Of course, the Church should stand for Biblical values when it comes to marriage, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, violence, racism and a score of other social issues. 1/17
But when she chooses to emphasize one or more of these as a major part of her identity, her main mission of bringing grace to needy sinners cannot help but be obscured. Instead of being a hospital for sinners, the Church becomes a citadel standing for selective righteousness. 2/
This obscuring of the Gospel is even more exacerbated when churches begin to de-facto side with particular political parties and advocating particular public policy solutions to these societal ills. 3/
Has God really commissioned the Church to be wise and competent regarding such worldly details? Is that our mission? Are we so prophetic as to somehow avoid the unintended consequences that almost always accompany well-intentioned social prescriptions? 4/
Remember Prohibition? That was about the one thing progressives and fundamentalists agreed on.
That said, had I been around in 1923, I too may have wielded a Bible in one hand and an axe in the other. We seldom escape the pressures of our own day. 5/
What is the purpose of the Church?
If it is primarily to try to improve all society in all areas, then it has little Good News to offer, little rest to provide those who come through her doors. She will be restless, endlessly pursuing one social goal or another... 6/
.. constantly having to become expert in the minutia of ever-changing public policy proposals.
In order to produce tangible results, she will inevitably side with a particular political solution or another, thus aligning the Church with one side of our political culture... 7/
.. rather than offering Jesus Christ to all sorts of sinners, finding her identity in Him alone. That is why many churches of our day are made up of members who are almost all members of one party or the other. 8/
And so the world comes to views the Church as just one more tribe vying for power and influence, one more special interest to throw into the political mix. 9/
C.S. Lewis made similar observations in his 1940 essay, “The Dangers of National Repentance,” in which he wrote of the tendency of some Christians to passionately take up the cause of social ills by calling the “nation” to repent. 10/
Lewis’s main point was that whenever we address the sins of society, we almost always mean someone else’s sins, not our own.
That is why churches who actively engage in the culture wars often obscure the Gospel... 11/
.. because they condemn the actions of outsiders rather than focusing on their own need for ongoing repentance.
Which is why unbelievers will often hear only words of self-righteousness when the Church takes on the moral issues of the day, even if that is not our intent. 12/
So we must be wise. As Scripture puts it, “Dead flies make the perfumer's ointment give off a stench; so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.” (Eccl 10:1).
A church can preach the Gospel well, but when it loudly takes up a social cause, no matter how just it is... 13/
.. it is that which the world will latch onto and hear. They will miss the Gospel. Why? Because worldlings are focused on the here and now, with no thought of heaven or hell. 14/
So, when it comes to the Church making the Gospel clear, the fly is in the ointment.
Social issues readily distract from the most primary and practical issue at hand: where will souls spend eternity? 15/
So I think it is wisest if churches emphasize the Gospel so abundantly and clearly that no one can accuse them of engaging in the culture wars, even when they do address some needed social issue of the day. 16/
Because there is one other thing. Within the midst of the culture wars of our day, there must be a place of respite, a place of forgiveness. A place where people of all political persuasions and nationalities can come together and worship the God who redeems this world. 17/FIN
This is all taken from my book on humility published by @newgrowthpress. If interested, you can check it out here:
(Not so) fun fact: fittingly, between the years 1914-1918, and 1939-1944, there was only one Nobel Peace Prize recipient (twice): the International Red Cross.
In 1919 and 1945, it was awarded to Americans who spearheaded international institutions (Wilson: League of Nations & Hull: UN).
In 1953, it was awarded to a former U.S. five-star general, George C. Marshall. I don't know if any other military folk have received the award. (BTW, if you get the chance, visit the simple, but fascinating Marshall house in Leesburg, VA.)
When I was young, I thought I was called to be a missionary to mainliners, preaching the Gospel to a sleeping church. I failed - it took more wisdom and perseverance than I had.
But what if - hear me out - some of us are called to be missionaries to evangelicals.
Don't overthink this. Everyone needs to hear the Law & Gospel over and over.
And to let the Law convict us where *we* have fallen short - not just the secular culture around us.
Maybe it's *our* churches which need to hear the Gospel - and apply its ethics anew.
To be specific, the evangelical movement has lacked clear thinking and integrity regarding the basic ethics of means and ends.
It has placed power and winning above the fruit of the Spirit.
It is a syncretistic religion, combining faith and materialism.
Here's a tweet storm of two-kingdom Bible verses, for no particular reason.
"Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare." ~ Jeremiah 29:7
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” ~ Mark 12:17
So finished @kkdumez's book, "Jesus & John Wayne" two weeks ago with lots of thoughts which I let stew for a fortnight. Here are a few of them. Probably a series of short threads rather than one long one. 1/9
First, who should read it? Well, everyone. I was a history major with a focus on American intellectual history, so I love this stuff. If you enjoy 20th century American church & political history, give it a whirl. 2/
Second, if you are a non-Christian or even a mainline Christian foreign to the evangelical sub-culture, pick it up. But please be aware, as @kkdumez points out at various places, this is a monograph. It shows one side of evangelicalism in particular, but not the only side. 3/
Me: The whole "union with Christ" as a doctrinal solve-all is overblown. Of course it is true! But, pastorally, it's not necessarily more useful to emphasize than any of the benefits of redemption. 1/5
Yes, all the benefits hold together under the banner of Union with Christ. But to repeat the phrase over and over as some sort of mantra is not usually that helpful. Often, what a person needs to hear about are the benefits themselves. 2/5
Jesus brings us: justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. That's how Westminster (and one dare might say, Romans) is organized. There's a reason for that.
Again, I am *not* arguing against the wonders and grace of Union with Christ. Please don't misunderstand. 3/5
A study of warrior imagery in the New Testament might do the evangelical manhood guys some good. A few texts come to mind (a thread):
1) Let's start with the Beatitudes (Mt. 5:1-12). Blessed are the meek, etc. Remember those?
1/10
2)There there is Mt. 5:39: turn the other cheek. Many evangelical sermons on this verse are expositions about all the times this does not actually apply, because "truth" and "our rights." 2/
3) Let's see, then there is Jesus telling His disciples that two swords was enough. Not sure His tone - whether a rebuke or allowing for self-defense - but one thing is certain: He did not say, "Arm up! Make sure you have twelve swords, plus a few daggers." 3/