Over several weeks one could say I’ve been neglecting my “job,” or part of it anyway. But why? No one, to my face anyway, has been chiding me for not writing weekly blogs over the holidays (and longer). I’m not beholden to write YeHaveHeard columns for an outside employer. And I haven’t Gone to Seminary to do this as an official Ministry.

These are all pathetic excuses. And they show how even the man who’s writing a series on Top seven risks for young restless Reformeds can fall into risk no. 5.

5. Neglecting the doctrine of Christian vocation.

Several times this subject has arisen on YeHaveHeard, mostly because I’ve been looking into it myself. Such thoughts do not come naturally, that God is just as glorified by “menial” and even “secular” jobs as He is when we do overt ministries.

But does all — yes, I do believe that should be our standard — young-restless-and-Reformed rhetoric reflect this truth? Are more Gospel-driven folks believing and speaking against the opposite view? I hope that’s not itself just a calling for some Christians, for we’re all meant to preach all of what Christ has commanded (Matt. 28: 18-20). That includes the full counsel of God in the Word. Yet I keep seeing examples of books, sermons, etc., that either assume people already get this, or else say or imply (our of ignorance, I hope?) the exact opposite:

• A Christian pastor and radio program host, in the name of preventing compromise with the truth that Scripture is sufficient, spends half an hour disparaging anyone who would want to allow liturgical dance or other creative expressions of worship in a church service. “If the Bible’s not enough, nothing is enough,” he says, and speaks not all wrongly against those who want to add special effects and other stunts to worship services. (But then, after a comical slip of the tongue, he laughs and says he didn’t mean to say we don’t need Christian radio programs like his. Why the double standard?)
• Radical, a popular book released last year by David Platt, a pastor, rightly challenges many American Christians’ blending of some favorite Christian ideas with “American dream” prosperity-style beliefs. But in proclaiming the Gospel and asking readers to apply it to their lives, Platt was quite selective in his examples: all of them related to Professional Ministry, overt church work. For examples about Christians who stay in their “secular” jobs, he only mentioned the time they might take for mission trips.
• Two Christian parents are adamant that their children must go to Bible college and learn courses specific to some kind of overt Ministry. This is the family’s default direction, it seems, without recognition for the fact that God may have gifted the children as they grow with other ways to serve in His Kingdom: engineering? artistry? full-time stay-at-home-motherhood? political activism? education? music? movie-making?

For myself, I didn’t inherit the impression that some jobs are more spiritual from any Christian teacher. Instead the “meme” is implicit, and left unopposed, in too many Christian books and slogans: If you’re doing any work besides overt Ministry, you may not be in the right place.

Or the quiet thought which surely many of us sometimes have (I’m sure it’s not just me) that says, Someday I want to quit this job and Go Into the Ministry.

Implicit in both of these suspicions: Your job is not as important as the professional Minister’s.

For Christmas my wife bought me Job-Shadowing Daniel, and when I am finished I hope to review this book by former “bi-vocational” minister Larry Peabody. His Biblical basis and experience with both “secular” and church work lends to his excellent overview of vocation truths and the life of Daniel. (See, appropriate “advertising” on this site has advantages!).

Throughout the book Peabody focuses on Daniel’s ascent in King Nebuchadnezzar’s court, every bit a bureaucrat as any legal office intern who outshines his peers — and gives Godward advice and witness at the same time. Peabody shows how Daniel was just as much a minister of God in his calling as any of the more-overtly-spiritual prophets were in theirs. Though others may have had more amazing methods of being called — such as Isaiah and Ezekiel with their visions — Daniel’s call was just as important and the plan of the sovereign God just as active in his life.

At first for me this meant purging the mental shrapnel of this-is-work-and-that-is-Ministry — sorting through and rejecting the wrong beliefs I’d picked up intellectually. Pieces of that false dichotomy are still there, but reading this book has really helped, after I’d listened to a Discover the Word radio series, read God at Work by Gene Veith and even analyzing Radical by David Platt (who gives an I’m-sure-unintentional negative example).

But more recently I believe these truths have begun sinking deeper. For me it’s begun going beyond the more-overt Ministry of showing how regular, even drudging work is part of God’s plan for His people — even in “secular” jobs, even when one isn’t actively sharing the Gospel. Instead I must apply this even more personally. Doing these dishes is glorifying God through work. Trying to get along with your family of origin: also glorifying God through work. Going to this city council meeting, interviewing this person, even covering anti-Gospel rhetoric honestly and with as much objectivity as I can muster — this glorifies God, even apart from witnessing.

One can overdo corrections for this, for sure. Already I’ve seen a few of those examples, such as in another book I’m reading. It overemphasizes “the priesthood of believers” truth almost to the point of disparaging those who are called to be an overseer or a teacher, which is certainly a legitimate and honorable calling for some Christians (example: 1 Timothy 3).

But Reformed folks could stand to start swinging back the other direction on the truth of varying vocations apart from what is popularly construed “full-time ministry.” We’re all part of “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Thus I hope more Gospel-driven types will ensure they’re recognizing the special role of more-overt Biblical ministers of the Gospel, such as pastors and missionaries, but also challenging “lay” ministers to fulfill their unique callings. Yes, all of us are “ministers,” as Peabody points out, and we should even stop using the term as if it denotes our ranking among a lower Christian caste!

• The Christian pastor and radio program host might recognize that his calling is to preach the Gospel directly to his congregation, and combat “compromise” with those truths on his radio program. However, he ought to be more careful about slamming any other methods of ministry as if they’re automatically equivalent with attacks on the Sufficiency of Scripture. If one of his callings is radio, why should another Christian not also worship and share the Gospel through dance or even a “program”? We should have serious conversations about whether these things can glorify God during church services, but let us not assume anything not worthy of overt-ministry service isn’t worthy at all.
• As I’ve said before, I’d love to see extended thoughts to Radical and other books, which champion proving in our lives that we’re really sold out for the Biblical Jesus out of gratitude for His lordship and salvation. My guess is that Platt, quite naturally, could only think of his particular calling while typing anecdotes for his chapters. He and other leaders might not even think of the connotations, or the fact that these reinforce the subtle idea that God is given the most glory through overt missions. Shall we share this with Platt and others, honestly, and even hope for Radical at Work, Radical at Home?
• And for Christian parents: sharing with them books such as Job-Shadowing Daniel, or perhaps a similar work about high-school age Christians trying to find their careers in Christ, may help. Gnostic ideas affect us all. All redeemed parents want to see their children succeed and be kept safe; but they simply may not have considered that the way God kept Daniel in His will was to send him into exile and assign him “pagan” jobs such as learning Babylonian mythology and “magic” (Daniel 1) and carry out often-seemingly useless bureaucratic tasks (Daniel 2, 4-6). Broader beliefs about “separation” from the world come into play here, and some Christians need to have those challenged as well. But all of this, I’m sure, must be done in the contexts of loving relationship.

Next: do YRRs feel guilty if they’re not being persecuted?

(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.”)

(Read Monday’s column Purpose-driven ignorance of sin’s main source?)

One may wish John Piper had said more in response to Rick Warren’s address at the recent Desiring God conference. But in fact Piper did have some reactions, and seemed to question whether Warren’s strong emphasis on “here’s what you do” was necessary.

Yes, I wish he’d said something like: it can be worse than not necessary when you ignore man’s sin nature and assume someone already knows the Gospel.

But thank God Piper did say something.

And conversely, Piper simply acted as though the main issue with Warren’s talk is that listeners should remember different pastors do things differently. I don’t think his comparison of Warren with C.J. Mahaney was very fitting — Mahaney may be more application-heavy than Piper, but each pastor ties his topic back to the Gospel. Warren did not. As noted yesterday, he said many true things, but the whole theme of discernment, as well as many Scripture texts, were taken horribly out of context: the context of the verses’ full meanings, and the context of the Gospel.

Here’s my partial transcription of the Oct. 1 panel discussion audio/video (both available here).

Moderator David Mathis: So guys, let me dive in right away with the message that we just saw.

(Very noticeable audience laughter, joined by chuckles onstage. A few onstage look to Piper, who simply smiles and nods.)

Mathis: (Pauses for more laughter, then asks John Piper and Buck Parsons for reactions.

Buck Parsons: Well, David, um — I’m almost afraid to say what I think I should say, because I’m afraid of, uh, what people I love will think highly of me when I say that I was actually just amazed by how much, you know, Biblical content, and just helpful, simple straightforward, um, admonition and challenge we received from Rick this evening. I’d never heard Rick preach before. I don’t know if I’d ever heard him speak.

[…] I was blown away by a man and just on his simple, childlike faith and dependence on Christ. It was beautiful to see. […] That meant a lot to me as a young pastor.

(He describes more positive reactions, before the mic is handed to John Piper.)

John Piper: Oh my, um. It was a remarkable message in many ways. But I think the one thing I’ll say is how intimidating this must feel, to all of us. The guy is unbelievable communicator. Right? What he means by application is something he does like nobody else. He’s got everything broken down — just five steps here, and three steps here, and five steps here, and they’re all insightful, and rooted in the Bible. And they make me feel utterly unable to do it.

So I think that what I should say to — he thought you were all pastors, you could tell he was talking that way. But a lot of you are. But what I want to say is: nobody believes that you should be you more than Rick Warren, and that you shouldn’t be him. And so if you come away from that feeling, “That was at ten o’clock last night, at a desk, quoting fifty Scriptures from memory, and having alliteration and having lists? I’m quittin’. I’m just quittin’.” Then just take heart, because that’s the way I felt.

[…] Let me go at a little theological piece that might just explain that a little bit.

You know the part where he talked about application, and there were fourteen life applications in my week, and I can only manage one? And so — teach your people less, and work the application piece more.

Um — there is a certain approach towards application there, that isn’t me. Meaning: you give the message, give the doctrine, you give the content, and then you turn towards, “now, let’s make a covenant with each other, let’s get five things, and we’re gonna check on you next week.” And he builds an unbelievable effective ministry that way.

There is another way to think about transformation and it is that — if roots go down deep, and a tree gets healthy, it bears fruit. And that you might, week in and week out, so feed your people, so thrill your people, so deepen your people, that they’re bearing fruit in thirty years when the person who did the thing each week doesn’t.

If he were here, he’d get all over me about that, you know? And he’d say, “Oh oh no, no, I’m not excluding that! It’s both/and, it’s either/or.” And that’s right. But I’m saying, I’m on the or side here. And if C.J. Mahaney were here, he’d get on my case too. He’d say, “Piper, you need to apply more. Give another ten minutes of your sermon to application.” And I say: “Okay, that’s right, C.J., okay.” And I’d try, and I just never have time.

So, I just want you to be encouraged that if it feels like Saul’s armor, to try to imitate that, he probably is. He is him. He is him. And one of the big issues with any big shot that you put up, people tend to feel like, “Okay, to have a successful church, we’ve got to do it this way.” And I just want to say: it ain’t necessarily so. Just relax with who you are and just give it all to Jesus, and learn, learn, learn as much as you can from Rick.

I can’t help doubting the thoughts of most attendees were, “gee, I wish I could communicate as easily as that spiritual giant with all his lists and alliterations, Rick Warren.”

Warren has gotten way popular by assuming the Gospel — often doing the easier work of faulting the church for past ills (actual and otherwise), and talking about Gospel fruits in social justice and such, while leaving other Christians with the less-popular task of preaching about repentance, God’s holiness, Hell, etc. Why can’t Warren play bad cop for a while, for a change?

Today my church’s co-op blog, ProvPress, gets my original column — a review of Gene Edward Veith’s God at Work.

I couldn’t resist more geeking-out over Wayne Grudem’s new work Politics According to the Bible and another book, City of Man by Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner. Both of those are now on my desk, having arrived much earlier than I had expected from a certain major online retailer. It will be a little while since I read them, partly because I’m trying to kick the mostly-reading-nonfiction habit (as a fiction writer!) and partly because I’m still reading Dave Harvey’s book Rescuing Ambition.

Like Gene Veith himself, I likely once assumed I already knew the truth that God is glorified in the different roles He gives Christians. Sure, “worldly” work isn’t any less spiritual than church work, I might have said. But I doubt I sincerely believed that, which can lead to doubts and even mistrust in God — as if a “spiritual” task glorifies God more than a “secular” career.

Veith says that when a friend gave him a copy of Gustaf Wingren’s book Luther on Vocation:

I had assumed that I knew what the doctrine of vocation was; that, yes, one can do every occupation to the glory of God. […] But both Luther and Wingren said so much more. For Luther, vocation, as with everything else in his theology, is not so much a matter of what we do; rather, it is a matter of what God does in and through us. (9)

Much of Veith’s work is a condensation of both scholars’ works, bringing their truths to the lay level. “After all,” Veith notes, “it is we laypeople who most need to understand the nature of our callings in the world.”

Throughout several short chapters, Veith overviews how Christians have taught vocation in the past. Though Scripture says the world has been corrupted by sin, he says, God’s creation is still running in many ways as it should. Even those who are not saved are under a “common grace,” and God’s people find precedent in Scripture for understanding their varying callings in at least four areas: as a worker, a family member, a citizen of one’s country and a Kingdom citizen.

All the while, Veith repeats the theme of God at work through us as we fulfill our callings.

Read the rest of my review at ProvPress. …

Today I’m making my first-ever cross-post. That’s partly because I’m still preparing for that conference, and partly because today my topic on Speculative Faith relates to nonfiction Christian doctrines (including vocation) just as much as the fiction field.

So go and read Learning from bad books, part 2, which begins like so:

When I grow up, get old, and very likely die, and go to Heaven, I anticipate at least three things:

1. Finally getting to see the face of Jesus.
2. Reunions with Biblical saints, other faith heroes, perhaps household pets, etc.
3. Novels will surely be published based on their inherent virtue, not Big Christian Names.

No. 3 is an issue of what Christian theologians (and writers who want to use theology terms) call adiaphora. Unlike, say, plagiarism or claiming to write a book you haven’t, it’s not sinful for a Big-Name Christian to try his hand at writing novels, and have an advantage over others because he has a Big Name.

Yet I wonder if it’s wise. And perhaps it’s even a violation of the Bible’s direct and implied teachings on spiritual gifts and God-glorifying vocations.

Paul wrote that the hand shouldn’t say to the eye, “I have no need of you” (1 Cor. 12). But what happens when the eye (say, a famous pastor or nonfiction author) says back to the hand (in this case, a novelist), “Hey — I want your job”? And what does Scripture tell us about Christians who have different gifts and callings — are some of these more “spiritual” than others? Read more …

Christmas is coming early this year for those who enjoy knowing and applying Biblical doctrine, and engaging in the day’s political issues from a Christian perspective.

That’s because Politics According to the Bible, 600 pages of Scripture-and-modern-issues magic, has recently released. Perhaps it comes just in time, just when some had begun wondering: okay, we know there are issues with Christians partnering with false-religion types like Glenn Beck, but how can we ally with other people for political and not religious reasons?

Politics According to the Bible may help answer this question. And especially for those on the young-restless-Reformed side who might be tempted to overcorrect for evangelical political excesses — “let’s just preach the Gospel!” — this is the perfect author for them.

Why? Because it’s written by Wayne “Systematic Theology” Grudem.

I’ve already added this book to my Amazon cart, and it is very rare I do that so fast — or that I do little more in a blog post besides shell for something new. Currently the book, listed at retail for $39.99, is on sale for $26.39. Get it while it’s hot (and with this Beck stuff ongoing, it is).

Here’s how I found out about this: from Justin Taylor, just Wednesday after the book released. Taylor summarizes Grudem’s chapter titles, and offer a free download (PDF) of chapter 1:

Part 1: Basic Principles

Chapter 1: Five Wrong Views about Christians and Government

Chapter 2: A Better Solution: Significant Christian Influence on Government

Chapter 3: Biblical Principles Concerning Government

Chapter 4: A Biblical Worldview

Chapter 5: The Courts and the Question of Ultimate Power in a Nation

No, that’s not the entire book. Those titles encompass its first 157 pages. Chapter 1 critiques “Five Wrong Views about Christians and Government.” So far I’ve focused on C and D:

A. Government should compel religion 23

B. Government should exclude religion 29

C. All government is evil and demonic 36

D. Do evangelism, not politics 44

E. Do politics, not evangelism 53

Under “Do evangelism, not politics,” Grudem actually critiques someone close to his own side, John McArthur, whom I hadn’t known took such a just-preach-the-Gospel approach to political involvement. (This seems to downplay the nature of our role as dual citizens, of the After-world and the current Old Earth, and our multiple vocations, primarily as God’s adopted sons but also as workers in different fields — including Ministry, business, art, motherhood, and/or politics.)

In response, Grudem does not offer a gospel of Better-Christianity-through-Politics, but shows that the Gospel, though based vitally in the message of God saving sinners, brings more results:

1. Too narrow an understanding of “the Gospel” and the kingdom of God

While I agree with Thomas and MacArthur on many other things, I cannot agree with their disparagement of the value of Christian political involvement for God’s purposes on this earth. I think it represents too narrow an understanding of the work of God’s kingdom and of the nature of the Christian gospel message.

“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! Jesus said,

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20).

The phrase “all that I have commanded you” means more than John 3:16, as wonderful as that verse is. All that Jesus commanded includes everything that he taught as recorded in the four Gospels. This is because Jesus promised his disciples not only that the Holy Spirit would “bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26), but also that the Holy Spirit “will teach you all things” (v. 26) and will “guide you into all the truth” (16:13).

Grudem goes on to question McArthur’s belief that modern governments’ natures don’t matter:

The ideal human government can ultimately do nothing to advance God’s kingdom, and the worst, most despotic worldly government in the end cannot halt the power of the Holy Spirit or the spread of God’s Word.

I think of the difference between North Korea and South Korea. Even if the dictatorial, oppressive government of North Korea has not completely halted the spread of God’s Word, its severe persecution has hindered it so much that millions of North Koreans are born, live, and die without ever hearing of Jesus Christ, and North Korea sends out zero missionaries. By contrast, the church in South Korea, where the government has allowed freedom, is growing, thriving, and sending missionaries around the world. Or compare the relatively small, repressed church in Cuba, which is unable to send out any missionaries anywhere, with the growing, thriving churches throughout many Latin American countries that have more freedom. Governments do make a difference to the work of God’s kingdom. This is why Paul urged that prayers be made “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:2). That is, good governments help people to live a “peaceful” and “godly” life, and bad governments hinder that.

Can a theologian and Kingdom citizen be a patriot in an Old-Earth nation? Grudem seems to think so, and offers to prove his case from Scripture — along with secondary appeals to less-overt Biblical implications, and also references to facts.

So I highly anticipate reading his work, and catching up on something Christians may too easily miss: the Gospel is not a social gospel, and not a political gospel, but it does have implications for society and politics. Moreover, God’s people are indeed called, while they wait for the Kingdom, to be good citizens and teach His commandments on Old Earth.

I am well aware that the Bible is not an American book, for it was finished nearly 1,700 years before the United States existed! The principles and teachings in the Bible contain wisdom that is helpful for all nations and all governments. Therefore I have tried to keep in mind that people in other nations might read this book and find it useful for formulating their own positions on the political issues that they face in their own nations. Yet in my examples and my choice of political issues, I focus primarily on the United States, because that is the country I know best, the country I am proud to be a citizen of, and the country I deeply love.

By Monte E. Wilson ¹

(Continued from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6.)

Salt, light, leaven

Given our proclivity to define Christianity in terms of the stupendous and cataclysmic—miraculous deliverances, Damascus Road conversions, Great Awakenings—we are uncomfortable with metaphors that speak of imperceptible growth and gradual advance. However, these are the metaphors given to us.

Green Beret Christians often prefer the quick fix to painful surgery and long-term recovery. They hate the notion of patient plodding. In fact, given their addiction to the intense feelings produced within the renewal movement, they refuse to accept any so-called wisdom that plans in terms of organic, seasonal growth. The only metaphors they find acceptable are military ones. But even with this metaphor, we must remember that not everyone is called to be in the Special Forces.

God has called all of us to be salt, light and leaven.

To be salty is to have godly character, to be a faithful person. Salty people display covenantal love and loyalty to God and to others. By letting our light shine we display His grace by our good works so that the world will see and glorify the Father. As leaven, we seek to obey God in every area of life. We. are good seed planted in the soil of our neighborhoods, cities and nation.

Neither my specific calling and gifting, nor yours, are the standard for all Christians to aspire. Even if some are Green Berets, they make up only a very small portion of God’s Army. Let us all run the course set before us and try not to run someone else’s race or require that everyone compete on our track.

You may be a rogue Green Beret if …

You are obsessed with The Cause more than with Christ.

You judge churches and fellow believers by the standard of your Cause.

You are driven rather than inspired.

You rarely leave the battlefield, and, when you do, you never take off your uniform.

You define yourself solely in terms of your Cause.

Your house is a boot camp rather than a home.

You go through friendships like a nicotine fiend goes through a pack of cigarettes.

You define “enemy” as all who disagree with you.

You judge other Christians by the intensity of their personalities rather than by the godliness of their character.

You have more commandments than God does.

You feel it your mission in life to rid the church of tares.

You believe that Sabbaths are for wimps.

You believe that those who indulge in hobbies are failing to “redeem the time.”

Your motto is, “It all depends on me.”

You believe that stoicism is a godly attribute.

You always describe the faith in terms of military metaphors and similes.

You cannot laugh at yourself.

You cannot sit alone quietly in a room and do nothing.

You secretly admire the Inquisition’s treatment of “heretics.”

You think General Patton would have made a great pastor.

Author

Dr. Monte E. Wilson is director of Global Impact, a ministry that teaches developing nations how to apply biblical truth to every area of life. He is also editor of Classical Christianity, a teaching publication designed to introduce ecumenical orthodoxy to the evangelical church. Dr. Wilson can be reached at Classical Christianity, P.O. Box 22, Alpharetta, Georgia 30009. He can be reached by E-mail at: MonteThird@aol.com. He has previously contributed to Reformation & Revival Journal.

By Monte E. Wilson ^{1 2}

(Continued from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5.)

Repelled or attracted?

One day at St. Petersburg Beach, Florida, I was sharing the gospel with a young man. He had struck up a conversation about something he had seen on television, and the conversation had turned to spiritual matters. In the twinkling of an eye a bus filled with overzealous young people pulled up and disgorged the occupants. Before you could say, Just-as-I-am-without-one-plea, they had passed out gospel tracts to about a hundred shocked people and were back on the bus pulling out of the parking lot. As they drove off into the sunset, they hung out the windows yelling at everyone, “Jesus is Lord!”

What made those kids (and us) think that unbelievers will be attracted to the gospel by strange behavior? Why did we think that someone who is biblically illiterate will respond positively to the question, “Have you been washed in the blood of the Lamb?” Do we actually think someone will be motivated to seek salvation because he read a sign taped on the side of a car that reads “John 3:16”? Do people run to their prayer closets when they read a bumper sticker that says “God Is My Provider” on the back of a rusted out 1988 Buick?

To help us ascertain our ideas of true “spirituality,” consider two ministers. One man fasts quite often; in fact, he borders on being an ascetic. He preaches to everyone he knows, and is constantly challenging them to repent of , their sins or to expect hell. He rarely passes up an opportunity to expose the immorality of the state’s political leaders, and he never passes up the chance to expose the hypocrisy of church leaders. He is a “Type A” sort of guy who lives an in-your-face religion. His testimony is one of a “prophet” who burns with holiness.

The other man frequents parties and loves socializing with unbelievers. At these parties he frequently refrains from confronting a single soul with the message of the gospel. Other than one protracted fast in the beginning of his ministry, he seldom practices that spiritual discipline. He doesn’t preach often and when he does talk of spiritual matters he tells stories about everyday life. Unlike the first minister, his testimony is a bit muddy. There are questions about the propriety of his having women travel with his ministry team, and the word is that he may like wine a bit too much.

Question: Given our ideas of spirituality, which of these men is more spiritual? Is it John the Baptist or Jesus? Why is that we believe John the Baptist’s lifestyle is the one God expects of us all? Both were obeying God, both fulfilled their calling.

In the early days of the church, when one could be imprisoned and executed for confessing Christ alone as Lord, how did the Christian community “let their light shine”? Did they engage in door-to-door evangelism? Did they hold open-air crusades? How did the average Christian become “salt and light”? Did you know that their church meetings were closed, private affairs?

How did Christians in the first century influence their communities? When the Romans threw their unwanted newborn babies under the bridges, leaving the infants to be carried away by wild dogs, the Christians waited in the shadows, took the children home and raised them as their own. This testimony, over a period of time, won the hearts of many.

What else did they do? They lived peaceable and self-governed lives. When conflicts arose that could not be resolved, the aggrieved parties went to the elders, the church court (1 Cor.). These courts were renown for providing justice. You can imagine how attractive this would be to a society that was utterly corrupt. Gradually, many of the Romans began appealing to these courts for adjudication of their conflicts.

What did these people do to disciple their nation for Christ? They acted justly, they loved mercy and they walked humbly before God (Micah 6:8). They lived their day-to-day lives as Christians. They married, had children, went about fulfilling their vocations, went to church and watched for opportunities to do good to others. No big marches, no boycotts of grocery stores who sold meat to be offered to idols, no Christian entertainment at the Colosseum. Political offices were not an option.

I am not suggesting that organized evangelism is wrong. I am not saying that a John-the-Baptist style of confrontational or sacrificial living is wrong. I am saying that not everyone is called or gifted for such things. I am also saying that for the vast majority of Christians, what God expects of us is to live our normal lives as Christians.

(Tomorrow: Wilson’s conclusion, and “You may be a rogue Green Beret if …” checklist.)

By Monte E. Wilson ¹

(Continued from part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4.)

Green Berets vs. the Apostles and Prophets

Consider what the apostles demanded of the newly converted Gentiles. At the end of the debate considering what requirements to place on the incoming Gentile believers, the apostles decided to lay no burden on these people other than to require that they abstain from things offered to idols, from blood and from things strangled, and from sexual immorality (Acts 15). Watch your testimony, watch your diet, watch your morals. That’s it.

Can you imagine if one of us had been there? “Now, Jim, my boy, this won’t do. These folks need to be called up to a higher place in God. You apostles go up.to the temple every day to pray, and so should these Gentiles. You own only one coat, one pair of sandals, give most all of your money to the poor, and every time I turn around you are fasting. Why not require the same thing of all these new believers? At least let them know that there is a deeper life to which they can attain through a more spiritually rigorous lifestyle … that is, if they can attain the same level of revelation that we have.”

Or what of Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians regarding walking in love with their fellow believers? They were to lead a quiet life, mind their own business and work with their hands (1 Thess. 4:11). Isn’t this the route to true spirituality within a community? Shouldn’t Paul have added that they needed to have special Sunday evening services for the lost, Wednesday night prayer meetings, Thursday night deacons meetings, Friday night home group meetings and Saturday visitation? How in the world did Paul expect these people to grow in love if they weren’t constantly in church together?

Of course, one of the greatest attributes of many modern Green Beret Christians is living as if Jesus were coming back today, Being a disciple of Hal Lindsey, I knew this was it. We had only a few years left. (This was 26 years ago.) Why, pray tell, should we give ourselves to such mundane matters as developing a career, raising a family, seeing our children get married, building an inheritance to leave our grandchildren and getting involved in matters that concerned the welfare of the cities we lived in? What were these lukewarm Christians thinking about when they so easily tripped off to work or bought a new car or put money in savings or ran for a political office? Had they no sense of the times in which we were living? Obviously they must be in need of a revival or the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Or maybe they are not even saved!

I remember one day reading where Jeremiah told the people of Israel who were captive in Babylon to get a life. While the false prophets were running around telling the Israelites they were about to escape from their captivity, Jeremiah said, “Go build houses and live in them, plant gardens and enjoy their fruit, build families so you can multiply in number, and seek the welfare of the city where God has caused you to be carried away captive” (Jer. 29:4-9). Are these words of wisdom for a people who are to come-out -from-among-them -and-be-separate? Certainly we can’t take this tack, can we? This passage was the beginning of the end of my running around the country telling people they had better live like those who were not long for this world. The burning question became, “What if we are still here one hundred years from now?” What sort of world have we left our great-grandchildren? What sort of churches will we leave the generations who follow? Have we left a business to expand, or debts to payoff? Have we left a good foundation for our children to build upon, or will they have to live their lives clearing away the rubble of debris left through our disinterest?

(Monday: Whose ministry style was “better,” John the Baptist or Jesus Himself?)