Evangelism @ Georgetown U

Tony Reinke D.A. Carson, Evangelism, Pluralism, Religious tolerance, spurgeon

tsslogo.jpgIn order to curb proselytizing, Georgetown University recently instituted the following policy:

“While zeal for spreading the good news of the Gospel is a most worthy Christian virtue, there is increasing agreement among Christians today that proselytism, defined as any effort to influence people in ways that depersonalizes or deprives them of their inherent value as persons or the use of any coercive techniques or manipulative appeals which bypass a person’s critical faculties or play on psychological weakness, is unworthy of Christian life. Physical coercion, moral constraint, or psychological pressure and inducements for conversion which exploit other people’s needs, weaknesses, and lack of education are not to be practiced by representatives of affiliated ministries.”

This statement is open to broad interpretation. Can you mention God’s eternal judgment, or would this be considered “coercive” or “manipulative”? Will talk of personal sinfulness violate a person’s “inherent value”? If arguments were based on Scripture as the revealed Word of God would this be to “bypass a person’s critical faculties”? At its core the gospel is an answer to our greatest needs, our sin, our weaknesses, our ignorance and calls us to repent (say we are wrong) and turn from our current ways. I wonder what a public reading of Revelation 3:17 would get you? “For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.” Would this get you arrested or kicked off the Georgetown campus?

If I were pursuing a PhD, it would be a study in contemporary trends in so-called religious tolerance. Interesting shifts are taking place in our country. For example, in former days religious tolerance was about lovingly tolerating other people despite an intolerance towards their ideas. This tolerance leads to civil discussions and an opportunity for Christians to love their neighbor and also be repulsed by their neighbor’s false understanding of the gospel. Tolerance is now taking a new form. Religious tolerance is no longer a tolerance of persons we disagree with, but rather a debate on what opinions will be tolerated publicly. This is a significant shift because religious tolerance is quickly becoming religious intolerance if we don’t believe what the policy holders approve.

This post is no endorsement of bone-headed evangelism that has no humility, that puts down its audience, that yells all day at the wrath to come without mentioning the Son who bore this wrath so sinners can come to their loving eternal Father. What I am saying is that these groups cause reactions in policy that — when mixed with the new religious ‘tolerance’ of opinions — will impact the work of the humblest evangelist.

HT: SF

————

Related: “In a relatively free and open society, the best forms of tolerance are those that are open to and tolerant of people, even when there are strong disagreements with their ideas. This robust toleration for people, if not always for their ideas, engenders a measure of civility in public discourse while still fostering spirited debate over the relative merits of this or that idea. Today, however, tolerance in many Western societies increasingly focuses on ideas, not on people. The result of adopting this new brand of tolerance is less discussion of the merits of competing ideas — and less civility. There is less discussion because toleration of diverse ideas demands that we avoid criticizing the opinions of others… Exclusiveness is the one religious idea that cannot be tolerated. Correspondingly, proselytism is a dirty word. One cannot fail to observe a crushing irony: the gospel of relativistic tolerance is perhaps the most ‘evangelistic’ movement in Western culture at the moment, demanding assent and brooking no rivals.”

– D.A. Carson in The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan: 1996) pp. 32, 33.

MacArthur on Emergent

Tony Reinke Audio, contending, John MacArthur

An interview from May 28 promoting his new book The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception (Thomas Nelson: 2007).

Related: Don Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Zondervan: 2005).

Related: R. Scott Smith, Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church (Crossway: 2005).

Book Review: The Truth of the Cross by R.C. Sproul

Tony Reinke Book reviews, BR > Reformation Trust, Cross of Christ, Cross-centered life, Doctrines of Grace, R.C. Sproul, wrath of god

tsscertified.jpgBook Review
The Truth of the Cross by R.C. Sproul

[CCC: This book has been certified “Cross Centered” by The Shepherd’s Scrapbook meaning a substantial amount of its content directly relates to the perfect work of Christ as our Atoning sacrifice.]

————-

For me there is no redundancy with the message of the Cross because I am personally aware of my propensity to meander from the Cross rather than marvel in the Cross. To this end, R.C. Sproul’s latest book – The Truth of the Cross (Reformation Trust: 2007) – is a welcomed addition to the releases of 2007. Sproul explicitly states the centrality of the Cross at the outset:

“Within that field of study, when we want to get at the aspect that is most crucial, the aspect that we may call the ‘crux’ of the matter of Jesus’ person and work, we go immediately to the cross. The words crucial and crux both have their root in the Latin word for ‘cross,’ crux, and they have come into the English language with their current meanings because the concept of the cross is at the very center and core of biblical Christianity. In a very real sense, the cross crystallizes the essence of the ministry of Jesus … I doubt there has been a period in the two thousand years of Christian history when the significance, the centrality, and even the necessity of the cross have been more controversial than now. There have been other periods in church history when theologies emerged that regarded the cross of Christ as an unnecessary event, but never before in Christian history has the need for an atonement been as widely challenged as it is today” (pp. 2-3, 6).

Sproul makes no mention of the New Perspectives of Paul, N.T. Wright or others in the contemporary debate over the Atonement. The Truth of the Cross was intended as a lay-level reinforcement against modern attacks.

As expected, references to Christian giants like Anselm, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas and Augustine abound in this little volume, bringing Sproul’s keen historical perspective to the central matters of the Cross. Chapters focus on the justice of God, the ‘cosmic treason’ of our sin, our captivity to sin and need of redemption, the substitutionary work of Christ on the Cross, the Old Testament pointers to the Suffering Servant, a chapter defending Limited Atonement and then closes with a chapter of various questions and answers. Not surprising Sproul illuminates his subject with fresh illustrations and pointed personal applications of the Cross.

Good books challenge conventional thinking and at one place I was especially challenged. Late in the book Sproul is asks if God can die, a question prompted by the hymn lyrics, “How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” To this question Sproul offered an argument in denial: “We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ” (p. 160). This caused me to stop and think for a while because I personally have no problem with the hymn lyrics. Paul tells us that “the Lord of glory” was crucified (1 Cor. 2:8). And in Acts 20:28 Paul tells us God has shed His own blood in the act of redemption. On this exegetical basis Calvin rightly warns us from peeling apart the two natures of Christ on the Cross (see Calvin’s commentary on Acts 20:28). That the God-man died for sinners is horrific, but not for its probability.

Where Sproul shines is by reminding us of the incomprehensible value of God’s holiness and justice. At the end of a chapter devoted the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 18:22-19:29, Sproul writes, “The Bible tells us that God couldn’t find ten righteous people among all the inhabitants of these cities. As a result, God’s judgment fell. It fell not because God is cruel, harsh, or lacking in love. It happened because God is just and righteous” (p. 28).

As we have seen recently, the penal substitutionary Atonement of Christ will only be questioned if we fail to grasp the pristine holiness of God and His perfect righteousness. “Because He is holy and righteous, He cannot excuse sin. Rather, He must pass judgment on it. The Judge of all the earth must do right. Therefore, He must punish sinners — or provide a way to atone for their sin” (p. 29). Sproul especially excels here.

Conclusion

The Truth of the Cross is an excellent overview of the Gospel. God is holy, sinners are in need of salvation from the guilt of their sin found only in the death of Christ, displaying the wisdom of God to the world. We need more books like this one — books that step into the heart of contemporary debate on the Atonement to clarify the most pristine truth at the heart of everything we cherish!

Sproul is known for his chalkboard and a passion to educate laypeople. He wants you to understand expiation, ransom, redemption, reconciliation, appeasement, substitutionary atonement, and propitiation because these are central to understanding the gospel. In Sproul’s newest book – The Truth of the Cross – you will discover the beauty of the crux like never before. But even more importantly, Sproul understands the implications to our faith if we don’t get it.

“A Substitute has appeared in space and time, appointed by God Himself, to bear the weight and the burden of our transgressions, to make expiation for our guilt, and to propitiate the wrath of God on our behalf. This is the gospel. Therefore, if you take away the substitutionary atonement, you empty the cross of its meaning and drain all the significance out of the passion of our Lord Himself. If you do that, you take away Christianity itself” (p. 81).

———–
[Related: Another “TSS Certified Cross Centered” book by Sproul — Saved from What? (Crossway: 2002) – is worth the investment.]
———–

Title: The Truth of the Cross
Author: R.C. Sproul
Reading level: 2.25/5.0 > moderate
Boards: hardcover
Pages: 178
Volumes: 1
Dust jacket: unknown (reviewed electronically)
Binding: unknown
Paper: unknown
Topical index: no
Scriptural index: no
Text: perfect type
Publisher: Reformation Trust
Year: 2007
Price USD: $15.00 from Ligonier
ISBN: 1567690874

Atonement under attack

Tony Reinke Atonement

In case you haven’t noticed, attacking the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ is en vogue today. Now Mel Gibson and his movies are the product of a blood-lusting, wrath-obsessed, Scripture-ignoring worldview of conservative nuts draining morality from the core of Christianity. This according to Giles Fraser in his column today at Ekklesia. The problem, however, doesn’t seem to lay in Gibson.

“The root cause is a theology associated particularly with Anselm and Calvin. Human beings are wicked and can only make it to heaven if they are punished for their sin, thus righting the scales of justice and wiping clean the slate.

The problem is, human wickedness is so deep that the required punishment would be too much for us to bear. So Christ offers to take our place, accepting our punishment in the form of an excruciating crucifixion. It’s the story of salvation, as read by the religious right. All sin must be paid for with pain.

The technical term for this theology is penal substitution. It is, among other things, the reason so many conservative Christians like Gibson support the death penalty – wickedness must be paid for with blood. And it’s precisely this equation that has come to rot the Christian moral conscience from within. For this theology is intrinsically vindictive, bloodthirsty and vengeful.

Though many evangelicals and conservative Catholics think it the beating heart of the good news, it’s a much later medieval interpretation that refuses the gospel’s insistence upon forgiveness and non-violence.

Jesus put it pretty clearly when he quoted his favourite passage of the Hebrew Scriptures: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ The retributive logic that sin can be cancelled by pain is just what Christ resisted. And it was a stand taken by the Hebrew prophets before him. By contrast, in Gibson’s films, only blood can pay for blood.”

Note carefully what this author omits — the holiness of God. Often when the atonement is misunderstood, a foundational expression of God’s holiness in His perfect Law is omitted. … I’ll skip over commenting on some other favorite Hebrew texts of Jesus (like Isaiah 53 in Luke 22:37), to ask my main question: If you take away the justice and mercy of God revealed in the bloody death of Christ, on what basis will the Christian stand against injustices and offer mercy to the world? How is eliminating the substitutionary atonement advancing the Christian moral conscience?

——————

Related: “A Substitute has appeared in space and time, appointed by God Himself, to bear the weight and the burden of our transgressions, to make expiation for our guilt, and to propitiate the wrath of God on our behalf. This is the gospel. Therefore, if you take away the substitutionary atonement, you empty the cross of its meaning and drain all the significance out of the passion of our Lord Himself. If you do that, you take away Christianity itself.” R.C. Sproul in The Truth of the Cross (Reformation Trust: 2007) p. 81.

God’s wrath and horror films

Tony Reinke Boldness, Calvinism, Culture, Earnestness, Entertainment, Evangelism, Faith in Pulpit, Gospel in Culture, Hell, John Calvin, Judgement of God, Pastoral Ministry, Preaching, Sin in Culture, wrath of god

best-horror-films.jpgIn light of our recent discussion over Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God) it occurred to me that John Calvin may help us answer the following questions:

– Where does a fear of God’s judgment arise in the natural man?

– Are sinners fearful of His wrath because the preacher builds up to a rhetorical climax of graphic content or is something greater at work?

– In our contemporary society — saturated with horror films, horror books and graphic entertainment — will a sermon on God’s wrath be marginalized to fictional fairytale?

These are serious concerns for the preacher and evangelist.

Early in the Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559) Calvin addresses God’s judgment as a way to prove that knowledge of God is etched on the hearts of all men. He writes,

“One reads of no one who burst forth into bolder or more unbridled contempt of deity than Gaius Caligula [Roman emperor between A.D. 37-41]; yet no one trembled more miserably when any sign of God’s wrath manifested itself; thus – albeit unwillingly – he shuddered at the God whom he professedly sought to despise. You may see now and again how this also happens to those like him; how he who is the boldest despiser of God is of all men the most startled at the rustle of a falling leaf [cf. Lev. 26:36]. Whence does this arise but from the vengeance of divine majesty, which strikes their consciences all the more violently the more they try to flee from it? Indeed, they seek out every subterfuge to hide themselves from the Lord’s presence, and to efface it again from their minds. But in spite of themselves they are always entrapped. Although it may sometimes seem to vanish for a moment, it returns at once and rushes in with new force. If for these there is any respite from anxiety of conscience, it is not much different from the sleep of drunken or frenzied persons, who do not rest peacefully even while sleeping because they are continually troubled with dire and dreadful dreams” (1.3.2; 1:45).

God’s presence remains close enough to even the hardest of sinners, close enough that God occasionally fills the sinners thoughts with a foretaste of His coming wrath. It may be silent for a time, but then this knowledge “rushes in with new force” like God’s immediate presence overcoming the Old Testament sinner (see Lev. 26:36). To put this more biblically, Paul in Romans 1:28-32 writes,

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

After explaining that “death” here cannot be limited to physical death, John Murray writes, “The most degraded of men, degraded because judicially abandoned of God, are not destitute of the knowledge of God and of his righteous judgments” [The Epistle to the Romans (Eerdmans: 1959) 1:52]. There are ever-present reminders that God is holy, that all sin must be punished, and that sinners are rightfully consumed by the second death. Somewhere in the recesses of the conscience, all sinners are reminded that a propensity to gossip is quickening God’s wrath. And this wrath is fully justified.

What all this suggests is that – while we appropriately stand in amazement at the work of God in blessing the sermons of Jonathan Edwards to spark revival – the true power of a sermon on God’s judgment is the divine whisper in our conscience that all of us rightfully deserve God’s wrath. Because of this profound universal truth, we cannot think that preaching graphic sermons on God’s judgment compete with the entertainment industry, or that these sermons will be marginalized by our hearers to the status of fiction.

As creatures of God, we are etched with His image. When the movie concludes, we resume our busy lives. When the sermon concludes, sinners remain under His authority and bound to the inescapable reality that all sinners deserve to face God’s wrath.

I cannot help but pause for a moment to note what incredibly dead hearts we have as sinners! We even encourage and approve of other sinners in their self-condemnation (v. 32). It must be a great Savior to save great sinners, self-condemned and patting others in approval of their self-condemnation. Indeed, Christ has saved us from ourselves, saved us from God’s judgment, saved us from our guilt and due penalty! He was crushed for our iniquities (Isa. 53:5, 10). What grace and mercy that sinners self-condemned now live in hope!

My simple conclusion is this: Sermons on God’s judgment will remain distinct from horror film entertainment because terrifying fiction and terrifying wrath are not easily confused. If anything, the horrors of graphic imagery seen on the big screen will stretch the sinner’s minds to the unfathomable terrors of God’s wrath to come. Preachers should unashamedly expound all of Scripture — which includes the graphic nature of hell — with the confidence that our sovereign God is already at work speaking to every soul.