The Gospel Coalition

Many Christians see the church world in black and white. You have liberals on one side–they are the bad guys who doubt the resurrection and don’t believe in the Bible. And on the other side you have the good guys who believe in the miracles, do not waver on the deity of Christ, and want lost people to be saved. We call these folks evangelicals or conservatives or Bible-believing Christians. Give them a checklist of doctrines and they will get almost everything right.

Liberalism is a problem, but squishy evangelicalism is the much bigger problem.

I do not write thinking that churches self-consciously in the tradition of Bushnell, Beecher, and Briggs will do an about face, or that those in the stream of process theology, liberation theology, or feminist theology will abandon ship. I may vehemently disagree with full-on liberalism, but I can respect that there is an ecclesiastical and intellectual tradition behind it.

The audience I have in mind are those Christians, pastors, and churches that continue to affirm the basic contours of evangelical faith. They’ve never read Fosdick or Tillich or Schleiermacher. They don’t read the Christian Century. They don’t know much about Deutero- or Trito-Isaiah and don’t really care to waste any more time with documentary hypotheses. They think Paul wrote Ephesians and John wrote John. They love Jesus and want other people to love Jesus. If you ask these Christians, pastors, or churches if hell is forever and people must be born again, they’ll say yes. If you ask them whether you can trust everything in the Bible, they wouldn’t dare say no. They have no problem with any of the historic creeds and confessions. The people and institutions I have in mind gladly affirm penal substitution, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and a real historical Fall. The folks I want to address are energetic about evangelism. They want to see churches planted and people come to Christ. They think small groups, accountability partners, and mission trips are excellent. And at least in private conversation they’ll tell you that homosexuality is not. These Christians, pastors, and churches are not liberal. They don’t seem like one of the bad guys.

The problem is they don’t seem like the good guys either.

Have you ever been talking to a pastor or someone from another church and it seems like you should be kindred spirits. The person you meet is obviously a warm-hearted, sincere Christian. They don’t have a problem with any of the doctrines you mention as precious to you and your church. They don’t affirm liberal positions on major theological questions. They nod vigorously when you talk about the Bible and prayer and church planting and the gospel. And yet, you can’t help but wonder if you are really on the same page. You try to check your heart and make sure it’s not pride or judgmentalism getting the best of you. That’s always possible. But no, the more you reflect on the conversation and think about your two churches (or two pastors or two ministries) you conclude there really is a difference.

And what is that difference?

That’s something I’ve thought a lot about over the past few months. I’m sure I don’t have all the answers, but here are ten things that distinguish between what I would call a vibrant, robust Bible-believing church and one that gets the statement of faith right but feels totally different.

1. The mission of the church has gotten sidetracked. Recently I stumbled upon the website for a church in my denomination. Judging from the information on the site I would say this church thinks of itself as evangelical, in the loose sense of the word. Their theology seems to be of the “mere Christianity” variety. But this is their stated missional aim: “[Our] Missions are designed to connect people and their resources with opportunities to respond to human need in the name of Jesus.” A church with this mission will be very different from one that aims to make disciples of all nations or exists to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples.

2. The church has become over-accommodating. I’m not thinking of all contextualization (of which there are some good kinds and some bad). I’m thinking of churches whose first instinct is to shape their methods (if not their message) to connect with a contemporary audience. And because of this dominant instinct, they avoid hard doctrines, cut themselves off from history and tradition, and lean toward pragmatism.

3. The gospel is assumed. While the right theology may be affirmed in theory, it rarely gets articulated. No one believes the wrong things, but they don’t believe much of anything. When pressed, they will quickly affirm the importance of Jesus’ death and resurrection, of penal substitution, of justification by faith alone, but their real passions are elsewhere. What really holds the church together is a shared conviction about creation care or homeschooling or soup kitchens or the local fire station.

4. There is no careful doctrinal delineation. Theology is not seen as the church’s outboard motor. It’s a nasty barnacle on the hull. You will quickly notice a difference in message and methods between the church whose operating principle is “doctrine divides” and the one that believes that doctrine leads to doxology.

5. The ministry of the word is diminished. While preaching may still be honored in theory, in many churches there is little confidence that paltry preaching is what ails the church and even less confidence that dynamic preaching is the proper prescription. No one wants to explicitly pooh-pooh preaching, teaching, or the ministry of the word, but when push comes to shove the real solutions are structural or stylistic. How often do those engaged in church revitalization begin by looking at the preaching of the word and the role the Bible plays in the practical outworking of the congregation’s ministry?

6. People are not called to repentance. It sounds so simple, and yet it is so easily forgotten. Pastors may call people to believe in Jesus or call people to serve the community, but unless they also call them repent of their sins the church’s ministry will lack real spiritual power. And this should not be done by merely encouraging people to be authentic about their brokenness. We must use strong biblical language in calling people to repent and calling them to Christ.

7. There is no example of carefully handling specific texts of Scripture. People will not trust the Bible as they should unless they see it regularly taught with detail and clarity. Churches may still espouse a high view of Scripture but without a diet of careful exposition they will not know how to study the Bible for themselves and will not be discerning when poor theology comes along.

8. There is no functioning ecclesiology. If you put two churches side by side with the same theology on paper, but one has a working ecclesiology and the other has a grab-bag of eclectic practices, you will see a startling difference. Careful shepherding, elder training, regenerate church membership, a functioning diaconate, purposeful congregational meetings–these are the things you may not know you’ve never had. But when you do, it’s a different kind of church.

9. There is an almost complete disregard for church discipline. If discipline is truly one of the three marks of the church, then many evangelical congregations are not true churches. All the best theology in the world won’t help your church or your denomination if you don’t guard against those who deny it. If we are to be faithful and eternally fruitful, we must warn against error, confront the spirit of the age, and discipline the impenitent.

10. The real problem is something other than sin and the real remedy is something other than a Savior. The best churches stay focused on the basics. And that means sin and salvation. Sadly, many churches–even if they affirm the right doctrine on paper–act and preach as if the biggest problem in the world is lack of education, or material poverty, or the declining morals in our country, or the threat of global warming. As a result we preach cultural improvement instead of Christ. We preach justice without Jesus. We lose sight that the biggest problem (though not the only problem) confronting the churchgoer every Sunday is that he is a sinner in need of a Savior.

If you read through this list and think you have everything down already, don’t be haughty. If we get all these right and are proud about it, we’ll rob ourselves and our churches of God’s blessing. But my prayer is that somewhere out there in the frozen tundra of the internet a pastor or a congregation or a church leader will read through these ten items and think, “You know, this may be what we’re missing.” The evangelical church needs depth where it is shallow, thoughtfulness where it is pragmatic, and conviction where it has become compromised. A casual adherence to a formal set of basic doctrines does not guarantee real unity and does not ensure genuine spiritual strength.

You can download the app here. Thanks to Subsplash for doing a great job with the app and to Barry Peterson from our church for spearheading the project.

Here’s the description of what the app can do for you:

The University Reformed Church App is a great place for all things URC, including sermons, blogs, event information and more. Features include:

• Sermons – Hear weekend sermons from both AM and PM services
• Listen to conference sessions hosted by URC
• Blog – Read articles from Senior Pastor Kevin DeYoung
• Events – Find information for conferences you won’t want to miss and learn about what’s happening throughout the week to get you plugged in.
• Bible – Follow the built in reading and memory plan that we use as a church. Read and listen to all of God’s Word.
• Get directions to URC.

University Reformed Church is a Bible-teaching church in prayer for each other, the campus, the nations, and the world. For more information, please visit: universityreformedchurch.org. The University Reformed Church App was created with The Church App by Subsplash.

I don’t know if these qualify as humor, but they are fascinating. And the badminton intensity is impressive.

HT: Zach Nielsen

HT: Stephen Altrogge

John Calvin commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8:

A mother nursing her infant shows nothing of power or dignity. . . [but] a mother in nursing her children manifests a certain rare and wonderful affection, inasmuch as she spares no labor and trouble, shuns no anxiety, is wearied out by no assiduity, and even with cheerfulness of spirit gives her own blood to be sucked.

This country loves Mother’s Day. We love to honor moms and get flowers. We love to take her out for dinner and make her stand up in church. Americans are the people of motherhood and apple pie.

Just so long as motherhood has no meaning. Happy Mother’s Day. Or father’s. Or parents. Or gender neutral guardians. Or whatever.

We know who mom is, but do we know what a mom is? Are the two persons (or three? or thirty? or pets?) in a marriage interchangeable? Is there anything beyond biology (and affirming biology is a start!) that makes a mom a mom? When your little girl asks, “What does it mean to be a mommy?” what will you say to her?

One answer is found in 1 Thessalonians 2. Look at how Paul uses parenting as an analogy for his pastoral work.

1 Thessalonians 2:7-8 “But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also of our own selves, because you had become very dear to us.”

1 Thessalonians 2:11-12 “For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.”

Within the span of a few verses Paul likens his pastoral approach to both mothering and fathering. And the approaches are not the same. For the Apostle, mothering implies gentleness, affection, and sacrifice. Fathering, on the other hand, implies exhortation, encouragement, and a spiritual charge. This is not to suggest that one set of virtues are exclusively feminine and the other exclusively masculine. After all, Paul says he was gentle among the Thessalonians like a nursing mother. Men can be tender and women can exhort. But still, there is a method behind the metaphors. For Paul, the picture of divinely aided gentleness is a mother and the picture of divinely guided exhortation is a father. A mom is a mom and not a dad, and a dad is a dad and not a mom.

I recognize that mothers have different personalities and they aren’t all the shy and retiring type. And yet, there is something particularly maternal and feminine and right about a woman marked by gentleness (1 Peter 3:4). It’s part of what makes a mother a mother.

Which is saying something, because if there is any vocation that mitigates against gentleness it is taking care of depraved children. So take time this weekend to thank your mom, or your kids’ mom, for all the times she was affectionately desirous of you and eagerly gave of her own life because you were so dear to her.

Yesterday, to no one’s surprise, President Obama revealed in an interview that after some “evolution” he has “concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” This after the Vice-President came out last Sunday strongly in favor of gay marriage. Not coincidentally, the New York Times ran an article on Tuesday (an election day with a marriage amendment on one ballot) about how popular and not controversial gay television characters have become. In other words, everyone else has grown up so why don’t you? It can seem like the whole world is having a gay old time, with conservative Christians the only ones refusing to party.

The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: “It’s no use staying in this battle,” we think to ourselves. “We don’t have to change our personal position. We’ll keep speaking the truth and upholding the Bible in our churches, but getting worked up over gay marriage in the public square is counter productive. It’s a waste of time. It makes us look bad. It ruins our witness. And we’ve already lost. Time to throw in the towel.” I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.

Here are five reasons Christians should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose bestowing the term and institution of marriage upon same-sex couples:

1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points. We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the “peace of the city.” It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you’re bound to get splinters. Or worse. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.

3. Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us. The word means something and has meant something throughout history. Marriage is more than a union of hearts and minds. It involves a union of bodies–and not bodies in any old way we please, as if giving your cousin a wet willy in the ear makes you married. Marriage, to quote one set of scholars, is a” comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act—by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children.” This conjugal view of marriage states in complex language what would have been a truism until a couple generations ago. Marriage is what children (can) come from. Where that element is not present (at the level of sheer design and function, even if not always in fulfillment), marriage is not a reality. We should not concede that “gay marriage” is really marriage. What’s more, as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church.

4. Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior. While it’s true that politics is downstream from culture, it’s also true that law is one of the tributaries contributing to culture. In our age of hyper-tolerance we try to avoid stigmas, but stigmas can be an expression of common grace. Who knows how many stupid sinful things I’ve been kept from doing because I knew my peers and my community would deem it shameful. Our cultural elites may never consider homosexuality shameful, but amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman serve a noble end by defining what is as what ought to be. We do not help each other in the fight for holiness when we allow for righteousness to look increasingly strange and sin to look increasingly normal.

5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic. The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest. I’m not suggesting heterosexuals would no longer be able to get married. What I am suggesting is that the cultural pressure will not stop with allowing for some “marriages” to be homosexual. It will keep mounting until all accept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity’s great gifts. The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether. Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil’s bargains, the good will doesn’t last nearly so long as the law.

Monday – I’m so glad it’s my day off. Yesterday’s sermon was terrible. Maybe this week will be better.

Tuesday AM -  I better get some emails done and get the blog lined up. If I can check a few things off my To Do List I’ll really be able to concentrate on my sermon.

Tuesday PM – I wasn’t expecting the lunch to go so long and for them to stop by. I’ll guess I’ll get to my sermon tomorrow.

Wednesday AM – Man, more emails. I need to make a few phone calls too. The agendas also need some work. Sermon prep soon.

Wednesday PM – I forgot–staff meetings all afternoon. I got to buckle down and start on this sermon tomorrow.

Thursday AM – Okay, here we go. Let’s get the paper and pencil out and open my Greek Bible. Darn, made the mistake of checking my email and leaving my door open. Got to take care of a couple more things.

Thursday PM – Finally started on my sermon. Working on translation. Making notes. So thankful to be a pastor. What a privilege to study God’s word. I’m getting a little sleepytrhough.

Friday AM – Excited to work on this sermon and think about preaching. So much to learn. So much to study. Never saw that before.

Friday PM – What a mess. I don’t see three points anywhere. Better pray. What is this sermon about? Where I am going? Need an outline before I go home. Brain don’t fail me now.

Saturday AM – It’s quiet here. Need to stop fiddling around with emails. Need some better illustrations. What is my application? These three points could be worded better.

Saturday PM – Praying for help. A few good thoughts I think. That section will preach. The introduction is so-so. Conclusion needs work. Have to push through and finish this. If I push print I can go home.

Saturday extra-PM – I’m sure this is too long. Needs pruning. I’m excited to preach this, but boy it doesn’t feel like much. No time left except for prayer. Should be in bed already.

Sunday before preaching- I can’t believe I get to preach. Stay humble. Pray for unction.

Sunday during preaching – What a joy to teach God’s word. And a challenge. Am I getting through? Am I getting in the way? Need to trust God. I must decrease, he must increase. I think I see a cloud the size of a man’s hand in the distance.

Sunday after preaching – That was too long…again. Trying to smile and talk to people while wondering if that made any difference. A lot of polite hello’s. A couple critiques. Several people seemed genuinely helped. I’m getting hungry and may need to use the bathroom.

Sunday evening – Crazy day. Get the kids to bed. Talk to my wife. Call my mom. Thankful for a good day. Glad it’s over. Not sure what God did, but I’ll trust him for something. I love my church.

Monday – I’m so glad it’s my day off. Yesterday’s sermon was terrible. Maybe this week will be better.

Here is a verse that caught my attention yesterday: “With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel” (2 Cor. 8:18).

There are many things we’d like to know, but don’t know about this verse.

1. We don’t know who this brother is. Could be Luke, Apollos, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, or Mark. Others suggest one of the entourage mentioned in Acts 20:4–Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Tychicus, Trophimus, or Gaius. Some names are more likely than others, but at the end of the day we just don’t know who Paul has in mind.

2. We can’t be sure why Paul did not mention this brother’s name. Paul might have been trying to lower this man’s profile or maybe Paul hadn’t appointed him directly or perhaps this famous brother because was from Corinth or had been instrumental in the church at Corinth and needed no introduction. We shouldn’t read too much into the anonymity one way or another.

Although we don’t know everything about this reference, we can draw some conclusions that are relevant for us, especially as we try to think through this whole “celebrity pastor” business.

1. There have always been men who gain a certain notoriety for their preaching of the gospel. The ESV uses the word “famous.” Other translations speak of this brother being “praised” in all the churches. Here was a man who was well known and well regarded for his powerful preaching. No doubt, there were other teachers and other preachers, but this individual must have been particularly gifted, effective, and recognized.

2. Whomever this person was, “the brother” was known to the Corinthians. Or he was about to be known. He was part of the delegation going with Titus to administer the collection. If it wasn’t obvious from the letter that Paul was talking about Barnabas/Tychicus/Apollos/whomever, then it would be obvious when he arrived with Titus in Corinth. The point of not mentioning his name can’t be to keep his identity secret (though it could be to sound less flattering).

3. Paul appears to reference the brother’s fame as a way of commending him to the Corinthians and thereby assuring the church that Paul’s plan was trustworthy. Three men are mentioned in this delegation: Titus in verses 16 and 17, “the brother” in v. 18, and “our brother” in v. 22. All three are commended by Paul–Titus for his earnest care, “the brother” for his famous preaching, and “our brother” for his testing, earnestness, and confidence in the Corinthians. Paul alludes to their character, their track record, and their reputation as a way of helping the Corinthians receive them and trust them as they should.

The take away from 2 Corinthians 8:18 should not be an unbridled enthusiasm for “celebrity pastors.” We know from 1 Corinthians that some Christians were dreadfully misguided in their allegiance to specific teachers and leaders. We also know from the Corinthian correspondence that ritzy “super apostles” were impressing Christians for all the wrong reasons. So clearly, fame comes with many dangers, both for the followers and for the famous ones.

And yet, verse 18 demonstrates that if “celebrity” simply means notoriety or recognition or high regard, then celebrity preachers are not new. There have always been men–like this fellow and like Chrysostom or Knox or Whitefield or Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones or ten thousand others–who have been “famous among all the churches for [their] preaching of the gospel.” It is not a capitulation to culture to admit this fact. And it’s not bad to acknowledge these men and commend them to others. Could actually be quite biblical.

The handle is @RevKevDeYoung.