An encouraging interview with our friends Josh and C.J. about the changing and growing work of Sovereign Grace Ministries for the Kingdom of our Lord.

From my devotional reading this morning:

We must always remember that: The Gospel is not admired in Scripture primarily because of the social transformation it effects, but because it reconciles men and women to a holy God.  Its purpose is not that we might feel fulfilled, but that we might be reconciled to the living and holy God.  The consummation is delightful to the transformed people of God, not simply because the environment of the new heaven and the new earth is pleasing, but because we forever live and work and worship in the unshielded radiance of the presence of our holy Maker and Redeemer.  That prospect must shape how the church lives and serves, and determine the pulse of its ministry.  The only alternative is high-sounding but self-serving idolatry.

Come Lord Jesus!

Matt and Jonathan,

Thank you so much for your updates from South Africa.  I greatly appreciated living vicariously and learning about the saints in that part of the world.  It sounds like it was a fruitful and tremendously important trip given the need there in South Africa.

Jonathan, your last post left me musing on something, then Mike's mystery quote sealed it for me.

How different is the United States from the Union of South Africa when it comes to the needs and threats against the church?  Particularly, Jonathan, I was thinking about this summary point you shared:

According to one pastor with whom we spoke, that battle for the gospel is on two completely different fronts. Among much of the White population, the battle is against secularism, post-modernism, epistemological authority, and the same things we're battling in the West. Among much of the Black population, Scripture is treated as authoritative among many. The battle is against (i) ATR (African Traditional Religion, e.g. ancestor worship) and (ii) Charismatics a la Trinity Broadcasting Network (called "The God Channel" in S.A.) and prosperity gospel. Talk about two different battles--both post-modernism and TBN!

For several days I was thinking, "But isn't that a fair description of what occupies the attention of Black and White churches in the U.S.?"  Aren't we battling various forms of superstition and false religion (not much ancestor worship, to be sure, but other claims for the supremacy and essentialness of "culture," etc.) and TBN and prosperity gospel here?  "Both post-modernism and TBN?"

You made mention of the tendency to nod or give signs of approval to a speaker, even when you don't necessarily agree with what's being said.  That's been part of how many (myself included) have tried to explain how it is thousands of people could listen to Jeremiah Wright Sunday-to-Sunday and not hold his political views.  In the U.S., that was seen as somehow excusing the inexcusable.  In South Africa, perhaps the visitor sees that as some curious aspect of "indigenous culture."  But I think it's the same thing.

And McKinley's quote underscores why it's important that we see this dynamic right here where we live, not just "over there."  Folks on TBN sound a lot like us at times.  They use similar words and ideas, and yet mean something far, far different with different and sometimes disastrous consequences.  The hocus pocus in Creflo Dollar's teaching is no less disastrous, imo, than the syncretism that combines ancestor worship and Christian practice.  I think it's the same thing.  Both having a cultic, controlling influence over people... damning some and hindering others.

So, let me plead for something that I'm sure Jonathan would agree with.  Let's confront at home the things that we find odd, curious, wrong, shameful, ignorant and unfortunate abroad.  For my money, TBN is a much bigger (popular) problem than the New Perspective and post-modernism.  Maybe 10% of my folks know anything about these things.  Maybe 10%.  But nearly the entire congregation dips into TBN on occasion or has someone who appears on that channel that they appreciate, but who is less than sound on critically important issues.  Can we please prime the book and article publishing machine and YouTube and web and every other medium to counter the paganism that masquerades as "church" and "Christianity" right here where we live?

Without hesitation, I could point to a dozen books that I think would be helpful on post-modernism, emerging/emergent, and so on.  But I can't recommend more than 2-3 that address prosperity errors or other falsehoods frequently viewed on TBN.  And that's where too many American Christians live.  I think the USA is much the same as the USA.  We need to work on that.   

Hey Greg,

Thanks for stirring the pot. Shouldn't my WTS degree give me street cred with the PCA guys? Man....

It doesn't seem like Matt (we've never met, but he seems like a pleasant enough guy if his blog is any indication) and I disagree. Obviously, the gospel is the most important thing in considering a church. But it's possible to imagine a scenario in which more could be done to advance the gospel by going into an unhealthy church and trying to erect a faithful gospel witness there. You may not think that's pastorally wise, but I don't think you can say that it betrays a preference on my part for factionalism over the gospel.

So, recently some members from our church moved out west. They are a strong family; we were going to nominate the husband to be an elder before the military relocated them. I hope that they land in a Baptist church out there, even if it's not as strong. They could do a lot of good in that kind of situation.

On the other hand, we have a member who is not doing well spiritually at all. Lately, he's become involved in a high church, evangelical Episcopalian church in the area. It seems like a really good place for him, he's actually more engaged with the gospel than I've ever seen him. As his pastor, I'm thrilled. Do I disagree with the Episcopalian church on a lot of matters? Yes. Do I think those things don't matter? No. Is the progress in this guy's life paramount? Yes.

Hope that clarifies things.

Hey Thabiti,

Yeah, I totally agree with that statement that you culled from the comments. I think oftentimes we get our theological ducks so carefully in a line that we wind up creating excuses for our failure to actually do something. So I think it's wise to make sure that we're living out the implications before we start pointing out the fact that they are not essential to the gospel.

That being said, I don't agree with the way you described in-car DVD players as "optional". The in-car DVD is a key to our children's theological education.

Okay... new rule....  A comment in response to a post cannot be longer and more involved than the original post.  I don't know... let's call it the Leeman rule :-).

Mike, you're the funniest man in the blogosphere--hands down!  Love the caveman pastor.

But at lease one person leaving a comment raised a critique that I've often thought as well.  It seems that many folks/churches who oppose "making the gospel public" in favor (legitimately) of keeping a solid focus on the message of the gospel itself end up not following the gospel to its social implications.  So, protecting the gospel turns into neglecting the implications of the gospel... as though calling certain things "implications" makes those things optional... like a sunroof or rear seat dvd players for the kids.

How would you brothers respond to that critique?

Upon my return from T4G 08, that's the question I was asked to answer in a random national poll of pastors for a leading Christian magazine. They wanted to know how I would rate myself and my church on seven different questions, both now and ten years ago. Here are the questions:

1. I (my church) focus more on the Epistles or the Gospels.
2. I (my church) believe the mission of the Gospel is advanced by proclamation or demonstration.
3. I (my church) believe the goal of local evangelism is to grow my church of to grow the church.
4. I (my church) see the Kingdom of God as a future heavenly reality or a present reality on earth.
5. I (my church) believe conversion is a singular decision or a journey over time.
6. I (my church) believe the Gospel is more exclusive or more inclusive.
7. I (my church) believe partnering with other local churches is essential to our mission or not important to our mission.

So what are your answers?

In my head when I am thinking about the content of the gospel, I usually have the 6 frames from two ways to live in mind. These cover

1) Creation of man to live under God's loving rule
2) Sin as rebellion against God's rule.
3) Judgment
4) Penal Substitution
5) Resurrection & Enthronement of Christ
6) Response of Repentance & Faith.

Webb touched on only 1/2 out of 6 (he affirms the resurrection) on this score.

If this had been the answer that someone had given during a membership interview I was conducting, it would have sparked at least two major lines of questioning.

1) Why did Jesus have to die?

I would ask various follow up questions until I had heard several things
a) Human beings are sinful
b) God will punish all sin - we all therefore deserve hell.
c) Jesus died, taking the punishment that sinners deserve, so that all who trust in him will not be punished  for their own sin.

2) Will EVERYONE receive the benefits of Jesus' death and resurrection?

Again, I would ask follow up questions until I had heard that salvation is granted only to those who repent and believe.

Unless I heard clear answers in that direction, I would probably encourage someone to go over the gospel through a one on one bible study with a church member before recommending to the elders that we recommend this person to the congregation for membership.

One only has to read book reviews on the 9-Marks website to see that there is an epidemic among popular ‘evangelical’ books that say some true things about Christianity but fail to articulate the gospel clearly. They say a great deal about Jesus but fail to say that his penal substitutionary atonement is the only hope for sinners under God’s just and holy wrath.

Take just three quotes from the reviews in the latest 9Marks e-journal:

Most pointedly, I do not believe Simply Christian tenderly and clearly warns individual sinners of their peril or calls upon them to flee to Christ and to his cross as the only remedy for personal guilt and sin before a holy God. (Andy Davis on NT Wright)

But you still haven’t told the non-believer what exactly he’s beholding on the cross. He is, in fact, beholding the Son of God taking upon himself the wrath of God for the sins of all who repent and believe. That picture is amazing. But it’s more. It’s actually doing something, like paying for sin. (Jonathan Leeman on Erwin McManus)

The fact is, McLaren does not sufficiently call human beings to grapple with and exult in what God did for us in Christ. Put another way, he does not place concern for the here-and-now in the context of the eternal. That is a grievous error, for it is only when we have a deep understanding of our eternal relationship with God, won by Jesus Christ, that concern for the present world is placed in its proper perspective. The Bible could not be clearer about this. Good works apart from Christ’s saving work are nothing. But good works springing from a heart that has been changed by God’s regenerating power are the sweetest of fruit. (Greg Gilbert on Brian McLaren) 

My question is this: could the same be said about any of the sermons that we preach from the pulpit? I fear that I have preached several sermons which were Christian in what they said, but failed to get to the heart of Christianity in failing to articulate the gospel. 

Preachers, remember that you have not adequately taught any Christian truth until you have shown how that truth relates to the center of Christian truth the gospel. Thus we cannot claim to have preached a Christian sermon if it does not call sinners to depend entirely upon the penal substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Will the gospel be clear in your next sermon?