I was watching Greg Gilbert preach recently, and it struck me what a strange thing preaching is. There a man stands in front of a group of people and tells them what God thinks. He announces. He heralds. He proclaims. He warns. He encourages. He invites. He pleads. He urges and calls. In all of this, he doesn't claim to speak for himself. He claims to speak for God. To speak God's Word.

The preacher knows that God's word isn't just true; he knows it's effectual. It doesn't just announce, it accomplishes. As Isaiah put it, it "accomplishes" what God desires; it "achieves" God's purpose (Is. 55:11). God's Word both “calls things that are not as though they were” (Rom. 4:17), and then it “sustains all things” (Heb. 1:3).

Michael Horton has summarized what all this means very well: God’s Word does not merely impart information, it actually creates life. It’s not only descriptive, it’s effective. It not only sets forth, it brings forth. God speaking is God acting. To this emphasis on Word as proposition we must add Word as powerful and effectual, because God’s Word is carried along by God’s Spirit in order to perform exactly what he intends for it. All creation “was formed at God’s command” (Heb. 11:3; Ps. 33:6), and we become new creations by that same command (2 Cor. 4:6; Rom. 10:17). We have been “born again…through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). That’s why, speaking to the churches, the apostles refer to the Word “planted in you, which can save you” (James 1:21); the Word that “abides in you” (1 John 2:14); and the Word which should “dwell in you richly” (Col. 3:16). (see Horton's People and Place, 39-42).

But I'm a postmodern. So I don't want to just sit and listen. I want to speak. I want to have a conversation. My generation is different than every generation that has preceded me, and so none of this applies to me and ministry today, right? 

For years now, I have listened to Mark Dever pepper his sermons with great stories from church history--from martyrs like old Polycarp or young Eulalia, from great missionaries and pastors like Judson or Sibbes, from hymn writes, and so forth. The stories are typically inspiring in the moment, but, frankly, I've never really done such stories in my own preaching because, well, Mark is the history guy, and I'm not.

Yet my wife was recently explaining to me how Mark's sermons always seem to leave her longing for eternity; they leave her kingdom minded. There are a number of reasons why this is true. But it struck me that one practical thing he does which yields this effect is his use of church history. Reflecting on the lives of great saints doesn't simply teach us about having faith or courage now--"stand strong like Luther!" It helps us to see that our Christianity is not all about right now, my moral progress, and how I feel about myself and God. It is about those things, in one way, but those things are set within the larger story of God faithfully leading his people for ages for the purposes of his glory. Our personal discipleship and trials all a part of that grand plan. 

Fosdick described preaching as personal counseling on a group basis. Which makes sense: his liberalism jettisoned the eternal and grand story perspective. Preaching became mostly therapuetic and  moralistic. Ironically, I think my preaching can be a conservative, even gospel-centered version of the therapeutic--it can become about helping people to feel better about themselves in the gospel. Now, that is good. There is a place for that. But that needs to be set within the larger framework of what God is doing through the gospel in all of history. 

All that to say, here are two tips on promoting eternal and kingdom mindedness in our preaching:

1) Tell stories from church history. Help people to see God's faithful work over time and in different ages. Christianity is not all about learning to live the Christian life as an American (or South African or Brazilian) in the 21st century. Rather, it's about being an alien wherever he places us, and we're going to find being an alien sort of looks similar no matter where he places us in time and space. Not only that, Christianity is about God's plan of bringing glory to himself through all of his people. Hearing about Polycarp and Eulalia help me to realize I have a kind of partnership with them. We belong to the same team. We're fighting for the same ends.

2) Tell stories about Christians in other countries today. Also pray publicly for Christians in other countries today.  This will have the same effect as the last point.

"Gethsemane is not a field of study for our intellect.  It is a sanctuary of our faith."  Lord, forgive us for the times we have read about Gethsemane with dry eyes.

I had lunch today with an older brother, a pastor who was born in Cuba and pastored and planted churches there before serving the Lord in Spain and the US.

As Ben pointed out in the comments, we're actually more like University of Louisville than Duke, in that we're a number one seed in the SBC Voices Blog Madness tournament.  I think we might be more like UConn, the fourth #1 seed that is maligned by the haters and feels the need to prove itself by winning it's first round game by the third largest margin in tournament history.

My friend Mark Dever says that baptizing infants is sin. Mike Bird and others are offended and Mark has replied. I've received a few emails about this. Frankly, I don't understand why folk are in high dudgeon.

Mark is a Baptist and as such thinks that we paedobaptists (who haven't been re-baptized) are unbaptized and it is sinful to remain unbaptized. Now, as a principled paedobaptist (baby-baptizer) who started his Christian life as a evangelical Baptist, who came to his views through biblical theology and exegesis, and who is comfortable with the history of the doctrine, I'm quite convinced that the Baptists are wrong, but Mark is right that it's sinful to remain unbaptized. Further, if he's right about baptism, he's right to say that we paedobaptists are sinning. I'm not offended. God bless Mark Dever for taking the holy sacraments seriously and for taking the doctrine of the church seriously. Hang in there buddy. What I'm about to say is not by way of retaliation. What I'm about to say here is what I've said to Mark privately. As a principled paedobaptist, it is not too much to say that believing parents who refuse to baptize covenant children are sinning. This is, after all, what the Reformed Confessions teach. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Q. 74 says:

74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.

Art. 34 of the Belgic Confession (1561), one of the confessions of the Dutch Reformed Churches says in part,

For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children. And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the "circumcision of Christ."

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 28.4-5 says:

4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

A recent essay in the Westminster Theological Journal has argued quite reasonably and plausibly that the best interpretation of art. 5 is as a reference to Baptists. Recall that the Particular Baptists had published a confession of faith in 1644, three years before the WCF was finished. The divines were well aware of the growing Particular and General (to speak anachronistically) Baptist movements. Evidently it is not fashionable to say that it is sinful not to baptize one's children is sin. I understand that, but consider this scenario: A gentile comes to Abraham,

Convert: I've heard about your God Yahweh Elohim and have come to believe that he is, in fact, the true God and that the gods of the nations, the gods I formerly served, are nothing but idols. I want to identify with this people, I believe Yahweh and I want to be admitted to his covenant people."

Abraham: "Yahweh bless you my son. He has given you the grace of trusting in Yahweh and in his promised Savior (John 8:56). I too was a Gentile before God gave me faith in the coming Messiah and the sign and seal of his promise, the sign and seal of the covenant of grace (Rom 4:11). When Yahweh revealed himself to me he instituted the sign of circumcision to be applied to believers and to their children. As a mercy, I will sharpen the flint rock as well as possible."

Convert: "I can understand how I should take the sign, but why should my children also receive the sign since they are but infants and we cannot be sure they believe?"

Abraham: "God will have it so. He promised, 'I will be a God to you and to your children.' This is the promise of the eternal covenant of grace. They are to be admitted to the administration of the covenant of grace. We trust that by Yahweh' sovereign grace they too will trust in Yahweh and that the sign will become to them a seal, a promise that just as their schmuck has been removed so too their sins have been removed by grace alone, through faith alone, in the Messiah alone. It is a great sin to refuse to initiate your children into the covenant of grace. Indeed, Yahweh says, 'Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.'"

According to Reformed theology, the same promise that God made to Abraham is still in force. Indeed, in the New Covenant all the types and shadows having been fulfilled by Christ, the sign of baptism is to be applied to believers and all their children, males and females alike (just as both sexes come to the Lord's Table). Peter says so in Acts 2:39. 

The point here, however, isn't to make the case for infant baptism but to say that a certain view of the sacraments is of the essence of the Reformed understanding of redemptive history and revelation, it is essential to our (covenant) theology, piety, and practice. We may be wrong but it's what we believe the Word to teach. We have a moral duty, as Mark does, to confess the Word and teach it. 

I'm not offended. Mark is a good friend, a very good scholar, and a churchly gentleman. God bless him and may he embrace the faith of Abraham with us. I stand ready to baptize his children any time he wishes.

Well, this is a blow to my self-perception.  I've always thought of our humble little blog as the scrappy outsider, the contrarian voice willing to speak truth to power about meat sweats and the insidious paedo-baptist plan to undermine clean livin' one covenant kid at a time.  

There has been much conversation in evangelicalism recently about how Christians should define the gospel—whether we should say that the gospel is purely the message that sinners can be forgiven of sin through repentance and faith in the crucified Christ, or whether it is something broader.  The conversation has gotten pointed, if not heated, at times, with those in one camp saying that those in the other camp are being “reductionistic” about the gospel, and those in that camp retorting that their accusers are actually diluting the gospel and distracting the church from its God-given mission.

It seems to me that we can untangle some of the confusion by making some careful observations.  I believe the two major camps in this conversation—those who say the Gospel is the good news that God is reconciling sinners to himself through the substitutionary death of Jesus (call them “A”) and those who say the gospel is the good news that God is going to renew and remake the whole world through Christ (“B”)—are largely talking past one another. In other words, I don’t think the As and the Bs are answering the same question. Of course both camps say they’re answering the question “What is the gospel?” and thus the tension between the two different answers. But if we pay close attention, I think we’ll see that they are actually answering two very different and equally biblical questions.

Those two questions are these:

1. What is the gospel? In other words, what is the message a person must believe to be saved?  And
2. What is the gospel? In other words, what is the whole good news of Christianity?

When an A-person hears the question “What is the gospel?” he understands it to mean “What is the message a person must believe to be saved?” and he answers it by talking about the death of Christ in the place of sinners, and the call to repent and believe.

When a B-person hears the question “What is the gospel?” he understands it to mean “What is the whole good news of Christianity?” and he answers by talking about God’s purpose to renew the world through Christ.

You can understand why there would be tension between the two. If you answer question (1) by talking about the new creation, people are understandably going to say that your answer is too broad and that you are pushing the cross out of its central place. When people in Scripture asked the question “What must I do to be saved?” the answer they received was to repent of sin and believe in Jesus—not something about the coming new creation.

Yet it’s also true that the Bible sometimes (even often) talks about “the gospel” in terms of the new creation. So to answer question (2) by only talking about Christ’s death in the place of sinners, and to say that everything else is by definition not-gospel (but merely implication), is indeed too narrow. That would be to say that promises such as the resurrection of the body, the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile, the new heavens and new earth, and many others are somehow not part of what the Bible holds out as the “good news” of Christianity.

What we need to understand is that neither of these two questions is wrong, and neither is more biblical than the other. The Bible asks and answers both of them.  Let me show now from Scripture why I think both these questions I mentioned are legitimate and biblical.

As I read it, the Bible seems to use the word “gospel” in two different, but highly related, ways. Sometimes it uses “gospel” in a very broad way, that is, to describe all the promises that God intends to fulfill in Christ, including not only forgiveness of sin, but also everything else that flows from it—the establishment of the kingdom, the new heavens and new earth, etc. There are other times, though, where it uses “gospel” in a very narrow way, that is, to describe specifically the forgiveness of sins through the substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ. In those places, the broader promises don’t seem to be so much in view.

Here are some of the clearest places, I think, where the Bible uses the word “gospel” in the narrow sense:

1. ^ESV Acts 10:36-43 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ ( he is Lord of all), . . . To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Peter says that the gospel he preaches is that of “peace through Jesus Christ,” by which he means specifically the good news “that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

2. ^ESV Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ¹⁷ For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

Paul defines the gospel in terms of “salvation” and the righteousness of God being revealed through faith. It becomes clear through the rest of the book that he’s talking here about forgiveness of sins (justification) being through faith, not works. His focus in Romans is not on the coming kingdom, but on how one becomes a part of it. And that he calls “gospel.”

3. ^ESV 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. ¹⁸ For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The gospel Paul is sent to preach is “the word of the cross.”

4. ^ESV 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 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, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

The gospel Paul preached to them and which they received was that “Christ died for our sins . . . was buried . . . [and] was raised.” The continuing references to the appearances shouldn’t be taken as part of “the gospel,” as if we have to tell someone that Jesus appeared to Peter, the Twelve, and James or we’re not telling them the gospel. Those references are meant to establish the resurrection as real and historical.

And here are some of the clearest places, I think, where it is used in the broad sense:

1. ^ESV Matthew 4:23 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

This is the first mention of the word “gospel” in Matthew’s account, so we should expect some contours to be given to the term. To fill in the content of the “gospel of the kingdom” which Jesus preached, we look back to verse 17, the first mention of “kingdom.” There, Jesus is recorded as preaching, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

The gospel of the kingdom that Jesus preached was the message that a) the kingdom had dawned, and b) those who repent could enter it.

2. ^ESV Mark 1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

With the exception of the very first verse, this is the first use of the word in Mark’s account. The “gospel of God” which Jesus proclaimed was: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

The gospel of God is the message that a) the kingdom has dawned, and b) those who repent and believe can enter it.

3. ^ESV Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

This is the OT passage from which Jesus launches his public ministry. The word “good news,” as it’s used in Isaiah 61, is I think referring to the full-orbed establishment of God’s kingdom-rule.

4. ^ESV Acts 13:32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, ³³ this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, . . .

Verse 38 is very clear that the good news Paul brought was that forgiveness of sin comes through “this man.” But also, in verse 32 the “good news” is said to be “that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled . . . by raising Jesus.” Surely God’s promises to the fathers, now fulfilled in Jesus, included but were not limited to forgiveness of sins?

So looking carefully into the New Testament, it seems to me that the word "gospel" is used in both a broad way and in a more narrow way.  Broadly, as in Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4, and Acts 13, it refers to all the promises made to us through the work of Jesus—not only forgiveness of sins, but also resurrection, reconciliation with both God and others, sanctification, glorification, coming Kingdom, new heavens and new earth, and so forth.  You might say that in those cases, “gospel” refers to the whole complex of God’s promises secured through the life and work of Christ.  We might call this broader sense the Gospel of the Kingdom.  In the narrow sense, such as we see in Acts 10, the whole book of Romans, 1 Corinthians 1 and 1 Corinthians 15, “gospel” refers specifically to the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus and the call to all people to repent and believe in him.  We might call this narrower sense the Gospel of the Cross.

Now let me make two other things explicit. First, the broad use of the word “gospel” necessarily includes the narrow. Look at those examples from Matthew and Mark. Jesus does not just proclaim the onset of the kingdom, as many have said. He proclaims the onset of the kingdom and he proclaims the means of entering it. Look closely: Jesus did not preach the gospel saying “The kingdom of heaven has come!” He preached the gospel saying, “The kingdom of heaven has come. Therefore repent and believe!” This is crucial, the difference indeed between Gospel and not-Gospel: To proclaim the inauguration of the kingdom and the new creation and all the rest without proclaiming how people can enter it---by repenting and being forgiven of their sins through faith in Christ and his atoning death---is to preach a non-Gospel.  Indeed, it is to preach bad news, since you give people no hope of being included in that new creation. The Gospel of the Kingdom is not merely the proclamation of the kingdom. It is the proclamation of the kingdom together with the proclamation that people may enter it by repentance and faith in Christ.

Second, it’s worth noting explicitly, again, the fact that the New Testament calls the specific, narrow message of forgiveness of sins through Christ “The Gospel.” Therefore, those who would argue something like, “If you’re just preaching the forgiveness of sins through Christ, and not God’s intention to remake the world, you’re not preaching the gospel,” are wrong. Both Paul and Peter (just to mention names from the above examples) seem quite happy to say that they have preached “The Gospel” if they have told people about the forgiveness of sins through the substitutionary death of Jesus, full stop.

If it is true that the New Testament uses the word “gospel” in both a broad and a narrow sense, how are we to understand the relationship between those two senses, between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Cross? That’s the next question, and once we answer it, I think it will help us to be clearer in our own minds about some really important questions.

So how do the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Cross relate? I already have argued that the Gospel of the Kingdom necessarily includes the Gospel of the Cross. But more specifically, is the Gospel of the Cross merely a part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, or something more? Is it central to it, peripheral to it, the heart of it, or something else? And for that matter, why are the New Testament writers willing to apply the word “gospel” to the particular promise of forgiveness of sin through faith in Christ, and not to other particular promises that are included in the broad gospel? Why do we never see Paul saying, “And that’s my gospel: that humans can be reconciled to each other!”?

I think we can get at an answer to all those questions by realizing that the Gospel of the Cross is not just any part of the Gospel of the Kingdom.  Rather, the gospel of the cross is the gateway, the fountainhead, even the seed, so to speak, of the gospel of the kingdom. Read the whole New Testament, and you quickly realize that its univocal message is that a person cannot get to those broad blessings of the Kingdom except by being forgiven of sin through the death of Christ.  That is the fountain from which all the rest springs.

That, I think, is why it is perfectly appropriate for the biblical authors to call that fountainhead "The Gospel" even as they also call the whole package—including forgiveness, justification, resurrection, new creation and all the rest—"The Gospel." Because the broad blessings of the gospel are attained only by means of the narrow (atonement, forgiveness, faith and repentance), and because those blessings are attained infallibly by means of the narrow, it’s entirely appropriate for the New Testament writers to call that gateway/seed/fountainhead promise “The Gospel.”

It’s also perfectly appropriate for the New Testament to call that fountainhead “The Gospel” and at the same time not call any other particular blessing of the broader package "The Gospel."  So we don't call human reconciliation "The Gospel."  Nor do we even call the new heavens and new earth "The Gospel."  But we do call forgiveness through atonement "The Gospel" because it is the fountainhead of and gateway to all the rest.

There are some important implications that flow from this.

First, it is worth saying again: Those who argue that “the gospel” is the declaration of the kingdom are simply wrong. The gospel is not the declaration of the kingdom; it is (in the broad sense) the declaration of the kingdom together with the means of entering it.

Second, to say that the Gospel of the Cross is somehow not the gospel, or less than the gospel, is wrong. So long as the question is, “What is the message a person must believe to be saved,” the gospel of the cross is the gospel. Jesus, Paul, and Peter say so.[1]

Third, to say that the Gospel of the Kingdom is somehow gospel-plus, or a distraction from the real gospel, is also wrong. So long as the question is “What is the whole good news of Christianity,” the gospel of the kingdom is not gospel-plus; it is the gospel. Jesus, Paul, and Peter say so.

Fourth, it is wrong to call a person a Christian simply because they are doing good things and "following Jesus' example."  To be a Christian, to be a partaker of the blessings of the Kingdom, requires one first to go through the gate—that is, to come to Christ in faith and be forgiven of sin and atoned for.  Bunyan tells the story in Pilgrim's Progress about the characters Mr. Formalist and Mr. Hypocrisy whom Christian meets on the path to the Celestial City. After a moment's conversation, however, Christian realizes that they had jumped the wall to the path rather than going through the Wicket Gate.  The upshot:  These two are not Christians, regardless of how well they are now navigating the path.  To change the characters a bit, there are many people out there who must realize that Mr. Jesus-Follower and Mrs. Kingdom-Life-Liver are not Christians—not unless they have come to the crucified Jesus in repentance and faith for the forgiveness of their sins.  A person can "live like Jesus lived" all he wants to, but unless he goes through the Wicket Gate of atonement, faith and repentance, he's not really come to Christ.  He's simply jumped the wall.

Fifth, I believe it is wrong ever to say that non-Christians are doing "kingdom work."  A non-Christian working for human reconciliation or justice is doing a good thing, but that is not Kingdom work because it is not done in the name of the King.  C.S. Lewis was wrong; you cannot do good things in the name of Tash and expect Aslan to be happy about it.

Sixth, the ultimate goal of any mercy ministry—whether done by an individual Christian or a church—has to be to point the world back to the gate. Much could be said here, but I think understanding all this rightly can provide a powerful missionary motive and a penetrating witness to the world. When you renovate a barber shop in the name of Jesus, for instance, you need to tell the owner (to put it sharply for brevity’s sake), “Look, I’m doing this because I serve a God who cares about things like beauty and order and peace. In fact, the Bible says and I believe that God is one day going to recreate this world and inaugurate a kingdom where paint won’t peel and trees won’t die. But [and here we get to the point] I don’t think you’re going to be a part of that. Because of your sin. Unless you repent and believe in Christ.” And then you tell him the good news of the cross. If you just renovate the barber shop and proclaim the coming kingdom, you’ve fallen short of proclaiming the gospel. The gospel of the kingdom is the declaration of the kingdom together with the means of getting into it.

Seventh, as I've argued before, I believe that many in the so-called emergent church—for all their insistence about how astonishing and surprising their gospel is—have missed entirely what really is astonishing about the gospel.  That Jesus is king and has inaugurated a kingdom of love and compassion is not really all that astonishing at all.  Every Jew knew that was going to happen someday.  What is truly astonishing about the gospel is that the Messianic King dies to save his people—that the divine Son of Man in Daniel, the Davidic Messiah, and the Suffering Servant in Isaiah turn out to be the same man.  That, moreover, is ultimately how we tie together the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Cross.  Jesus is not just King, but Crucified King.  Next to that, what many in the emergent church are holding out as an astonishing gospel is not astonishing at all.  It's just boring.

Eighth, everything we’ve said so far drives toward the conclusion that evangelistic, missiological, and pastoral emphasis in this age belongs on the gospel of the cross—on the fountainhead, the gateway of the broader gospel of the kingdom. That is because all the rest is unattainable and indeed bad news unless we point people there. Not only so, but this is the age in which God’s overarching command to every human in the world is “Repent and believe.” There’s only one command that is actually included in the gospel itself (whether broad or narrow): Repent and believe. That is the primary obligation on human beings in this age, and therefore it must be our primary emphasis in our preaching, too.

A fascinating article put out by the BBC (no, that's not Bethlehem Baptist Church) shows that the lack of church discipline in some churches is seen as ludicrous to unbelievers. And its all tied to infant baptism.

John Hunt was baptised in the parish church of St Jude with St Aidan in Thornton Heath in south-east London. But 50 years later he stands outside and regards its brick facade without much affection....

Now Mr Hunt has become the pioneer in a rejuvenated campaign for a way of cancelling baptisms given to children too young to decide for themselves whether they wanted this formal initiation into Christianity.

However, baptism is proving a difficult thing to undo....

A letter from the the Archbishops' Council said that the Church of England did not regard baptism as a sign of membership, so any amendment to the record would be unnecessary.

The problems are multiple:

1) baptism is seen as having nothing to do with church membership. And when there is no church membership, church discipline becomes impossible.

2) infant baptism itself tends to separate baptism from church membership and discipline. One doesn't want to publicly disicpline a 2 year old for poking his sister in the eye and showing no signs of repentance. All paedobaptists I know rightly recognise that such matters are better dealt with within the family.

But, what do you then do with those who have received the sign of baptism, never come into church membership and therefore never come under church discipline. How is to be made clear that this person should by no means see the sign of the covenant as a sign that they are a Christian?

Thankfully some people, like John Hunt, recognise themselves that they are not Christians. My fear is that in the last UK census 71% of people still identified themselves as being Christian, yet less than 10% would be in church on any given Sunday. Very few of these are asking to be "de-baptised".

Is infant baptism a serious sin, even though unintentional? I'm totally with Mark that it is done in good faith, and perhaps the damage done to genuine Christians is limited by inconsistency. However, institutionally throughout Anglican Britain, and even more so throughout Roman Catholic Europe it has, in my opinion been one of the most damaging institutional sins in giving people a sense of assurance, even as they are walking towards hell.

HT: Dean and Kris Dryden for showing me the article.

In my article in the new 9Marks e-journal, I wrote, "I have many dear paedo-baptists friends from whom I have learned much. Yet I see their practice as a sinful (though sincere) error from which God protects them by allowing for inconsistency in their doctrinal system, just as he graciously protects me from consistency with my own errors."

That statement, much to my surprise, has caused concern among some.  That a Baptist thinks infant baptism is wrong was no news to earlier generations of paedobaptists.  Today, it seems to be a surprise.  Now, the truth is out, all of these years, I have been cooperating with those I take to be sinners--Ligon Duncan, Peter Jensen, Phillip Jensen, Philip Ryken, J. I. Packer and many others too numerous to name--sinners specifically on this point of infant baptism.  I have been speaking with them at conferences, having them as friends, reading their books, learning from them and inviting them to preach in our congregation, even as I happily preach in theirs.  Indeed, several paedobaptist ministers even have articles in that same 9Marks e-journal.

Some may think that such a "wrong" should not be called a sin.  I understand a sin to be disobedience to God (regardless of intent).  When I read Numbers 15:29-30 and Hebrews 9:7 I certainly see that Scripture presents some sins as being deliberate, and others as being unintentional.  I certainly do not think my paedobaptist brethren are intentionally sinning in this.  In fact, they even think that they are obeying God so, short of them changing their understanding of the Bible's teaching on this, I can't expect any "repentance," because they lovingly but firmly disagree with the Baptist understanding of this.

Nevertheless, as I understand the words of Christ in Matt. 28:18-20 Christians are commanded to baptize and to be baptized, and the practice of infant baptism inhibits the obedience of what I take to be a quite straightforward command.  I understand explanations that have been given about the practice of infant baptism (Orthodox/Roman, Lutheran and Reformed) but am sincerely persuaded that none of them line up with God's own Word.  This does not cause me to doubt the sincerity of my reformed paedobaptist brethren, nor even their judgment in general.  It is simply that on this point they've got it wrong, and their error, involving as it does a requiring of something Scripture does not require (infant baptism), and the consequence of a denying of an action Scripture does require (believers baptism) is sinful (though unintentionally so).

I cannot do better than cite a Baptist minister from 150 years ago who made a similar point--J. L. Reynolds:  "On the subject of infant baptism, and what seems to me to be its legitimate tendencies, I have recorded my sentiments without reserve, and, I trust, without offence.  I impeach no man's motives; nor do I question the piety and sincerity of those of my Christian brethren who believe that the practice is sanctioned by divine command.  Many pedobaptists are among the lights and ornaments of the age; their ministry has been blessed of God to the extension of the Redeemer's kingdom, and their Churches present numerous examples of pure and unaffected piety.  Such men would not, knowingly, contravene the law of Christ.  They would welcome the obloquy of the world, and even the agonies of martyrdom, in obedience to the command of their Lord and King, and rejoice that they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ's sake.  It is impossible not to admire and love men whose faith and practice associate them with Baxter, Leighton, Edwards, and Martyn, and who breathe their heavenly spirit.  While I think I see and regret their errors, I would extend to them the same indulgence which I ask for my own," (Dever, ed., Polity, p. 328).

Of course, my paedobaptist brethren may very well think that I am in sin in withholding from children the sign of God's gracious covenant.  I understand and regret the disagreement, but am well used to it by this point, and look forward to heaven, where all our disagreements will be composed.  Until that time, I intend to encourage ministers to be Together for the Gospel as much as we can, working together in the extension of the Gospel in our own towns and cities, and around the world.  I see no inconsistency in working with others who hold precious the same Gospel, regardless of what other disagreements we may have.

If you somehow weren't captivated by my poorly formatted, rambling notes  from Tim Chester's talk at the 2009 Radstock Conference, the audio is now up at the Radstock site.  Just scroll to the bottom of the page and enjoy!

Apropos of our conversation about humor ... If you're wondering what it looks like to use mockery to defend the gospel, here's a great example:

Picking up you comment, McKinley, about delaying seminary (or skipping it), I'm totally with you that delaying seminary can be a great thing. Four years of church ministry before seminary taught me in some measure how ignorant and ill-equipped I was (and therefore gave me a strong desire for formal training) and enabled me to be thinking about the pastoral implications of what we were learning.

On the other hand, I think it is a hard path to learn what you might learn in seminary from books.It is hard to learn languages in the church context. There are several people who would love to learn NT Greek at my church. I don't think that I have the ability (or to be frank the time) to do an adequate job of teaching them. Perhaps when you're growing a mega-church that can no longer fit into the building you only extended 3 weeks ago, then you have the people who can do that.

I'm also not sure that learning Systematic Theology or Church History from distance learning gives you the same rootedness in it as if you are able to do some intense study in the context of a class of people studying the same stuff, talking about it over lunch and sharing your lives with them for several years so that you become colleagues in ministry for the rest of your lives.

We need to help people to choose courses that would be useful to them, that don't try to do the church's job for them (I fear some seminary principle will get hold of Deepak's list and try to make sure that those gaps are filled in their seminary, rather putting their hands up and saying that it isn't the seminary's job to teach those things.) I'm sure you're doing that already, Mike.

One factor that I think plays against the usefulness of seminary education in the States compared to over here is the fact that most seminary students in the states seem to work full time jobs while they are going through seminary in order to fund themselves. I wonder if there would be more usefulness if they were able to be supported adequtely in order not to need to find another source of income during that time. I was able to work during vacations, but keep termtime free for study, and service in our church. Encouraging people to delay starting might be another way for them to save for more fulltime study.

I'm sure there are some people for whom skipping seminary is the right way forward - perhaps those who are far more disciplined learners than me; perhaps if the Lord's providence makes clear that he is directing them towards a particular opportunity that will not be there in 3 years time; but I think for most people preparing for a life-time of ministry it would be 3 years well spent.

who can dance so effortlessly between the meat sweats and homiletical wisdom.

I tend to get tunnel vision when I'm planning a sermon series.  I am not creative and I am not flexible.  I start at the beginning of a book and plod on until the end.  I don't like to stop and do a breakout series on other books or topics.  I don't like to take large chunks at a time.  Maybe I will when I am a more experienced preacher, but for right now... I just like to take a bite-sized chunk of Scripture, chew it up, and regurgitate it on Sunday morning (note to editor: need better metaphor).

1. The sight of a panda bear can give your three year old spontaneous diarrhea.
2. The National Zoo gift shop does not sell pants. 
3. Old Country Buffet has 38 different meats and meat dishes. 
4. Quantity can in fact compensate for a lack of quality. 
5. The meat sweats are a terrible, terrible thing. 

Dee,

Dee, great list, brother.  I'm not sure anything prepares you for many of the things you list except having to do many of them.  Doesn't this argue for pastoral training to include greater emphasis on service in the local church?  I'm not seminary trained (he says with a twinge of "what if"), but a good deal of what you're listing I feel like I've gotten a dose of in the local church herself, by God's grace (and design?). 

So, the money question: If a man agrees with you and feels ill-equipped for these things following his seminary training, any suggestions for getting better prepared to handle these issues?

In case you didn't receive it in your inbox, the new 9Marks eJournal is now online:  Young Pastors - Where Do You Begin?

This coming Sunday, we're planning on nominating two men to serve our congregation as elders.  I'm excited because both of them come from a different culture (one is Zulu, the other a lawyer).  I am really excited and thankful to God for these men; the current elders desperately need help and I am sure these men will be very fruitful.

James Gilmore wrote a book (with Joseph Pine II) called Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want. It was published by Harvard Business School Press (2007). Leadership Journal published a brief interview with Gilmore. Here's a couple of excellent quotes:

• "As a business guy, I'm always cautious about taking any business thinking and applying it to the church...To me, the church should not aim to be 'real' as an end. The church is there to proclaim truth. Trying to be hip and cool and real does a disservice to the church. We're not called to be successful. We're called to be obedient, even if they don't come."
• "If somebody doesn't find you objectionable, I wonder if you're preaching the full counsel of God."
• "If you truly see people, that comes off as real. If you love, you will automatically come off as real. You don't need to strive to be real."
• "Real is telling people about their sin and their need for repentance and their need for a Savior."
• "Read my book to understand the culture that you're preaching to, not as an operating model for your church.

Well, said. Thanks to Leadership for printing the interview ("Keeping It Real," Spring 08)!

I recently asked a friend over email how he was doing battling the flesh. Here is his example-setting reply:

"Yesterday, I was talking to a few people in my office, and one of the women mentioned that she has a belly button ring; then she pulled up her shirt to show it to everyone present. Not good. I could feel my desires immediately pull me.

"I went back to my desk and repented. I repented and pleaded with God for help again this morning during my QT, and then some more on my way into work. Once I got to work, I sat in the car for an additional 15 minutes fighting it.

"I thought about what would happen if my lustful thoughts played themselves out to the extreme, in terms of the consequences that would follow. I thought about having to tell people at church, and the elders of the church, and [wife's name], and one day [children's names]. I thought about how awful I would feel for sinning against God in this way and for hurting [wife's name] so terribly. It made me sick to my stomach.

"Then I thought about the joy I have in a loving relationship with my wife, and how excited I am to praise God in sharing with others whenever things are going well.

"I meditated on Eph. 2:1-10 in light of this struggle, thinking about who I was and who I am now.

"I meditated on Jesus on the cross crying out to his father, asking why he has forsaken him. Answer: My adulterous heart.

"Given the close proximity I have with this individual, it feels like my only hope is for a change in circumstances (which is unlikely any time in the near future). So I thought about how the empty tomb proves that thought to be a lie.

"I hate sin. I hate my fallen nature. I hate Satan.

"I love the Gospel. I love the the thought of heaven. I love Jesus.

"Please pray that I would continue to battle."

Would that we all fight like this.

A friend dropped by the office yesterday and handed me a flyer he'd found.  It was advertising a spiritual "weekend intensive" that's going to take place in a few weeks here in the D.C. area.  Enjoy:

Susan Harper opens a context of awakening, deep embodied presence, and intimacy--the primacy of the human heart to love and be loved. This weekend intensive is devoted to practices of wholehearted attention and perceiving the discoveries of the body.  A heartful, listening body is naturally connected and open to reality as it needs to be known now.

What We Will Do

We move, feel, sound, breathe, slow down, listen, deepen our embodiment, and rest into spacious silence.  We stimulate the healing resources of the fluid dynamics, and facilitate a liquid articulation throughout the whole organism. From deep meditative stillness we may also dance with juicy roots in joyous abandon in a self-paced process that is enjoyable and revelatory.

Imagination of the Heart

Many of our cultural and religious traditions are out-of-date.  Not out-of date is the body, the heart, and its capacity for fresh vital new ways of perceiving. In the spirit of inquiry we enter the spiritual-imaginative capacity of the heart. We consider ways we can actively participate with the profound gifts and needs of this world with the imagination of the heart.

Jeff Purswell wrote chapter 6: "How to Love the World." Wow. He crams a lot of great stuff into a few pages.

OVERVIEW: The chapter considers how Christians should love the good world that God created as a gift for us. Until this final chapter, the book has focused on the dangers of worldliness (a la 1 John 2:15). Yet Purswell also observes that Paul ultimately presents Christians with another perspective on creation:

• As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches [don't be worldly!], but on God, who richly provides us with everything we enjoy [creation is a good gift!] (1 Tim. 6:7)
• For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer (1 Tim. 4:4-5).

I. The chapter starts with a biblical theology of creation, moving from creation, to fall, to redemption, to consumation.

II. Then he gives us three tasks: (i) enjoy the world, since it's God's witness and God's gift; (ii) engage the world, as part of the cultural mandate through our work, home, education, leisure and sleep; (iii) evangelize the world, both as individuals and as churches, both in word and deed, since only the redeemed can live as God intended--for his glory.

III. Finally, he sums it up in the cross, which interprets and defines all of life.

Purswell doesn't exactly use the language, but he essentially provides a gospel-centered theology of creation and work, a theology of general and special revelation, and a consideration of the church's work in word and deed (giving proper priority to the word). It's excellent!

GREAT QUOTES

• "Of all people, it is the Christian who should appreciate aesthetics, discerning with renewed powers of perception the handiwork of God in creation" (153).
• Drawing on Martin Luther's idea that a person's vocation is a "mask of God," he writes, "The farmer doesn't just sow and reap; God provides through him. The lawyer doesn't just try a case; God executes justice through him. The trucker doesn't just drive a route--God distributes products through him" (158).
• "We must never forget what is at the core of God's redemptive activity: the salvation of people who bear his image and were created to know and glorify him. No other endeavor transcends this evangelistic priority. Our deeds may adorn the gospel message, but they must not be confused with the gospel message" (168).
• And check out this one: "Churches that display such a [kingdom] life, however imperfectly, are God's most potent instruments in his cosmic program to reclaim and restore his creation" (166).

BEST OF ALL...

...is how Purswell shows how everything culminates in the work and victory of the cross, through which Paul reinterprets his past, present, and future. He shows how (i) the cross tells me who I am; (ii) the cross interprets the world I inhabit; (iii) the cross transforms my view of people; (iv) the cross gives purpose to my life.

APPENDICES

Pastors, you'll find two very useful appendices at the end of this all around excellent book:

1. "Modesty Heart Check," which provides women with a list of questions to ask their heart's about their attire.
2. "Considering Modesty on Your Wedding Day," which is a short document Covenant Life Church passes out to couples planning their weddings.

I was thinking about the topic of God's will and guidance this morning. In case you haven't seen them, pastors, 9Marks has several helpful resources on the topic.

1) Greg Gilbert did a series of book reviews on this topic a little while back. More books have been released on this since then, which we need to review. Simply reading these reviews will provide someone with an excellent primer on the topic, especially the Jensen review.

• Adams, Jay.  The Christian's Guide to Guidance
• Blackaby, Henry.  Experiencing God
• Edwards, Brian.  How Do We Get Guidance?
• Elliff, Jim.  Led by the Spirit  
• Friesen, Garry.  Decision-Making and the Will of God
• Jensen, Phillip.  Guidance and the Voice of God
• MacArthur, John.   Found: God's Will
• Packer, J.I.  Finding God's Will
• Sproul, R.C.  God's Will and the Christian
• Waltke, Bruce.  Finding the Will of God
• Willard, Dallas.  Hearing God

 2) Capitol Hill Baptist Church has developed a seven week Sunday School curriculum on guidance, which could be easily adapted for a number of settings.

1. "Meaningful, Meaningful, All Is Meaningful"   
   Manuscript | Handout
2. "Fear Not You Are Worth More than Many Sparrows"
   Manuscript | Handout
3. "Spoken Like a True Son"
   Manuscript | Handout
4. "Obeying the Son"
   Manuscript | Handout
5. "Following the Son or Thinking like the Creator"
   Manuscript | Handout
6. "Wisdom at Work"
   Manuscript | Handout
7. "The Happy Life"
   Manuscript | Handout

C.J., in case you're listening, I confess I only read a couple of pages into this chapter. I thought it was going to be about vanity, which is a temptation I understand. Instead, it's about modesty, which is most certainly not a temptation I struggle with. Even if I did struggle with being modest in my attire, I'm fairly confident that others would not struggle with my lack of modesty, at least not struggle in the way you mean. 

One question: you talk about being deliberately out of step when it comes to fashion. What would you say if I told you that, the first time I saw you preach, I thought you looked somewhat hip? I'm guessing you would say, "Jonathan, consider the church you're coming from."

Here's a picture of me reading your excellent book in the ideal spot for reading about on Worldliness--the Carribean!

I probably should go back and read it for pastoral purposes, eh?

Dave Harvey, thank you for your very convicting fourth chapter in Worldliness, "God, My Heart, and Stuff." I used your four chains (below) in a recent sermon on Ps. 49. The whole church benefitted.

DEFINITIONS: "Materialism is fundamentally a focus on and a trust in what we can touch and possess. It describes the unchecked desire for, dependence on, and stockpiling of stuff" (93). "Coveting is desiring stuff too much or desiring too much stuff" (95).

COVETING'S FOUR CHAINS: (i) My stuff makes me happy. (ii) My stuff makes me important. Think 1 John 2:16 "pride of possessions." (iii) My stuff makes me secure. (iv) My stuff makes me rich.

PRIDE AND COVETING: "The intertwining of pride and covetousness is as inevitable as it is destructive. If I'm truly at the center of things (pride), then stuff exists to serve my desires (coveting). And if I find my identity in stuff (coveting), then the amount of stuff I acquire makes me important (pride)....How many advertisers seek to peddle their products by appealing to our inner arrogance, the unvarnished assumption being that we deserve the best?" (102).

GUARDING AGAINST MATERIALISM: (i) Consider your true riches. (ii) Confess and repent. (iii) Express specific gratitude. (iv) De-materialize your life. (v) Give generously. (vi) Parents: guard your kids.

I'd love to say more. But you should really read the chapter (and book)!

To resume...

Bob Kauflin wrote the very helpful chapter on music. He writes, "listening to music without discernment and godly intent reveals a heart willing to flirt with the world." I confess, too often I listen lazily, not wanting to think.

OUTLINE: The basic argument of the chapter is: (i) music conveys content, context, and culture; (ii) not listening w/discernment leads to compromise; (iii) we should listen for God's glory.

CONVEYING CONTEXT: So it's not just the content we need to consider. Most of us have probably experienced a moment like this: you hear a song, and it transports you back to a specific time or general season of your life; it evokes the associations, feelings, even desires of that time or season. Does that mean you need to stop listening to music that "takes you back" to inappropriate times? Maybe! At the very least, Kauflin is calling us to be aware of this fact. To listen w/discernment.

REVEALING WHAT'S THERE: Great point: "music and its associations don't create sin in our hearts--they simply reveal what's already there. If I chafe at my parents' authority, I'm going to be drawn to friends and contexts [and music] that allow me to express my independence...If I'm given to self-pity...I'll be drawn to music that's melancholic, depressing, and hopeless. If I value what I feel over what I know to be true, I'll tend to listen to music that feels good rather than music that's good for me" (81).

HAPPY & HOLY: Great point: God gave us music to make us happy and holy (82).

AN IDOL? How do you know if music is an idol? You might be easily irritated when you aren't hearing the music you prefer. You're more more passionate about your music than participation in church (84).

TIPS FOR GLORIFYING GOD W/MUSIC: (i) Evaluate your intake. (ii) Delete music you'll listen to only if you backslide. (iii) Listen with others. (iv) Make music rather than listen. (v) Go on a music fast. (vi) Keep track of how much you buy. (vii) Broaden your musical tastes. (viii) Listen to old music. (ix). Thank God every time you listen.

GREAT LAST QUOTE: "Music is a precious gift, but it makes a terrible God" (89).