I've been thinking alot lately about the idea of guidance. I'm sure most of you have yourself said or at least encountered someone who's said something to the effect of "I really feel like God's telling me to do _______" (e.g. share my faith with my friend, move to China, drop out of college, etc.). The question that most people inevitably grapple with in this is, "how do you know that's God telling you?" Stated other ways it sounds like: "how can I know what God's will is in this situation?" or "how can I hear God's voice?" or "how can I be sensitive to the Spirit's leading?" You may have even received such teaching from Christians you respect: "you need to be seeking God's will in everything you do," "you need to be listening for God's voice," "you need to be sensitive to the Spirit's leading," "have you really asked God if He wants you doing this?" In my experience, most Christians are simply confused about this whole process. I'm one of them. However, I feel like lately the Lord is growing me in understanding in this area.
Questions like these become relevant any time we are faced with a decision that the Bible hasn't clearly spoken one way or the other on. In some ways, this includes every situation we encounter in our actual lives. This is simply called application: taking God's general will as revealed in the Bible and applying it to our specific situations. For instance, should I steal my favorite candy bar from the store or not? Well, if we consider the Bible in its narrowest sense, it hasn't directly addressed that question. There's no passage on Mike Anderson in a convenience store with a candy bar. However, the Bible has spoken generally about theft, and in fact prohibited it. But for me to apply that to my life, I use wisdom, i.e. a rational thought process. It goes something like this: "To steal or not to steal the candy bar? The Bible prohibits stealing, to steal the candy bar from the store would be stealing, therefore I will not steal the candy bar." Often times in an obvious case such as this the thought process I've just described goes on subconsciously, but it happens nonetheless.
Now can you imagine me asking someone for counsel on my decision (whether to steal the candy bar) and them saying "well you should pray and ask the Lord if He wants you to steal the candy bar, and then wait to see what He says," or "follow how you feel His spirit leading"? Absolutely not. Such counsel would be superfluous at best and misleading at worst (e.g. if I really want to steal and still feel like stealing after praying, now I feel like that's justified because it's "how the Spirit is leading." I can almost hear the Christian rationalization now: "I just felt the Lord telling me He wanted me to really live out of my freedom in Christ"). Now I assume everyone agrees with my line of reasoning so far, however it seems to me when we get to more complicated issues we jettison such reasoning. The counsel we've just shot down in the case of stealing suddenly seems to be garden variety when it comes to issues like where one should live or who one should marry. Why is that the case? We'll look into it in part 2...
Monday, November 22, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
More on Politics According to the Bible
Well, Brett convinced me to get another entry up here by requesting it on my facebook wall. As it turns out I've been thinking/talking more about Grudem's book Politics According to the Bible since my last post. Alot of this got worked out on a comment thread over at TGC reviews, but I'll repost my thoughts here in a more formulated, drawn out manner (sounds exciting, right?).
As I said before, in general I've really enjoyed the book. It's contained great biblical insight and the chapters on specific issues have been very helpful introductions to the issues facing our nation today from a Christian perspective. That said, he didn't answer my questions (the nerve!). On the one hand, who am I to think Wayne Grudem should set aside time to answer my questions? For alot of people, the book will probably do a fine job of presenting a Biblical view of government. Insofar as that's true, I applaud the book and I can't say I'm mad at him or something because he didn't answer my questions. Nonetheless, in my mind these questions are substantive and worthy of attention:
1. Where is the NT imperative for Christians to change government? I talked about this alot in my earlier post on Politics, so I won't rehash it all here. In his book Grudem gives 2 NT narrative examples of Christian engagement in politics that I found to be exegetically weak. In fact, NT imperative with respect to politics seems to be entirely about Christians submitting to government, not trying to change it.
2. In Grudem's criticism of the "do evangelism, not politics" view in chapter 1, he accuses them of having too narrow an understanding of "the gospel" (p. 45-47). Basically he says the gospel doesn't just apply to individual salvation, but also includes a transformation of society (his words). The "what is the gospel?" conversation is a hot one these days (I'm thinking of Carson's essay in For the Fame of God's Name and Greg Gilbert's What is the Gospel?) but it seems to me at least (for what that's worth) that the growing evangelical consensus is that the gospel broadly conceived (as sometimes it is in scripture) includes a cosmic redemption, not just the redemption of individual lives. I completely agree with that, but it doesn't answer the question of what role we play in that redemption. Why is it that because the good news includes a cosmic redemption (i.e. transformation of society) that the acitivity of people in this age is the means through which that redemption happens? I think many Christians would agree that the good news includes a cosmic redemption, but would still see a progressive decline in this age until Jesus returns and establishes the transformed society unilateraly (for a brief statement of this view see this blog post, especially point #9). I'm not saying that's necessarily right, but is it not worthy of at least some response from Grudem (I mean come on, Mark Dever's no fool)?
3. As I think about this point more that I made over at the TGC comment thread, it makes sense to me that if the church's role is to preach the Word, and God's Word contains His moral will for governments, and we are all involved in government in the U.S., then pastors should teach us how to submit to God's moral will as we all participate in the political process. So I wouldn't state my objection as strongly as I originally did. I do wish he'd be more clear in the book as to what things apply to the U.S. and what things apply to government as a whole. It seems like in the first 4 chapters of his book his goal is to discuss God's will for all governments, not just the U.S. government, yet some of it only makes sense to me if we're all part of the government. If it's God's will for all Christians to be involved in changing government, not just those in a democracy, then we'd expect to find that somewhere in scripture (see question #1 above).
4. His main passages in support of alot of his view of government are Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:14-15, which both describe government as punishing evil and rewarding good. But those passages seem to do just that, describe. They simply say "this is how it is; submit." They don't say "this is how it should be, and if it's not you better try to change it." Grudem takes these descriptive passages to be God's moral will for all governments, and then concludes that we should be actively making sure that governments conform to that. Maybe that's the case, but he doesn't actually argue that it is. He appears to take it for granted.
5. If the role of government is to punish evil and reward good (as he says it is), then why shouldn't governments punish idolatry? Isn't that evil? Or are we now appealing to some other standard (natural law?) than the Bible for our definition of good and evil? Grudem seems to be against that approach throughout the book since he consistently appeals to the Bible on moral issues. So if the Bible is our standard for good and evil, and the Bible says idolatry is evil, why shouldn't governments punish idolatry? I know he doesn't think they should (he says he's not a theonomist, and he argues for a distinction between church and state due to Jesus' "render unto ceasar" sentiment). But I fail to see how his position doesn't logically lead to government punishing idolatry, which is equivalent to "government compelling religion," one of his wrong views of chapter 1! Grudem again doesn't even address this question.
As I said before, I don't think Wayne Grudem should in any way feel like he needs to answer my questions. However, at least questions 1, 2, and 5 are questions anyone who's thought about the 2 kingdoms/Kuyperian debate wonders. For Grudem not even to address them in his 4 chapters that are supposed to set forth God's will for government is a major oversight in my mind.
Well, it's been fun posting again. I hope to follow up this post with some of the positives I've taken from Grudem and the resulting thinking/dialogue on Christians and politics. I highly recommend reading his book, especially the first four chapters. I'd definitely say anyone reading Trueman's new book or the Gerson/Wehner book needs to read Grudem's first 4 chapters since what I'm hearing about those book is that they don't give any detailed theological description of God's will for government. And come on, if you're reading this and thinking about politics as a Christian, drop me a comment!
As I said before, in general I've really enjoyed the book. It's contained great biblical insight and the chapters on specific issues have been very helpful introductions to the issues facing our nation today from a Christian perspective. That said, he didn't answer my questions (the nerve!). On the one hand, who am I to think Wayne Grudem should set aside time to answer my questions? For alot of people, the book will probably do a fine job of presenting a Biblical view of government. Insofar as that's true, I applaud the book and I can't say I'm mad at him or something because he didn't answer my questions. Nonetheless, in my mind these questions are substantive and worthy of attention:
1. Where is the NT imperative for Christians to change government? I talked about this alot in my earlier post on Politics, so I won't rehash it all here. In his book Grudem gives 2 NT narrative examples of Christian engagement in politics that I found to be exegetically weak. In fact, NT imperative with respect to politics seems to be entirely about Christians submitting to government, not trying to change it.
2. In Grudem's criticism of the "do evangelism, not politics" view in chapter 1, he accuses them of having too narrow an understanding of "the gospel" (p. 45-47). Basically he says the gospel doesn't just apply to individual salvation, but also includes a transformation of society (his words). The "what is the gospel?" conversation is a hot one these days (I'm thinking of Carson's essay in For the Fame of God's Name and Greg Gilbert's What is the Gospel?) but it seems to me at least (for what that's worth) that the growing evangelical consensus is that the gospel broadly conceived (as sometimes it is in scripture) includes a cosmic redemption, not just the redemption of individual lives. I completely agree with that, but it doesn't answer the question of what role we play in that redemption. Why is it that because the good news includes a cosmic redemption (i.e. transformation of society) that the acitivity of people in this age is the means through which that redemption happens? I think many Christians would agree that the good news includes a cosmic redemption, but would still see a progressive decline in this age until Jesus returns and establishes the transformed society unilateraly (for a brief statement of this view see this blog post, especially point #9). I'm not saying that's necessarily right, but is it not worthy of at least some response from Grudem (I mean come on, Mark Dever's no fool)?
3. As I think about this point more that I made over at the TGC comment thread, it makes sense to me that if the church's role is to preach the Word, and God's Word contains His moral will for governments, and we are all involved in government in the U.S., then pastors should teach us how to submit to God's moral will as we all participate in the political process. So I wouldn't state my objection as strongly as I originally did. I do wish he'd be more clear in the book as to what things apply to the U.S. and what things apply to government as a whole. It seems like in the first 4 chapters of his book his goal is to discuss God's will for all governments, not just the U.S. government, yet some of it only makes sense to me if we're all part of the government. If it's God's will for all Christians to be involved in changing government, not just those in a democracy, then we'd expect to find that somewhere in scripture (see question #1 above).
4. His main passages in support of alot of his view of government are Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:14-15, which both describe government as punishing evil and rewarding good. But those passages seem to do just that, describe. They simply say "this is how it is; submit." They don't say "this is how it should be, and if it's not you better try to change it." Grudem takes these descriptive passages to be God's moral will for all governments, and then concludes that we should be actively making sure that governments conform to that. Maybe that's the case, but he doesn't actually argue that it is. He appears to take it for granted.
5. If the role of government is to punish evil and reward good (as he says it is), then why shouldn't governments punish idolatry? Isn't that evil? Or are we now appealing to some other standard (natural law?) than the Bible for our definition of good and evil? Grudem seems to be against that approach throughout the book since he consistently appeals to the Bible on moral issues. So if the Bible is our standard for good and evil, and the Bible says idolatry is evil, why shouldn't governments punish idolatry? I know he doesn't think they should (he says he's not a theonomist, and he argues for a distinction between church and state due to Jesus' "render unto ceasar" sentiment). But I fail to see how his position doesn't logically lead to government punishing idolatry, which is equivalent to "government compelling religion," one of his wrong views of chapter 1! Grudem again doesn't even address this question.
As I said before, I don't think Wayne Grudem should in any way feel like he needs to answer my questions. However, at least questions 1, 2, and 5 are questions anyone who's thought about the 2 kingdoms/Kuyperian debate wonders. For Grudem not even to address them in his 4 chapters that are supposed to set forth God's will for government is a major oversight in my mind.
Well, it's been fun posting again. I hope to follow up this post with some of the positives I've taken from Grudem and the resulting thinking/dialogue on Christians and politics. I highly recommend reading his book, especially the first four chapters. I'd definitely say anyone reading Trueman's new book or the Gerson/Wehner book needs to read Grudem's first 4 chapters since what I'm hearing about those book is that they don't give any detailed theological description of God's will for government. And come on, if you're reading this and thinking about politics as a Christian, drop me a comment!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
A New Book Recommendation
In this post I want to embark on a first for my blog and for my life: I'm going to recommend a book I've never read. In the mail today I got my copy of For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper. Sam Storms and Justin Taylor edited this collection of essays from renowned scholars and pastors in honor of John Piper. They cite Phillippians 2:29 where Paul commands the Philippians to "honor such men" as Epaphroditus. Basically they're thanking John Piper for his years of service to the body of Christ, but more fundamentally they're praising God for His work through Piper's life and ministry.
When I heard that, I thought to myself "man, I want do to that too!" I benefit from alot of different Bible teachers through their online ministries (thank God for the internet!), but probably none has been so formative in my life and thinking as John Piper. His talk from the 2006 Desiring God Conference changed my view of the Bible and in many ways the direction my life took from that point on. His teaching on the supremacy of God in all things, true joy, and the sovereignty of God opened my eyes to see God as He has really revealed Himself in the Bible. I love God more today and I am happier in Him as a result of this.
If your life has been similarly impacted even in smaller ways by Piper, I'd recommend buying this book as a way of saying "Thanks" to John Piper, but moreso as a celebration of God's ability to use whoever He pleases to spread a passion for His glory.
A few other new/upcoming books I'd buy if wise financial stewardship didn't prevent it:
City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era - Michael Gerson & Peter Wehner
Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative - Carl Trueman
40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law - Tom Schreiner
Generous Justice: How God's Grace Makes us Just - Tim Keller
When I heard that, I thought to myself "man, I want do to that too!" I benefit from alot of different Bible teachers through their online ministries (thank God for the internet!), but probably none has been so formative in my life and thinking as John Piper. His talk from the 2006 Desiring God Conference changed my view of the Bible and in many ways the direction my life took from that point on. His teaching on the supremacy of God in all things, true joy, and the sovereignty of God opened my eyes to see God as He has really revealed Himself in the Bible. I love God more today and I am happier in Him as a result of this.
If your life has been similarly impacted even in smaller ways by Piper, I'd recommend buying this book as a way of saying "Thanks" to John Piper, but moreso as a celebration of God's ability to use whoever He pleases to spread a passion for His glory.
A few other new/upcoming books I'd buy if wise financial stewardship didn't prevent it:
City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era - Michael Gerson & Peter Wehner
Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative - Carl Trueman
40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law - Tom Schreiner
Generous Justice: How God's Grace Makes us Just - Tim Keller
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Shadow of Christ in Braveheart
Ok, I admit that I get a little tired of "Finding God in _____" books. As a sidenote, I recently saw there are two of those books out on The Shack. Seeing as The Shack is supposed to clearly be about God, it's probably a bad sign that you need some other book to help you find Him in it. While all of its supporters were touting The Shack as a modern day pilgrim's progress, can you imagine a book called "Find God in The Pilgrim's Progress"? Of course you can't, because anyone who's read Pilgrim's Progress has no problem seeing God in it on their own (I did search amazon for a book of this sort for Pilgrim's Progress; didn't return any results). Anyway, I digress.
Even though these types of connections can be trite, as I watched braveheart for the 700th time today (rough estimate), I was struck with the many connections between William Wallace and Christ. This is particularly evident to me in the mini-redemption of Robert the Bruce. Robert the Bruce starts out a slave to others, mainly his father. This is in stark contrast to William Wallace, who because of his commitment to a principle (freedom), is a slave to no one.
Ultimately Wallace's commitment to a principle, a principle that also committed him to a people (the Scottish), cost him his life. He never backed down from suffering, but willingly accepted his death on behalf of his cause. Yet in his death he was victorious. I think two things impact Robert the Bruce about the suffering and death of Wallace: 1. That he himself betrayed a great man in Wallace 2. That Wallace loved a principle and a people enough to die for them. Robert the Bruce knew that wasn't him. He realized he was rather a selfish man, only after his own crown. But in Wallace he saw the emptiness of such a hope and was empowered to die to his selfish desires, that he might truly live. His heart was captivated by what Wallace did on behalf of his people, so Robert the Bruce was changed in such a way that he now wanted to live, and possibly die, for freedom. He wanted to be like Wallace.
Now don't get me wrong here, I don't think we get a full blown gospel parallel in Braveheart. Even Chronicles of Narnia couldn't deliver that. But I think there are some definite parallels. To name a few:
Even though these types of connections can be trite, as I watched braveheart for the 700th time today (rough estimate), I was struck with the many connections between William Wallace and Christ. This is particularly evident to me in the mini-redemption of Robert the Bruce. Robert the Bruce starts out a slave to others, mainly his father. This is in stark contrast to William Wallace, who because of his commitment to a principle (freedom), is a slave to no one.
Ultimately Wallace's commitment to a principle, a principle that also committed him to a people (the Scottish), cost him his life. He never backed down from suffering, but willingly accepted his death on behalf of his cause. Yet in his death he was victorious. I think two things impact Robert the Bruce about the suffering and death of Wallace: 1. That he himself betrayed a great man in Wallace 2. That Wallace loved a principle and a people enough to die for them. Robert the Bruce knew that wasn't him. He realized he was rather a selfish man, only after his own crown. But in Wallace he saw the emptiness of such a hope and was empowered to die to his selfish desires, that he might truly live. His heart was captivated by what Wallace did on behalf of his people, so Robert the Bruce was changed in such a way that he now wanted to live, and possibly die, for freedom. He wanted to be like Wallace.
Now don't get me wrong here, I don't think we get a full blown gospel parallel in Braveheart. Even Chronicles of Narnia couldn't deliver that. But I think there are some definite parallels. To name a few:
- Wallace suffered and died for a principle and a people. Jesus suffered and died for God's glory (Jn. 12:27-33, 17:5) and for the redemption of all who would trust Him (Heb. 10:14).
- Wallace suffered and died to set the Scottish free from British oppression. Jesus suffered and died to set us free from our slavery to sin under the law (Gal. 3:10-13, 5:1).
- Robert the Bruce realized he betrayed a great man. The centurion present at Jesus' crucifixion realized that they crucified the Son of God (Mark. 15:39)
- Wallace was victorious in death. Jesus was victorious in death (Col. 2:14-15)
- Robert the Bruce is drawn to Wallace because Wallace was willing to die for his cause and people. Jesus drew people to himself when He was crucified (Jn. 12:32)
- Wallace did not resist his punishment once he was caught. Jesus likewise did not answer back to those who sought to kill Him, but continued entrusting Himself to Him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:23)
- Wallace finally dies on a cross, before which he yells out "FREEDOM!" Jesus also died on a cross, and in a similar fashion yelled a victorious "IT IS FINISHED!" (Jn. 19:30)
- The result of Wallace's death is that Robert the Bruce is now committed to his cause and wants to be like him (freedom). The result of Jesus' death is that His people are now committed to His cause (God's glory) and want to be like Him (Titus 2:14, Phil. 2:12-13, 1 Cor. 10:31).
- In order to follow Wallace, Robert the Bruce had to deny himself (his desire for the crown, glory from men, etc.). Jesus similarly calls us to deny ourselves and follow Him (Luke 9:23)
- The result of Robert the Bruce's change and allegiance to Wallace is his joy (as is so clear in the final scene when he leads the Scots in battle). The result of allegiance to Christ is fullness of joy (Jn. 15:11, 17:13, Ps. 16:11)
Nonethless, the gospel is much better than Braveheart. Wallace himself wasn't perfect (having sex with another man's wife, albeit a poor excuse for a man, is still sinful). Wallace never makes provision for the guilt of his own sin or Robert the Bruce's for that matter. He also dies permanently, so he can't rule anymore. Therefore the freedom he purchases is temporary, and the kingdom he leads is temporary as well. But Christ was sinless (Heb. 4:15), bore the curse our sin incurred (Gal. 3:13), and rose again (1 Cor. 15:3-4). He therefore purchased us eternal freedom (Heb. 4:9-11, Gal. 5:1) in an eternal kingdom (Isa. 9:7, Eph. 2:6, Rev. 21-22) if we place our trust in Him alone. And in Him there is truly fullness of joy.
Friday, September 24, 2010
I Love This Article
Today I was surfing Desiring God looking for a sermon to listen to to do something different in my time with my God. As I was doing it I stumbled across this article. It drove me to tears and confession before God. I want to pass it along to you:
What Is That To You? You Follow Me!
Enjoy!
What Is That To You? You Follow Me!
Enjoy!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Some Initial Reactions to Wayne Grudem's "Politics According to the Bible"
If you catch my sidebar on the books I'm reading you may have noticed that I've recently been going through Wayne Grudem's newest book entitled Politics According to the Bible. I've finished the first 4 chapters. These all fall under the first part of the book, which is entitled "basic principles." This is the part of the book I was most excited to read. I've been frustrated in the past when I hear other Christians debating individual political issues. The reason that can be hard for me is because I find myself unsure of how to even approach politics. How involved should we as Christians be? Should we legislate morality or leave freedom? Should we feed the poor via government or leave that to the people? Should we care for the environment via government sanctions or the will of the people?
Christians fall down on either side of these issues, especially younger Christians who are fed up with the politicizing tendencies of the Christian right. However I think myself and most of my peers also forget the politicizing tendencies of the Christian left (generally seen in the more liberal, mainline churches). The difficulty for me in sorting through these arguments is that I feel I don't know how to even approach them. What constitutes a "correct" view on a given issue? What does God want politics to look like? So, I got Grudem's book and was excited to read it. Here are some initial reactions 4 chapters in:
1. Grudem is an excellent communicator of biblical truth. He writes with such clarity and in general his reasoning flows clearly from the scriptures. He calls error error and truth truth. I really appreciate this about him.
2. In his second chapter Grudem puts forth the idea of "significant Christian influence on government." This is in his view the Biblical position. In support of this he offers a number of OT texts where governments in general, not just Israel, are condemned for their failure to obey God's law in their governance. From this we see God has a moral will for government. He then cites two stories in the NT where Christians confront rulers about their sin. John the Baptist confronts Herod (Matt. 14, Luke 3) and Paul confronts Felix (Acts 24).
The interesting thing to me about these NT texts is the text itself doesn't specify what John the Baptist and Paul confront their counterparts about. It says they call them to repentence, but it doesn't say that has anything to do with their political positions. In fact, in the case of John the Baptist he confronts Herod about his personal sexual immorality. Grudem simply assumes that political advice or calls to repentence in their policies were also there. Thus he finds NT precedent for believers engaging in policy issues. I find this suspect at best. We have no evidence that this is what John the Baptist and Paul were doing, yet these are the only examples Grudem gives of NT people "engaging in politics."
I don't think any evangelical denies that God as a moral will for governments. The question is what we as Christians are to do about it. Should we simply evangelize and disciple everyone, including politicians, such that as they are progressively sanctified by the Spirit they grow in holiness that then overflows to their vocation? Grudem says no, this is not enough. He calls this the wrong view of "do evangelism, not politics." But this seems to be all we know the NT church to be doing. Where is the imperative for the church to be engaged in politics? It seems what we see more of the NT church actually doing and being commanded to do is to submit to the government and to reach the people in it with the gospel, not try to fix the system itself. All he has to counter this are 2 suspect examples.
I'm still not totally convinced one way or the other, but it's the kind of question I wish Grudem had addressed more thoroughly. He speaks of the gospel as God's "good news for all areas of life." I'm fine with that, but it leaves so much unanswered. If the gospel includes the redemption of governments, does that automatically mean it's a redemption we bring about progressively? Is this a post-millenial view where we bring about the millenium by redeeming all areas of life? (But then again Grudem is pre-mil). These theological underpinnings of our view of governments were exactly the thing I was hoping Grudem would have addressed more adequately.
3. This ended up being longer than I thought. More to come.
Christians fall down on either side of these issues, especially younger Christians who are fed up with the politicizing tendencies of the Christian right. However I think myself and most of my peers also forget the politicizing tendencies of the Christian left (generally seen in the more liberal, mainline churches). The difficulty for me in sorting through these arguments is that I feel I don't know how to even approach them. What constitutes a "correct" view on a given issue? What does God want politics to look like? So, I got Grudem's book and was excited to read it. Here are some initial reactions 4 chapters in:
1. Grudem is an excellent communicator of biblical truth. He writes with such clarity and in general his reasoning flows clearly from the scriptures. He calls error error and truth truth. I really appreciate this about him.
2. In his second chapter Grudem puts forth the idea of "significant Christian influence on government." This is in his view the Biblical position. In support of this he offers a number of OT texts where governments in general, not just Israel, are condemned for their failure to obey God's law in their governance. From this we see God has a moral will for government. He then cites two stories in the NT where Christians confront rulers about their sin. John the Baptist confronts Herod (Matt. 14, Luke 3) and Paul confronts Felix (Acts 24).
The interesting thing to me about these NT texts is the text itself doesn't specify what John the Baptist and Paul confront their counterparts about. It says they call them to repentence, but it doesn't say that has anything to do with their political positions. In fact, in the case of John the Baptist he confronts Herod about his personal sexual immorality. Grudem simply assumes that political advice or calls to repentence in their policies were also there. Thus he finds NT precedent for believers engaging in policy issues. I find this suspect at best. We have no evidence that this is what John the Baptist and Paul were doing, yet these are the only examples Grudem gives of NT people "engaging in politics."
I don't think any evangelical denies that God as a moral will for governments. The question is what we as Christians are to do about it. Should we simply evangelize and disciple everyone, including politicians, such that as they are progressively sanctified by the Spirit they grow in holiness that then overflows to their vocation? Grudem says no, this is not enough. He calls this the wrong view of "do evangelism, not politics." But this seems to be all we know the NT church to be doing. Where is the imperative for the church to be engaged in politics? It seems what we see more of the NT church actually doing and being commanded to do is to submit to the government and to reach the people in it with the gospel, not try to fix the system itself. All he has to counter this are 2 suspect examples.
I'm still not totally convinced one way or the other, but it's the kind of question I wish Grudem had addressed more thoroughly. He speaks of the gospel as God's "good news for all areas of life." I'm fine with that, but it leaves so much unanswered. If the gospel includes the redemption of governments, does that automatically mean it's a redemption we bring about progressively? Is this a post-millenial view where we bring about the millenium by redeeming all areas of life? (But then again Grudem is pre-mil). These theological underpinnings of our view of governments were exactly the thing I was hoping Grudem would have addressed more adequately.
3. This ended up being longer than I thought. More to come.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
I'm Still Here
Hey everyone, not much to say in this post, just mostly wanted anyone still reading this blog to know that I am in fact still alive. Haha, I know it's been over a month since my last post and I do want to get back into it. I'm working through alot of good books right now (see right) so hopefully there will be some things the Lord teaches me through them that I could share with you all.
I've started working full-time with The Navigators as a campus missionary at Texas Tech University. The move and getting started have been excited but have also kept me busy, hence my absence from blogging. Keep your eyes peeled though; more to come shortly.
I've started working full-time with The Navigators as a campus missionary at Texas Tech University. The move and getting started have been excited but have also kept me busy, hence my absence from blogging. Keep your eyes peeled though; more to come shortly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
