02 June 2008

The Foolishness of Preaching

by Phil Johnson



ome of the comments responding to my recent posts about the church and politics illustrate the magnitude of the problem I a trying to point out. Some evangelicals, it seems, cannot conceive of any remedy for social ills other than legislative measures and more (or bigger) government agencies. They seem convinced that if we're not lobbying for political solutions to evils like abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and secularization—then we're doing nothing at all. Suggest (as I have) that the church should focus more on gospel preaching and less on political lobbying, and they'll accuse you of promoting indifference.

This week and next week, I'll be making a series of four posts suggesting a more biblical way to look at how the church is supposed to make her impact on culture. I'll highlight four biblical principles contemporary evangelicalism seems to have forgotten.

The first one is found in 1 Corinthians 1:21:

1. Preaching, not lobbying, is how we make truth known.

Preaching, not politicking, is the main strategy we are called to employ in order to unleash God's truth into an ungodly society. As a matter of fact, this is the main point that dominates the first major section of 1 Corinthians. Chapter 1, verse 21 is Paul's proposition statement for that opening section of this epistle: "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

That's the King James Version, and I quoted it here because it gives the most literal sense of the original. The New American Standard Version says, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." Notice that the King James Version seems to put the stress on the act of preaching; the New American Standard underscores the content of the message preached. Actually, the original text supports both ideas. A literal rendering of the Greek text would be something like this: "it pleased God through the foolishness of our proclamation to save the ones believing." Both the message we preach and the methodology of preaching seem like foolishness in the judgment of worldly wisdom. Both the strategy and the substance of gospel-preaching run counter to what common sense might suggest is the best way to communicate truth to a sophisticated society such as Paul found in the 1st-century Greek culture.

Likewise with ministry today. The conventional wisdom—worldly wisdom—tells us that if we want to get our point of view across in egalitarian America, we must do it through the democratic process. We need to campaign for candidates and lobby for legislation that reflect our point of view. We have got to harness the power of the Supreme Court and Congress and use them to halt the moral unravelling of our culture for Christ, or else we'll lose the culture war.

But preaching in the public square, not lobbying in the halls of congress, is the biblical way—and the only truly effective way—Christ's church has always made His truth known. Incidentally, when Scripture speaks of "preaching" in a context like this, the reference is not exclusively (or even primarily) to a message given from the pulpit to a church congregation. Paul is speaking of every kind of gospel proclamation; evangelistic ministry; calling people to repentance. It would include even our private proclamation of the gospel to your neighbors—Everything from open-air preaching to one-on-one personal evangelism. Whatever the venue, "preaching" is simply the clear and emphatic proclamation of the gospel. That's what Paul has in mind here.

In short, Paul is contrasting the biblical strategy for evangelism with every other kind of strategy—especially those schemes that aim to win people by impressing them or entertaining them or seeking to gain their respect and admiration with by a display of scholarly erudition. The biblical strategy is simple and straightforward: we simply proclaim the truth as clearly and as authoritatively as possible and call people to repentance. Everything else, Paul says, is wasted effort—even counterproductive.

Listen to the way he carefully outlines the distinction. Notice how he starts chapter 2:
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

And then he adds this in verse 8: "None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Paul was proclaiming a truth that is incompatible with the political machinery of this world, and he said so as emphatically as possible. Rather than trim the message or try to shoehorn it into some existing system of earthly philosophy, some worldly political scheme, or some pleasing format that would make it seem popular and appealing, Paul was determined to preach it plainly. And he did this even though the message was so counter-cultural in sophisticated Greek society that even the great apostle Paul said he struggled to preach "in weakness and in fear and much trembling." It was no easier for him than it is for you and me to proclaim truth to a hostile culture.

Still, rather than trying to harness the political machinery, impress the philosophical academy, or get on board with the entertainment industry of his times in order to gain people's admiration, Paul says he was determined to know nothing among the Corinthians other than the simple gospel message he was called to proclaim.

First Corinthians 2 is a definitive statement of this principle. Verse 22 says: "The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom."

All right. If we follow the wisdom of modern church-growth experts, what do we do? We give the Jews a sign, and we preach wisdom to the Greeks. That is the very approach many people today try to follow. They usually don't consciously and deliberately abandon the gospel, but they try to mold it and shape it so that it sounds like wisdom to people who are seeking a message with some philosophical or political sophistication.

But notice what the apostle Paul says is the right way to respond to such "felt needs": "We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness." The Jews want a sign; we give them a stumbling-block. The Greeks want wisdom, we give them foolishness.

Why? Did Paul just want to be perverse? No. Keep reading: "We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."

The Gospel is the greatest sign of all, and it is the greatest wisdom of all unto them who are called. The elect will see it, even if no one else does. The gospel is "the power of God"—more potent than any cosmic sign. And it is "the wisdom of God"—wise enough to make all the wisdom of this world seem like mere foolishness by comparison.

But only one class of people recognize the power and the wisdom of the gospel: "those who are called"—the elect. They are the ones who will respond to the gospel. But they will respond. Jesus said, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" (John 6:37). "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27). Those who are called effectually by the Holy Spirit will recognize the wisdom and power of God in the gospel. That's why we must proclaim this message, and not obscure it with our political rhetoric, philosophical arguments, and other useless forms of earthly wisdom.

What seems mere foolishness to the worldly mind is actually the only thing that can reach sinners and turn their hearts to Christ, because it is the wisdom and power of God. And (verse 25) "The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." That's why the clear preaching of the gospel is infinitely superior to any political strategy or philosophical argument when it comes to reaching people and lifting them out of the bondage of sin.

That's also why Paul's one strategy was preaching—not politics, not diplomacy, not academic-style dialogue, and certainly not compromise for the sake of winning public accolades or grass-roots approval. But by that one strategy alone—preaching the gospel—he made an indelible impact on the Corinthian culture. Furthermore, even after that church was planted, he continued to employ that same strategy as the means by which he pastored the church of God.

That's our calling, even in an election year such as this one: Stick to the message. Stay on point. Determine to know nothing but Christ crucified—and then make that message the heart and centerpiece of everything you preach.

Look once more at that key text, 1 Corinthians 1:21: "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of [our preaching] to save those who believe."

Pay attention to the pivotal phrase in the center of that verse: "the world through wisdom did not know God." It is not possible to find God through the pursuit of worldly wisdom. That covers a lot of territory, including most of the missional strategies that are currently in vogue among evangelicals. Philosophy, politics, arts, and aesthetics—and every other kind of worldly wisdom—all of those are utterly devoid of any special power to transform a sinner into a saint. We could say the same thing about comedy, entertainment, yoga classes, sex-education lectures—and all the other gimmicks that are used to draw appreciative crowds without really teaching them the true gospel.

There is only one thing that can give a sinner a new heart, and that is spiritual regeneration—the new birth. And the one true instrument of the new birth is the Word of God as it is applied by the Holy Spirit. According to 1 Peter 1:23, we are "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." Jesus told His disciples in John 15:3, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." Only the Word of God, and specifically the gospel message, has the power to transform unbelieving people's hearts and change them at the very core of who they are. The gospel "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16), and that is why the apostle Paul said, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ"—even though the gospel seems foolish and naive to those steeped in the wisdom of this world.

So neither society nor individuals can ever be redeemed (or even influenced for good) by worldly wisdom, and Christians are seriously deluded if they think the most important battles for righteousness are being waged in the arenas of politics, education, entertainment, or the arts. Those are the realms of worldly wisdom, and worldly wisdom will never be an instrument for the advancement of Christ's kingdom. According to Luke 10:21, God has "hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes . . . for so it seemed good in [His] sight."

So to sum up: Clever amusements, pep rallies, educational programs, legislative agendas, political strategies, philosophical arguments, and all the Supreme Court rulings in the world will never turn sinners into Christians. All those things epitomize what Paul meant by worldly wisdom. They are the baggage of a carnal and utterly ineffectual strategy that will never reform a society like ours that is in love with sin. And the fact that such things consume so much evangelical energy today is a testimony to our unfaithfulness and the utter failure of the modern and postmodern evangelical movement.

God is pleased to save sinners through the clear proclamation of gospel truth. And that is what we ought to devote our resources and energy to if we want to have an impact on our culture. We have a clear mandate to proclaim the gospel as clearly, as accurately, as powerfully, and as often as we can. We have no mandate whatsoever to use any other strategy—especially a strategy that attempts to harness aspects of worldly wisdom for influence under the misguided belief that these are more powerful than the gospel itself to transform our culture.
by Phil Johnson

37 comments:

Stephen said...

Phil,

In light of the last paragraph of your post, would you agree or disagree with Tim Keller's recent article on the gospel wherein he affirms one true gospel, but with many forms?

Regarding preaching, he has a gospel "for the circumcised" and a gospel "for the uncircumcised." This seems highly contextualized to the point where the gospel "for the uncircumcised" becomes "another gospel."

Any thoughts on this...anyone?

Might I add that it was a very good post, Phil!

Tim Pauley said...

Kenneth Meyers wrote of a better way to deal with the culture war in "Power Religion": PROCLAMATION rather than PROTEST.

It is much easier to fight the war through protest and politics than it is to boldly proclaim the gospel and to be ready to give a solid, theological, gospel-centered response to the various issues we face.

Brother Slawson said...

Phil,
Amen! Amen! Amen! and Amen!

jeff said...

Phil,
A very well put and powerful post. I agree that only straight forward gospel preaching can convert sinners. The "hip" and "cool" methods used by many of todays churches would not have been effective in my case. As far as politics and activism goes, I think we as Christians have a right to express our point of view and of course to vote, but that will never benefit anyone as far as salvation goes. Trying to impose Christian morals on non-Christians is going to be an uphill battle. Thanks Phil for the excellent post.

Stephen,
Aren't there examples in the Bible about Pauls' method of preaching to gentiles vs. Peters' method of preaching to jews? I'm not sure, I'm asking? I thought I heard a message on the radio about that once.

Johnny Dialectic said...

...or seeking to gain their respect and admiration with by a display of scholarly erudition.

This is perhaps the main motivation driving the movement to form new "orthodoxies." In a self-referential culture (thank you, Saddleback Sam, for this legacy) the locus of all piety is in questions like, Am I coming off as cool and acceptable? Non-threatening? Unlike those stuffy churches who believe in things like inerrancy? And sin?

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stan said...

I understand and even agree. But I have a sincere question (which anyone who has an answer can answer). Given that our job is not politics, but preaching, and given that better laws doesn't make a more righteous nation, what exactly is our responsibility in these matters? Should Christians be voting? Should Christians be involved with politics? Should we be trying to pass laws that agree with our theology? Sincere question, because I see a dichotomy I can't quite clear up myself.

Sharon said...

On your "Bulova" icon, you need to add an 'o'. I'll let you figure out where.

Yours for finding the unpicked nit,

A Musician by Grace

donsands said...

"They are the baggage of a carnal and utterly ineffectual strategy that will never reform a society like ours that is in love with sin."

You may change the outside of the cup, with some of these human strategies, and may even create a more moral culture, but it will fall against the gates of hell.
All institutions will fail agaisnt the gates of hell, except the Church, which Christ is building through the Gospel light shining into dark hearts, and bringing conviction and faith, and repentance.

Another great post.

Stan,

I'm one who blogs about politics, and votes, and I have written my Congressmen, and even Edward Kennedy.
I like to share the Gospel when I write to them, but I may be addressing abortion as well.

So I, as a Christian, am envolved in the process.
The Church as a whole needs to be presenting the Gospel, especially through the pulpits.
All of God's true ministers need to be teaching, preaching, and feeding the Word of God to their congregations.
Then we, the congregations go and live our lives, and vote, and sharing the love of Christ.

LeeC said...

Between Moses bad presentation skills, Gideons 300 Christs 12 misfits, you'd think we'd see that all we have to do is be faithful in proclaiming, then watch the Lord work as He wills.

Stephen,
I would say that God can use any presentation of the Gospel, but He NEEDS none of them. That's where the "Relevant" crowd needs to get their brains. God doesn't NEED us.

He condescends to use us. I find that awesome.

Strong Tower said...

"We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness." The Jews want a sign; we give them a stumbling-block.

What sense is there in the necessity to make people stumble or to mock the fool's who bring this Gosple? Interesting how that parallels: "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand." The Gospel is like a winnowing fork, meant to remove what does not remain, what cannot stand. Our view is often that it is only positively consequential; it is the Gospel that makes us stand. But, there is the necessity of proclamation that separates. It is necessary that some stumble and some reject it as irrationality so that they might hate the disciples. That is how we know. It is in fact the case that the clearer the message, the sharper the edge of the sword that swings both ways, and the more striking the contrast between what makes this world this world and the kingdom the kingdom.

Strong Tower said...

stan-

donsands offers a balanced approach. The point being that we need to be clear about the Gospel, then, we can enter any sphere, whether government as a vocation or busdriver. The real question is are you willing to do that. Fear is usually the driving motivation of whether or not we will be faithful to the Gospel. What fear drives those involved in politics? The fear of losing office, or is it the fear of not advancing their agenda? Does it matter either way as long as the Gospel is not compromised? I say no. Whether we win office or maintain the national amenities we have come to enjoy as citizens is not important. The world may believe in incrementalism and the security of the national treasure, but there is no incrementalism in the Resurrection or the Kingdom. It is what is is as a whole or it is not the Gospel at all.

stratagem said...

Interesting to see how we differ in our perspectives. If I'm reading this correctly, Phil seems to be berating right-wing evangelicals for relying on legislative solutions to the issues of homosexuality, abortion, etc. Yet, while I agree with him on that point, I see left-wingers doing the same things, except they are advocating legislative solutions to make these things sacrosanct and protected lifestyles.

Pastor Michael said...

Outstanding post! Thank you.

Rick Frueh said...

Preaching to spread truth (the gospel). Who knew?

A chosen delegate, a royal legislator, a democratic nation, a peculiar Republican..


Come on ye childhood heroes!
Won't you rise up from the pages of your comic-books your super crooks
and show us all the way.
Well, make your will and testament.
Won't you join your local government.
We'll have Superman for president
let Robin save the day.

The prophet Ian Anderson.

Stephen said...

Jeff said:

“Stephen,
Aren't there examples in the Bible about Pauls' method of preaching to gentiles vs. Peters' method of preaching to jews? I'm not sure, I'm asking? I thought I heard a message on the radio about that once.”

Hi Jeff,

Peter’s sermon highlights recorded by Luke in Acts 2 certainly illustrate a difference in methodology from, say, the highlights of Paul’s brief stint in Athens as recorded by Luke at the end of Acts 17. So there isn’t a valid objection to one that desires to appeal to the historical precedent revealed in Scripture in order to biblically justify methodological relativity as long as the integrity of the gospel is maintained. If the integrity of the gospel is not maintained due to an inability to get gospel truth to “fit” into one’s methodological mold, or if one’s method (by design) is to bypass or circumvent the “rough-edges” of the gospel to achieve apparent success, then I find objections to be valid on the basis of Scripture.

It appears that Tim Keller’s gospel “for the uncircumcised” doesn’t maintain the integrity of the gospel, and in the spirit of success-driven-methodology (iow, good intentions) deludes the gospel of its ontological essentials, thus producing a false gospel. I am hopeful that he would abandon this method if it can be demonstrated by Scripture that it is in fact another gospel.



Leec said:

“Stephen,
I would say that God can use any presentation of the Gospel, but He NEEDS none of them. That's where the "Relevant" crowd needs to get their brains. God doesn't NEED us.

He condescends to use us. I find that awesome.”

Leec,

Thanks for such a wonderful statement. I agree! Awesome, it is.

Solameanie said...

Ian Anderson?!?!?

LOL!

I never thought I'd see Jethro Tull referenced on TeamPyro.

David said...

According to 1 Peter 1:23, we are "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

I would assume then that the Emergent Church is full of "corrupted seeds"?

David U.

Rick Frueh said...

SM - I never thought I'd see Jethro Tull referenced on TeamPyro.

Who do you think "Thick as a Brick" was written to?

The Emergent Church. :)

Adam Omelianchuk said...

Good post, but a question. True, preaching is the means by which REDEMPTION comes. Yet the roll of the government is to restrain evil. Therefore, it is not good and proper advocate political policies through the means of the government to accomplish this task? That seems to be the motivation of those that work for political change from a religious conviction.

ALL FOR ONCE/ ONCE FOR ALL said...

FWIW-

"I never had a problem with Christ...it was Christians that gave me problems...they seemed completely disinterested culturally and politically...they seemed very strange to me." -Bono

“Hey, I’d meet with Lucifer if I thought it would do any good,” -Bono

Adam Omelianchuk said...

Typo: "it is not good and proper" should read "is it not good and prober"

LeeC said...

Adam,
I don't think Phil is advocating abstaining from voting your conscience, but there are those in evangelical circles that spend large amounts of time effort, and money on thier pet bill, or politician, whatever, but you have to look real hard to see them ever sharing the Gospel.

The Gospel changes the world, not bills lobbyists or politicians.

Rick Frueh said...

Even if politics were a legitimate conduit for moral change, it surely wouldn't be the American political system model.

Penn Tomassetti said...

Amen.

Your message clears up a lot of errors.

I am not a pastor, or a seminary student, or anything of the like, but I had an experience (no joke), where I gave almost this exact same message to a group of emergent-like college students at Pitt.

It was actually a tea house meeting sponsored by emergent church members for outreach. The group leader/organizer was there with some of his roommates. One was an athiest, and the others were just misled professing believers. A friend of mine told me we could go there and have a Bible study at our own table, anyone could join us (that is how it worked. They were tables for discussions).

After I talked with some of the leaders for a while, I believe the Lord led me to read all of First Corinthians chapter one with them all. The discussion went really well. The athiest saw the foolishness of the gospel and the emergent saw it as a block for stumbling, and I think/hope/pray the rest saw the wisdom and power of Christ.

It was a unique experience. I thought I'd share because of your mission to such people. Thanks for the great insights. Glory to God.

Mike Riccardi said...

Stephen: It appears that Tim Keller’s gospel “for the uncircumcised” doesn’t maintain the integrity of the gospel, and in the spirit of success-driven-methodology (iow, good intentions) deludes the gospel of its ontological essentials, thus producing a false gospel. I am hopeful that he would abandon this method if it can be demonstrated by Scripture that it is in fact another gospel.

I just wanted to thank you for your comment. It seems like there are very few people willing to say that.

What's funny about Keller's statements is how he justifies having different "presentations" for different crowds. First, he redefines the Gospel to make it bigger than it actually is. Then, he tries to show how the Gospel is never proclaimed in its entirety in Scripture, and certain people only hit on certain points at a time. So we can do the same.

But you see the sleight of hands there, don't you? First, define the Gospel in such a way that it includes things it actually doesn't include, and then complain that all of it never gets presented. But if we look at what is actually presented in Scripture, and call that the Gospel, we couldn't do the ministry we want to do.

I respect Tim Keller for his desire to see Christ's kingdom advance. But I fear that his misunderstandings of what even that means is going to have harmful effects on evangelicalism in the near future.

Doug said...

Sorry for my ignorance, but where might this Tim Keller article be found?

dac said...

http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/002/9.74.html

jeff said...

Stephen,
I haven't read Tim Kellers' article so I can't comment on whether or not I think he's being faithful to the gospel or not, but thanks for your comments about Acts 2 and 17.

About politics and activism in general, I think that we Christians need to be very careful, especially at this stage and time in American history about what kind of example we are portraying to the rest of the community. In my own case, I've had to re-think and modify some of my endorsements of political candidates or even partys, because they don't always represent what I believe is right. If I speak out for them to unbelievers, then when they (the candidate or party)do something unethical or imoral, I cannot defend them. It takes a lot of discernment, which I don't always have. So sometimes I choose to keep quiet and admit I don't know all the answers, which I think might be the more Christian attitude to begin with.

Kim Lokken said...

Stratagem: I see left-wingers doing the same things, except they are advocating legislative solutions to make these things sacrosanct and protected lifestyles.

Where have I seen this sort of thing before? Oh yeah:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." -- Judge Leon Bazile, Virginia, 1965

Carlo said...

Stan wrote: "I understand and even agree. But I have a sincere question (which anyone who has an answer can answer). Given that our job is not politics, but preaching, and given that better laws doesn't make a more righteous nation, what exactly is our responsibility in these matters? Should Christians be voting? Should Christians be involved with politics? Should we be trying to pass laws that agree with our theology? Sincere question, because I see a dichotomy I can't quite clear up myself."

My response: Exercise a sound stewardship of your vote. Don't be idealist when it comes to voting. In other words, don't vote for a third party. Realistically, there are only two parties in our system. A vote for the third party by conservatives is a vote for democrat. Where the impact is, is on a President that appoints justices to the federal courts. Federal judges are lifetime appointments. With medical technology today, a federal judge can probably serve 50 years or more on a court.

In California, our state Supreme Court overturned the will of the people by one vote on the ban of gay marriage. The judges were appointed by liberal governors. (The last conservative governor we had in California was George Deukmejian).

The impact of the CA state supreme court can have devastating effects on our nation. Unlike MA, any gay couple from any state can come to CA and get married. They can take that marriage license to another state and demand that state to honor it. If they don't, they can take their case to the federal courts and ask the federal courts to rule the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and ask the federal courts to rule that their marriage license be honored under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution.

So, just keep that in mind. If the Lord wills a democrat to win the White House don't let it be through your hand (or vote) but through the vote of the ungodly. Just be informed about your choices, that's it.

the postmortem said...

Ok. I'm not saying in any way that politics replace preaching the gospel.

But sometimes there are points in the political process at which it's ok for Christians to take a prominent stand and say "No, this is not ok. And yes, I'm willing to stand against those who proclaim it to be true."

I'm not saying I put any "hope" put in that act for "saving people". But just because the gospel is, by far, the most worthwhile thing to talk about in life doesn't prove that other important things are dangerous. Paranoia about political involvement isn't going to help people get saved either. Nor is utter withdrawal from society.

Look, I'm just a normal guy who thinks abortion is wrong. It's ok to say that to a non-Christian. Hey, maybe one day the whole world will at least recognize it's wrong (like Wilberforce and the slave-trade), and Christ will be honored when he is seen as the root which nourished a movement against an evil.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I've heard lots from this blog about how Christians can't save people through the government. But I think that's a straw-man that few professing Christians would openly agree with. Yes, some people think gov. is the answer to everything; but let's just agree that they're wrong, and they may not really understand the gospel if they think that.

Pyro-Writers: If you're going to discuss the matter of politics on this blog, please be willing to say what is the right involvement in politics, instead of just saying, "Only the gospel can save you."

You could say that about anything, and you would be right. Don't get too involved with baseball/bowling/reading/mowing... it won't save you.

That's true...but how much involvement is actually ok in your view?

Stating that would give some helpful qualifications to your viewpoint.

jmb said...

Thanks for the post. I'm preparing a message on the centrality of the Gospel, and this will be very helpful.

And thanks for the photo of the great Buster!

Rick Frueh said...

Getting "involved" in politics on any level usually is weighted toward compromise as opposed to any legislative moral victory. Great Christian political movers and shakers like Cal Thomas have now significantly re-evaluated their misguided dalliances in politics.

And in the light of the condition of the church in 2008, how do we leave the raging fire to go plant daisies?

Blind, Irish Pirate said...

A friend pointed me in the direction of this entry after I heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons on CNN Sunday night. I was pretty put off by both his words and the reaction of the political spectators. Your entry is the logical response equivalent to my angry outburst. :-D Thanks!

Ron Hodgman said...

Those interested in the article published by Tim Keller mentioned by Stephen Macasil can do a Google search on the following key words: Stephen Murray, WordPress.com, Tim Kellers Gospel An Open Forum

Ron Hodgman said...

Monergism has added Tim Keller's article that Stephen Mascasil referenced to its Emerging Church section. Since Phil Johnson and John MacArthur articles are in the same section, it appears that Monergism didn't have any issue with it?

Therefore, the article can be viewed on the Monergism website.