A Word in Defense of God's Justice

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "God's Advocates Breaking Silence," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 17 March 1878, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.

ne would think, to hear some preachers, that God was under obligation to man, or, at least, that he had no will of his own, but had left man's will to be supreme.

The truth is that if all the race had been condemned, God would have been infinitely just, and if he spares one and not another none can say unto him "What doest thou?"

His declaration is "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

I sympathize with man, but I have in my very soul an infinitely deeper sympathy with God. I am bound to love my neighbor as myself, but the still higher law calls on me to love the Lord my God with all my heart, and soul, and mind, and strength.

Speaking on behalf of man may be carried so far that you come at length to look upon sin as his misfortune rather than his fault, and to view the fact that sin is punished at all as a matter to be deplored. In some professed Christians their pity for the criminal has overcome their horror at the crime. Eternal punishment is denied, not because the scriptures are not plain enough on that point, but because man has become the god of man, and everything must be toned down to suit the tender feelings of an age which excuses sin but denounces its penalties, which has no condemnation for the offense, but spends its denunciations upon the Judge and his righteous sentence.

By all means have sympathies manward, but at the same time show some tenderness towards the dishonored law and the insulted Lord. Is justice a figment? Is there no necessity for divine anger? Is mercy itself become a debt due to mankind? See you nothing horrible in sin? Is there no guilt in rejecting Christ and trampling on his blood? Ay, and is there none in closing the eyes even to the feebler light which streams from the visible works of God, and reveals his power and Godhead?

Few, I say, look at the matter in this light, and yet it should be the main business of every believer "to speak on God's behalf." It becomes, therefore, all the more needful that those who have been led to side with God, and who feel their hearts drawn to adore and magnify and vindicate their glorious Lord, should count it a privilege still to be spared to speak on the behalf of God.

I would silence no voice that speaks for man so far as it speaks truthfully, but oh for more voices to speak for God and maintain his crown rights. It needs that we vindicate his law and the terrors of it, his gospel and the sovereignty of it, his nature and the completeness of it, his providence and the wisdom of it, his redemption and the efficacy of it, his eternal purpose and the accomplishment of it.

May this theme, though silent long, be sounded forth till its voice is heard in every street of Zion. Not the exaggeration of divine truth, but that truth itself, we desire to hear, and God grant we may live to hear it. May many a man of God be constrained to say, "I have yet to speak on God's behalf." Let others plead what cause they will, it is ours with the greatest of poets "To justify the ways of God to men."

---

For British readers: Ashford Bible Conference on Christ in the OT

by Dan Phillips

While we await one of my betters' posts:

I'd mentioned this in passing some time back, and a couple of our British readers wanted more details. Now they're available!

This is a conference to be held September 17, 2011, in Ashford, England. This is their third annual conference. Featured speakers will be Tom Drion, Anthony Forsyth, and some blogger. As the site explains:

This year's theme is "Christ in the Old Testament". The great Composer of the Old Testament crafted a symphony that created longings, hopes, and expectations which could only be met in the person and work of Jesus the Messiah. Our conference speakers will open up aspects of His masterpiece.

Further details here.

Would love to see you.

---

Wretched: This Is Where I am Right Now a brief addendum and update by Phil Johnson oday I'm in the Twin Cities area for the second of this year's Psalm 119 Conferences, sponsored by Wretched Radio with Todd Friel. Speakers at this weekend's conference include James White, Milton Vincent, and R. W. Glenn. James White and Todd Friel have both been friends of mine for a long time, and they are opposite personalities with totally different temperaments. I'm eager to see them get together. Should be great fun. Next week Darlene and I will be in Chicago at The Gospel Coalition. Nevertheless, I plan to do a proper blogpost on Monday. If you're going to be at either conference, look us up. See also my comment under this post. If you have the time and the means to go to that conference in Ashford, you won't regret it. —Phil Johnson

Book review — Acts, by R. C. Sproul

by Dan Phillips

Acts, by R. C. Sproul

(Wheaton:Crossway, 2010; 440 pages)

Acts joins volumes on Romans and John in The St Andrew's Expositional Commentary series, which transform sermons Sproul preached at St. Andrew's Chapel into book-form.

Each of the 62 chapters (plus an epilogue from 2 Timothy)  averages 7-8 pages, of which one page or more often is simply a reprint of the selected portion of Acts. This made the chapters the perfect length for reading during my morning devotions and Bible reading: just about the right length and depth to begin my time.

The style is what we have come to expect and appreciate from Sproul: readable, thoughtful, interesting, engaging. Sproul sprinkles his comments with wide-ranging stories and factoids and reflections. His wide reading and education, and his deep experience, enrich the commentary. Now Sproul takes a bit from ancient history, and then a bit of a word-study, then a side-trip to politics, and then a vignette from his own life and ministry.

However, one would not go to this volume as a commentary proper. Sproul moves too quickly over the text, and his focal points are necessarily selective. For instance, Sproul preaches on Acts 8:37 (152), without mentioning that its genuineness is textually unlikely. So no one will throw out his Bruce or Longenecker or Stott. However, there is edifying devotional material, and perhaps some suggestions for preaching.

There isn't a boring page in the book.

As one would expect, there is plenty of good, corrective theology. On Pentecost and the coming of the Spirit, Sproul says

The reason for the outpouring of the Spirit is not to make us feel spiritual. It is not to give us a spiritual high. It is so that we can do the job that Jesus gave the church to do. (27)

On Paul's conversion:

Just minutes before his conversion, all that Paul could think of was what he could do to Christ, but immediately after, all he could think of is what he could do for Christ, which reveals the essence of his radical conversion. (162)

On the modern charismatic movement: "My problem with Pentecostalism is that it has too low a view of Pentecost" (198).

On Christianity's exclusivism:

If all religions are equally good, then one stands out as terribly bad, and that is Christianity, because Christianity has no time for pluralism. It sees one way only. Now, that is downright un-American. Sometimes you have to make a decision where your allegiance is going to be—with the secular culture or with the One whom God sent into the world as our Redeemer. (318)

There are some unusual bits here and there. Sproul says that the church "for centuries" has called Acts 1:7-8 the "Great Commission," a term I've only heard applied to Matthew 28:18-20 (27). Maybe that's just my more parochial perspective. Again, one raises one's eyebrow at the phrase, "The price tag for forgiveness is repentance" (63), though we understand what Sproul means. Also, virtually Sproul's entire section on Acts 14:19-28 is devoted to politics — separation of church and state, criticism of government, tax-exempt status, flat tax, and also abortion (258-262). Though I basically agreed with with everything Sproul said, at one point I did note in the margin, "What verse are we on?"

A concern, however, arises from the fact that the text is sprinkled with a number of factual errors or inaccuracies. These are misstatements about Hebrew words (41, 338); and Greek words (156, 170, 433), and other things. One depends (I can say from grateful and humbled experience) on pre-readers and editors to catch one's mistakes like this, and one feels Sproul could have been served better in this regard.

I mention this (reluctantly) both for prospective readers, and for our readers who themselves do or will write. There is no doubt that Sproul is a deeply-studied scholar, and the respect he enjoys is well deserved. In this book, all of Sproul's allusions to history, etymology and geography; all his quotations from Calvin, Hume, Luther, Boice, Ramsey, Ovid and others, are undocumented. When such assertions are mixed with statements the reader recognizes to be inaccurate... the effect is that one would not quote any of the other allusions or facts, or use them in a sermon, unless one could verify them oneself. Or perhaps Sproul's status is such that one might say, "Sproul says that Calvin said...." But some of us obsessives like to get our hands on the source itself.

This book, provided me by Crossway for review, was a good read. One looks forward to future volumes in this series, and hopes that the preparation process serves Sproul well. His is a voice that continues to deserve respectful hearing.

---

Open Letter to ???

by Frank Turk

Dear @FakeJohnPiper, @SBCMessenger, @XIANITY, @NotBennyHinn, @NotRickWarren, @BronxZoosCobra, @FakeDawkins, etc. --

Keep being awesome. You have made/are making Twitter an art form. Somehow @FakeFrankTurk never took off like you did.

---

Is the Gospel "beginner's material"?

by Dan Phillips

Time was, I would have said an emphatic "Yes!" Now I say an emphatic, "Yes — and no!"

As I prepared for and entered pastoral ministry, I saw a scene filled with churches who preached how-to-get-saved sermons every Sunday. The sheep were told how to become sheep, Sunday after Sunday. It produced perennially immature, ignorant Christians who thought their great and sole goal in life as Christians was to tell other people how to become Christians.

It reminded me of the Peanuts cartoon where Charlie Brown had told Lucy that we were put here to make others happy.

"What are the others put here for?" responded Lucy.

The Bible says a whole lot more than that Christians should tell people how to become Christians, so that they could tell people how to become Christians, so that they could tell people how to become Christians, and so on ad infinitum.

I visited the major Southern Baptist church in a small desert town. The morning "worship" service was devoted to a chart and figures. It was like a sales-strategy meeting. They "did the math" on what would happen if one person "won" one person, then they each "won" two more people, and so forth. Soon, the whole community would be "won."

I thought, "'Won'? To what? To the art of winning more people? What are the other people there for?"

Evangelism is essential, but it isn't everything. Some of this mindset springs, I think, from a fundamental misunderstanding of the "Great Commission," Matthew 28:18-20.

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Many read these words as a charge to the church to evangelize. That thought is included, of course; but it's a bit like saying that God's will for married couples is that they have a wedding ceremony. Well, there is that; but there is a whole lot to the before, during, and... well... during of marriage than the ceremony.

To make disciples is to make pupils, to make students. What's the text? What's the subject? "How to Become a Christian"? Yes, of course; but not just that. Our Lord goes on to mention immersion of those who are disciples, and "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." That just blows out the walls, doesn't it? "All that I have commanded you" takes in a lot more than how to get saved.

If our sole goal were telling people how to become Christians, one is left to wonder why God wrote such a large book that deals with so many other issues as well (marriage, children, relationships, work, wealth, creation, etc.).

However, having said all of that, I have come deeply to see that indeed the Gospel is not just beginner's material. Not the wholesome, fulsome Gospel of the Bible.

One must teach what the Bible says about marriage, family, relationships and all that. But as one does, one must preach the Gospel — because the Gospel is fundamental (1 Corinthians 15:1), and if we get the Gospel wrong, we get everything else wrong. The Gospel is how I came to know God, but the Gospel is also how I continue to know God. There is a constant need for the Gospel in Christian life.

This is part of the premise of my upcoming book, The World-Tilting Gospel. The Gospel certainly does tell us how to get saved (1 Corinthians 15:2), but it tells us more besides. Our entire view of the Christian life depends on whether we got the Gospel right or not. Lloyd-Jones illustrates this ongoing need well in his book Spiritual Depression, where he highlights and illustrates our ongoing need to preach the gospel to ourselves.

Another illustration comes with R. W. Glenn's post addressed to Christians (Christians) who struggle to believe that God loves them (h-t Challies). This topic resonates with me. What solution does pastor Glenn propose? "Repent and believe the gospel." That's right: if I understand him correctly, Glenn is telling people who believed the Gospel perhaps decades ago, who are saved and Biblically-faithful Christians that they (you? I?) need to repent and believe the Gospel. Because what will assure us of God's love is not something other, greater, deeper, or more advanced than the Gospel. It is the Gospel.

So I think that was the problem I noted at the outset.

It was that churches' preaching of the Gospel was too limited.

And it was that my understanding of the Gospel was too limited.

---

Street-Preaching

by Phil Johnson

My friend Tony Miano proclaims the gospel on Hollywood Blvd. Photo by Chris Yarzab © 2008

Street preachers are much-maligned and often despised (or worse) for their work. The following thoughts are adapted from a comment I made in an evangelical forum where questions were being raised about the validity of open-air evangelism. Several forum participants said they are embarrassed by open-air preaching, loud evangelism, public calls for repentance, placards, and tract ministry. Someone wondered aloud whether "The 'Turn or Burn' Christian who stands on the street corner" could possibly have any noble motive. One thing was clear: lots of Christians have a low opinion of people who proclaim the gospel through signs or sermons on street corners. I have a different point of view.

rovided his message is accurate, I'm grateful for the "Turn or Burn" guy (as well as the one-on-one evangelist with a pocketful of tracts)—regardless of what his motive is. Philippians 1:18.

Evangelical Christianity has a noble tradition of open-air preaching, and some of the finest preachers in history have done it. George Whitefield did little else. Spurgeon did it, advocated it, and gave lectures on how to do it correctly. Both of them were vilified for it by more "refined" religious leaders in their respective eras. May the Lord save us from that kind of "refinement."

Jay Smith preaches at Hyde Park Speaker's Corner in London. He has an amazing ministry there to Muslim radicals who gather at Hyde Park to proclaim their own message.

Open-air evangelism has always had a more or less counter-cultural stigma. People have always been offended by it, because it tends to confront them with the truths they least want to think about at precisely the moment they are trying to do something to avoid thinking about things like eternity and accountability to God.

And therein lies the true effectiveness of open-air ministry, I think. You can't measure the "success" of the street-corner guy by the number of converts he wins. You'd have to be able to know how many men who drove by him on their way to a strip club or a secret tryst and were convicted when they saw his "Repent" signs. But there are no statistics on that.

Old-style open-air ministry

There is a guy in Santa Clarita who has some very-well designed signs and spends a lot of time at one or the other of our valley's two busiest intersections. He has been doing it for more than a decade. He purposely makes eye contact with me almost every time I drive by. I have never seen him without thanking God for people like him.

My youngest son is a policeman who patroled Venice Beach for a couple of years. I am thankful for the people who are down there (as Ray Comfort or someone from his team always seems to be) doing some kind of open-air evangelism. Tony Miano is a retired policeman who frequently does personal and open-air evangelism at our local courthouse (and elsewhere), and I'm thankful for his ministry.

It's true that most people who convert to Christianity aren't won to Christ through the methods employed by street evangelists. The average Christian is more likely to win someone to Christ within his or her personal circle of relationships. So if you can't imagine yourself doing open-air ministry, get busy evangelizing anyway.

But let's not miss the equally-true flip-side of that fact: Some people are so deep in sin and degeneracy and so devoid of Christian friendship that if they don't hear the gospel from an evangelist like Tony Miano or Ray Comfort, they aren't going to hear it at all. We should support and encourage what these guys do, because on its own level it can be very effective. Only heaven will reveal how true that is.

And the next time you see that guy on the corner holding the "Repent" sign, buy him a Slurpee and give him a word of encouragement. If you talk to him, you might find that his "motivation" is very different from what you assumed.

NOTE: Lots of heretics use signs and street-preaching to advance their error and spread their confusion. You have to be careful not to lend your support or casually say amen to people who are corrupting the gospel (2 John 7-11). Thus I chose carefully the words with which I began this post: "Provided his message is *accurate* . . ."

Here are some good resources for wannabe street preachers:

• Doug Wilson answers a question about street preaching.
  
• A great series of blogposts by Steve McCoy.
  
• Tony Miano in action.
  
• Spurgeon on street preaching.
  
• Spurgeon on open-air preaching.
  
• "Open-Air Preaching: A Sketch of Its History" (from Spurgeon's Lectures to My Students, lecture 17).
  
• More remarks from Spurgeon on open-air preaching (from Lectures to My Students, lecture 18).

---

The Glory of the Gospel's Simplicity

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Men Bewitched," a sermon preached by Spurgeon in the Metropolitan Tabernacle at some unknown date, first published in 1880.

good many years ago, when I was about fifteen or sixteen years of age, I wanted a Savior, and I heard the gospel preached by a poor man, who said in the name of Jesus—"Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." It was very plain English, and I understood it, and obeyed it and found rest.

I owe all my happiness since then to the same plain doctrine.

Now, suppose that I were to say, "I have read a great many books, and there are a great many people willing to hear me. I really could not preach such a commonplace gospel as I did at the first. I must put it in a sophisticated way, so that none but the elite can understand me." I should be—what should I be? I should be a fool, writ large.

I should be worse than that, I should be a traitor to my God; for if I was saved by a simple gospel, then I am bound to preach that same simple gospel till I die, so that others too may be saved by it. When I cease to preach salvation by faith in Jesus put me into a lunatic asylum, for you may be sure that my mind is gone.

---

Cubs' Opening Day

Albert Pujols? Seriously?
by Phil Johnson




oday I'm going to recommend a book about Albert Pujols. But I need to preface it with a disclaimer.

I really hate the Cardinals.

A little personal history: I was a casual Cardinals fan for awhile in my adolescence. I grew up in Tulsa, and the Cardinals' Triple-A farm club was based there in the late '60s. So a local radio station broadcast all the Cardinals' games. I listened to a lot of games, and naturally, I more or less thought of myself as a Cardinals fan.

But I turned against the Cardinals during high school because (get this:) I found Harry Caray irritating in the extreme. (He and Jack Buck were the Cardinals' announcers in those days.)

After high school I went away to Moody Bible Institute and stayed in Chicago for most of the '70s. I met Darlene for the first time during the last week of June 1977, and fifteen minutes after meeting her I invited her to come with me to a baseball game that weekend. So our very first date was at Wrigley Field. (There's even a brick in the pavement at Wrigley today commemorating the event.)





Darlene and I were married two weeks shy of the anniversary of that first date, and our first apartment was a block from Wrigley. So you see: no matter how badly the Cubs do—and their bungling frequently exceeds even my worst expectations—we are locked-in, lifelong, die-hard Cubs fans.

All true Cubs fans hate the Cardinals. When you invest your emotional energies in a team who are perennial losers, it tends to stir even stronger (and certainly darker) passions than a winning team would. The Cardinals are the Cubs' closest, oldest rivals, and let's be candid: Cardinals fans are punks. Plus, the Cardinals sent Harry Caray to Chicago. So there's a lot of pent-up, well-deserved hate.

Yet (and in all candor this seriously troubles everyone else in my family) I've always liked Albert Pujols. Not when he's playing the Cubs, mind you. But when he's playing any other team, I love to see him do well. He's a truly great baseball player with the potential to be one of the greatest ever. More than that, I like it that he is bold with his testimony for Christ. But I didn't realize how bold, until I read this in Pujols: More than the Game, by Scott Lamb and Tim Ellsworth:

When an opposing player would get to first base, [Pujols] would ask them, "What do you think is going to happen to you when you die?" or "If you died today, where do you think you’re going to go?" (p. 141)

Scott Lamb kindly sent me a pre-release copy of the book last fall, but dual back surgeries and other difficulties hindered me from giving the publisher an endorsement in time for the book's pre-release publicity. My failure to get an endorsement into the book's press kits deeply gratified the other Cubs fans in my family, but the truth is, I really liked this book. It's a very engaging and well-written look at the personal side of Pujols' life and career. He is as likable as he is athletically gifted.

And he is the consummate baseball player:

When compared to the legends of the game, Pujols stands alongside Stan Musial, Ted Williams, and Joe DiMaggio as one of only four players to have less than five hundred career strikeouts and a career batting average over .330 at the time they hit their three-hundredth home run.

Yankee hero Lou Gehrig posted nine consecutive seasons with thirty doubles, a .300 batting average, thirty home runs, and one hundred runs batted in. Has anyone else accomplished this feat? Nobody except Pujols.

In more than one hundred years of National League baseball, nobody ranks ahead of Pujols in extra base hits (744) within their first 5,000 career at bats. He gets around a lot. (p. 7)

Here's something that makes that even more amazing: Pujols was passed over by most scouts who saw him play in college. He was drafted in 1999 by the Cardinals in the 13th round—the 402nd player picked that year. Most players drafted that late never make it to the major leagues.

But what interests me far more than Pujols' incredible career is his commitment to Christ. Most athletes effusively thank God when they win, and many profess some kind of faith in Christ. Albert Pujols is a serious Christian.



I've spoken at a few Baseball Chapel meetings, and while there are many truly committed believers in Major League Baseball, there are even more who treat religion like a good-luck charm, attending those chapels before important games for purely superstitious reasons. Pujols is not of that type:

Pujols' Christian walk and leadership are best characterized by passion and consistency. "Sometimes he really gets going, and once something hits him, you can tell he's just passionate about it," [pitcher Kyle] Mclellan said. "I think he tries to keep quiet, and then something will come up and he just can't help it anymore. Sometimes when we are on the road, the chapel leader for the other team is busy or there's not a lot of time for chapel. But Albert will be chomping at the bit, saying, 'I'll lead it. Let's go. I'll give everybody the Word.'" (p. 91).

Lamb and Ellsworth don't idealize Pujols' faith, though. He has a temper, and he has been known to shoot off his mouth. The book candidly chronicles some of these episodes (one of the best examples of this is pp. 150-53). The book also includes a chapter on steroid abuse and Pujols' response to that scandal.

If you're looking for some recreational reading to get you into the mood as baseball season begins, Pujols: More than the Game, by Scott Lamb and Tim Ellsworth is this year's recommendation from me.

Yesterday was the season opener for the Cardinals. They lost (at home) 5-3 in eleven innings to the Padres. May that be a harbinger of things to come this season for the team. But I hope Pujols has another career season (except when the Cardinals play the Cubs). And the reason I can say that right out loud is that if he shines again and the Cardinals want to keep him, it will cost them a trainload of money.

By the way, in yesterday's opener, Pujols tied a major league record by grounding into three double plays. And that's an achievement every Cubs fan can applaud.

This intrepid Cubs fan showed up yesterday at Busch Stadium to honor Albert Pujols and celebrate the Cardinals' loss.

---

Various unrelated "wins": Kregel tours, Vos in English, free books and resources, and more

by Dan Phillips

Howdy, gang. Hopefully at least one of the items in this little assortment will interest and/or help you.

First may ultimately seem self-serving, but I actually think it's a pretty terrific opportunity for many of you.

Kregel has been putting out some great books, of which three in recent years have been this one and this one and this one. Wellsir (and ma'am), they're inviting interested and qualified bloggers to apply to become Kregel bloggers and participate in blog tours as part of introducing new books. Kregel has significant, interesting, solid titles coming out in each catalog.

Who knows? In a few months, Lord willing, you may host me for a World-Tilting Gospel tour.

The qualifications really aren't at all out of reach. If you're interested, check it out.

Second, are you interested in a (first-ever) English translation of Geerhardus Vos' Gereformeerde Dogmatiek? Logos is gathering interest to fund just such a project. Check it out here and here.

Third but still with Logos: check out the current state of their March madness sale. I already took advantage of the sale on Exploring the Old Testament, vol. 3: The Psalms and Wisdom Literature (— duh!).

Fourth, Westminster bookstore's having a nice sale on a book for Christian collegiates (more details, obviously, here).

Fifth, if you have an iPhone or an iPad and haven't checked out Olive Tree BibleReader 5, I recommend it. It's fast, and more intuitive and powerful than ever; really a sweet app. I mention that in order to mention this: Olive Tree offers something like 120+ free resources. Check them out.

---

Open Letter to The Average Pastor

by Frank Turk

Dear Pastor:

First of all, breathe a sigh of relief because this open letter, while to you, is not really “about you,” except as food for thought. This is not about your spiritual, exegetical, theological or humanitarian malfeasance. But it is about something that I think you probably think about often enough that I hope this can be of some use to you.


Now, about 5 years ago, Sir Ken Robinson delivered 20 minutes at the TED talks. For those of you who have no idea what that means, it was at the TED talks that the touchscreen technology that drives the iPhone and iPad was unveiled, and amongst the technological hoo-ha that goes on there, what is also delivered is a myriad or other ideas which, I think, are rightly labeled as one brand of secular humanism – a pretty gaudy and self-important kind of humanism, but humanism nontheless. This is how they describe themselves:

TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design -- three broad subject areas that are, collectively, shaping our future. And in fact, the event is broader still, showcasing ideas that matter in any discipline. The format is fast paced: 50+ talks over the course of four days (to say nothing of the morning and evening events). This immersive environment allows attendees and speakers from vastly different fields to cross-fertilize and draw inspiration from unlikely places. This is the magic of TED.


Attendance at TED is by invitation only, and the attendees -- CEOs, scientists, designers, intellectuals -- are as extraordinary as the speakers, who in 2007 included former US President Bill Clinton, author Isabel Allende, legendary biologist EO Wilson, designer Phillipe Starck, and Virgin CEO Richard Branson; in 2008, speakers included brain expert Jill Bolte Taylor, physicist Stephen Hawking and undersea explorer Robert Ballard. Indeed, TED's success is based on the extraordinary effect of bringing together 1,000 of the world's most remarkable people. The result? Unexpected connections. Extraordinary insights. Powerful inspiration.

Now, get this: here’s an event where all the people are classed as “extraordinary”, and literally millions of people cannot come (though they can look in, via video) because they are by definition “not extraordinary”. So the average or common person is allowed to look in through the display windows, but they can’t be part of the actual magic (and I don’t use that word accidentally).

So there at TED, in 2006, Ken Robinson delivered this talk:



And you should pay close attention to this bit near the beginning:

Sir Ken Robinson [about 2:00]: I have a big interest in education, and I think we all do. We have a huge vested interest in it partly because it’s education that’s meant to take us into this future that we can’t grasp. If you think of it, children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065. Nobody has a clue, despite all the expertise that’s been on parade for the last four days, what the world will look like in 5 years time. And yet: we’re meant to be educating them for it. So the unpredictability I think is extraordinary.


And the third part of this is that we’ve all agreed, nonetheless, on the really extraordinary capacities that children have. Their capacities for innovation. I mean, Serena [Huang, 11-yr-old classical violinist] last night was a marvel. Just seeing what she could do? And she’s exceptional, but I think she’s not exceptional in the whole of childhood. What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent. And my contention is that all kids have these talents and we squander them – pretty ruthlessly.


So I want to talk about education, and I want to talk about creativity. My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status (applause). [end – about 3:20]

OK – so Sir Ken is not a Christian as far as we can tell, so you’re not going to invite him to your next homeschooling conference. But look at what he’s saying here:

1. The future is coming.
2. We have no idea what it looks like.
3. We are pinning our hopes for the future on education.
4. This activity is so that we do not squander the talents of our children.
5. To that end, we should be educating for the sake of growing creativity rather than growing results-oriented adults.
6. Creativity is at least as important as literacy.

This is awesome, and let me tell you why.

First of all, it’s almost uncalled-for that Sir Ken would confess that we have no idea what the future looks like. I mean: the whole point of atheism is to say that we do know what the future looks like in broad terms, and it will always be better than right now because (if we obey humanist dogma) science will make our lives better. Better medicine, better technology, better quality of life, etc. The future is better. And maybe that’s implicit in Sir Ken’s view of things: we have no idea how good the future will be. But I think there’s something a little more menacing under his statement that we don’t know what the future will hold. The subtext of his statement is that the future will be far more complicated than it is right now, and in that we will need people who are up to the task of manning it. The subtext is simply that if we don’t prepare our kids, they are going to wind up “ruthlessly squandered”. So his confession here is a brutal confession for the kind of humanism TED is advocating: it’s a confession that the future is not necessarily a warm and safe place.

Second of all, Sir Ken’s belief in creativity to overcome the kind of adversity there will be in the future is a dead giveaway that he’s concerned that the future is not all bright lights and long European-style meals with charming and pretty people. You know: if he was advocating that industry will win the day (that is: hard work), he would be advocating for principles which guide us to right ends. So in the future, if we apply ourselves, we can accomplish the tasks at hand because hard work pays off. You can plant a crop if you work hard; you can tend it if you work hard; you can harvest it if you work hard; you can use it to feed yourself and others if you plan and execute that plan with some basic discipline.

But for Sir Ken, it is not a question of principles: it is a question of innovation. That is: old solutions will not work anymore – which speaks to the radical nature of the condition of the future. In some sense, the rules for the future are not even invented yet.

Now, to be fair to Sir Ken, he has other messages in this 20 minutes as well, and I think they are worth considering. But at the core, he has made it utterly plain: the principles which we work with today are, in the best case, for today and likely not applicable to tomorrow. It is imagination and creativity which ought to drive human value systems and our social systems.

So what’s in it for you, then?

Here’s what I think: Sir Ken and the TED network of extraordinary people have a kind of gospel they are proposing which says that humanity can and will save itself. The method of salvation is education. The means of salvation is innovation. Yet they confess that they have no idea what will actually be needed or what will actually be the state toward which we are innovating – we just have to believe that we can and will make the right choices when we are creative enough. Let me say frankly: that’s a path which has been trod down a hundred times historically, and it always ends up in disappointment.

This is where you come in, my dear local pastor.

What you have, instead, is a different Gospel -- which speaks to a future that the TED-ites cannot possibly imagine. The first thing is that it's not for the extraordinary -- its for the everyone.  That may in some sense make it rather mundane rather than a glittering gem which whoever it is that is doing Paris Hilton's job now would want to be seen in public with.  But at least it is not inherently a beauty pageant. It's actually the opposite of a beauty pageant because it is meant for the scum of the earth.

But get this: you know something about people which our friends at TED do not: people are not essentially creative – unless we call the ways in which we invent our gods “creative”. We do what is right in our own eyes. We know that what mankind does, in particular, every day, is that we set up created things as what are extraordinary instead of the maker of all created things. And when we do that, frankly, we cheat ourselves of the truth and live in the dark cover of what we believe rather than what is really out there.

You reformed guys are out there waving the Romans 1 & 2 banners now, I know, but stick with me for a second. While this is a theological way of looking at the matter, it’s not some high-brow thing which you have to be really, really smart to get: this is an extremely pragmatic approach to preparing ourselves for the fall out of the failure of TED-driven utopian thought.

Here is the pragmatism of the Gospel: If Christ really died for our sins, in accordance with Scripture, and was buried and raised on the third day in accordance with Scripture, then the world is not whatever we can imagine it to be. It is in fact something we must somehow know and comply with. So for example, we may all have iPads with wireless 9G connections which are completely free that also has an App Store where we can download anything we want including all manner of religious documents because after Steve Jobs is finally put in deep storage, the next guy will be creative enough to make money on obvious things. But when that happens, what kind of people shall we be? Will that actually make us more creative? Or more loving? Or more compassionate? Or more fit? Or better dancers? Will many children be liberated from the shackles of post-classical education where both literacy and creativity are equal values?

Or will it be with the iPad as it has been with every other device we have invented for ourselves: won't it rather make less of us by making us busy in yet another unreal way?

See: if history actually happened, and Christ's death and resurrection happened in it, in this world, then Sir Ken has really missed the boat. The problem is not that we surpress our creativity: it is that we forget that we are created beings, and that we have a place in this world under the rule of King Jesus. And for his sake, we should repent and ask forgiveness that we think of ourselves as extraordinary when in fact we are only extraordinary in our pride and our self-interest.

This is a world where people congratulate themselves for being creative literally to cover up their pronounced limp.  They somehow both fear and laud the future which holds nothing for them -- except that they might outsmart it (they're not afraid to fail, after all), but Christ is coming to judge them.  And in his judgment, there are no bonus points for making up your own way.  There is only one way, and it's our job to see to it that this is declared without any doubt.

See to it, my friend.  Start as soon as possible, and do not look back.  Unexpected connections, extraordinary insights, and powerful inspiration is all your home court.  See to it.

---

Porn and paper pastors

by Dan Phillips

From almost two years ago comes this post, which engendered comment for some time, on-site and off. Illness and occupation of remaining resources with some feverish editing makes this a good time for me to present it again to friends old and new. I had opportunity recently to use some of these thoughts in a sermon.

---

Decades ago, I read a disturbingly candid essay by a pastor about his struggles with pornography. It was in Leadership magazine. Years later, two of his realizations still stand out to me.

The author came to see (as I recall) that he was attracted to these images because they were unreal. The women in the pictures never had bad days, were never crabby and demanding, never disrespectful and demeaning. No mood swings. They always suited his mood, his needs, his wants. They were unreal.

He came to see that he had no actual relationship with these women whatever. If (he named a female celebrity) had sat down next to him in an airplane, she wouldn't know him from Adam. Whatever may have happened in his sinful fantasies, the two of them had no relationship in the real world.

Of course, this is why so many women resent actresses and models. It isn't catty pettiness or smallness. It is that they know how visually-tempted men can be, and they know that they can't compete with a fantasy — if their man is fool enough to chase one.

And they're right, in a way. They can't compete with these women. Because these women don't exist in the real world! They may not even look like their pictures! Thanks to computer wizardry, the pictures we see may actually bear only the slightest resemblance to the actual women.

Nobody can compete with a fantasy.

And this post is not about pornography, men, women, nor marriage.

It is about people with paper pastors.

Now, some professed Christians sin outright, by never physically attending an actual, in-person church. We've talked about that, and they aren't our focus.


But others do attend a church — physically. They come in, they sit down. They sing, they may give financially. They may look at you, Pastor, as you preach.

But you know their heart belongs to another.

Their real pastor isn't you. It's Dave Hunt. Or it's John Piper. Or it's John MacArthur, or Ligon Duncan, or Mark Dever, or David Cloud, or Joel Osteen. Or it's Charles Spurgeon, or D. M. Lloyd-Jones, or J. C. Ryle. Or Calvin, or Luther, or Bahnsen, or de Mar, or R. B. Thieme (Jr.), or J. Vernon McGee.

And they're such better pastors than you are! You know they are!

Why?

Well, paper pastors are never in a bad mood. They're never cranky, or sleepy or sick. (Especially the dead ones.)

They've never just had someone else pull their guts out with a rusty fork, and then had to turn and listen graciously to your complaint about the translation they preach from, or argue about a Greek word they can't even pronounce. They don't have a family who loses the time you use. They never half-listen, never have an appointment that cuts short their time. Their office hours are your office hours. They're available 24/7, and everywhere, at your whim, and you always have their undivided attention.

What's more is they always have all the answers! They can tell you with complete confidence and masterful eloquence. They never stammer, guess, nor search their memory. And they can prove it — whatever they're saying! With footnotes!

And these paper pastors maintain the perfect distance. If you don't want to hear something, they don't press it — or you can instantly shut them up, snap! They never ask you to do something uncomfortable and follow up on you. They never persistently probe an area of sin, in you, in person, eyeball to eyeball... nor will they. Church discipline will not be a threat with them. Ever.

Because they don't know you from Adam.

Yet how many pastors know that there are people in their flocks, thinking, "John Piper would never say it that way. Dave Hunt says that what he just preached is heresy. John MacArthur isn't like that. Mahaney says that... Mohler says that... Lloyd-Jones said...."

So, because it's awkward for your pastor to say it to you — and because I've no church who'd suspect I'm talking to them, at the moment — I'll just tell you plain:

Brother, sister: John Piper isn't your pastor. John MacArthur knows nothing about you. Dave Hunt never got on his knees and prayed for you. Lloyd-Jones won't come to your house when you're recovering from surgery, or one of your children shatters your heart, or your marriage is shaking and rocking and barely hanging on. Charles Spurgeon won't weep with you as you weep.

You could buy or not buy _____'s next book, and he'd never know it. But if you're in a manageable-size church with a caring pastor and you're suddenly gone next Sunday, he'll be concerned. He may call. He may ask if everything's okay.

God gave you the pastor He gave you.

God told Paul to tell you:

We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13)

God told the writer to the Hebrews to tell you:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)

Your flesh-and-blood pastor can't compete with these paper pastors for the same reason you can't compete with paper women and paper men.

Because they're not real.

---

Spurgeon Lectures on "The Gorilla and the Land he Inhabits"

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from volume 3 of Spurgeon's Autobiography. It is the account of how Spurgeon responded to some critics who had charged him with hypocrisy. Spurgeon was fairly young at this point in his ministry but was already well known for opposing the growing tendency for preachers to stupefy their congregations with a show of erudition or entertain them with pageantry, a performance, or a parade. Secular critics (and some fellow churchmen) attacked Spurgeon for lecturing on a topic deemed "secular."
    Actually, Spurgeon used the opportunity to draw spiritual lessons from the naturalist's work, and he spoke passionately of the need for missionaries in unreached parts of Africa. But critics were relentless. The caricatures below are samples of how he was lampooned in the secular press.
    The episode nevertheless shows Spurgeon's thoughtfulness, tenderness, and good humor in the face of criticism.

We are now to be entertained by Mr. Spurgeon's lecture on the gorilla, but, in after ages,—according to the development theory,—we shall doubtless have a gorilla lecturing on Mr. Spurgeon."—Extract from the speech of the Rt. Hon. A. H. Layard, M.P., at Mr. Spurgeon's lecture on "The Gorilla and the Land he Inhabits"

N October 1, 1861, Mr. Spurgeon gave, in the Tabernacle, a lecture which was destined to attract more public attention than any which he had previously delivered. It was entitled, "The Gorilla and the Land he Inhabits," and was largely concerned with the volume, then recently published, and severely criticised,—Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa, by Paul B. Du Chaillu (John Murray). A. H. Layard, Esq., M.P., presided, and by his side sat M. Du Chaillu. . . .

Coming to the gorilla,—a stuffed specimen of which was on the platform,—the lecturer said:—"He is an enormous ape, which claims to approach the nearest to man of any other creature. How nearly he approaches, I leave you to judge.

True, his claim to be our first cousin is disputed, on behalf of the koolo-kamba, by several very learned men. If we should, therefore, admit you (addressing the gorilla) to be man's first cousin, we fear that the koolo-kamba might institute a suit at law to claim equal rights, and so many cousins would be far from convenient.

Besides, I have heard that, if we should admit this gentleman to be our cousin, there is Mr. Darwin, who at once is prepared to prove that our great-grandfather's grandfather's father—keep on for about a millennium or two,—was a guinea-pig, and that we were ourselves originally descended from oysters, or seaweeds, or starfishes. Now, I demur to that on my own account.

Any bearded gentleman here, who chooses to do so, may claim relationship with the oyster; and others may imagine that they are only developed gorillas; but I, for my own part, believe there is a great gulf fixed between us, so that they who would pass from us to you (again turning to the gorilla) cannot; neither can they come to us who would pass from thence. At the same time, I do not wish to hold an argument with the philosopher who thinks himself related to a gorilla; I do not care to claim the honour for myself, but anyone else is perfectly welcome to it.

"Seriously, let us see to what depths men will descend in order to cast a slur upon the Book of God. It is too hard a thing to believe that God made man in His own image; but, forsooth, it is philosophical to hold that man is made in the image of a brute, and is the offspring of 'laws of development.' O infidelity! thou art a hard master, and thy taxes on our faith are far more burdensome than those which Revelation has ever made. When we have more incredulity than superstition can employ, we may leap into infidel speculation, and find a fitting sphere for the largest powers of belief.

But who can deny that there is a likeness between this animal and our own race? . . . There is, we must confess, a wonderful resemblance,—so near that it is humiliating to us, and therefore, I hope, beneficial. But while there is such a humiliating likeness, what a difference there is! If there should ever be discovered an animal even more like man than this gorilla is; in fact, if there should be found the exact facsimile of man, but destitute of the living soul, the immortal spirit, we must still say that the distance between them is immeasurable. . . ."



At the time of the delivery of the "gorilla" lecture, M. Blondin was performing at the Crystal Palace, and some wag wrote to him a letter purporting to come from Mr. Spurgeon. He sent it on to the Pastor, who endorsed it thus,—"This was received by M. Blondin, and is a specimen of the genus "hoax',"—and then put it away for future reference. The envelope contained the following epistle:—

"Metropolitan Tabernacle, "Newington, "Oct. 5, 1861. "M. Blondin,    "Sir, "In consequence of the overflowing attendance at my Tabernacle, on Tuesday evening last, when I gave a lecture on the gorilla, it has occurred to myself, and to my brethren the Managers of the Tabernacle, that to engage your services for an evening (say, next Wednesday) for the following programme, would result in mutual benefit. You must meet me at the Tabernacle, on Tuesday next, at 12 o'clock, to confirm or to alter the proposed order of entertainment, which I flatter myself will be highly gratifying to all concerned. "Programme. "At 6 o'clock on Wednesday evening, Oct. 9th, M. Blondin to ascend from the platform in the Tabernacle, by an easy spiral ascent, five times round the interior, to one of the upper windows, opposite to 'The Elephant and Castle,' thence by an easy incline in at the first-floor window of that inn, and return the same way to the platform. The admission to be, as at the 'gorilla' lecture, 6d., 1s., and 2s. 6d. "Yours sincerely, "C. H. Spurgeon."

The lecturer could well afford to laugh at this clumsy attempt to hoax M. Blondin; but some of the newspaper attacks upon him, with reference to the "gorilla" and other lectures, were of such a character that they could not be reproduced here. One friend was sufficiently influenced by them to write an expostulatory letter to Mr. Spurgeon, and thus evoked the following reply:—

"Clapham, "October 22nd, 1861. "My Dear Sir, "I have been dumb under the cruel rebukes of my enemies, and the ungenerous reproofs of pretended friends. I have proved hitherto the power of silence, and although most bitterly tempted, I shall not change my custom, or venture a syllable in order to stay these mad ravings. But your brotherly note deserves one or two words of answer.     "(1.) Have I well weighed what I have done in the matter of these lectures? Aye,—and so weighed it that neither earth nor hell can now move me from my course. I have a life-work to perform, and towards its completion, through evil report and good report, I speed my way.     "(2.) You imagine that my aim is merely to amuse, and you then speak very properly of "stooping'. Indeed, if it were so, if I had no higher or nobler aim in view, it would be stooping with sorrowful emphasis; but, then, think you that the devil would care to roar at me? Why, surely, it would be his best policy to encourage me in forsaking my calling, and degrading my ministry!     "(3.) 'Is the Master's eye regarding His servant with pleasure?' Yes, I solemnly feel that it is; nor am I conscious of any act, or motive,—the common infirmity of man excepted,—which could cause me to incur Divine displeasure in connection with that which is, to me, the work of my life.     "(4.) With regard to laughter,—you and I may differ upon this matter, and neither of us be quite infallible in our judgment. To me, a smile is no sin, and a laugh no crime. The Saviour, the Man of sorrows, is our example of morality, but not of misery, for He bore our griefs that we might not bear them; and I am not John the Baptist, nor a monk, nor hermit, nor an ascetic, either in theory or practice. Unhallowed mirth I hate, but I can and do enjoy my Father's works, and the wonders of Creation, none the less, but all the more, because I am a Christian. At any rate, I hold my own views upon this point; and, during eleven years of ministry, have seen no ill effect, but very much good from my preaching, although the charge has always been laid at my door that I sometimes provoke the risible faculties.     "(5.) Concerning 'sowing to the flesh,' I have not done so in these lectures, but have rendered honest and hearty service to my Lord, and believe that spiritual fruit has already been reaped.     "(6.) As to the grief of friends, let them, as well as myself, be ready to bear the cross; and let them not attempt to evade reproach by weeping where no tears are needed. I have given no cause to the enemy to blaspheme, or only such blessed cause as shall be renewed with greater vigour than ever.     "And now for my explanation;—I have, in connection with my Church, a College for young ministers, which is a work of faith as to temporals, and a labour of love on my part in the highest sense of the term. There are about 150 young men, who are getting an education with a view, in most cases, to preaching the Word in the streets, villages, and towns of this land. Their studies are such as their capacities can receive, and the ministering brethren are mainly given to the searching of the Word; while reading it in the original is the ambition of each. In the course of instruction there are lectures, delivered by myself, a regular lecturer, and other gentlemen. We have had about twenty lectures on English History. I have given lectures on Sabbath-school teaching, Preaching, Church Discipline, Ethnology, &c., &c. The Rev. George Rogers has lectured on Books and Reading, Habit and Instinct, on Ministerial Prerequisites, and on other matters. Various brethren have taken up other topics; and, having attended all the lectures, I can testify that the best spirit has pervaded all, and each lecturer has laboured, not merely to instruct, but to do spiritual good.     "My present course is upon Natural History. For the lectures already delivered, especially the abused ones, I have had the thanks of the members passed spontaneously and unanimously; and I believe the lectures have been as acceptable to the audience as any which were ever delivered. We who have seen the wonders of wisdom in anatomy, providential adaptation, and creating perfection, have gone home praising and blessing God. We have laughed, doubtless; and we have wept, too; but, with an audience of 150 young men, and a considerable company of men and women of the working-class, what would be the use of dull, drowsy formality? Last Friday week, the 'shrews' lecture came in due course, and I thought it might be useful to give a few words as to the value of love and kindness in Christian families, for which words I have had grateful acknowledgment. We went home, and I have not heard of one of the audience who did not feel that it was an evening well and profitably spent. Many Christian people gave me a hearty shake of the hand and glowing thanks.     "But, lo! to our utter amazement, one morning we discovered that the lecture was considered vulgar, coarse, and I know not what. The gentlemen of the press had nothing else just then to do, so they said, 'Let us abuse Spurgeon, no matter whether he deserves it or not.' Since this abuse, I have asked scores who were there if anything had been said for which one might be sorry, and all have answered. 'No, nothing was said at all deserving censure, or anything but approval.' Think you that my hearers are all so degraded as to tolerate conduct such as a lying press imputes to me? O my brother, you do ill to judge a servant of the Lord from the lips of his foes, and one, too, who has had abuse enough on former occasions without having given cause of offence, which renders it inexcusable that brethren should readily believe reports concerning him!     "This work of my Institution is of God; lectures are a part of the necessary plan, they do good, I have a call to this work, so all this opposition is a spur to increased zeal. I would the Lord's people cared more than they do for these young preachers, for I feel sure that God the Holy Spirit will raise up from our midst many who shall do exploits in His Name. To this work am I called, and the Lord is with me in it. Void of offence towards God and man, trusting for acceptance to Him who has washed away my sin, shall I flee because my conduct is misunderstood and my words are misconstrued? Nay, verily, Jehovah-nissi! And now let hell roar, and saints themselves forsake. Time and eternity will clear the character of one who has given up even his good name to his Master, without reserve. "Yours wearily, "C. H. Spurgeon." "P.S.—Get the 'gorilla' lecture; read it, and see if there be any evil in it; yet it is the least religious of them all.—C. H. S."

The vote of thanks and sympathy referred to in the above letter, together with the Pastor's grateful acknowledgment of it, are thus recorded in the Tabernacle church-book:—

"At the church-meeting, held October 14, 1861, from which the Pastor was absent through illness, the following resolution was proposed, seconded, and carried unanimously:—'That the members of this church, constantly refreshed by the gospel ministry of their beloved Pastor, and deeply obliged to him for the lectures he gives upon secular and social subjects, have noticed, with sincere regret, and heartfelt sympathy with him, the scandals heaped upon his name by the public press, and beg to express to him their most loving confidence, their strong desire to endure with him a full share of his reproach, and their full determination, by God's help, to bear him constantly on their heart in prayer.'

"Church-meeting, October 28, 1861.—Our Pastor expressed his thanks to the church for the vote of sympathy with him passed at the church-meeting on October 14, and rejoiced in the fact that all the members had remained steadfast notwithstanding the virulent attacks made upon him."

---

Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Heretic?

Evangelical Apathy and the Danger of False Teaching by John MacArthur The following is excerpted from The Truth War (Nelson, 2007, pp. 165-68)

hy do so many evangelicals act as if false teachers in the church could never be a serious problem in this generation? Vast numbers seem convinced that they are "rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'; and do not know that [they] are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked" (Revelation 3:17).

In reality, the church today is quite possibly more susceptible to false teachers, doctrinal saboteurs, and spiritual terrorism than any other generation in church history. Biblical ignorance within the church may well be deeper and more widespread than at any other time since the Protestant Reformation. If you doubt that, compare the typical sermon of today with a randomly-chosen published sermon from any leading evangelical preacher prior to 1850. Also compare today's Christian literature with almost anything published by evangelical publishing houses a hundred years ago or more.

Bible teaching, even in the best of venues today, has been deliberately dumbed-down, made as broad and as shallow as possible, over-simplified, adapted to the lowest common denominator—and then tailored to appeal to people with short attention spans. Sermons are almost always brief, simplistic, overlaid with as many references to pop culture as possible, and laden with anecdotes and illustrations. (Jokes and funny stories drawn from personal experience are favored over cross-references and analogies borrowed from Scripture itself.) Typical sermon topics are heavily weighted in favor of man-centered issues (such as personal relationships, successful living, self-esteem, how-to lists, and whatnot)—to the exclusion of the many Christ-exalting doctrinal themes of Scripture.

In other words, what most contemporary preachers do is virtually the opposite of what Paul was describing when he said he sought "to declare . . . the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). Not only that, but here's how Paul explained his own approach to gospel ministry, even among unchurched pagans in the most debauched Roman culture:

I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Notice: he deliberately refused to customize his message or adjust his delivery to suit the Corinthians' philosophical bent or their cultural tastes. He had no thought of catering to a particular generation's preferences, and he used no gimmicks as attention-getters. Whatever antonym you can think of for the word showmanship would probably be a good description of Paul's style of public ministry. He wanted to make it clear to everyone (including the Corinthian converts themselves) that lives and hearts are renewed by means of the Word of God, and by nothing else. That way they would begin to understand and appreciate the power of the gospel message.

By contrast, today's church-growth experts seem to have no confidence in Scripture's power. They are convinced the gospel needs to be "contextualized," streamlined, and revamped anew for every generation. Forty years of that approach has left evangelicals grossly untaught, wholly unprepared to defend the truth, and almost entirely unaware of how much is at stake. The evangelical movement itself has become a monstrosity, its vast size and visibility belying its almost total spiritual failure. One thing is certain: the cumbersome movement that most people today would label "evangelical" is populated with large numbers of people who are on the wrong side in the Truth War.

We are right back in the same situation the church was in a hundred years ago, when modernists were busily re-inventing the Christian faith. Far from being a strong voice and a powerful force for the cause of truth, the evangelical movement itself has become the main battleground.