the 9 marksarticlesaudiopublicationreviewsreading listchurch search
about usdonateeventseventscontact ussite maphome

« The hardest working pastor in the world | Main | Unfrozen Caveman Pastor »

May 01, 2008

Greg, Point Taken, Yet...

by Jonathan Leeman

Greg, Okay, all our sensible friends have tuned out at this point. Emo kid Mike didn't even want to jump in the pool. So for you, me, and our three remaining readers… (everyone else can just scroll down to see Hugh Latimer's, er, Mike's latest entry):

POINT TAKEN!

Point taken. I’m grateful for (and agree with) everything you affirm. That is, the “gospel” in the New Testament is that Christ has defeated sin and all of its consequences (I’m thinking of 1 Cor. 15 (the whole chapter), 1 Peter 1:3-9, Ephesians 2:11-20, and certainly the gospel of the kingdom passages in the Gospels). It is good news indeed that creation will be restored, that a covenantal unity now abides between formerly divided humans, that we have been given the seal and the first fruits of the Holy Spirit, that we are now free to live for God’s glory in our work, our service, and entire lives, and so on.

Thank you, brother, for helping me to be clear about this. Our explanations of the gospel to the church and non-Christian alike should ultimately point to all these things. I’m thinking about Jesus’ statement to John’s disciples about telling John that they see the blind seeing and so forth. Though we should take care not to over realize our eschatology, Christians have the amazing privilege of saying to non-Christians and their fellow Christians, “New life is happening here—just watch! And there’s more newness to come!”  All this is cause for rejoicing.

YET...

Yet let me try to frame the discussion in a slightly different way, so as to illustrate what I believe is the bull’s-eye accuracy of what Dever’s getting at: our presentations of the gospel and understanding of the church’s mission needs to be extremely clear about the difference between sin and the consequences of sin. We have to start with sin. What is sin? Sin is that fact we disregard God and his glory because we want to be God, and so we break his law. In Genesis 3, Adam overlooks the fact that he was created to image God’s glory (1:26-28) and decides to be God himself (3:5). So he breaks God’s Genesis 2 law (2:16-17).

From this sin comes, perhaps most immediately, guilt (him looking down) and wrath (us looking up), because guilt and wrath are the most immediate measurement of the fact that Adam has broken a law. It’s not enough to say that a “broken relationship” is the most immediate consequence (as many authors want to say), because it’s the way in which the relationship has been broken that counts—Adam hasn’t just strayed off and got lost; he has defied his Lord. He has counted his own glory as worth more than God’s. He has blasphemed before the heavenly host about the lightness of God’s glory (vindicating Satan). He has, in Paul’s language, fallen short of that glory. God’s holy glory requires a punishment (not just a reconciliation). To say otherwise is to say his glory isn’t worth that much. To say otherwise is to overestimate our own glory and worth. (But isn’t the Bible clear that we’re like blades of grass, here today and gone tomorrow?)

(Among other things, this means we shouldn’t pit “law” and “relationship” or “person” against one another as so many are doing. God's law is an expression of his person and the very thing that he means to use to protect and safeguard our relationship with him and one another (consider Gen. 9:6). Loneliness is not the problem, lawlessness is. Not isolation, but insubordination.)

From sin, this fundamental disposition of hatred for God’s glory and defiance of his law, many consequences follow: Shame follows, so they’ll hide themselves behind fig leaves and trees. The curses follow, breaking fellowship between man and God, man and man, and man and earth. Among those curses, death follows, so Adam will return to the dust. And the dust itself will only yield fruit through hard work, because creation is breaking down. Also, sins against fellow humans follow, so the woman will desire to rule over the man, and the man will probably abuse her in return. Also, Cain kills Abel. You get the point.

Now, consider what’s probably going to happen to explanations of the gospel in a culture which is gradually losing its very capacity to understand sin and guilt (as David Wells argues in Losing Our Virtue). I would predict that Christians would be tempted to define the gospel in a way that emphasizes how the gospel overcomes the consequences of sin. So they’ll talk about the gospel as “reconciling relationships” or “inaugurating God’s kingdom” or “restoring creation.” And, yes, amen, all of this is part of the good news Jesus brings. Preach it! But they will also, perhaps, be slower to emphasize sin itself and sin’s most immediate consequences, like guilt and God’s wrath. “People just don’t understand that,” they’ll say. And maybe, just maybe, they will be less able than their historical forbearers to recognize the weightiness of these things either, because they too are creatures of culture (and let me put myself first here, brother: I completely fail to recognize the weight of my sin and God’s glory!!! That’s the story of my life.)

But when we’re not explicit on these first things—sin as broken law; sin as hatred of God’s glory; guilt and God’s wrath as the most immediate consequences—then what it means to “reconcile relationships,” “inaugurate a kingdom,” or “restore creation” becomes vague and, often, man-centered. And have you noticed how so many definitions of the gospel these days fail to use those old words like propitiation, imputation, or justification, words which give meaning to “inaugurating a kingdom” or “restoring creation” because they get at the heart of the root of the problem, not just a consequence of the problem?

All this is where Tim Keller has been so helpful for my thinking. In all his talk about “functional justification” and idolatry, in his connecting of the first commandment and justification by faith (a la Luther), he has helped me to understand my sin more deeply. My breaking the law (esp. the first commandment) is the same thing as idolatry, which is the same thing as my justifying myself, which is the same thing as my despising of God’s glory. Solution: justification by faith (!), which is the same thing as reaching for an alien righteousness, which is the same thing as having no other gods before him. (I’m using the phrase “same thing” loosely here. But you get the point.)






Comments

Without trying to wade in and reconcile Mark Dever's comments with the presentations made at the Dwell Conference in New York over the past two days, let me say this: As someone who attended both T4G and Dwell, who heard both Mark Dever and Tim Keller, there are real tensions between Mark's talk at T4G and Tim Keller's talks at Dwell. To someone (such as some of my friends who attended T4G) who is very familiar with Keller's ministry and not very familiar with Mark's, it sounded as if Mark was criticizing ministries such as Redeemer and Acts29. And that's unfortunate, because Keller doesn't fall prey to redefining the gospel in the ways Mark was concerned with. But there is a real tension, and I think it comes from some of Mark's comments being insufficiently qualified.

"I would predict that Christians would be tempted to define the gospel in a way that emphasizes how the gospel overcomes the consequences of sin. So they’ll talk about the gospel as ‘reconciling relationships’ or ‘inaugurating God’s kingdom’ or ‘restoring creation.’…When we’re not explicit on these first things—sin as broken law; sin as hatred of God’s glory; guilt and God’s wrath as the most immediate consequences—then what it means to ‘reconcile relationships,’ ‘inaugurate a kingdom,’ or ‘restore creation’ becomes vague and, often, man-centered."

Well put! We can easily become so focused on the weeds and thorns above the ground that we neglect the root--sin--beneath the soil. Resolving our rebellion against God must be the priority lest we settle for trimming the consequential "weeds" without first uprooting sin. Trimmed weeds with roots still intact look better but in the end are just as deadly.

I agree with you and Mark that the gospel is being eroded or even dismantled with theologically fuzzy talk about the kingdom and a return of social gospel rhetoric. Certain Christians seem to be losing the core of the gospel, diminishing and sometimes redefining the work of Christ on the cross.

I have taken Mark's post and the original T4G presentation to be a call to focus on the message of justification by faith and the work of evangelism in a way that in effect says that ministry to physical needs is not what the church does and is dangerous because it may make us lose the gospel.

I would prefer to see faithful churches work very hard to develop ways of understanding and practicing ministry "to the least of these" that is very much "tied" to the gospel, functioning in tandem with proclamation ministry, and organically related to the truths of the gospel.

Can there be a wrong kind of connection between the two? Oh, yes. We would agree that mercy ministry doesn't bring personal salvation or societal redemption. [I find the use of "redeeming the culture" language by some to be terribly confusing.] However, mercy ministry is deeply connected to the gospel, which is suggested by Dever’s use of the word “implications.” Again, my impression is that Dever wants to make implications a nice option at best and a dangerous alternative at worst.

I want to say, celebrate the implications! Preach the gospel strong and clear, and use those implications to illustrate how wonderful it is for believers to have been redeemed, forgiven, and turned into sacrificial servants like their Lord. Mercy ministry offers a wide-ranging experience of essential doctrine: the condition of man (as image of God yet fallen and depraved), the curse, the blessing of and through the covenant people of God, the kingdom announced and yet to come.

Use this ministry as a way to enter deeply into the experience of a world that is both rebellious, corrupt, lost, AND cursed, broken, and suffering. Dealing with only the latter will not redeem anyone, but dealing with former while ignoring the latter makes Christians (especially comfortable middle class ones) come off like moralists. Do we care about sin only when it offends our sensibilities, or do we also care when people are being crushed by their sins?

This kind of ministry should be carried out by people who believe not only that Jesus is bringing a perfect regime and realm, but that he has accomplished the forgiveness of rebellious creatures who come to him for amnesty by faith, that they may be welcomed into this new world order that he alone will bring.

Yes, there is much danger for losing this delicate balance. Rise up, O Pastors, and guard the gospel while laying down your life: for the sake of the truth, for the sake of the lost, for the sake of God’s glory.

Justin,

I, unfortunately, didn't have the opportunity to attend T4G, but I have listened to Mark's message multiple times. I didn't take it at all to be a criticism of Redeemer or Acts 29. In fact, one of the most encouraging blog posts here on the 9 Marks Blog is

http://blog.9marks.org/2008/01/mark-dever-on-c.html

"And not only do we together affirm the exclusivity of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone—we agree on the sovereignty of God in life and salvation, the regenerate nature of church members, the importance of church membership and discipline, the priorities of expositional preaching, and evangelism, the importance of authority and a growing appreciation for the significance of complementarianism. These are not slight matters. And they only fire my desire to encourage you and cheer you on, until you cross that finish line that the Lord lays down for us."

Justin,
Jonathan has helped qualify what Dever was saying in his sermon at T4G. I agree with you about a tension of sorts that left me a little confused/bothered, but I think that the whole conversation here has been helpful. I have been really encouraged to just draw the categorical lines straight. Praise God and thank you brothers.

Post a comment

The 9Marks blog aims to stimulate a helpful conversation among pastors, church leaders, and Christians about life together in the local church.


Search this Blog

 

Subscribe to Receive:


About Comments:We ask for all public comments to be made prayerfully and with the respect you would offer to people face to face. Since these comments are public, we would be grateful if you would include your first name, last name, and church affiliation unless your question or comment is of a sensitive nature. We will not respond to most comments.

» Get RSS Feed

Authors

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives