I've spent much time saying that I do not deny substitution and that I think it's necessary for a balanced view of atonement. You obviously didn't read that part, or you simply didn't have the integrity to present my argument accurately. I'm sorry that you are challenged in such a way. Also, thank you for the vocabulary lesson. I am sure that I am a better person for it. You are correct that I wrote hastily and did not select the best word to illustrate my point. The fact remains that you are not grasping what the NT speaks of when it speaks of the Gospel, and I am certain that your theology is less for it.
ReplyDeleteTo everyone else - my thanks for an interesting discussion. I will not be returning as this blatant disregard for what I've actually said has gotten the best of me.
Blessings -
Scott
I've appreciated this discussion, even though it's hard to really understand each other at times. I wish we could be face to face.
ReplyDeleteDarrin, I have a hard time believing that you think the gospel is only spiritual. Tomorrow is Easter Sunday. The resurrection - His and our future resurrection - is very physical. I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but the gospel is very physical. When we celebrate that Christ has conquered death, among the other things we celebrate on Easter Sunday, we are celebrating it as not only spiritual but physical. I'm sure you must agree with this - that Christ conquered physical death through his resurrection.
I think the real question is not whether the gospel is, in part, physical. It's how much of that we are supposed to enjoy now. I can respect someone who says that it's all future except the spiritual. I don't agree, just as I don't agree with those who have an over-realized eschatology. But I can respect the view.
As for me, I think the Kingdom of God is breaking out in human history, and that we get samples of his restorative work here and now that can't be explained apart from what Christ accomplished at the cross.
Thanks again for this discussion. Hope we can meet and talk in person sometime.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteIf I have seriously misrepresented you then I do apologize. I did say that I briefly skimmed your blog. This statement stood out:
"Continuing our discussion of the issues with substitutionary atonement as it's commonly articulated, I want to touch on something I find to be a glaring weakness in the model that I think precludes our viewing it as the central metaphor for atonement in the NT."
Perhaps I should have read on but I thought that one sentence alone told me all I needed.
I disagree with you on what constitutes the gospel. Adding an ethical element to it is an error. I didn't intentionally misrepresent your views and if you do hold to a substitutionary atonement then I apologize for that comment.
And Darryl, yes, Christ has conquered death, but that victory will not be realized until the end. Death is still our enemy until the King sees fit to return and put an end to it once and for all. The gospel is a message of reconciliation between God and man; it is a spiritual reconciliation because sin is a spiritual condition that has physical ramifications to it, I do not doubt that. I don't know about you, but I can't wait to be delivered from this body of death!
Gentlemen...God has provided greatly for my physical needs, but His provision of Christ for my spiritual needs is infinitely more valuable to me that anything else. I thank Him for His gospel that has freed me from the bondage of sin.
Thanks for your input here, folks.
ReplyDeleteI think the basic issues have been covered and I am going to close off the comments now.