In the Apologetics & Outreach course that Jerram Barrs teaches at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis, Jerram discusses barriers we create between ourselves as Christians and the world:
1. Intimidation or fear: Are we intimidated by the culture in which we live? We look at our society and we see that much of it is deeply hostile to the Christian faith, whether that is in universities or in popular culture. If we are terrified of the people around us, afraid of the non-Christians in our community, and afraid of the cultural products of our world, the consequences are disastrous. This creates an enormous divide from each other.
2. Condemnation: A constant judging of those who are out there. "Let us say three or four of you are sitting at a table in the coffee shop any day of the week, or anywhere, and you are sitting discussing something in culture, let us say homosexuality or political leaders or candidates. How do you talk about people, how do people overhear you, and what kind of language do they hear you using? Do they hear you using the language of condemnation and of self-righteousness? What do people hear from us?" We shouldn't delight in attacking and condemning people. It matters how I talk about the human beings involved in the issues.
3. Cultural retreat: "We can become so distressed by the world because it is so worldly, as if that should surprise us, that we try to create our own distinct evangelical culture so that we can avoid the sinful society as much as possible." Examples of this could be Christian country clubs, Christian sports facilities, Christian teams, schools, etc. Not that these are bad things, but turning our churches into havens from the world is not what we are called to do. Christ didn't redeem us by living in a haven that was completely retreated from the world.
4. Personal separation: The insistence that what it means for us to be holy and set apart from sinners, as the Scripture calls us to, as Jesus was, is that we must be personally separated from them, in the sense of keeping ourselves apart from them and having nothing whatsoever to do with them. This is generally a thinking that the only way we can grow in the faith and continue in the faith is by keeping ourselves personally separate from the unbelievers and the sinners around us, because of a possible "contamination."
If we build these walls, our model of evangelism becomes incredibly unbiblical. "Do we think of evangelism as raids that we undertake for a brief moment or two, or an hour or two? We go always in groups of two or three, never alone, to make sure that we are secure. We go in groups of two of three from the church into the world, hoping that we can grab somebody and bring them back with us." Jesus came into the world to relate to us; He challenges us to not be afraid, and to trust that our Heavenly Father would care for us and protect us. We may feel overwhelmed, but God is greater. We serve the Creator of heaven and earth.
It is easy to think that our calling is to judge everybody all the time. Even on Christian radio and television, you hear constant scorn, condemnation, criticism, and judgment of the culture and even of unbelievers by name. Our calling is not to condemn the culture in which we live, but to be merciful toward it. And it does not matter if people hate Christ, the Church, and the Gospel; we are called to love them still. We are to bless them and to pray for them. God has shown time and time again that He delights in saving people who make themselves enemies of His law, His Word, and His Son. We shouldn't be surprised if people hate the Gospel, the Church, the faith, and us personally, because they hated Christ. But our response to them is to serve them and pray for them, to pray God's blessing on the world.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
ask a pastor.
you know all those questions you just wish you could ask your favorite pastor... all of those practical questions like what do your morning devotions look like? what books are you reading? how do you best meet with the Lord? what do you do if your soul feels weary? how do you personally grow spiritually?
well... now you can listen in on these questions with answers plus much more on a new podcast called the sovereign grace leadership interview series. it's a roundtable discussion among three great pastors, including c. j. mahaney, author of the book, "humility: true greatness." what surprised me the most was how practical and real they got--i learned a ton and was very encouraged. their passion for the Lord is so evident, and it comes across through this podcast.
you can subscribe to the podcast by going to the itunes store and searching for "sovereign grace leadership interview series" or download the two discussions that are out so far here.
well... now you can listen in on these questions with answers plus much more on a new podcast called the sovereign grace leadership interview series. it's a roundtable discussion among three great pastors, including c. j. mahaney, author of the book, "humility: true greatness." what surprised me the most was how practical and real they got--i learned a ton and was very encouraged. their passion for the Lord is so evident, and it comes across through this podcast.you can subscribe to the podcast by going to the itunes store and searching for "sovereign grace leadership interview series" or download the two discussions that are out so far here.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
zeal without knowledge?
"Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:1-4
Here Paul is talking about Israel and the Jews who were extremely zealous to please and honor and serve God, who were willing to go to any lengths to obey him. Paul gives them credit where credit is due, granting how good it is for them to realize the importance of honoring God. But I think it is interesting here that the reason Israel goes astray is that their zeal was not enough--that it must be based on knowledge.
It is so common in our culture to hear, "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere." The Jews were sincere and zealous in their beliefs, but their beliefs were mistaken.
Tim Keller says that zeal without knowledge or understanding is fanaticism, terrorism. Imagine a person who intensely believes that a poison solution is not fatal--but if she drinks it, she will be dead. Her zeal not only did not help her, it helped her die. That is zeal without knowledge.
Was Israel's problem ignorance? Look at verse 3: "being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to [it]." The information is not unavailable, it is simply what suits them; this is a zeal that refuses reflection--they refuse to stop and think things through. Though they are sincere, they can also do a lot of damage.
I think this is true of all of us. We need a knowledge of God and His righteousness in order to make our sincerity right. Anyone can believe anything with a fervent passion, but if that passion does not come from truth, then it is misplaced. It's so easy for us to pick and choose what we want to believe and emphasize what we really believe in our actions, but what about the rest, what about the parts that we don't want to see? Creating our own boundaries and beliefs causes destruction. We need to be continually learning and challenging ourselves and each other to believe what is right and true, because if we don't, our actions are put into something that is misplaced, no matter how much passion and zeal we have.
*thanks to Tim Keller's Romans study for a lot of these thoughts.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Why I am a Christian (2)
We live in a culture that hates judgment or condemnation towards any person or group of people based on objective standards of right and wrong. The solution we have come up with is to get rid of the idea that such standards exist. There is the implicit belief in Western culture that once this is accomplished we will then know the harmony we are seeking.
But this falls short in two ways:
1. No one can ever really jettison their moral standards.
I can remember a few conversations that start like this: "I don't like Christianity because it implies judgment. It proclaims a fixed and absolute morality which I don't believe in. Who am I to say to a person that their sexual preference or life choices are wrong? We each must decide right and wrong for ourselves," friends say.
Then I want to ask if there are any examples of people doing things that are wrong regardless of what the person of their action. Hitler and the Holocaust come to mind. The person says that yes, the Holocaust was wrong. I ask why? Because it is. Hitler's acts are unjustifiable even though he believed them to be moral. Then there really is an absolute moral standard. If you take a step back and look at it, people who say that are really advocating their own moral platform. They still have an idea of what is good for everybody and what is wrong for everybody, but that is the very thing they are seeking to avoid.
2. Getting rid of the idea of standards doesn't actually lead to the harmony it is seeking.
The idea is that if everyone is free to determine their own morality and no one is free to condemn anyone else's morality then that kind of tolerance will eliminate condemnation and judgment and create community and love. But the opposite is actually the case. That kind of tolerance will never lead to real love or real community, but only to politeness. The goal is to eliminate conflict, but the prescribed remedy is to ignore it. But if there is really an objective right and wrong, and none of us can escape the idea that there is, then this is not a loving act. Nor are the conflicts between people resolved by not addressing them, they only fester. The true route to what our culture wants lies through the very kind of judgment that it outlaws. To retain the concept of wrong is the only way to ever have the possibility of real community and real love. The first layer is mere manners, politeness. The second layer is conflict and resolution. The third layer is community. We live in a fallen world, often it takes passing through the second layer to come to the third layer. A harmony that is achieved through remaining only on the first layer is only superficial. A love that is reached through retaining the idea of wrong and overcoming it, resolving it, loving people despite profound disagreement, is real love.
What does this have to do with why I am a Christian?
The things we desire have their home in Christianity. Our culture believes that absolute moral standards inevitably lead to judgment, condemnation, oppression, and intolerance, but when you look steadily into the heart of Christianity you see that belief does not hold together. At the heart of Christianity lies a man who, holding uncompromisingly to absolutes, gave his life for his enemies. The picture of a God who is holy and yet loved his people so much as to die for them should enter the heart of every Christian and explode there. Christians ought to be more uncompromising in their adherence to what is good, true, and beautiful, and more loving, more sacrificial toward those who disagree, more gracious.
Christianity has the greater resources for providing the good things our culture wants. It says that all people were made in the image of God, they are his masterworks, they are cared for, provided for and loved by their maker. Because of this each individual has dignity, deserves respect, concern, and love regardless of distinctions society puts on them. It has greater resources to impel believers to sacrificial service for their fellows. This is the path to the love and community and harmony our culture wants.
In Western culture it is a chance preference, a moral taste which has no grounding, no foundation (because we do not believe in absolutes, so how could such a preference be absolutely true for all people?). In Christianity, however, it is an absolute which flows from the wounds of God made by his enemies for their sakes.
But this falls short in two ways:
1. No one can ever really jettison their moral standards.
I can remember a few conversations that start like this: "I don't like Christianity because it implies judgment. It proclaims a fixed and absolute morality which I don't believe in. Who am I to say to a person that their sexual preference or life choices are wrong? We each must decide right and wrong for ourselves," friends say.
Then I want to ask if there are any examples of people doing things that are wrong regardless of what the person of their action. Hitler and the Holocaust come to mind. The person says that yes, the Holocaust was wrong. I ask why? Because it is. Hitler's acts are unjustifiable even though he believed them to be moral. Then there really is an absolute moral standard. If you take a step back and look at it, people who say that are really advocating their own moral platform. They still have an idea of what is good for everybody and what is wrong for everybody, but that is the very thing they are seeking to avoid.
2. Getting rid of the idea of standards doesn't actually lead to the harmony it is seeking.
The idea is that if everyone is free to determine their own morality and no one is free to condemn anyone else's morality then that kind of tolerance will eliminate condemnation and judgment and create community and love. But the opposite is actually the case. That kind of tolerance will never lead to real love or real community, but only to politeness. The goal is to eliminate conflict, but the prescribed remedy is to ignore it. But if there is really an objective right and wrong, and none of us can escape the idea that there is, then this is not a loving act. Nor are the conflicts between people resolved by not addressing them, they only fester. The true route to what our culture wants lies through the very kind of judgment that it outlaws. To retain the concept of wrong is the only way to ever have the possibility of real community and real love. The first layer is mere manners, politeness. The second layer is conflict and resolution. The third layer is community. We live in a fallen world, often it takes passing through the second layer to come to the third layer. A harmony that is achieved through remaining only on the first layer is only superficial. A love that is reached through retaining the idea of wrong and overcoming it, resolving it, loving people despite profound disagreement, is real love.
What does this have to do with why I am a Christian?
The things we desire have their home in Christianity. Our culture believes that absolute moral standards inevitably lead to judgment, condemnation, oppression, and intolerance, but when you look steadily into the heart of Christianity you see that belief does not hold together. At the heart of Christianity lies a man who, holding uncompromisingly to absolutes, gave his life for his enemies. The picture of a God who is holy and yet loved his people so much as to die for them should enter the heart of every Christian and explode there. Christians ought to be more uncompromising in their adherence to what is good, true, and beautiful, and more loving, more sacrificial toward those who disagree, more gracious.
Christianity has the greater resources for providing the good things our culture wants. It says that all people were made in the image of God, they are his masterworks, they are cared for, provided for and loved by their maker. Because of this each individual has dignity, deserves respect, concern, and love regardless of distinctions society puts on them. It has greater resources to impel believers to sacrificial service for their fellows. This is the path to the love and community and harmony our culture wants.
In Western culture it is a chance preference, a moral taste which has no grounding, no foundation (because we do not believe in absolutes, so how could such a preference be absolutely true for all people?). In Christianity, however, it is an absolute which flows from the wounds of God made by his enemies for their sakes.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Keller: "I believe in a God of love"
Here is an excerpt from The Reason for God, by Tim Keller:
"During my college years and my early twenties I, like so many others, questions the Christian faith i was raised in. There were subjective reasons for my doubts. Christianity just didn't seem real to me experientially. I had not yet developed a prayer life and had never experienced God personally. There were also intellectual problems I was having with Christianity, all of which I am addressing elsewhere in this book. There was one, however, I will talk about here.
I was troubled by those Christians who stressed hellfire and damnation. Like so many of my generation i believed that, if there was a core to all religions, it was a loving god. I wanted to believe in a God of Love who accepted people regardless of their beliefs and practices. I began to take course in the other religions of the world - Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Confucianism, and Judaism. I have profited to this day form those studies. However, my explorations in other faiths proved my wrong on this particular point about the centrality of a loving God.
I found no other religions text outside the Bible that said God created the world out of love and delight. Most ancient pagan religions believed the world was created through struggles and violent battles between opposing gods and supernatural forces. I turned to look more closely at Buddhism, the religion I liked best at the time. However, despite its great emphasis on selflessness and detached service to others, Buddhism did not believe in a personal God at all, and love is the action of a person.
Later on, after I became a minister, I was a speaker and panelist for several years in a monthly discussion program in Philadelphia between a Christian church and a mosque. Each month a speaker from the church and a speaker from the mosque would give a Biblical and Qu'ranic perspective on a topic. When we covered the topic of God's love, it was striking how different our conceptions were. I was told repeatedly by Muslim speakers that God was indeed loving in the sense of being merciful and kind to us. But when Christians spoke of the Lord as our spouse, of knowing God intimately and personally, and of having powerful effusions of his love poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit our Muslim friends balked. They told us that it was disrespectful, in their view, to speak of anyone knowing God personally.
Today many of the skeptics I talk to say, as I once did, they can't believe in the God of the Bible, who punishes and judges people, because the "believe in a God of Love." I now ask, what makes them think God is Love? Can they look at the life in the world today and say, "this proves that the God of the world is a God of Love?" Can they look at history and say, "this all shows that the God of history is a God of Love"? Can they look at the religious texts of the world and conclude that God is a God of Love? By no means is that the dominant, ruling attribute of God as understood in any of the major faiths. I must concludes that the source of the idea that God is love is the bible itself. And the Bible tells us that the God of love is also a God of judgment who will put all things in the world to rights in the end.
The belief in a God of pure love - who accepts everyone and judges no one - is a powerful act of faith. Not only is there no evidence for it in the natural order, but there is almost no historical, religious textual support for it outside of Christianity. The more one looks at it, the less justified it appears."
"During my college years and my early twenties I, like so many others, questions the Christian faith i was raised in. There were subjective reasons for my doubts. Christianity just didn't seem real to me experientially. I had not yet developed a prayer life and had never experienced God personally. There were also intellectual problems I was having with Christianity, all of which I am addressing elsewhere in this book. There was one, however, I will talk about here.
I was troubled by those Christians who stressed hellfire and damnation. Like so many of my generation i believed that, if there was a core to all religions, it was a loving god. I wanted to believe in a God of Love who accepted people regardless of their beliefs and practices. I began to take course in the other religions of the world - Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Confucianism, and Judaism. I have profited to this day form those studies. However, my explorations in other faiths proved my wrong on this particular point about the centrality of a loving God.
I found no other religions text outside the Bible that said God created the world out of love and delight. Most ancient pagan religions believed the world was created through struggles and violent battles between opposing gods and supernatural forces. I turned to look more closely at Buddhism, the religion I liked best at the time. However, despite its great emphasis on selflessness and detached service to others, Buddhism did not believe in a personal God at all, and love is the action of a person.
Later on, after I became a minister, I was a speaker and panelist for several years in a monthly discussion program in Philadelphia between a Christian church and a mosque. Each month a speaker from the church and a speaker from the mosque would give a Biblical and Qu'ranic perspective on a topic. When we covered the topic of God's love, it was striking how different our conceptions were. I was told repeatedly by Muslim speakers that God was indeed loving in the sense of being merciful and kind to us. But when Christians spoke of the Lord as our spouse, of knowing God intimately and personally, and of having powerful effusions of his love poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit our Muslim friends balked. They told us that it was disrespectful, in their view, to speak of anyone knowing God personally.
Today many of the skeptics I talk to say, as I once did, they can't believe in the God of the Bible, who punishes and judges people, because the "believe in a God of Love." I now ask, what makes them think God is Love? Can they look at the life in the world today and say, "this proves that the God of the world is a God of Love?" Can they look at history and say, "this all shows that the God of history is a God of Love"? Can they look at the religious texts of the world and conclude that God is a God of Love? By no means is that the dominant, ruling attribute of God as understood in any of the major faiths. I must concludes that the source of the idea that God is love is the bible itself. And the Bible tells us that the God of love is also a God of judgment who will put all things in the world to rights in the end.
The belief in a God of pure love - who accepts everyone and judges no one - is a powerful act of faith. Not only is there no evidence for it in the natural order, but there is almost no historical, religious textual support for it outside of Christianity. The more one looks at it, the less justified it appears."
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Resurgence Conference: Text and Context
On February 25-27, 2008 Resurgence hosted our National Conference titled Text & Context at Mars Hill Church.
Speakers from the conference: John Piper, C. J. Mahaney, Mark Driscoll, Darrin Patrick, Matt Chandler, and others.
Download the audio here.
Speakers from the conference: John Piper, C. J. Mahaney, Mark Driscoll, Darrin Patrick, Matt Chandler, and others.
Download the audio here.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Why I am a Christian (1)
Every now and then I get asked the question "Why are you a Christian" by friends. It is a good question to be asked and to ask yourself. When I take the question seriously I come away with a greater confidence that the Christian faith is the truth, and that there are good reasons to hold to it. I want to take some time and put a few of my answers to that question up on the blog, starting with this one:
One of those reasons is that the gospel tells a story that reconciles God’s justice and his mercy without resulting in a world that is unlivable.
The Bible depicts God as both perfectly holy and perfectly loving. His holiness means that all his actions serve justice. His love means that there is infinite mercy to be found in him. This is fine as long as there is no sin, but that's not the world we live in, so we have a problem. At this point the question enters: which side of God's character wins out?
It seems there are three options:
1. God's love trumps his holiness. His mercy wins out and nothing is unforgivable. We do not get the justice out actions deserve. There is no judgment for evil.
2. God's holiness trumps his love. Justice is done and only the people who are holy like him escape getting what they deserve. There is only judgment for evil.
3. God denies neither part of his character, but both his love and holiness are upheld and fulfilled in something marvelous and unexpected.
People often wish for the first option and become angry at God that he is not more lavish with his love, and then reject him. When there is anything which carries even the slightest hint of divine judgment God is often also painted as the second option, and then rejected. The real Christian gospel tells a story of how the third option miraculously came true, and when I understood this, rather than causing me to reject God it became an anchor to my faith.
1. The God Who Is Only Mercy.
The wish for a God who is only mercy goes hand-and-glove with a culture who hates judgment and who defines tolerance as never saying anyone else is wrong. At first it is logical to long for this (isn't unconditional, all-encompassing mercy a good?) but when you look closer the wish for God to be like this is wishing for God who is terrible and a world that is unlivable. This is to wish that God were not holy, or wish that his holiness did not matter to him so much. But who wants to live in such a world? Aren't we all secretly banking on God's holiness and his justice in the end? That there would be equality in the scales? That all the unpunished evil that has wrought such havoc and suffering throughout history did not go unseen by Heaven? That there is someone who has the power and goodness to make it all right again? Who also saw all the unpraised and unthanked goodness that has gone on in the world and will not forget it? Of course we are. If you have a God who is only mercy then there is an infinitely elastic line between right and wrong. God saves, but he does it by a shrug - by sweeping it under the rug of his mercy, which is there for the taking. It would go against his very nature to condemn evil in any real way that would amount to more than just shaking his finger at it. Who wants to live in this world?
2. The God Who Is Only Justice
So if we do not see (and should not wish for) a God who is only mercy, then does Christianity present a God who is only just? No. You can have a relationship with the Christian God, and you could not with a God who is only just. Why? If that were true of God then you would only be left with a judge. If he is an omniscient one, then he would know all the ways you have fallen short, even more than you know. If he is an infinite one, then even the smallest cruelty you commit against your fellow man is an infinite rebellion. Our sin would fit his magnitude, not ours. And if he is a just one then we would receive from him only punishment, for that is justice. Our sin does not seem to us to be such a terrible thing to merit such a judgment, but that is because we are handicapped by the fall. We are unable to see clearly either the ugliness of our sin or the glory of God's holiness. If we could see our sin as God does, we would see that if God were any kind of holy at all he would have to be infinitely removed from that kind of darkness. But infinitely distant from a God who is only justice is not where the Christian gospel leaves us.
3. The Something Unexpected
Either of the first two options leads to God denying part of who he is, but this is not how any true mercy or justice is achieved. God is one. He cannot deny himself or any part of himself. If there is to be mercy or justice at all it must be in both his holiness and his love being upheld simultaneously, and that is exactly what the gospel says took place on the cross. As C. S. Lewis said, "On the Cross justice and mercy kiss". God himself, in Jesus, pays the penalty his justice requires, which his creations earned for themselves but could not pay for themselves. Now his love is lavished on those very creations and his mercy is achieved at the price of his own wounds.
Christianity tells a story that errs neither to the left or to the right. It is neither only justice nor only mercy because it is both. And this makes a world that is worth living in. It is one where there will be judgment for evil, where there is a moral standard higher than ourselves and all will bow before a holy God. Then when that moment comes the hammer of judgment does not fall because God, in love, took the hammer's blows on himself. This makes Christians both uncompromisingly moral and lavishly, radically loving.
One of those reasons is that the gospel tells a story that reconciles God’s justice and his mercy without resulting in a world that is unlivable.
The Bible depicts God as both perfectly holy and perfectly loving. His holiness means that all his actions serve justice. His love means that there is infinite mercy to be found in him. This is fine as long as there is no sin, but that's not the world we live in, so we have a problem. At this point the question enters: which side of God's character wins out?
It seems there are three options:
1. God's love trumps his holiness. His mercy wins out and nothing is unforgivable. We do not get the justice out actions deserve. There is no judgment for evil.
2. God's holiness trumps his love. Justice is done and only the people who are holy like him escape getting what they deserve. There is only judgment for evil.
3. God denies neither part of his character, but both his love and holiness are upheld and fulfilled in something marvelous and unexpected.
People often wish for the first option and become angry at God that he is not more lavish with his love, and then reject him. When there is anything which carries even the slightest hint of divine judgment God is often also painted as the second option, and then rejected. The real Christian gospel tells a story of how the third option miraculously came true, and when I understood this, rather than causing me to reject God it became an anchor to my faith.
1. The God Who Is Only Mercy.
The wish for a God who is only mercy goes hand-and-glove with a culture who hates judgment and who defines tolerance as never saying anyone else is wrong. At first it is logical to long for this (isn't unconditional, all-encompassing mercy a good?) but when you look closer the wish for God to be like this is wishing for God who is terrible and a world that is unlivable. This is to wish that God were not holy, or wish that his holiness did not matter to him so much. But who wants to live in such a world? Aren't we all secretly banking on God's holiness and his justice in the end? That there would be equality in the scales? That all the unpunished evil that has wrought such havoc and suffering throughout history did not go unseen by Heaven? That there is someone who has the power and goodness to make it all right again? Who also saw all the unpraised and unthanked goodness that has gone on in the world and will not forget it? Of course we are. If you have a God who is only mercy then there is an infinitely elastic line between right and wrong. God saves, but he does it by a shrug - by sweeping it under the rug of his mercy, which is there for the taking. It would go against his very nature to condemn evil in any real way that would amount to more than just shaking his finger at it. Who wants to live in this world?
2. The God Who Is Only Justice
So if we do not see (and should not wish for) a God who is only mercy, then does Christianity present a God who is only just? No. You can have a relationship with the Christian God, and you could not with a God who is only just. Why? If that were true of God then you would only be left with a judge. If he is an omniscient one, then he would know all the ways you have fallen short, even more than you know. If he is an infinite one, then even the smallest cruelty you commit against your fellow man is an infinite rebellion. Our sin would fit his magnitude, not ours. And if he is a just one then we would receive from him only punishment, for that is justice. Our sin does not seem to us to be such a terrible thing to merit such a judgment, but that is because we are handicapped by the fall. We are unable to see clearly either the ugliness of our sin or the glory of God's holiness. If we could see our sin as God does, we would see that if God were any kind of holy at all he would have to be infinitely removed from that kind of darkness. But infinitely distant from a God who is only justice is not where the Christian gospel leaves us.
3. The Something Unexpected
Either of the first two options leads to God denying part of who he is, but this is not how any true mercy or justice is achieved. God is one. He cannot deny himself or any part of himself. If there is to be mercy or justice at all it must be in both his holiness and his love being upheld simultaneously, and that is exactly what the gospel says took place on the cross. As C. S. Lewis said, "On the Cross justice and mercy kiss". God himself, in Jesus, pays the penalty his justice requires, which his creations earned for themselves but could not pay for themselves. Now his love is lavished on those very creations and his mercy is achieved at the price of his own wounds.
Christianity tells a story that errs neither to the left or to the right. It is neither only justice nor only mercy because it is both. And this makes a world that is worth living in. It is one where there will be judgment for evil, where there is a moral standard higher than ourselves and all will bow before a holy God. Then when that moment comes the hammer of judgment does not fall because God, in love, took the hammer's blows on himself. This makes Christians both uncompromisingly moral and lavishly, radically loving.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Sinclair Ferguson
Sinclair Ferguson's Preaching Christ From the Old Testament. Very worth reading. He looks at where we can see the foreshadowing of Christ in the Old Testament, and the instinct for seeing the promises in the OT of which Christ is the fulfillment.
For a short bio and links to other works, look at Monergism.com
For a short bio and links to other works, look at Monergism.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
