Is It Arrogant to Preach Exclusivism?
Bryan Chapell offers this important and instructive insight into whether it is more arrogant to preach the exlusivity of Christ, or to not preach the exclusivity of Christ. The criteria for whether the real arrogance is in preaching or not preaching, he argues, is whether or not the proclamation is true.
Proclaiming the message of eternal salvation in Christ alone unquestionably evidences undiluted arrogance, gross insensitivity, and religious bigotry—unless the message is true. Then, proclamation of the only true hope is the most important and loving message that a person can communicate, and failure to do so evidences incomparable callousness, gross negligence, and religious selfishness. The determination of whether evangelical preachers who proclaim salvation through Christ alone are guilty of religious bigotry or are admirable for religious altruism hinges entirely on the question of the truth of their message. That question Jesus answers with clarity: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The apostles faithfully maintain this message: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
May God give us preachers grace to humbly continue in the pattern that has been set for us.
------
What’s Important to Canadians?
A recent Angus Reid study has revealed some interesting (even if not surprising) things about what Canadians value. Here are a few highlights.
96 per cent of respondents say having enough free time to do what they want is very important or moderately important to them. Achieving career success (89%), volunteering (74%) and having children (72%) are also high on the scale of accomplishments.
Following their religious beliefs (46%), being wealthy (53%) and tying the knot (55%) are not valued as highly by Canadians across the nation.
More men (58%) than women (53%) view marriage as an important part of life.
What to make of this? There are lots of things that could be said, but I'll leave it at this for now: There is a profound irony here.
The trendy emergent crowd says that evangelicals are out of touch, fighting yesterday's battles about things like marriage, feminism, and other family issues. Yet, these seem to be the very areas where our culture needs to be challenged and corrected.
The ironic twist is completed when we notice that most of the excitement in the emerging crowd is directed to issues like social justice (with a high emphasis on volunteering), not being a religious zealot, and fighting against the drive to be rich. Yet, none of these seem to be out of line with what secular people in Canada already think.
While the conservative evangelicals are accused of being out of touch, the hip emerging crowd preaches what the culture wants to hear--and what they already believe. Why would we expect anything else?
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.
How to React to the Fall of Rome – Part 2
In the previous post we saw that the ancient church's view of a historical phenomenon (namely, the Roman Empire) shifted dramatically within the space of a few generations, on account of their particular experiences with that empire.
I would suggest that we have seen something somewhat similar take place over the past few generations up until our day--though not with an empire, per se.
I think it is particularly interesting to see how many Christians lament over the end of modernism the way Jerome mourned the fall of Rome. So many of us weep over modernism as if it was a Christian creation, designed for the spread of the gospel--God's chosen means for reaching the world.
In reality, there is little that is further from the truth. In and of itself modernism was never a friend to the gospel. Secular modernist philosophers and scientists have always used modernism as a means of attacking and discrediting the claims of the Christian faith.
For all the ways that modernism has provided a platform for displaying the truthfulness of Christianity (text criticism, archaeological studies of ancient cities, much of creation science, etc.), it was never a 'Christian' view.
The trustworthiness of Christianity in a modern mindset boils down to little more than making a 'case for Christ' logically. The trouble is that Christianity, by its very nature, will not fit in these categories.
All that we are as Christians is based on the claim that Jesus Christ was entirely God and entirely man, lived a perfect life fulfilling God's law, suffered and died to take on the curse of the law for us who receive his righteousness, and that God really did physically and literally raise him from the dead.
But here's the deal: I can't prove that to you in a scientific way. I can point to evidences, but that's all. There is something necessarily personal and experiential (existential?) about the Christian faith. What we believe is not relativism, because our believing does not determine whether something is true or false, but our faith is what saves us.
In other words, it's something personal, internal, 'unprovable' that makes all the difference in the world. That's what our religion is based on. This is the kind of thing that modernists can't grasp. They want something to touch, to examine, to test, to prove.
So what then? Do we rejoice over the fall of Rome? Do we rush off to align ourselves with the newest invaders who have come to expose Rome's weaknesses? Do we embrace all that is postmodernism with open arms?
I suggest that we do what Augustine did. We use this opportunity to look around and evaluate from the perspective of eternity. What about modernism was evil and passing? What was good? What reflected God? How was modernism used for the spread of the kingdom?
And then, we ought to begin asking some careful questions about the 'empire' that is coming upon us. How can we use its strengths and its weaknesses to further the cause of the kingdom? How does postmodernism provide ways for the gospel to go forth that modernism never would?
In the end we must remember that neither modernism nor postmodernism is 'God's perspective.' These philosophical mindsets are of man, and they will pass. We need to examine the world around us closely so that we can see how to better hope in, trust in, and point to the world that is to come.
How to React to the Fall of Rome – Part 1
Looking over my notes today from my early church history course, I noticed something interesting. It's nothing new or profound, but it caught my attention anyway. The church's response to the fall of Rome was weird, in many ways.
I think it's necessary to lay some background before we move on.
From the founding of Christianity (Pentecost somewhere around 33AD) to 64AD the Christian church enjoyed religious protection, since it was seen by Rome as a Jewish sect. When Rome burnt in 64AD, however, Nero needed someone to blame and so he blamed the Christians.
Nero's actions set the precedent for persecution of Christians that would last the next few hundred years. Rome was ruled by pagans who hated Christians. From the heart of Rome all the way up to places like Gaul (southern France) Christians were persecuted.
It is important to note that throughout this time period, Christians saw the hand of Satan at work in the Roman Empire, as both he and they sought to destroy Christ's church.
Skipping ahead a few centuries, we find that in 312AD a Roman Emperor (Constantine) becomes a Christian. This is part of a monumental shift for the way Christianity and Rome came to relate. Though (contrary to popular belief) Constantine did not legislate Christianity, he did legally protect Christians from persecution.
As Christianity gained favour with the upper segments of society (it's popular to like what the emperor likes), Rome grew in favour with the Christians as well.
Within a few generations, it seems, Christians had forgotten that Rome had for so long killed and persecuted their forefathers in the faith. Now Rome was a friend to them, and they could see it as nothing else.
This is seen nowhere more clearly than in Jerome's reaction to the fall of Rome. In his writings, he laments the fall of the Roman empire, citing Scriptures originally speaking of Jerusalem, and now using them in reference to Rome! Christians like him wept and lamented that this 'Christian' empire could fall.
This is a far cry from the view of Christians who had lived only a few generations before him, who saw Satan at work through the Roman empire.
How could this shift have happened?
It happened because Christians like Jerome were so consumed with what they could see in their own time, that they lost sight of what the scriptures truly do say about kingdoms, empires, and earthly regimes.
Just as a side note, in closing, it must be noted that my personal hero, Augustine, did not fall prey to such a short view. In response to Jerome, Augustine would write letters to him, admonishing him to look past Rome to the City that will never fall. Likewise, against the pagans who said that the fall of Rome meant the fall (and failure!) of Christianity, Augustine wrote the City of God which functions as a theodicy and an apologetic to the philosophers of his day.
What does all this have to do with us and how we view history today, as it unfolds? That's for another post.
On the ‘Inadequacy’ of Language
I've often come across (and myself even flirted with) several forms of the notion that language is entirely 'inadequate' to describe God. In fact, I still in many ways find this to be true. No language can exhaustively declare the reality, the beauty, the holiness of our Triune God.
What is unfortunate, however, is how often people in our day will take their queues from neo-orthodoxy and give up on propositional language at all to describe God. God becomes one meant to be experienced rather than spoken of.
I have found some observations from Vern S. Poythress on this topic to be quite helpful, so I thought I'd post them for your pondreing as well.
On what basis are we to make judgments about adequacy and inadequacy ... ? What could we mean by saying that human language is inadequate to talk about God ... ? In what way is it "inadequate"? And what do we expect talk about God ... to be like? Our expectations and definitions of "adequacy" ... are themselves shot through with values, with preferences, desires, standards, and perhaps disappointments at goals that we set but are not reached. Where do these values come from? If God is Lord, we ought to conform our values to his standards. Hence there is something intrinsically rebellious about negatively evaluating biblical language [for its adequacy as "God talk"].[1]
He continues, pointing out the self-defeating nature of these notions of the uselessness of language to speak of God:
How does the objector obtain the necessary knowledge about God, truth, and cultures in order to make a judgment about the adequacy of language for expressing theology and truth, and for achieving cross-cultural communications? How does he do this when he himself is largely limited by the capabilities of his own language and culture?[2]
You are my God, my Life, my Holy Delight, but is this enough to say of you? Can any man say enough when he speaks of you? Yet woe betide those who are silent about you!
I may never be able to describe God completely, but may that never stop me from spending every last breath he gives me declaring his goodness and his glory!
[1] Vern S. Poythress, “Adequacy of Language and Accomodation,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 353.
[2] Ibid., 354.
The Word of God
Subscribe
Click the logo for posts by e-mail
Recent Comments
- Bersiya on On the ‘Inadequacy’ of Language
- Julian on My Little Monsters
- Don on My Little Monsters
- Celebrating beauty - Words of Eternal Life on The Beauty of My Wife
- Luciana Hamilton on Why Do You Hide Yourself, God?
Blogroll
- Darryl Dash
- Ian Hugh Clary
- Jake Rivers
- Louis Tullo
- Nick Mitchell
- Paul McDonald
- Paul W. Martin
- Tim Challies
- Trevor Peck
Other Useful Stuff
Pages
Our Church
Sermons from Our Church
- God, His World, His People (Part 2)
- God, His World, His People (Part 1)
- The Foundations of Understanding
- Praying to the Triune God
- The Battle for Humility