An excerpt from last year — read the complete column here.

Time for a seasonal issue. Ho, ho, ho! Does the Bible say it’s wrong to have Christmas trees?

Ye have heard that it was said …

It’s wrong to have and decorate a Christmas tree (Jeremiah 10: 1-5).

AKA: Having a Christmas tree could be like having an idol.

What’s the Word?

But who was Jeremiah’s audience? What was their situation and motivation? Are their trees-as-idols really the same as Christmas trees today, and are all Christians who enjoy Christmas trees thus automatically guilty of the same sin? Some solutions …

Apparently another risk for young restless Reformeds: highly inconsistent blogging. (Yes, I’m addressing that. With all of these real-life relationships and community, with family and friends to consider, I just don’t have the zone-out-on-internet time that’s so much more important.)

A recap: I’m Reformed myself, and by that I mean not just books, dry theology and asking John Calvin into my heart¹ but a perspective of trying to see everything in a God-centered way. God is large and in charge, perfectly holy, true and loving (and He defines holiness, truth and love) and His sovereignty is not only over salvation. It’s over everything: heaven, Earth, spiritual things, material things, all “menial” things.

So how come more Reformed folks aren’t thinking this way about our physical eternal destiny?

4. Missing the New Earth and its implications.

Perhaps it’s because we’re all still Reforming. None of us is Reformed, past tense, as if we already came to some zenith of knowledge and applying God’s truth and love. That won’t come until the Resurrection. But even now we do know enough about the coming Resurrection to apply its truths better in our lives — and I see some Reformed folks quite stunted in this area.

Am I all “there” yet myself? Not at all. But perhaps it helped that I didn’t just read Desiring God by John Piper and then immediately go read Jonathan Edwards and R.C. Sproul; my Desiring God reading was alongside my reading of Randy Alcorn’s fantastic book Heaven.

Piper’s book stressed that God exists primarily to exalt Himself, and thus the highest good He can give His people is not faith, not gifts, not even salvation, but all of those things for a greater goal: giving people Himself. Otherwise He would be both mean and an idolater. And Alcorn’s book stressed some very similar themes: for those who love God and are redeemed, their ultimate purpose is not some unearthly spiritoid existence in a “heaven” unlike Earth, but in a revamped and physical New Heavens and New Earth, with Christ reigning personally.

Many YRRs are indeed talking about that. For example, just today Collin Hansen, the very guy who coined the “young restless Reformed” phrase, Tweeted: “There will be no car repair in the new heavens and the new earth.” I think he must be having vehicle trouble.

But in response I asked: “How do you know? Car mechanics could glorify God!” And that is likely unnecessary to nitpick. Other issues, though, seem to be causing Reformed Christians more difficulty, and perhaps it would help if we not only acknowledged the physical nature of the coming New Earth, but considered more actively how that truth affects us now. Examples:

Do we act or speak as if God gives no blessings at all, even before the New Earth, such as rest, fellowship and even Stuff? After Francis Chan quit his California church, sure he was meant to do something even more “radical” than that, YRR-dom has been abuzz. That’s a debate we need to have, and optimally centered on questions like these: does the Bible really call all Christians to be ascetics like Chan implies? Is that kind of lifestyle really more “spiritual”?

Are we sure that in all our “Gospel-centered” emphases that we aren’t defining the Gospel’s effects too narrowly? Some, for example, imply that Christians just need to preach the Gospel, and minimize fields such as politics. Yet the Gospel also includes Scripture passages such as Romans 13, and examples of good and bad rulers in the Old Testament, and other passages that apply to human governments — and rulers will certainly be present in the New Earth. So how should Christians rightfully, honoring Christ, engage in civil government?

Might Christians accidentally get into such a “wartime mindset” (borrowing Piper’s phrase) that we forget God’s peace? Last night I was talking with a friend about this, and I had to high-five him after he said that some YRRs are too enamored with the ideas of suffering and persecution. That’s partly because previous Christians have minimized the fact that God may want us to suffer. But He might also not want that. We’re to have God’s peace either way, my friend said. And that rest that we’ll have is not only in the afterlife — the New Earth — but seeps in advance into this life as well. Let’s make sure we’re not treating the battle as more important than the victory. After all, in New Earth there won’t be any more villains to fight!

Christians who emphasize ministry as teaching, evangelism, church work — are we forgetting how God works in different vocations? More on this in my next column, but in summary, this oversight comes through not as much from pastors or authors saying, “Church work is more spiritual than your work,” but not saying all God-honoring callings are important.

For example, David Platt’s book Radical was all about asking yourself how much Jesus really means to you, and if He means everything, you will want to give everything. Platt, however — likely just because of incidental myopia — only cited examples of how Christians give up their Stuff or secular jobs in order to do more specifically Church-related work. Yet if the New Earth is our future, then we know that Christians there will be doing more than just teaching and discipleship (oh, but imagine how great that will be). And even now, I seem to recall Paul encouraging people to be “radical” in even the not-very-spiritual-sounding ways, such as being a good employee at work (Colossians 3) or loving your wife and family (Ephesians 5).

How we see our lifestyles, our worldview, our battle plans and vocations ought to be more clear when we consider our future physical existence in a physical world. There we’ll have no issues with thinking of spiritual things versus “earthly” things because “now the dwelling of God is with man” (Rev. 21:3). There we’ll not just have bad guys to fight, but God’s perfect peace, at rest and at Home forever. Implications from that truth, not just the truth itself, are things that “young restless Reformeds” ought to consider — and even daydream about! — more often.

Next: Among young-restless-Reformed types, radical church work is in, glorifying-God-just-as-much- in-work-and-motherhood-and-business not so much. Why?

This post should do exactly as it says in the title: no more, no less. Yet I hope it’s also deep.

With my break this week in writing the still-to-complete Top seven risks for young restless Reformeds series¹, I have been busy over at Speculative Faith.

That site, for readers and authors exploring Christian visionary fiction, has been busy this week with several fascinating columns and discussions: God’s possible views on the fantasy genre, how stories’ victories emerge from defeat, preaching the Gospel through fiction out of love for one’s readers, and why Christian fiction authors should also read nonfiction.

My column contribution, as of yesterday, focused on a certain oft-controversial fantasy series, especially given the recent film’s release: How do we love a fiction legalist? — part one.

And that brings me to this column’s title, which believe it or not does relate to Harry Potter.

This is the picture. It came up during a random online image search (one must be very careful with those). Further research didn’t confirm any artist who combined the two elements, but there is a Facebook group oriented around the artwork itself. Most of that group’s participants spend their time mocking creationists — a strangely popular pastime nowadays.

From what I have read, the artist who made this image might have been trying to mock Jesus.

Now, how one reacts to this image may also be the same reaction some Christians have, understandably, to something like the Harry Potter series. Two assumptions may be:

1. Obviously the artist is trying to mock Biblical truth. It could even be dangerous.

   But why should I buy into the artist’s intentions? Does Scripture say his sin is contagious?

2. Such a piece of work seems, maybe not dangerous or sinful, but useless. What’s the point?

   Pardon a moment of potential immaturity, but … it’s Jesus with a dinosaur! Dinosaurs are cool — God created them (Genesis 1, Job 40!). And Jesus is even cooler! So it’s the Creator holding one of His most incredible creations. That’s all I see there. It could even glorify Him.

Sure, whoever put together the photo — or the Harry Potter series — might not have meant to glorify God. Yet can Christians not see whatever truth is reflected in these creations?

Romans 1, describing man’s depravity, nonetheless argues that even a sin-cursed world, which is not God’s ultimate revelation (as His Word is), gives enough evidence of His existence and goodness that men can’t claim they weren’t told about Him.

And Romans 8: 19-22 makes clear: even a corrupt, sinful world reflects a longing for its rebirth:

I see that longing for a better world, to glorify God forever, even in a silly, perhaps-intended-for-mockery Photoshop combination of a Jesus painting and dinosaur picture.

And sometimes I even see it in the Harry Potter series. For more on that, just read here.

Any criticisms, questions, rebuttals, or reactions are most welcome.

On Wednesday I couldn’t figure out, at first, whether to list six or seven risks for “young restless Reformeds.” By that I mean Christians, mostly “young” — below middle age — who have gotten ahold of the teaching that Christ is sovereign in salvation and everything else. Closely connected with this truth¹ is that God uses everything, including sin and our own meaningful choices, as part of His plan, and always to bring Himself glory.

Six risks or seven risks? I had an outline, but I know it doesn’t include all of them. (Some of course will say that Reformed theology is itself the greatest risk — but that’s another column or series.) The reason why I couldn’t decide the number is that there’s so much overlap between several of my suggestions. And number 2, basing most beliefs upon reactions, affects them all.

Regardless, I view the Reformed and Gospel-centered “resurgence” as mostly a good thing, to the extent that Christians who adhere to it are reading Scripture, not just reacting to those who misread Scripture, and trying to apply their higher views of God to their daily decisions.

Yet what other risks might there be to YRRs, or other Christians? Here’s another to consider:

3. Forgetting that in Christ, we’re no longer totally depraved.

I began wondering about this when I saw that it was difficult to compliment some Reformeds.

Maybe it’s me? I don’t know — all I know is, to some who love the doctrines and applications of God’s absolute sovereignty, and their own sinful instincts, it’s very difficult to tell them:

Hey, thanks for your sermon this morning; it really encouraged me.

One person I know would often shuffle awkwardly. He might grin and say, “Well, praise the Lord.” Perhaps I read him wrong, but at that point what I really wanted to do was add, “Yes, thank God that He’s gifted you to glorify Himself through your talents and labors in the Word!” But that might not work and could make someone feel even more awkward.

Might some of this actually be due to “overdosing” on a teaching of total depravity?

Because even C.S. Lewis misunderstood this: “total depravity” does not teach that humans act wicked, all the time, with no inclination toward good or ability to do any good thing. It merely reflects what Scripture teaches: that by nature, no one seeks after God (Romans 3: 9-20), and that Christians “were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked” (Ephesians 2: 1-2). Even the good things we do are from bad motivations — without Christ, that is.²

That’s my whole point: Christians are no longer totally depraved. I love Ephesians 2’s past tense! Christians were dead in their sins, in which we once walked. But we no longer do that!

Now, does that mean we can sit around and be passive? I don’t think that will happen to a true Christian. He will want to war against the pieces of sin left in his body, in the manner Paul describes in Romans 7. He will know that growing in holiness has two sides, perhaps best expressed in Philippians 2: 12-13: “[W]ork out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” And he may even know that this struggle gets just a little easier when he’s not remembering who I am in Christ, as some devotionals and spiritual-warfare manuals encourage, but rather who Christ is in me.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5: 16-17: “Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.”

With these glorious truths in mind, might it make sense, in one sense, not to focus so much on fearing our own pride? This may be my own experience, but I find that it’s easier to forget self-focus, not when I’m giving into it or trying to fight hard against it, but when I’m forgetting myself altogether and focusing on Christ. The New Testament would seem to back this up: so much of the Gospels are about what Christ has done, followed by vital afterthoughts starting with “therefore”s: therefore, knowing this Gospel, here’s how you behave in everyday life.

Humility is like breathing: it’s vital to life, yet strangely much easier to do when you’re focused on greater things. But just try to think, Breathe in! Breathe out!, and you’ll get exhausted.

With that in mind, I think Reformed Christians could stand to learn how to accept a compliment. “Praise the Lord” seems wholly appropriate, for sure, but why cringe, as if you really don’t want the praise? Of course you do; most people do, and it would be more humble to admit that you need other people’s affirmations. A worse pride, as Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, would be to pretend you’re above needing affirmation. It’s also far too easy to grow proud of “humility.”

So how about this: I say, Thanks for what you did; it really encouraged me today.

And you say, That’s great to hear. I love knowing God is using His gifts to me to bless you.

I want to encourage my Reformed friends! God has used so many of your talents and spiritual gifts to glorify Himself to me. But using too much “total depravity,” just because some people don’t know it enough (see risk no. 2!), doesn’t help, and could even denigrate Christ’s grace.

Next week: Reformed Christians, trying to regain “the Gospel,” may overcorrect for past wrongs (again, see risk number 1) and define it too narrowly. Thus they may miss how the Gospel affects our views of the afterlife, and our callings today.

First, an admission: I probably qualify as a young Reformed, or as author Collin Hansen puts it, “young, restless and reformed.” And yet I’m slowly also becoming one of those pundits who wonder what, in all this wondrous excitement over God’s sovereignty, YRRers might be missing.

For weeks I’ve considered assembling a quick-hits, basic list of suggested problem areas. Now, just today, Justin Taylor linking to a 2008 John Piper video brought this to mind.

Piper’s emphasis: what could cause the young-adult Christian resurgence to break open and “dribble away into nothingness” is a failure to connect God’s majesty to everyday choices. “The disconnect between the majesty of God and the movies you watch, just to choose an example. … Between the majesty of Christ and the carelessly attended, default weekend movie — no questions asked, it’s just the thing to do.” ¹

Taylor prefaces the video:

As you watch it, I’d encourage you to avoid judgmentalism (if the things he mentions don’t apply to you) or defensiveness (if the particular examples are something you seek to do in moderation and any critique feels like fundamentalism). Rather, I’d encourage humble self-examination, and to see if the Lord might be using this older, wise, father-brother in the faith to exhort us and encourage us in a new direction.

Separated from the context of Piper’s ministry, and moreover Scripture itself, any critique of immodest dress, going to bad movies or drinking too much beer will sound “fundamentalist.” And indeed, I think that is included in one of the top risks to “young, restless and Reformed”: basing what we believe on being anti-this or that, rather than being pro-God and His truth.

But Piper hits on a specific risk I hadn’t thought of — though it’s not the worst I worry about:

1. Not connecting God’s sovereignty to everyday discernment.

Another admission: it’s easy for me to feel self-righteous when Piper references “the carelessly attended, default weekend movie.” So far, no movie I’ve attended is from carelessness. But I have a reason: I’m a story nerd. Almost any film I have seen (and now, my wife and I have seen) in theaters has been after anything but careless planning. Inception: anticipated for weeks in advance. Toy Story 3: anticipated for months. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1: anticipated for years. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: anticipated for decades.

It’s rare that we just show up at a theater, pick a movie from the marquee, and go inside and get surprised. To this day people who say “we went to the movies” cause me no little amount of irritation. That’s like saying “we went to the foods”! Why would you do that? No, you choose your foods, taking care not to eat junk that could be poison or that at least you don’t even like!

We went to The Movie — that is, the anticipated-in-advance blockbuster can’t-miss-it incredible story spectacle of the year, that we have researched to make sure there’s no crap, or at least to know which parts to avoid — now that is much better to say. And that’s what I do. Ha, safe!

Or not. Because, you see, my home-viewing preferences just rose up and called me a hypocrite.

Did I really need to see Prince of Persia while eating lunch from McDonald’s that Wednesday afternoon? Not really. It may not be a sin, but did that waste of time honor God in my life?

What about my viewing the entire Avatar: The Last Airbender series over the past few months? Oddly enough, that’s a little different. While the cartoons’ mystical elements don’t mesh with Biblical truth, a surprisingly powerful and emotional theme of sin, repentance and forgiveness quickly emerged and, to me, not only honored God the ultimate Reconciler, but makes me tear up even now to imagine the depth of sin for which He forgave me — and similar forgiveness I should give others. Also the writers’ storytelling genius has helped in my own writing.²

One can’t connect God’s sovereignty to everyday discernment by simply trying to avoid the Bad Stuff. Instead a Christian’s basis is mostly proactive. Yes, it’s good to ask whether God would be displeased by a particular movie, TV show, story or song. But isn’t it better to ask whether God would be pleased? Paul didn’t encourage us to avoid the bad stuff nearly as much as he said Christians should focus on the Gospel, and with that in mind, focus on truth and beauty.

Yet frequent opposing notions of discernment, in theology or anything else, lead to risk no. 2:

2. Basing most beliefs upon reactions.

A common theme at YeHaveHeard and my personal rhetoric has been this: Christians should not base what they believe about God on what the Bad Guys have done. That could devalue God into merely the positive alternative to Bad Stuff, or just as a means to beat the Bad Stuff.

Rather, our emphasis should be on loving and seeking God for His own sake. Getting rid of the bad stuff — our own evil hearts before we’re saved, and our sin-shrapnel after — is vital, but ultimately tangential. After all, we’ll spend less than 120 years doing that. For eternity we’ll only have God Himself and His new created-world. No sin to fight. No Bad Guys to debate against.

No matter what one’s theological persuasion, “Calvinist,” “Arminian,” or whatever, the constant temptation is there to reduce truths about God, or even zeal and love for Him, into a means for other ends: beating the bad guys.

I see this a lot among theological liberals, or “emergents.” Many of them seem to have gone back over their more-orthodox Christian backgrounds, found the legalism (real or perceived) and then based what they believe now on a reaction against that. Now their mode of existence is fighting against Injustice (again, real or perceived) and telling other Christians how they’ve got it wrong in the past. I want to ask them: what would you do if Christ returned tomorrow, eliminated all injustice, and ushered in the New Earth? Are you sure you wouldn’t be bored?

But many “new Calvinists” share similar attitudes. Struck anew with Biblical evidence for God’s sovereignty in salvation, they see the difference between this and others’ previous failures. Some obviously overshoot, calling for the abolishment of altar calls, Billy Graham movies and the Left Behind series. Others are more subtle and don’t realize it. They might be angry against the Church for its (real or perceived) failures, and miss what previous Christians did get right.

That same question applies to us all, especially those who — like myself, I hope! — love deep doctrines, correcting errors and helping others: What would I do if Christ returned tomorrow, eliminated all wrong beliefs, and ushered in the New Earth? Am I sure I wouldn’t be bored?

If my answer is that such an existence sounds boring — “Ugh, no one to fight” — then my priorities are definitely out of order. I’ve confused the means for the end, and it’s time to realign. Yes, we destroy arguments that raise themselves up against God’s truth (2 Cor. 10:5), and preach the Gospel despite false beliefs (2 Tim. 4: 1-5), whether from secularists or wishy-washy Christians. But the conflict isn’t the end of the story. Christ Himself is that end.

Friday: Young-restless-Reformeds may forget that in Christ they are no longer totally depraved — thus guilt should lead first to gratitude in Christ, not just desires to do better. Also, might some young Reformed Christians forget the coming New Earth, which will transform more than just human souls?

(Continued from part 1.)

Theologian Wayne Grudem, author of Systematic Theology and two condensed versions, and most recently Politics According to the Bible, debunks in the latter’s chapter 1 this belief:

Why should Christians do politics? What we really need is persecution.

Or: Christians’ only calling is to preach the Gospel and prepare for persecution.

Or perhaps: If we get too much into politics, we’ll inevitably neglect the Gospel.

In reply to that last, I must say that I’ve come to see how even Reformed Christians, who have an amazing heritage of figuring out where sin comes from (the human heart) sometimes show a strange propensity toward shifting evil’s causes toward a Thing, such as politics. And reacting against that, they may (this doesn’t apply to everyone) subtly begin to think that getting rid of the Thing, such as downplaying or ignoring certain vocations, is the way to fix our problem.

Scripture would seem to disagree strongly. Government is God’s servant (Romans 13) and Christians have many different gifts and callings, all driven by the Gospel, that help build the Church (1 Corinthians 8). If Christians in the past have opted to idolize a calling, such as politics or social work, instead of the Gospel, is that the Thing’s fault? No! It’s the Christian’s fault.

Preach the Gospel, not as a replacement for good Things, but as the way to transform them.

That was the warm-up act (and I’ll likely have more thoughts on this soon). Now for Grudem.

7. Doesn’t the Bible say that persecution is coming?

Sometimes people ask me, “Why should we try to improve governments when the Bible tells us that persecution is coming in the end times before Christ returns? Doesn’t that mean that we should expect governments to become more and more anti-Christian?” (They have in mind passages like Matt. 24:9–12, 21–22; 2 Tim. 3:1–5.)

The answer is that we cannot know when Christ will return or when the events preceding his coming will occur (see Matt. 24:36; 25:13). What we do know is that while we have opportunity, God tells us not to give up but to go on preaching “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and doing “good works” (Eph. 2:10) and loving our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39). That means we should go on trying to influence governments for good as long as we are able to do so.

If all the Christians who influenced governments for good in previous centuries had just given up and said, “Persecution is coming and governments will become more evil, so there is nothing we can do,” then none of those good changes in laws would have come about. There would still be human sacrifice and burning of widows alive and slavery and racial discrimination protected by law. That mentality would have been a defeatist, fatalistic attitude, and it would have led Christians to disobey many of God’s commands for how we are to live our lives during this present age. Instead of giving in to such a hopeless attitude, courageous Christians in previous generations sought to do good for others and for governments, and God often blessed their efforts.

8. But won’t political involvement distract us from the main task of preaching the Gospel?

At this point someone may object that while political involvement may have some benefits and may do some good, it can so easily distract us, turn unbelievers away from the church, and cause us to neglect the main task of pointing people toward personal trust in Christ. John MacArthur writes, “When the church takes a stance that emphasizes political activism and social moralizing, it always diverts energy and resources away from evangelization.” [MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You, 14.]

Yet the proper question is not, “Does political influence take resources away from evangelism?” but, “Is political influence something God has called us to do?” If God has called some of us to some political influence, then those resources would not be blessed if we diverted them to evangelism—or to the choir, or to teaching Sunday School to children, or to any other use.

In this matter, as in everything else the church does, it would be healthy for Christians to realize that God may call individual Christians to different emphases in their lives. This is because God has placed in the church “varieties of gifts” (1 Cor. 12:4) and the church is an entity that has “many members” but is still “one body” (v. 12).

Therefore God might call someone to devote almost all of his or her time to the choir, someone else to youth work, someone else to evangelism, someone else to preparing refreshments to welcome visitors, and someone else to work with lighting and sound systems. “But if Jim places all his attention on the sound system, won’t that distract the church from the main task of preaching the Gospel?” No, not at all. That is not what God has called Jim to emphasize (though he will certainly share the Gospel with others as he has opportunity). Jim’s exclusive focus on the church’s sound system means he is just being a faithful steward in the responsibility God has given him.

In the same way, I think it is entirely possible that God called Billy Graham to emphasize evangelism and say nothing about politics and also called James Dobson to emphasize a radio ministry to families and to influencing the political world for good. Aren’t there enough Christians in the world for us to focus on more than one task? And does God not call us to thousands of different emphases, all in obedience to him?

But the whole ministry of the church will include both emphases. And the teaching ministry from the pulpit should do nothing less than proclaim “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). It should teach, over the course of time, on all areas of life and all areas of Bible knowledge. That certainly must include, to some extent, what the Bible says about the purposes of civil government and how that teaching should apply to our situations today.

This means that in a healthy church we will find that some people emphasize influencing the government and politics, others emphasize influencing the business world, others emphasize influencing the educational system, others entertainment and the media, others marriage and the family, and so forth. When that happens, it seems to me that we should encourage, not discourage, one another. We should adopt the attitude toward each other that Paul encouraged in the church at Rome:

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. . . . So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother (Rom. 14:10–13).

For several different reasons, then, I think the view that says the church should just “do evangelism, not politics” is incorrect.

Christians who say we should do evangelism, not politics, may miss out on Biblical ways God uses to promote the Gospel and allow His grace to influence our nations, argues Wayne Grudem in Politics According to the Bible.

You can read his whole first chapter here (PDF download), courtesy of Justin Taylor.

First Grudem offers Biblically based and -inferred thoughts on “Five Wrong Views about Christians and Government,” some of which I relisted and quoted here.

Perhaps the fourth view he addresses is more commonly occurring to solid, well-meaning and Gospel-driven Christians, who want to avoid the Church’s un-Biblical overemphasis on politics in the past. As a result, they may ignore what the Bible does say about influencing world leaders for good, and God’s ministry through “secular” governments as Paul reminds us in Romans 13.

In chapter 1, Grudem busts several Christian myths about politics — again, most of them very understandable, especially when compared with opposite excesses — reminding us:

1. [This view has] Too narrow an understanding of “the Gospel” and the kingdom of God.

“The Gospel” in the New Testament is not just “trust Jesus and be forgiven of your sins and grow in holiness and go to heaven” (though that is certainly true, and that is the heart of the Gospel and its foundational message). No, the Gospel is God’s good news about all of life!

2. The “whole Gospel” includes a transformation of society.

Of course we must proclaim forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone. Of course this is the only way that people’s hearts will be truly transformed.

But forgiveness of sins is not the only message of the Gospel. That is because Jesus is looking for transformed lives and through them a transformed world.

3. Which parts of the Bible should the church not preach about?

“What parts of the Bible have you decided not to preach about because you are ‘just going to preach the Gospel’?” Have you decided that you won’t preach on Romans 13:1–7? Or that you won’t preach on 1 Peter 2:13–14? What about Genesis 9:5–6?

4. God leaves Christians here on earth both to do evangelism and to do good for others.

When people trust in Christ as their Savior and have their sins forgiven, why does God not snatch them up to heaven immediately? Why does he leave them here on earth? Is it only so that they would preach the Gospel to others? Well then, what are those people supposed to do after they trust in Christ as Savior? Is their only purpose on earth to preach the Gospel to others, or does Jesus want us to do some other things, such as loving our neighbors as ourselves (see Matt. 22:39)? ¹

5. God established both the church and the government to restrain evil.

I agree that one significant way that God restrains evil in the world is through changing people’s hearts when they trust in Christ as their Savior (see 2 Cor. 5:17). But we should not turn this one way into the only way that God restrains evil in this age. God also uses civil government to restrain evil, and there is much evil that can only be restrained by the power of civil government, for there will always be many who do not trust in Christ as their Savior and many who do not fully obey him.

6. Christians have influenced governments positively throughout history.

I cannot agree with John MacArthur when he says, “God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation and court rulings that advance a scriptural point of view.” [MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You, 130.] When I look over that list of changes in governments and laws that Christians incited, I think God did call the church and thousands of Christians within the church to work to bring about these momentous improvements in human society throughout the world. Or should we say that Christians who brought about these changes were not doing so out of obedience to God? That these changes made no difference to God? This cannot be true.

(Tomorrow: Grudem provides Biblical, provocative responses to objections such as, “What the church really needs is some persecution, and it’s wrong or useless to try to improve our governments and avoid that.”)

Site redesign complete, just in time for YeHaveHeard’s first-year anniversary. Good day for it, I think.

As promised: new graphics, a better sidebar (two, actually), a concordance and enhanced comments (including integration with Facebook). Still coming: guest columnists, advanced search options, and of course more Biblical myth-busting.

On this Reformation Day, I’ve had this quote in virtual storage for a while, considering the best place to use it. Quite provocative:

If you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever say, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you …be satisfied with heaven, if Christ was not there?

— John Piper, from God is the Gospel

Catch up on yesterday’s introduction to an idea that can be easily misunderstood: that “avoid the world,” as true as that is, becomes a half-truth when separated from the whole of Scripture.¹

A certain YouTube video has been making its rounds about my online friends, posted by the Wretched TV program and host Todd Friel. This organization is one of the best when it comes to Biblically based discernment, and that remains mostly true in this video.

However, view this video yourself and consider: is this letter writer perhaps accepting the error of asking only, “WWTWD?TDTO — what would The World do? then do the opposite”?

A flawed foundation

What does our culture celebrate on October 31st?

Is that where Christians should begin to build their cases? I contend that will lead to more wrong thinking than right thinking that keeps the Gospel in the center, along with the fact that Christians are, like it or not, still in this world and must sometimes deal personally with sinful people (1 Corinthians 5). The apostles did not give cautions about worldliness by encouraging Christians to be contrarian: figuring out what’s popular in the world, then doing the opposite.

Yet many Christians haven’t discerned that this is exactly what they’re doing — nor do they, or can they, do this consistently without giving up all media, technology, working, breathing, etc.

Without knowing this is a potential flawed and imbalanced way of thinking, might we fall into our old instincts — the “default setting” even Christians have of lapsing toward legalism — and neglect to fix our eyes, not first upon the world we should avoid, but first upon Christ?

Shunning made-up sins

The letter-writer, Aric, continues to base his argument mainly on What the World is Doing:

If we look around at the decorations and advertising, then it is clear that death, horror, evil, and occult symbolism is the focus of the holiday. Because the evil celebrated is general, perhaps it doesn’t offend our sense of holiness as much as it should. But what if the holiday celebrated a specific evil?

“I wonder if he’s onto something here,” Friel remarked. “Yeah, it’s kinda — ghosts and goblins, and yeah, we stay away from the dark stuff. But at its core is it possible that it is the very stuff that God says He hates in Deuteronomy 18? He gives a laundry list of sins.”

Yet does that list of sins include even scary creatures such as “ghosts” and “goblins”? None of these exist. Occult practices and “witchcraft,” as in trying to contact spirits, manipulate events or be At One With Nature, do exist, and these are displeasing to God. Yet can anyone prove Biblically that dressing up as a “goblin” (a mythical creature) is also sinful by association? It might be pointless, or the person may have sinful motives. He may be saying that an imaginary bad creature is actually good in its badness — that is a sin. But imagining such a creature is not a sin. Writing stories about goblins is not a sin. Even dressing up as a goblin may not be sin.

An imaginary parallel

The letter-writer next finds more imagination, asking what-if, and positing a nonexistent world:

What if Halloween was a celebration of, oh say, abortion. The country celebrated abortion by dressing up as doctors, nurses and pregnant women. Kids went door to door, knocked and shouted, “Roe v. Wade,” and were given candy. The stores were filled with pro-abortion decorations. Advertising was centered on abortion. If that were the case, would most Christians still have their kids dress up (as alternative characters of course: farmers, princesses, bible [sic] characters, etc.) and go seeking candy just like the rest of society?

Notice I’m not saying imagination is wrong, or that what-if scenarios are always flawed. But they’re tricky to suggest in a debate, if you do not, say, prevent all analogy loopholes or take into account the fact that your made-up parallel does not exist. For the same reason, Star Trek episodes that ask what-if, and then have a story about an actual biologically androgynous alien, fails to give any legitimate challenge to Christian morality about gender roles. If such a scenario occurred in the real world, Christian ethicists would surely struggle. But so far, it is imaginary.

The same is true of National Celebrate Abortion Day. Yes, if such an event actually occurred, Christians would be wise to avoid it entirely. But what if the occasion had actually begun as a celebration of life and health care, and it just so happened that 90 percent of people ran off with perverting it into a celebration of murdering children? If most of The World takes a good Thing, such as a hospital or doctor, and tries to corrupt that into only a representation of evil, should Christians simply go along with them? ²

“We don’t want to make something a sin that is not a sin,” Friel acknowledged, adding that of course Christians are under grace. “But I’m kind of wondering if Aric is maybe, just maybe, onto something, that we have been a little desensitized to evil. … We’ve lost sight that it is a category, if you will, that God absolutely hates.”

That may be true. And I certainly don’t want to contribute to the wrong notions many well-meaning Christians have: that it’s no problem, or even fun, to glory in things like purposeless violence and horror.³ What I’m showing here is the other side. Some Christians have surely become desensitized to evil, but others have become desensitized to the real sources of sin: not Things, especially imaginary Things, but their own sin-shrapnel in their own hearts. And getting that wrong will lead Christians right back to worldliness.

Letting Christ, not the world, lead the way

Moreover, our letter-writer isn’t only suggesting that in this imagined parallel world, Christians simply avoid trick-or-treating on Celebrate Abortion Day. In effect, he’s suggesting that no Christian should even consider Wholesome Alternatives that contradict the world’s celebration of death and violence. Thus, we’d not only focus first on the world, we allow it to set the agenda.

PS: just a parting shot at the “harvest parties” thrown by many churches: is it really an alternative, or just a way for us to tell our kids that participation in Halloween is so important that we should come up with a way to still celebrate something on that specific day rather than actually not participate.

Perhaps Aric has only ever seen megachurches falling all over themselves to be popular, or in their own way to let The World set the agenda to follow. Yet it does not follow that all churches have this motivation, or that Christians who enjoy a “harvest party” ought to feel self-doubt or guilt. To correct obsessive world-gazing with more of the same defeats Christians’ whole point.

Fortunately, rather than pushing this mindset completely, Friel suggested Christians simply wrestle with this issue afresh. That seems good counsel, and I hope I’ve done that here.

Many wise Christian theologians (and Todd) have remarked about the “pendulum swing” many Christians take, going first to one extreme, then overcorrecting for that one, then coming back again in the next generation, and so on. I write not to defend Halloween (which I don’t even particularly care for, any more than yoga-esque stretching!) but to question whether “what would the world do? then do the opposite” is a Biblical concept, and if it makes sense to drag imaginary creatures, such as goblins, and practices, such as flying on brooms, into the debate.

This Halloween, let’s not fix our eyes upon The World and all that professes to be creepy and scary, at which point we try not to look, and avoid it all with legalism or “harvest parties.” Let’s instead fix our eyes on Christ. He doesn’t change us by being the world’s opposite, as if it somehow sets the agenda and leaves Him and us to contradict it, but by being Himself.

Moreover, even a sinful world can reflect some truths, even by contrast. All this “celebration” of death and destruction is often the result of pure evil. But often it is also because people truly fear death — so they laugh at it, trying to shake the thought away with feigned carelessness. Deep inside they may be hurting and genuinely frightened. What a conversation starter! Christ has vanquished all power of death and openly shamed evil spiritual forces (Colossians 2). And continuing to fear darkness, either real or imagined, makes little sense in that glorious light.

Some months ago I — politely, I hope — replied to a Bible study question, not with an answer, but with another question. The question was something like, “How can we avoid the world?” And suddenly I realized something I had not previously considered so directly. ¹

“Could I instead question the question?” I asked. “Does Scripture encourage us to base how we believe, and what we do, on ‘avoid the world’?”

I’ve been hearing this a lot, especially this time of year. The recent resurgence of the Yoga Controversy — thanks to Al Mohler, who added some balance in a more-recent column — has also brought on more responses akin to: Christians should avoid the world.

This is not a myth. But it is a half-truth.

Similarly, these two statements are also not myths:

• You must repent of your sins.
• God’s love is what saves you.

But take either one of those, apart from other truths and the context of Scripture, and try to build beliefs out of it, and you’ll likely end up with a System that may be internally consistent, yet not consistent with all of God’s Word. So it is with “avoid the world” and misreadings of this:

Many Christians say this clearly indicates we must avoid anything “worldly.” Yet they can’t avoid applying this verse selectively. Christians on the internet who say everything about Halloween, including candy and costumes, is “of the world” and thus should be avoided, don’t consider if the same applies to their of-the-world internet use. Few Christians would go to the extremes of groups such as the Amish — yet even the Amish have concluded that practices like wearing clothes, as most of the world does, and farming, also a continually popular occupation in the world, don’t count as being “in the world.”

1 John 2: 15-17 is not talking about avoiding every Thing in the world. Instead John refers to Christians loving worldly things more than they love God. His specific phrases show actual sin: “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions.”

Saying “Christians must avoid the world,” without Biblical balance, ends up ignoring 1) sin’s ultimate origin (Mark 7), and 2) the goodness God has left in the world, such as governments (Romans 13), kind parents (Matthew 7: 9-11) and God’s glory shown in nature, which even in a sin-cursed world reflects His love and creativity (the entire book of Psalms).

But because of sinful hearts, people use and abuse good things in the world for sin: costumes, food, media, travel, family, churches, even Christian doctrine. The sin comes from within. And it continually surprises me that some conservative Christians, often by accident, accept the liberal-theology idea that sin does not come from within, but without, from The Environment.

Moreover, Christians who say only “avoid the world” have a wrong foundation: figure out what’s wrong with the world, then avoid it. This mindset turns our focus off God as our positive, and to “avoid the world” as our negative. That’s a sure way to get both truths wrong.

Grace prevents that. Instead of fixing our eyes upon “the world,” however that is defined, and trying to deduce how we must avoid worldly things, we should fix our eyes on Jesus Himself.

Only then can be discern Biblically what counts as un-Godly worldliness, and avoid it. But our reasons should not be based on reaction, emotions or mere “logical” deductions of what may or may not be sinful, based on possible associations with bad guys or actual bad things. Our reasons should be based on glorifying God, delighting in Him and seeking Biblical balance.

(Tomorrow: why do Christians, in boycotting Halloween, label as “evil” things that don’t exist?)