Two Starkly Different Views of Christianity and Government

This sermon and this sermon don't precisely overlap. The speakers are not pursuing the same objectives; nevertheless, I believe they demonstrate two starkly different views, preached just two days apart, of 1) Christian citizenship in this world's nation-states, and 2) the authorities that lead to those distinct convictions. I don't expect that the speakers themselves would disagree with that assessment. (Of course, that's not to imply they disagree on everything. Obviously, they both affirm that Christianity influenced our nation's founders, for example.)

Here's a crucial portion of the first sermon:

Listen to me carefully, O Southern Baptist church. On Capitol Hill. This is one of the problems with referring to any country as a Christian nation. Just because the principles of Christianity clearly influenced our nations founders (and they did) and some of they themselves were evangelical Christians (I think Sam Adams was) and even if the Supreme Court has recognized the long history of significant Christian influence in our nation (and they have in decisions), that does not mean that most Americans are Christians, or that a Christian worldview dominates our public culture or our government today, or that one needs to be a Christian to be an American citizen.

Friends, Augustine understood these complexities far better when he wrote in his book, The City of God, about how we as Christians find ourselves simultaneously being citizens of two cities—the City of Man and the City of God—at the same time, citizens of both. The legal establishment of Christianity in many nations—centuries after the Apostles—reflected an already-distorted understanding of the gospel, and led to terrible confusions as the Church wielded the sword in religious wars and inquisitions. [repeated in original for emphasis] . . .

And friends, I've got to tell you, I think we're tempted to similar confusions today. [A portion of a riff on the misuse of Chronicles 7:14 is omitted here.] I think Christians' identification of their land, whatever it is, with "Israel" in 2 Chronicles 7:14 is very well intended, but it is confusing. There are no specific promises in the Bible like that for any nation-state in the world today. Though, it is true, we should always repent, and God may, in his mercy, bless our land.

The second sermon lacks a similar, lengthy expression of a pivotal thesis. (I'd highly encourage you to listen to the whole thing to get a clear sense of the overall message.) But this statement illustrates a bit of the contrast, and serves as a useful expression of some basic assumptions:

[T]here's a common blessing out there for people that will follow—nations that will follow—God's laws, God's principles. God's moral law, when it's exalted, certainly brings the blessing of God on a nation and on an individual. And so do not discount the fact that God has raised up America and blessed America because we have been a—yes—a nation founded upon his principles, upon Christian principles.

Another direct contrast is the first speaker's clear emphasis on the fundamentally international nature of Christianity, versus the second speaker's incredulity that young people would question saluting the American flag in church. You may also note the juxtaposition of a dispensationalist who expresses affirmation for the application to the United States of OT promises made to Israel, with the non-dispensationalist who finds that application confusing.

The above quotes are merely brief samples. Maybe 2-3 minutes out of a combined 100+ minutes of preaching. I'm not at all interested in the comments becoming an argument over whether those two sound bites fully display a fundamental contrast. I am arguing that the two sermons do precisely that. So in the comments, please refrain from debating whether my thesis is correct until you've listened to both sermons in full. Feel free to engage in other forms of discussion as you wish.

"Never Curry Their Favor"

Some words [MP3] from one pastor to another, upon the commencement of the latter's new pastoral ministry:

You many find yourself tempted to curry [your church's] favor. You won't be doing them any favors. Trust the Lord. This is his Word. He has revealed himself, and this revelation is not just for us in our personal quiet times. It's for every person here.

You have been specially called to bring God's Word to God's people here. Never curry their favor. That's not what they need. In their better moments it's not what they want. You are called by God to teach his Word. Bring them God's Word as faithfully as you can, and leave the results to him.

Competing Values?

Sometimes, what conclusion a person reaches on a particular issue is less important than how the conclusion is reached. Here's an example of what I mean:



I'm curious to hear which values on display in this video strike you as most prominent in the arguments of the three participants.

The Sword of the Lord: "Theological Pornography" (And Much More)

That's just one tidbit from a few minutes Al Mohler spends on Fundamentalism, Neo-Evangelicalism, and Southern Baptists in the first third of his fall 2010 convocation address, "Which Way to the Future? Southern Baptists, Southern Seminary, and the Future of the Evangelical Movement in America."

An oft-forgotten fact: "The Southern Baptist Convention was largely out of the picture of the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the early decades of the 20th century" and was "largely marginal to the development of the evangelical movement in America."

And some little-known facts: Many of the most significant "fighting fundamentalists" of the North were graduates of Southern Seminary. J. Frank Norris claimed to be a SBTS grad, and even the valedictorian, though the honor has never existed at SBTS.

The rest of the address is partially an explanation of how SBTS students will be obligated to defend the faith in years to come. In the midst of the ongoing devolution of evangelicalism, the candid liberalism of the early 20th century now masquerades as evangelical. And it's partially a historical survey of how the fundamentalist-modernist controversy washed up on SBC shores, jsut a half century late. Of course the difference is, the fundamentalist side won, but it won with the help of evangelical scholarship drawn into the conflict from outside the previously insulated SBC world. Ironically, Mohler argues, it now falls largely to Southern Baptists "to put forth a stalwart witness to what remains of American evangelicalism."

Fascinating stuff, well worth a listen at the very least for the historical perspective.

If I Were a Dispensationalist Professor . . .

Far too often, students of Scripture are more dogmatic about their own beliefs than they are capable of articulating the positions they reject. That's an unfortunate and unproductive combination. Of course that's true of Dispensationalists, Covenant Theologians, and everything in between, as well as the whole range of convictions in other matters of doctrine.

If I were a Dispensationalist prof, I think I'd insist that my students read, interact with, and know how to counter the arguments in this book. If I were a CT prof, I'd be looking for a similar book from the other side. Any suggestions?

Sanctification Is Inseparable from the Gospel

I don't know if anyone's still arguing that the gospel is not the epicenter of sanctification. Until I know that notion is dead, I'm going to keep making the case that it ought to be. Paul Tripp and Timothy Lane's How People Change develops a thoroughly biblical argument for the centrality of the whole message of the gospel—from conversion to glorification–to the believer's growing holiness. Tripp and Lane haven't unearthed some new truth. In addition to a plethora of biblical texts, they cite a variety of past saints, including these comments from J.C. Ryle's classic, Holiness:

It is a strong but true saying of Traill's, "Wisdom out of Christ is damning folly—righteousness out of Christ is guilt and condemnation—sanctification our of Christ is filth and sin—redemption out of Christ is bondage and slavery." [Traill was a 17th century English Puritan.]

Do you want to attain holiness? Do you feel this day a real hearty desire to be holy? Would you be a partaker of the Divine nature? Then go to Christ. Wait for nothing. Wait for nobody. Linger not. Think not to make yourself ready. Go and say to Him, in the words of that beautiful hymn—"Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling; Naked, flee to Thee for dress; Helpless, look to Thee for grace." There is not a brick nor a stone laid in the work of our sanctification till we go to Christ [p. 49 in the Redwood Burn Ltd. edition]
. . .
Would you continue holy? Then abide in Christ. He says Himself, "Abide in Me and I in you,—he that abideth in Me and I in him, the same beareth much fruit" (John 15:4-5). It pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell—a full supply for all a believer's wants. He is the Physician to whom you must daily go, if you would keep well. He is the Manna which you must daily eat, and the Rock of which you must daily drink. His arm is the arm on which you must daily lean, as you come up out of the wilderness of this world. You must not only be rooted, you must also be built up in Him. [50]

Much more can and should be said to flesh out what it means to "go to Christ" for our sanctification. Tripp and Lane do precisely that. I find myself recommending CCEF publications all the time, primarily because they are saturated with both the truth and the application of the gospel.

"If the message is really from God . . ."

Those of you who've had ironic encounters with cessationists who attempt to magnify the credibility of their assertions with phrases like "God told/led/showed/spoke to me" may find wisdom in Wayne Grudem's caution:

If someone really does think God is bringing something to mind which should be reported in the congregation, there is nothing wrong with saying, "I think the Lord is putting on my mind that . . ." or "It seems to me that the Lord is showing us . . ." or some similar expression. Of course that does not sound as "forceful" as "Thus says the Lord," but if the message is really from God, the Holy Spirit will cause it to speak with great power to the hearts of those who need to hear. [emphasis original, Systematic Theology, p. 1056]

Of course, Grudem is actually arguing for the ongoing manifestation of NT prophecy as a form of non-biblical revelation, but what he actually says is closer to cessationism than what many cessationists practice.

My, How the Times Can Change.

But it is good that they do.

"Religious Convictions Do Not Always Harmonize with Democracy"

Damon Linker's piece in the Washington Post on the need for political candidates to face a certain sort of "religious test" is provocative. Linker is right that "religious convictions do not always harmonize with the practice of democratic government." In an increasingly pluralistic society, I'm not sure Linker's proposal can be avoided, even though I don't expect the story will end well. What he says here is true:

It matters quite a lot if, in the end, a politician's faith is merely an ecumenical expression of American civil religion -- or if, when taking the religious test, he forthrightly declares (as Kennedy did) that in the event of a clash between his spiritual and political allegiances, the Constitution would always come first. Those are the easy cases. In others -- when a politician denies the need to choose or explain, insisting simply that it's possible to marry his or her religious beliefs with democratic rule in a pluralistic society -- we need to dig deeper, to determine as best we can how the candidate is likely to think and act when the divergent demands of those two realms collide, as they inevitably will.

A Beck Plucked from the Fire: The Gospel According to Evangelical Journalism

Andrée Seu's assertion that Glenn Beck's Mormonism is amounts to biblical saving faith has been the hot topic in today's blogosphere. Justin Taylor countered it well. As I read Seu's essay, this observation stood out:

I can say without hesitation that I have not heard the essentials of the gospel more clearly and boldly in any church than on his program.

Two observations of my own:

First, and sadly, given the condition of so many American churches this may well be true.

Second, and ironically, Seu alludes to Zechariah 3 in her defense of Beck. Of course, that's the OT passage that so clearly and beautifully articulates—perhaps more than any other—the very imputed righteousness that Mormonism denies.