Re. Dever's Cry # 1
A buddy at church who works for "the government" was recently discussing this issue about defining the gospel versus its public implications.
He made the point that plenty of his non-Christian colleagues in government might agree with him on various social agendas (and are working toward real change!), such as reducing third world debt, making health care available to those who don't have it, and so forth. But then he asked (rhetorically), "If my non-Christian friends agree with me on these types of issues, what else do I have to give them?!"
Answer: the announcement that God has provided a way for sinful human beings to be reconciled to God and his wrath removed, sin being the heart-cause of all such structural maladies.
Mark's first point, I take it, is that there is a difference between that announcement and all the kingdom-seeking things people with new, compassionate, born-again hearts will necessarily do (e.g. Rom. 6:1-2; James 2:26) once they have embraced that announcement. And preachers should preach both: the announcement and the compassionate life which is commensurate with the announcement.
A Christian's compassionate heart is not the good news. A Christian's compassionate work is not the good news. The good news is that which, among other things, makes the Christian's heart compassionate and joyfully bound to doing compassionate works.
Mark's implicit second point, I take it, is that the local church is the only institution on earth that was given the special authority by Jesus to guard, protect, and proclaim this announcement (e.g. Mt. 18:18; John 21:23). Therefore, the local church in its capacity as a corporate entity must keep this task primary, not just equi-primary (don't equi-primary partnerships always, over time, give way to two separated primaries, some people going for one, some for the other).
Jonathan,
Thanks for the clarification. I think the disagreement lies in the differing views of the gospel's content. You appear to state the gospel as:
"Answer: the announcement that God has provided a way for sinful human beings to be reconciled to God and his wrath removed, sin being the heart-cause of all such structural maladies. "
While others would wish to include other things besides justification as part of the gospel like the promise (the announcement) of a new society bring about acts of compassionate to the world. See Scot McKnight's excellent article:
http://www.christianvisionproject.com/2008/03/the_8_marks_of_a_robust_gospel.html
I think Dever would say that the acts of compassionate is an implication of the gospel not the gospel itself, but I think that just confuses the difference between the gospel which is an "announcement" and not our human "actions"-which are the implications of the gospel.
I would also love to hear Dever and someone like Mcknight have a dialogue on this topic. I think it would definitely generate a better understanding among everyone involved.
blessings,
dan
Posted by: dan | Apr 30, 2008 1:58:19 PM
The story of the Christian in government illustrates my concern. Because he's heard that evangelism is the focus of the church in a way that excludes other service, he begins to think that it's the only thing that he can do that is of any value. Of course, the gospel is what makes Christians unique, but that doesn't mean that it's the only thing we care about.
It does not trouble me one bit that unbelievers want peace, racial reconciliation, safe neighborhoods, good schools, and fair laws. This is not a sign that these concerns are somehow "secular," but that even an unbeliever wants what only God can give, and he is unable to achieve them apart from Christ.
This Christian brother should not abandon his work in government, but see it as his calling to craft the best government he can with full recognition of the truths that the Scriptures equip him with: the image of God in mankind, the depravity of man, the function of law, the nature of justice, etc.
The difference is not that Christians do gospel work (understood as evangelism) while non-Christians do all the temporal stuff. The difference is that non-Christians do their work as a means of saving the world, while Christians do the same kind of work as a means of extending mercy and as a commitment to the kind of world that Christ alone can ultimately bring. At every opportunity, they proclaim Jesus as the savior of the world and the promised messiah.
Unbelievers are trying to rescue the world the best they know how. Christians are proclaiming the message of Christ's rescue work (already accomplished on the cross, and yet to be fulfilled in his coming kingdom) even as we as his followers do relief work until his return. Be prepared to be frustrated and disappointed with the results this side of his coming, but do it for the sake of Christ.
Posted by: Bruce McKanna | Apr 30, 2008 3:51:16 PM
Bruce,
I affirm everything you've just affirmed, and I believe my friend does as well. Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was saying. I didn't mean to suggest that he finds no value in what he does or that he's thinking about leaving government. He's not. More and more, I really do dislike blogging as a medium of communication! :-)
Posted by: Jonathan Leeman | Apr 30, 2008 5:20:43 PM
Jonathan,
I think you were clearer than my comments indicated. Your opening line referred to the discussion of "this issue about defining the gospel versus its public implications," so my comments may have been too strong.
Let me try to be more focused in my response. I remain concerned that if we conclude that the gospel is the only thing that we have that is unique, that it becomes the only thing we do. I am glad that this brother is not going to abandon his government post, but he still sounds to me (and this is where I might be reading too much into your post) like he is discouraged by these other "causes" that are the same as everybody else's.
So, my response to Mark's appeal has been to affirm the defense of a gospel by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone, but to make that drive all that we do. That is the difference between us and the rest of the world. What I've thought I've heard here is that the gospel is what makes us different, so we should focus on the gospel to the exclusion of other things. If we're actually in more agreement than I'm understanding, then we need to both defend the gospel and its uniqueness while also articulating a way to live, serve, create, build, politick, etc. in ways that do not depend ultimately on our efforts, but on the power of the gospel and in the hope of Christ's kingdom.
Posted by: Bruce McKanna | May 1, 2008 7:08:02 AM
Bruce,
Thank you for your points, esp. as articulated in the last paragraph. I think we would affirm them entirely!!
Posted by: Jonathan Leeman | May 1, 2008 3:44:02 PM