Pastor Dwight McKissic blogs at “Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr: A New Blog for a Pneuma Time.”
Our nation is ill-at-ease. The number one item purchased on Black Friday was guns. Ebola, ISIS and terrorism are threatening us from afar. Questionable and controversial Grand Jury decisions have erupted into civil unrest within. Race-relations; family life; definition of a family; church attendance; economic wellbeing; and optimism about our collective future are all undergoing serious revisions, doubts and uncertainty daily.
It seems as if foundations are crumbling. Land marks are being removed. Creation is groaning. The church that Paul described as the pillar and ground of truth is virtually helpless to address the nation’s ills. Because we are divided by race, denomination, doctrine, politics, and a common vision, the church is essentially seated on the side lines—while Rome is burning—trumpeting an uncertain and muted sound.
We often hear that the only hope for our nation is the gospel of Jesus Christ. But the reality is, the church—even Southern Baptists—don’t all agree on what the gospel is. Could it be that families, churches, school systems, city governments, police departments, court systems, the white House, and American Society as a whole are suffering from a deprivation of, definition of, and delivery of the gospel? The church is engaged in a debate as to what really is the gospel? How can we proclaim a gospel to a decaying and dying world that we can’t even define?
The first time the word gospel is mentioned in the New Testament it has a qualifying term accompanying it: “…the gospel of the kingdom…” (Matthew 4:23). Jesus made it clear that before He returned, not just the gospel, but the “gospel of the kingdom shall be preached” (Matthew 24:14).
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come (Matthew 24:14).
The American Evangelical Church has preached the gospel, but have we preached the “gospel of the kingdom”?
During slavery the Baptist churches in the South would preach the gospel of the cross one Sunday, and the gospel of segregation and slavery the next? Were they truly preaching the “gospel of the Kingdom”?
The gospel preached in America has the qualifying element often missing, that Jesus said is indispensable to the preaching of the gospel, and that is—“the kingdom.” It is impossible to preach the gospel as commissioned by Jesus without preaching “the kingdom.” Much of our preaching is devoid of “the kingdom” which may explain the leanness in our souls and in our pews.
“Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.” (Matthew 9:35)
Not only did Jesus preach “the gospel of the kingdom” he told his disciples, “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” (Matthew 10:7). Jesus’ final message to his disciples concerned itself with “things pertaining to the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3).
The disciples followed Jesus’ model and obeyed Him preaching the kingdom. Consequently, they “filled Jerusalem with your doctrine” (Acts 5:28). What doctrine? The answer is “gospel of the kingdom.” The same doctrine Jesus indoctrinated them with for forty days (Acts 1:3). The disciples “turned the world upside down…saying that there is another king, one Jesus” (Acts 17:6-7). The disciples preached, not just the gospel…but “the gospel of the kingdom.”
Fast forward to today and we are debuting whether or not the gospel includes the kingdom. Southern Baptist pastor, Dr. Randy White, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Katy, Texas, considers the preaching of the kingdom as a present reality and a further hope is “The Kingdom Error.” Pastor White believes that the Kingdom is exclusively a future hope, but not a present reality. He believes that “One of the most pervasive doctrinal errors in the church today pertains to the kingdom of God.”
Pastor Randy White believes,
“The Kingdom of God is the future, earthly Kingdom in which Christ is the sovereign King who rules the nations from the throne of David. It is a physical Kingdom, based in Israel, with the Messiah as the sole Monarch. It is the coming Theocracy. It has Israel at its core, the Messiah on its throne, and the nations of the earth as its sphere. This is the kind of Kingdom that is so clearly taught by the Prophets and understood by the Apostles. In fact, no sane interpretation of the Prophets could conclude anything other than a future physical Kingdom for Israel and established by God with the Messiah as monarch. To conclude any less would be to grossly abuse every principle of Biblical interpretation.
To “seek first the Kingdom of God” does not mean to get your spiritual priorities in order. In fact, such an interpretation would make the remainder of Matthew 6:33 contradict many other Scriptures, even in the Sermon on the Mount. Because the Kingdom is future and physical, to seek His Kingdom is to live for the coming age, not the current age. It is to understand that this age is filled with poverty and persecution, but the coming age is when all these things will be added unto you. To seek His Kingdom is to long for His appearing (2 Timothy 4:8), and to pray come quickly, Lord Jesus!” – See more at: http://www.randywhiteministries.org/2012/02/23/the-kingdom-error/#sthash.ESP7O1X4.dpuf
Pastor White preaches and applies his view of the kingdom to current reactions to the verdict in Ferguson.
“Ferguson, MO has erupted in barbaric violence that should cause all law-abiding citizens to demand the restoration of the rule-of-law, but the Evangelical world is preaching kum-ba-ya sermons about race-relations.” – See more at: http://www.randywhiteministries.org/2014/11/26/dont-understand-evangelical-response-ferguson/#sthash.b4hsszLu.dpuf
Pastor White seems to see no connection to the happenings in Ferguson to race-relations. Interesting? He admits, “I’ve gotta say, I just don’t get it.”
Pastor White strongly objects to Vice President of Academic Affairs at Southern Seminary, Matthew Hall’s, position that “all Christians should be mindful of the gospel’s demand for racial reconciliation and justice.” Pastor White believes that racial reconciliation is “not a doctrinal or theological issue, and certainly not a ‘gospel demand.’ If there is something biblical that expresses racial reconciliation as a gospel demand, I’ve missed it.”
Along comes a fellow Southern Baptist, Russell Moore, who articulates quite a contrarian, but biblical, viewpoint related to White’s view of the gospel not demanding racial reconciliation. Dr. Moore acknowledges that there are those in the south who are saying “there is no gospel issue in racial reconciliation.” To which he responds:
“Are you kidding me? There is nothing clearer in the New Testament that the gospel breaks down the dividing walls that we have between one another. The gospel is what turns us away from hating our brother so much… If that is not a gospel issue then I don’t know what is.”
When one considers that we are commanded to not just preach, but preach “the gospel of the kingdom” that Kingdom would inherently include justice and racial reconciliation. Micah 6:8 says:
“He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?”
Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32). Jesus made unity with all people a prerequisite to world evangelism. He prayed:
“that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” (John 17:21)
Jesus commanded that the gospel be preached to every creature which implies racial reconciliation. Because we have separated the gospel from the kingdom, we don’t see the gospel’s relationship to kingdom justice. Thank God for Russell Moore, he sees it!
The Evangelical Church has been preaching a gospel devoid of justice, kingdom and racial reconciliation. We are now reaping the harvest in our land of a kingdom-less gospel. May we all begin to preach the gospel of the kingdom!
- The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that salvation through repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus is available now (Acts 20:21).
- The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that eternal life through the only true God and Jesus Christ is available now (John 17:3).
- The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that abundant life is available to the believer through a vital relationship with Christ the king…now (John 10:10).
- The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that the Kingdom of God has invaded the earth realm through Jesus Christ the King, and His kingdom is an unshakeable kingdom (Hebrews 12:28).
- The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that Christ’s kingdom is an eternal Kingdom (Luke 1:33).
- The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that inherent in His kingdom is spiritual, relational, emotional, and economic resources for the poor and poor in spirit (Luke 6:20; Matthew 5:25-31; Philippians 4:19).
- The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that inherent in His kingdom is racial reconciliation, inclusion, and equality (Revelation 22:17; Matthew 13:47; Galatians 3:28).
- The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that Christ came to liberate the oppressed (Luke 4:16-19).
A gospel that does not demand racial reconciliation, justice, and mercy is a gospel that I don’t want. Thank God for Russell Moore who stated, “Christian, if you don’t believe these are gospel issues we face today, we don’t believe the same gospel.”
For years the Southern Baptist Convention preached that the ground was level at the foot of the cross, but then made it multi-level in classrooms, church rooms, board rooms, halls of Congress and court rooms. It may be that God is giving Southern Baptists a second chance to get it right. May we not just preach the gospel, but preach and practice the “gospel of the kingdom”!
When we received the King, we also received His Kingdom. Now the question is one of application. As the kingdoms of this world are shaking, people are going to begin to search for an “unshakeable kingdom.” May the Lord place us on one accord so that we can preach, proclaim and demonstrate His unshakeable kingdom to a world desperate for answers!
Am I right in saying that most Dispensationalists are now progressives, having accepted a more Ladd-ish understanding of the Kingdom? I have a few family members more dispensational than I am. I’ll defer to them (Uncle Dave?).
Progressive Dispensationalists, that is.
It is my impression, from what I’ve read from Dr. White, that he might be more of an old school dispensationalist. Much of what he says in his post is rooted in the Ryrie-style dispensationalism.
Dave
Let’s be careful with the word “Ryrie Style”…one of my heroes 🙂
It was not an insult. I studied under him at Dallas. It was a description of an older style of Dispensationalism – defined in his book.
Dave
I understood…just an attempt at humor. You are correct in your analysis, his was classic dispensational.
J. Vernon McGee used to say, “We aren’t here to clean up the pond, just to fish from it.”
Vernon usually said it well.
J. Vernon McGee said it well….We are to fish, not clean up the pond. One day, the Lord Jesus is gonna clean up the pond.
But, of course, when a fella gets saved, then it’ll certainly make a difference in the way we live, down here, on this Earth, in the here and now.
David
Dr. Bill Pinson says “the Gospel changed my life now I want to change the world”
That is absolutely a sad statement. The good news of the gospel will transform the world.
Just sayin…
Joseph
I don’t want to pick a fight here or dwell on this, but what he meant was since Jesus change his life, he now has a desire to work to change issues in our world like racism, hunger, and other social atrocities. I am not sure how this could be called a “sad statement”.
Joseph
I think there is a difference between “change” and “transform” I cannot “transform” a man’s mind but I can work to bring change in the way things are done. For example I cannot “transform” a man’s heart and cause him to forsake his racism. However I can work to change laws and practices that forbids him to exercise his racism by discriminating against a race of people by refusing to let him eat in a restaurant etc.
Simple minded solutions are front runners for disaster, the kind of approach from which Southern Baptists have been suffering for over a hundred years. Consider the idea that the kingdom is future. Our Lord said the Kingdom is among you. He also said to His people, I am coming to you every second of every minute of every hour of every day (Present tense renderings of the I will come states in John 14 which should be rendered, “I am coming to you.” The most neglected coming of our Lord is His present coming.
As to the preaching in the Old South during Slavery, we overlook the fact that African Americans had recognized the spiritual equality that existed in our churches even in that day. Just down the road from where I previously lived, there was a small family cemetery. On a prominent Confederate Soldier’s tombstone were in inscribed a statement to the effect that he had been excommunicated from his church for protesting the treatment of Blacks as equals in the fellowship. The excommunication occurred in 1861, and he died as a result of disease (possibly pneumonia or some other untreatable disease of that day) during the period of Second Manassas. Yes, the church had put out a White member for objecting to the treatment of African Americans as equals in the membership – which treatment very likely involved calling them brothers and sisters (sometimes so recorded in the church records). And it should be noted that Black Americans moved their memberships, when they sold from one part of the country to another. Such information indicates that African Americans were imbibing the knowledge being imparted in the preaching and teaching of biblical truths, a fact that I had set forth in a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation in Black History at Columbia University. Unfortunately, I was unable to return to the school and take my year of course work and write the dissertation which would have set this view forth. a work that would have been based largely upon Baptist church and associational records.
Consider a fact that I came across about 43 years ago, namely, that a White Baptist Church in the 1700s purchased the freedom of an African American man and called him to be their pastor. He served them for about ten years.
As to the Gospel, the materials cited in the blog above are interesting and helpful, but we need a more incisive and perceptive understanding of the fact that we are coming on a time of such great and rapid change that will make what we have already experienced seem like kindergarten. The whole earth is about to become one gigantic school system, that is to say, every one will be devoted to learning, because automation, computerization, and robotics will have removed practically all of the opportunities for employment. In fact, we have experienced a little of this, and it is proving to be painful. Just think of how the textile, furniture, and even the automobile assembly lines have become the places of few human employees. We had a 25 year delay during which these things were allowed to take place, but the future will not be slow. And greater challenges exist,
There is the intellectual challenge. We must consider how the Bible was and is inspired by Omniscience and that it must and does reflect that reality. However, our problem is that we have a hard time grasping the reality that is presented to us in perspicuity as the Puritans put it or clarity as we might put it. Discerning the depth of clear water is at times no easy matter, and, when it comes to the Scripture, we are in over our heads. In any case, the preparation to take the whole earth for Christ – by winsome persuasion – is going to demand a rethinking of what the Bible really is saying and why it is saying it in such difficult theological constructs that are conveyed in such simplicity. And, if we are to fulfill our commission, we must plan to take the Gospel to the stars. I mean to the planets to which mankind will travel (and might, indeed, already be traveling, if the late Ben Rich, once head of the Skunk Works of Lockheed which produced the stealth planes, was correct, when he said over 20 years ago that we had the means then to take E.T. home, if he need that help). The greatest challenge will be to plan on winning the souls that will settle planets so far from earth as to be utterly unimaginable, all of which would fulfill the prophecy and promise of Christ in Matt. 24:31 about gathering the elect from one of THE (definite article in the Greek) heaven to the other and that of John in Rev.7:9 about the redeemed being a number that no one can number. The intellectual depths of Holy Writ are beginning to take hold as the challenges of atheism, secularism, humanism, and other isms make their bid for the affections and allegiances of mankind. We might well have to suffer persecution again, as in times past, bloody and vicious, but we will triumph. All of this can perhaps be avoided and we can continue for 900,000 years or a thousand generations, if and when we began to grasp the profound wisdom inculcated by the book we call the Bible.
I read recently where one of the noted atheists said something to the effect that the Bible was written by people who were of their time and that it reflects only that reality. If memory serves correctly, he made some criticisms even of our Lord, saying something to the effect that He never used any language indicative of irony and satire. I laughed, when I read that. And I still chortle at the very idea, and I will leave it to the reader of the Bible to determine if such is the case. He or she should have a humorously good time.
Actually, the challenge to the isms is that profound depth, one of intellectual ideas that can enable and empower believers to become balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic or, in short, God’s best subliminal advertisements for the Gospel, a mature believer. I can think of several deacons in the church where I was baptized, licensed, and ordained, Calvary Baptist Church in St. Louis, now the Oak Hill Baptist Church in Ferguson, Mo. one deacon, brother Harvey Stricker still stands out in my mind, along with a number of others like my brother-in-law’s father, Ben Payton, whose name is on my ordination papers, and who was in the first wave at Omaha Beach. Both were quiet men, but very effective in their Christian commitments.
I think also of the wisest man I ever met, Brother Charles Hampton, a layman in Kentucky, whose pamphlet on his particular church led to his excommunication. I cited him in my thesis for an M.A. in American Social & Intellectual History. To this day, the memory of that man, a body shop mechanic, a high school graduate, and veteran of WWII, sticks in my mind due to the wisdom I heard him humbly express, a wisdom I felt like he garnered from reading Baptist Church Records. Yes, the power of our church records even can have such an influence, preparing us, due to their reflection of biblical truths lived out, for the future, a better and greater future than we have every dreamt.
The church that I pastor was founded in 1847. I forget exactly how many charter members there were…something like 15, or 18, or something like that….but anyway, 2 of them were slaves…2 Black women…you can read their names on the list of charter members, right alongside the names of the White members. They don’t have last names; just first names. And, from what I understand, the same is true in some other Churches in West TN.
Interesting.
David
1 Corinthians 15:1-8
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
THIS is the Gospel. Dr. White argues that nothing else is necessary for the salvation of men. He argues racial reconciliation, sanctity of human life, one man/one woman marriage laws to be obeyed are all matters of obedience and Biblical based demands but are not Gospel demands. Dr. White is correct. Do we present the Gospel and draw the net as, “Will you trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and will you turn from your sins and follow Him as your Lord and be reconciled to all races? If you do you he will save you?”
If anyone adds racial reconciliation, baptism, what translation Bible you read or anything else to the Gospel of Jesus Christ Paul is clear in Galatians 1:8 they are accursed. Are these Kingdom matters – you bet. Are they Gospel matters – you bet not. The Gospel has been clearly understood to be the saving work of Jesus Christ through His death, burial and resurrection. I stand with Paul and Dr. White on this issue.
If some are now defining the Gospel as something other than the death, burial, resurrection, appearances to others and the second-coming of Jesus this is a departure of what the church historically has understood the Gospel to be.
Dean,
Amen to what you said, and to what Dr. Randy White said, and to what the Apostle Paul said.
David
Dean and David,
The SBC has a real problem if we don’t agree on what the gospel is. On this issue, how can two walk together except they agree? Does the majority of the SBC believe as the three of you believe. And that is that the gospel does not include the kingdom? Or, is that what you believe? Please explain. I’m utterly confused? Dean and David, you all see the Kingdom as total futuristic and not with us now?
Most in the SBC agree on what the gospel of salvation is…
It is as Dean so well stated. Nothing more. Nothing Less.
Dwight, I believe you know that White uses the term “Gospel” as the Gospel of salvation as he addresses Hall’s thoughts that racial reconciliation is a Gospel demand. I state my position again, “Gospel” has historically been defined as the means of salvation that allows one to become part of the kingdom i.e. the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I would reject racial reconciliation or anything else added to the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ as part of “the Gospel.”
I see the Kingdom of God having both a present and futuristic aspect to it. When one is born again through the preaching of “the Gospel” they become part of the Kingdom. However, Acts and the totality of the rest of the New Testament demonstrate the future aspect of the Lord’s Kingdom. For example I Cor. 15 speak extensively concerning the future Kingdom. In verse 50 Paul says plainly that flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God. I am grateful that what we have now is not all there is to the Kingdom of God. Look around at the riots, unjustified killings, disease and hatred. Thank God something better is coming.
Amen to what Dean said, again.
The Gospel is God’s way to salvation. That’s it. That’s what it is.
Now, when we get saved, of course, we become a part of the Kingdom of God. And, most certainly, the Gospel changes our lives. And, the Holy Spirit living within us will cause us to love Black people, and White people, and Chinese people, and American Indians, and everyone else. The Lord will change our lives, and teach us, and grow us into the people He wants us to be.
David
Dean,
“If anyone adds racial reconciliation, baptism, what translation Bible you read or anything else to the Gospel of Jesus Christ Paul is clear in Galatians 1:8 they are accursed. Are these Kingdom matters – you bet. Are they Gospel matters – you bet not. The Gospel has been clearly understood to be the saving work of Jesus Christ through His death, burial and resurrection. I stand with Paul and Dr. White on this issue.
If some are now defining the Gospel as something other than the death, burial, resurrection, appearances to others and the second-coming of Jesus this is a departure of what the church historically has understood the Gospel to be.”
Right on…I stand with the Apostle Paul too!
Adding those things to the gospel, or anything else, is also a sharp departure from what Southern Baptists have taught and believed about the gospel.
I fear that apocalypse thingie you referred to earlier is coming closer and closer to fruition with every one of our agreements!
Run for cover, SBC voices!
😉
Tarheel et.al.
Well said, good theology
To all,
The good news is that these grand jury decisions are pulling the covers off of the church. I read earlier today that the SBC was silent on race issues. Understanding now how many in the SBC view the gospel I can understand why. The Black Baptist Church and the SBC are a thousand miles apart on this issue. This really is an interesting discovery for me. It explains in part the silence on race issues as it relates to contemporary issues. It explains that Richard Land was probably right when he said that all the majority of the SBC agreed with his–what I consider appalling racial views–that he has since apologized for. The response here explains the animus expressed in certain circles toward Dr. Moore. I did not realize that the SBC embraced dispensationalism and a Kingdom future only theology. Shazam! Shazam! Shazam!
Dwight,
I think it is important to be aware that not all dispensationalists, or versions of dispensationalism, are the same. I, for example, lean toward a generally dispensational approach to end-times prophecy (though I am also open to the historical pre-mill approach). I most certainly do not, however, sign off on White’s implications of where these beliefs lead you with regard to how you approach the relationship of justice, love in action, and the gospel.
Dwight,
I agree with you 100% about the “great divide.”
I think we differ on who is at fault, if your post is to be read as “the majority of SBC churches have what you consider appalling racial views.”
Maybe there is something I missed and these words have a nuance that I just did not get.
Personally, I was embarrassed and saddened by Land’s statements, though I recognize we all make mistakes.
I want to assure you that I believe the gospel only comes in one color: rainbow.
Dwight,
He is not wise who derives his opinion of the SBC from blogging. Five minutes before David Rogers and Jim Richards stood for election as 1VP of the SBC, I sat down at a random spot, all alone, in the convention hall. As you may recall, that election drew a lot of energy and attention from the blogs.
So, as they announced that they wanted nominators to come forward, a group of four preachers seated just behind me started conversing:
“Jim Richards? Who’s that? David Rogers? Never heard of him. Who are you voting for? I don’t know. Let’s vote for ……….”
At that moment I realized that blogging, although it may penetrate deeply into SBC leadership (as far as being read goes) does not penetrate very deeply into SBC membership.
I think that’s even MORE true now than it was then.
Any statement along the lines of “Now that I’ve read this blog post I know that Southern Baptists really think that…” is not a very well-founded sentiment, in my opinion.
Of course, I slipped each of them a $20 to vote the way I wanted.
🙂
Given enough time, the truth eventually comes to light.
I did not realize that the SBC embraced dispensationalism and a Kingdom future only theology.
Not all of us. I don’t think we’re going to create utopia here on earth, but neither do I think the Gospel is a future only impact and can’t change the world for the better. In fact, I cringed a little inside when I read White’s words.
Yes, the Gospel is the good news of Christ and the way of salvation. I don’t think anyone denies that. But that message carries with it a whole host of impacts and responsibilities, and racial reconciliation is one of them. You can’t say “If we just get people saved, then racial divisions will just happen naturally”. We know for a fact, to our shame, that it’s not true. It starts with a little empathy.
Dwight: Southern Baptists, like most Whites are not truly aware of the Black experience in American History. In fact, most are not even aware of the Native American experience in American History. This is due in part to our educational system which was designed to promote division ever since the government got in control of it. Even when the government seems about the business of promoting unity, etc., it does so in such a way as to create irritability and alienation. Most Americans are not aware, for example, that in the past 40 years the Middle Class has been all but destroyed and that it was done rather deliberately. One fellow I read many years ago was angry at the Middle Class and vowed that he would destroy them. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that that goal has been practically accomplished. This reality is also one of the evidences for a conspiracy. It is not who holds the public offices; it is who pulls their strings. Follow the money trail and one will find the real powers that be. Things were not always this way, and the image of Daniel 2 can be destroyed by prayer and the Gospel. We need people to read Jonathan Edwards Humble Attempt which inspired William Carey and others to institute the modern missionary movement. Prayerful pleading of the nearly 100 promises and prophecies in that tract will call for a visitation of God upon the whole earth. The folks who run the world feel more threatened by such. They tell what they believe in Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, p1139. They also went after the awakeners with infiltrators, division, divide and conquer tactics, and they are now in a position where they can ignore the Christian claims. Some folks think they are experiencing freedom due to the driving of the church from the public forum and market place, but they will experience other feelings when they see their children and their children’s children pay the price in suffering, misery, and pain. But we shall win and win big before this event goes on much longer.
I don’t think anyone in the SBC (at least that I know of) is arguing that racial reconciliation or any other type of social action is the gospel in its essence. But at the same time the gospel of 1 Cor. 15:1-11 becomes the foundation for which Gospel-believers deal with all of life’s issues (thus the bulk of 1 Corinthians sorting out reconciliation with one another). We are right to say that reconciliation with God is of “first importance” in the sense that anything but that will leave us in our sins and doomed eternally. But it moves us to other matters of importance, as well. Ephesians 2:11-22 is the natural conclusion of Ephesians 2:1-10. Is Paul adding to the gospel by saying reconciliation is necessary for Christians?
For that matter, does Paul ever present the gospel in isolation? Most of the time, he brings it up in the context of social concerns (e.g. Rom. 1:16; 10:16; 15:16; 1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 9:13; Gal. 1:6-10; 2:11, Eph. 3:6; Tit. 3:1-8; etc.)
Andy Miller and David Rogers,
I loved those great insights. As I understand what the two of you said here, I totally agree.
Andy, This is a direct quote from Matthew Hall that Dr. White addressed, “all Christians should be mindful of the gospel’s demands for racial reconciliation and justice.” – See more at: hhttp://www.canonandculture.com/whats-the-big-deal-with-race/
The Gospel demands racial reconciliation and justice – Matthew Hall.
I agree with Hall. Again, I don’t think he or anyone else is arguing that doing racial reconciliation or justice is the gospel in essence, as some form of works righteousness. Rather, the gospel provides the logic for reconciliation for people who would never otherwise be reconciled. I think we all agree that God makes demands upon Christians. Is it not his saving action in Christ that he uses as the grounds for these demands? Indicative…imperative.
Andy, intelligence must run in your family.
Ditto: It seems pretty clear.
Dean,
Who would not agree that 1 Corinthians 15: 1-8 is the gospel? When Jesus referred to the “gospel of the Kingdom” what did that mean? Wouldn’t the resurrection include “the power of the resurrection,”; and the rule and reign of Christ in every realm…including race relations, righteous, and justice issues? The gospel that you, David Worley, and Randy White believe in and preach, is not inclusive of Christ reigning and ruling over all of the affairs of man..as ruling over a Kingdom? I know that Pastor White disagrees with Dr. Moore and Dr. Matthew Hall on the gospel being inclusive of racial reconciliation. Dean and David Worley, are the two of you also in disagreement with Dr. Moore and Dr. Hall?
I think the biblical balance on this question hinges on the distinction Greg Gilbert and Kevin DeYoung make in their book, What is the Mission of the Church?, between a “wide-lens perspective” of the gospel and a “zoom-lens perspective” of the gospel. I review this book and discuss this issue briefly here: http://sbcimpact.org/2011/09/09/what-is-the-mission-of-the-church/
Dwight, you do not have my permission to make up what you think I believe.
“The gospel that you, David Worley, and Randy White believe in and preach, is not inclusive of Christ reigning and ruling over all of the affairs of man..as ruling over a Kingdom”
No where have I said that.
You ask,”Wouldn’t the resurrection include “the power of the resurrection,”; and the rule and reign of Christ in every realm…including race relations, righteous, and justice issues?”
Yes, it would in the life of the redeemed.
You ask, “Dean and David Worley, are the two of you also in disagreement with Dr. Moore and Dr. Hall?”
If they believe racial reconciliation is a demand of “the Gospel” then yes I do. I do not preach the Gospel as you can be saved if you believe Jesus died for your sins, was raised from the dead and seen alive by over 500 people. If you repent from your sins, be racially reconciled to all He will save you.
If they believe that those saved by Jesus through the preaching of “the Gospel” can, should, will be racially reconciled through the sanctification process than yes I agree with them.
Dwight,
I believe that the Kingdom of God is everywhere where God rules…..right here and now….in the hearts of Believers, and over the Church, and in Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is what’s coming. And, Dwight, I believe the Gospel is the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus….and, being saved by grace thru faith. That’s the Gospel.
Now then, does the Gospel affect the way we live afterwards? Yes, of course. If it doesn’t, then we don’t really know the Gospel. Because, Jesus will make a difference in the way we live out our life on this Earth. Truly knowing Jesus will lead us to loving the Lord with all of our hearts, and loving our neighbors as ourselves. True faith will work.
I hope that clears up what I believe. I do not agree with Dr. Randy White about everything he has said…but, I do believe him to be a Christian man, who loves the Lord. And, I agree with a lot of what he said.
David
David W.,
Would you consider your first sentence regarding the Kingdom the gospel as well? My definition of the gospel would include your sentence on the Kingdom and your sentence on the facts of the gospel: death, burial, resurrection etc. Does yours?
Dwight,
I think the Gospel is what Jesus did for us, for our salvation. That’s the Gospel.
Now, as I have said, the Gospel believed in the heart, should lead to living out our faith in everyday living. I mean, salvation makes us a new creation with a new heart, which leads to good works. And, our changed hearts should cause Black Christians and White Christians to love each other….as equals….and treat each other like we want people to treat us. AND, it should cause us to want to see racial tensions eased. And, I do, Brother; I do. I wish with all of my heart that Whites and Blacks would get along, and treat each other right.
But, the Gospel is not racial reconciliation. The Gospel is not good works. The Gospel is Jesus dying on a cross, and shedding His blood, to pay the price for our sins.
Again, true salvation should lead to us living out our faith, as people, who belong to the KIngdom of God.
DAvid
While it is vitally important to distinguish the root from the fruit, it is also vitally important to be clear that the root and the fruit are both parts of the same tree. Eph. 2:8-10.
I responded to Randy White here:
http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/2014/12/randy-white-doesnt-understand-why-racial-reconciliation-is-a-gospel-issue.html
He is wrong. Racial Reconciliation IS a gospel issue. It is a RESULT of the Gospel rightly believed and applied, as 1 John tells us that loving our brother is a RESULT of the Gospel. Jesus said that the “Gospel of the Kingdom” would be preached to all nations and then the end would come (Matthew 24:14). Everywhere Jesus went, He preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is the good news of the reign and rule of God. Racial Reconciliation IN CHRIST is part of that good news. It is a RESULT of the good news about Jesus and His work.
Ephesians 2 lays it out perfectly. Christ Himself is our peace.
The Church is a RESULT of the Gospel. Christian living is a RESULT of the Gospel. The core of the Gospel is how men are justified before a holy God but the implications of that justification affect all of life.
To truncate the Gospel to only how a person’s sins are forgiven is to redefine it from how Jesus proclaimed and demonstrated the Gospel of the Kingdom. This in NO WAY means that people are saved by working for Racial Reconcilation. But, it does mean that all who ARE saved will see the outworking of loving their neighbor as themselves as related to the gospel that they have believed.
Philippians 2:1-5 tells us that this kind of perspective – looking after the interest of others and considering others better than yourselves – is basic Christianity.
Amen!
Alan
You are right, yet you are wrong. There are some thing that must be done by the Christian but there is a sequence with a starting point that leads to possible outcomes.
As I stated the Gospel is “what must I do to be saved”, When I am saved I become a part of the church and desire to be more Christ like. The Church has a mission. Part of the mission is the brotherhood of man, but not limited to that. The gospel and the mission of the church are two different discussions. This is what Dr. Pinson meant. When the gospel changed his heart, he wanted to change the world.
Alan you are right, racial reconciliation is a RESULT of the gospel but not the gospel itself. It is important to note that there are other rests of the Gospel.
The dispensational discussion for most SB has more to do with end times. The problem with saying I am a “dispensationalist” is that it means different things to different people. It is like going to a concert and saying the “music was ‘INTERSTING'”. What does that mean?
I never said that racial reconciliation was the gospel. I said that it was an implication/result of the gospel of the Kingdom. Wherever the gospel goes, it makes a new man out of those who were once alienated from God and at war with one another. So, while it is not THE gospel, it is directly related to the gospel – and not because I say so but because Scripture is clear on this over and over and over again.
If this is a big enough deal for Scripture to clearly state it, then it is a big enough deal for us to affirm. The fact that we are confused about this at this point is concerning.
“I never said that racial reconciliation was the gospel. I said that it was an implication/result of the gospel of the Kingdom.”
A statement no one will disagree with.
Dean,
Would Randy White, David W., Rick Pruitt…agree with that statement?
Dwight, I can’t speak for anyone but from reading these guys I would bet my last dime they would agree with that statement. Racial equality is a result of the Gospel but is not the Gospel. I am certain they would agree.
Yes, I agree. Racial reconciliation…peace between races….loving each other and treating each other as equals….is the RESULT of the Gospel.
David
Alan
I think we are saying the same thing. I think that perhaps I understand racial reconciliation perhaps in a different way. You correctly say that we were at war with God and others. However reconciliation in this context is not a racial issue as I see it but a human/mankind issue. Through the Gospel I am not reconciled to a race of people I am reconciled to to people of all races.
Racial reconciliation as we have been discussing is seeking to be rid of racism and accepting a man for who he is and not the color of his skin. Now that is very elementary I admit, but you get the point.
My concern is pragmatic. If we must not get hung up on this particular theology while the issue continues to grow worse. There is a plethora of scripture that teaches us to work for the end of racism
Let me be blunt. Dr. White does a have a racist bone in his body. He used some terminology that people define in different ways. Each of come at this with our own understanding of these terms. That is the problem with words unfortunately that is all we have.
Something happened to the word “not”. I meant to say he does NOT have a racist bone in hi body.
Randy White does not say racial reconciliation is not a “Gospel issue.” He says it is not a “Gospel demand.” There is a difference.
He said it wasn’t a doctrinal or theological issue.
John, I was making reference to two articles I read recently by Randy White. In those articles he didn’t say racial reconciliation was not a “gospel issue.” He said racial equality was not a “gospel demand.”
However, I just went to another website and read a comment he made in a conversation stream and he did indeed say racial equality is not a “Gospel issue.”
Alan, I apologize for correcting you when you indeed were correct. If racial equality is a “Gospel demand” so is forgiveness. Thanks.
John,
If one’s theology holds that racial reconciliation is not a gospel, theological, or doctrinal issue; then, is it really be an important issue? Our agendas are so full, would really be serious and focused to address and seek to rectify a matter that we consider not germane to the gospel.
Dwight,
Of course, it’s still a serious issue. To obey God is a very serious issue. Just because it’s not the Gospel, it’s still a serious issue. Christians should take obedience to God as a very serious thing…always. Thus, if we take loving people…no matter what color their skin….no matter how rich or poor…no matter how smart or not…..as a command of God, which it is….then, we will most certainly take it serious.
DAvid
David W,
What then do you do with the expression “the gospel of the Kingdom”?
Brother Dwight,
I want to say first of all that I strenuously disagree with Randy White. So to answer your question, racial reconciliation has got to be a doctrinal and theological issue. The bible teaching of God’s view of humanity, the fact that He is no respecter of persons, the fact that the Advent of Christ was good tidings of great joy to all people are all indicators that this is gospel issue.
I will give some examples of how our views toward races effect the gospel of the kingdom. There was a time in our not too distant past when Baptist preachers would tell folks that the mark of Cain was being turned black. Further, there were folks who thought that black people didn’t have souls and therefore did not need the gospel.
Dwight,
There’s only one Gospel. Only one. And, we’re told what that Gospel is. It’s the virgin birth, atoning death, bodily resurrection, and the ascension. It’s repenting and putting our faith in Jesus. That is the Gospel….the only Gospel.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is the Gospel, which ushers us into the Kingdom of God….and, ultimately, into the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s the Gospel, which makes us a part of God’s Kingdom. The moment that we get saved, we become a member of the Kingdom of God….with the Kingdom of Heaven waiting on us, in the future.
David
David W.,
I agree with every word that you said about the gospel of the kingdom. The word kingdom is a loaded word that obviously had significance, meaning and purpose when Jesus used it. There are four characteristics of a kingdom. I’ll only mention one here to make my point. And that is “rulees” or subjects. You can’t have a kingdom without people. Impossible. Inasmuch in the Divine providence of God He made the races distinct(Acts 17: 26), and those races scattered at the tower of Babel broken….reconciling them into His Kingdom and to each other is a part of His Master plan. Consequently, “the gospel of the Kingdom.”
Gentlemen
We are working way to hard at this. We are mixing too much verbiage into a relatively simple matter. The Gospel is “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED”. The Gospel is that message, that good news, that keeps a man from going to hell and by the blood of our precious savior gains us eternity in heaven. Dr. Roy Fish said the gospel is the message of forgiveness of sin and eternity in heaven. This is what SB believe historically and today,
Everything else is the RESULT of theGospel not the gospel itself.
To be sure reconciliation is a gospel issue (there is no difference between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave). It begins with salvation in Christ and continues throughout a believer’s life we grow in grace and truth.
If however, Dwight, you are insinuating that reasonable people who view the Michael Brown tragedy as a criminal issue and not a racial one, and are now being labeled by you as those who have no desire for the gospel and kingdom, then I think you have gone too far. I’m also not sure why you are using White as your evidence, other than to think, you found someone who could be the pawn for what you are really trying to say, which is vague, brother.
So what are you trying to say? Those who won’t agree with you that Michael Brown’s tragic death was racial have no concern for the kingdom? Those who see it as a cop doing his duty (which the evidence backs) and are believers, have abandoned any desire for racial unity within the body of Christ? Are only those who agree with Moore, Thabiti, and Stetzer considered as kingdom-citizens?
I think you need to speak plainly.
Nate
The scripture you referenced (there is no difference…) certainly has reconciliation applications. However the primary meaning is that ALL MEN are subject the Gospel. Am I wrong?
Nate,
You’ve read far to much into my post. In this venue, there is hardly anything left to say ’bout MB. So, no! I am not making a statement ’bout how people line up on the MB or EG issue as being in alignment with Kingdom-citizens.
When one does not view the gospel within the context of Jesus’ teaching/preaching regarding the Kingdom of God…I believe that it does influence and impacts how they process Kingdom issues and pragmatically address them or not address them. That’s a general, statement that has no connection to MB or EG.
You can have racial concerns and approppiately(sp) address them and not embrace “the gospel of the Kingdom” as I do. But, If you view the “gospel of the Kingdom” as I do…as a gospel to the poor; the disenfranchised; the victims of injustice; despised people groups etc; then, minestering to these people is not optional, but a Kingdom mandate as a result or response to the gospel.
In fairness, brothers, let us be clear that Dr. Randy White truly believes in, desires, promotes and supports people of all ethnicities loving one another and working together in unity to share the gospel of Christ.
The specific issue to which Dr. White took exception was the characterization of racial reconciliation as a “gospel demand.” Think about those two words for a moment. Gospel. Demand. If the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for the sins of the world, then the only gospel demands are repentance and faith.
Beyond that, we view the outworking of our salvation as certainly stemming from the life of Christ in us as we grow in maturity and are taught “to observe all that Christ commanded us.” In that sense, it is a “Christian demand” or a “biblical demand” or a “discipleship” demand.
But if we are to label virtually all good works as “gospel demands” then I think we are actually cheapening the word *gospel* by loading it with many more meanings than it was intended to carry. Is mailing off an Operation Christmas Child box a gospel demand? Listening to Christian radio? Putting a fish on my car? Adopting an international orphan? Helping little old ladies across the street?
There are a great many good and wonderful acts of Christian discipleship that are honoring to Christ and demonstrate the outworking of our faith that should not necessarily be classified as “gospel demands.”
Rick,
It “cheapens” people to maintain that the gospel does not demand that they be reconciled to God and each other. To compare racial reconciliation to “good deeds,” listening to Christian radio, preparing Christmas package gifts etc., is to “cheapen” man as the crown of God’s creation. It is clear in Genesis 12: 1-3 that Paul stated constituted the “gospel that God preached to Abraham” it clearly includes reaching the nations/families of the earth until “the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.” Reaching and reconciling people to God and each other is the heart of the gospel. This has been a missing element in our preaching and practice. We are suffering for that now as a result. The people are distinct from the packages that they prepare. One is worthy of a gospel demand. The other is not.
Rick, I’ve had guests this evening and have not read everything here. But what I have read leads me to agree with you. “we view the outworking of our salvation as certainly stemming from the life of Christ in us as we grow in maturity and are taught “to observe all that Christ commanded us.” In that sense, it is a “Christian demand” or a “biblical demand” or a “discipleship” demand.”
Yes. Another way to look at it is this perhaps. The 2nd table of the law has to do with our relations to each other (1st table our relation to God). So, if Christ is in us, by His power we will obey our superiors, we won’t kill our brothers, etc. There is a lot that flows out of the 10 commandments. But Christians are called to live by them by Christ’s power.
Love God will all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. There it is. That would include right relations with people of all kinds…black, red, brown, etc. But this is not the gospel that saves. It is the outflow of the gospel (Christ) working in us.
Rick,
When Jesus told the scribe “thou are not far from the Kingdom” it was in response to what is the greatest commandment question. Please note the word commandment. It’s synonymous with demand. When the scribe told Jesus that the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said to the scribe, “thou art not far from the Kingdom”. The “gospel of the Kingdom” as taught by Jesus would be loving God and loving people. Jesus said, “There is none other commandment greater than these.” Loving people would be a “gospel demand” or commandment according to Jesus. And of course loving God would be loving God as defined by Scripture, which would include the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What say ye?
Dwight,
Brother, we are in total agreement on the biblical command or demand to love God and love others.
In the term, “gospel demand,” we agree on the demand part. It is the gospel designation that I think we are questioning.
Practical outworking of the gospel? Sure. But is it the Gospel itself? The gospel is about souls repenting and turning to Christ.
These are semantic disagreements. We all believe Jesus calls us to love our fellow man
Rick,
My brother, the gospel is about souls repenting and turning to Christ. And according to Jesus, the gospel is also about a kingdom. And if the gospel is about a kingdom inherent in that kingdom would be justice, reconciliation of the races, and more importantly…the presence of the King. Because Jesus never disconnected the gospel from the kingdom, neither can I. The biblical portrait of the kingdom of heaven is the reconciled races…every kindred tongue, tribe, and nation. And of course Jesus prayed that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. World disciple-making according to Jesus is contingent upon the reconciliation of the races. Therefore, from my vantage point it constitutes a “gospel command/demand.”
I know Pastor White is your dear friend. Additionally though, I am even more concerned by his assertion that racial reconciliation is not a doctrinal or theological issue. Given hid dispensationalism I understand his rejection of Kingdom now theology…But, I am totally baffled by his belief that racial reconciliation is not a moral, theological or doctrinal issue. I know that I didn’t quote him verbatim here, but pretty close. What say ye?
Dr. Dwight
I am not sure that dispensationalism rejects a kingdom now theology. Dispensationalism is a broad term used differently by different Bible students.
The broad use of terms is a troublesome issue in any debt. To wit: how do you understand racial reconciliation?
Some forms of dispensationalism de-emphasize the kingdom now aspect pretty strongly. It varies.
Dave
Yes, it is far from consistent
Well, it’s fair to say I have a slightly different view of the Kingdom than Dr. White. I see more of the “already…not yet” aspect.
Personally, I might even go so far as to call issues of social justice Kingdom demands.
Moral demands. Bible demands. Godly demands.
Rick,
Amen. I always thought that you were a brilliant guy.
I probably shouldn’t share this but: I had the privilege twice to be assigned an airplane seat next to Paige Patterson. It certainly was not orchestrated by either of us. On one of those occasions I had the opportunity to ask him about the Kingdom, a subject that I’m obviously intrigued by. I asked him his position on the Kingdom and his answer was, as I recall, “Already, but not yet.”
Matthew 4:23
“Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel (good news) of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.” NASB Jesus was demonstrating the gospel…His power of the kingdom.
What is the Gospel, or good news, … it is the power of God unto salvation as Paul would echo…. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” NASB
Specifically “it” is the “powerful good news” that accompanies salvation, that respects no man’s color. “Righteousness” is revealed in “the power” which has been seen evidentially (faith), substantively (faith) from the beginning of mankind.
Somehow we begin to think that the Gospel, the power of, the good news pointing to salvation, is somehow owned and conducted by us. That could not be further from the truth. We as disciples of Christ know it, we preach it, we live in it, we serve through it, we exist today because of it, we yearn for the final home because of it, we worship because of it, … but rest assured we do not leverage it in political efforts, or make it part of societal programs that make us feel better, or pretend we have “the power”.
We are stewards of this wonderful gospel, as God populates His church. Even as Jesus said that the poor will always be with us,… we are to feed the hungry, heal the sick, bind up the wounded. We live in the power of the kingdom as the body of Christ in this world. We are called to be salt and light in this world. Being in the world, but not of it. This worldly kingdom will burn up, and be replaced. Yet, His kingdom will never end.
The power of the gospel is illustrated by Paul… in his summation that “Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.” NASB
Without the power demonstrated by God through the resurrection, …not even Christ has been raised, preaching is pure vanity, as well as faith. Yet the power, the good news, the gospel is the difference.
The true gospel cannot be politicized! The manufactured gospel, the one that man defines, has no power and is exceedingly political. The gospel is not to be agreed upon, it is to be understood.
Maybe I am just being my “middle of the road” self, but I think some of this is just emphasis.
No one is advocating that salvation comes through racial reconciliation. No one (Randy White included) is advocating that racism is okay within the church.
We are saved by trusting Christ as Savior and Lord. When we are saved, we are obligated to then live for the advance of the kingdom. A key portion of that would be racial reconciliation.
I don’t think we are nearly as far apart as our rhetoric makes us seem.
I’m wondering if at the root of this discussion lies the old “Lordship Salvation” debate between John MacArthur, et al., and Zane Hodges, et al. (both dispensationalists, btw)? Would Randy White, for example, side with Zane Hodges?
While I have voiced some disagreement with MacArthur on this or that, including his stance in the Strange Fire conference, I think he was spot on in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus, and think what he had to say there may be helpful in this current discussion.
I believe in “Lordship salvation.” I believe people must REPENT and put their faith in Jesus.
So, that’s not it for me.
David
Would you agree, then, that “repentance toward God” (Acts 20:21) includes a change of heart and turning from a sinful disposition toward racial division and discrimination toward one of racial reconciliation, love, and justice?
I would say that salvation means to turn from going our own way in life…sinful things….to putting our faith in Jesus, and being willing to follow Him. It’s a faith that surrenders to Jesus as Lord.
A person can be saved without ever even hearing about racial reconciliation, and without even thinking about discrimination.
It’s more of an attitude of living a life of rebellion against God, to an attitude of following Jesus…. whatever that might mean.
Wouldn’t you agree?
As Dr. Gray (Gray Allison of Mid-America Seminary, for the uninitiate) used to say, I believe it is “giving everything I know about me to everything I know about Jesus.” It is true that at the moment of salvation there is much we do not know fully yet about both ourselves and Jesus, and as we grow in faith, we will come to a fuller knowledge of both.
But, using another illustration, that of My Heart, Christ’s Home, I don’t believe we can come to Jesus with authentic faith/repentance, and at the same time tell Him in our heart: “Here is the key to my life. It works for every room except the room of how I relate to people of other races. I’m not ready to let you have access to that room yet.”
David,
I don’t think that’s the point, David. Salvation is, as Dr. Gray taught, surrendering my heart to Jesus fully. It’s all about SURRENDERING the will to Jesus, and putting our faith in Jesus.
Again, a person can be saved without ever knowing ANYTHING about racial reconciliation and discrimination. It’s not about race. It’s about a soul surrendering his heart to Jesus by faith. It’s about the man being reconciled to God.
NOw, after being saved, then discipleship enters into the picture. And, Believers learn many, many things about walking with God….race relations being one of them.
David
Could you reword your sentence above: “Again, a person can be saved without ever knowing ANYTHING about (fill in the blank)”? Like, for example, could we fill in the blank with “turning from idolatry”? What about “turning from adultery”? etc.
“For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” (1 Thess. 1:9)
Is not racism, at its root, a form of idolatry?
I am not suggesting, btw, that you become sinlessly perfect at the moment of salvation (nor at any time after salvation, short of heaven). But I am suggesting a change in heart disposition.
Also, I think we must think carefully about the implications of this verse from Paul:
“But when I saw that their conduct was NOT IN STEP WITH THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?'” (Gal. 2:14)
So, David, are you making “turning from racism” a part the Gospel? So, everyone who did not “turn from racism” is really still lost? Even though they weren’t even thinking about racism at the time of their salvation? Even though discrimination was the furthest thing from their mind, at the time they called upon the Lord for salvation?
David
I don’t want to be cantankerous. But I think it would be more helpful if you answer my last set of questions first before I answer yours.
David,
I did answer. I don’t think a person even has to know anything about racism, in order to be saved. A person may not even be thinking about his fornication when he gets saved. In fact, a young man, who got saved not too long ago, was stunned when I told him that he needed to marry the girl he was living with, or else move out. I told him I would baptize him after he got this right. He just hadn’t even thought about it.
The night I got saved, I wasn’t thinking anything about racism, or discrimination. I wasn’t thinking about whether I should keep listening to AC/DC, Lynyrd Skynyrd, or Boston, anymore, or not. I wasn’t thinking anything about tithing and giving, either.
All I was thinking about was that I was a low down sinner, who needed to surrender my heart to Christ. I needed God’s forgiveness for my sins. And, I just said something similar to, “Okay, God, I’ll sell out to you. Please forgive me of all my sins. I’m sorry, Lord, for all the bad things I’ve done. I’m willing to live for You.” And then, it was what I would describe as a quiet peace, where the Spirit of God moved into my heart, and filled me with peace. I felt loved. And, I knew that there was no more war raging in my heart and soul.
I did not think about race, at all. It was no where in the equation. It was about me surrendering my heart to Jesus in faith…..the Jesus who died for my sins on the cross.
David
David,
Thanks for your answer. My answer to your question is that the wording Paul used is that the behavior Peter, Barnabas, et al., were manifesting (which I take to be a form of racism) was “not in step with the truth of the gospel.” To ask whether this is equivalent to being “a part of the gospel” is quibbling about semantics to me.
I agree with you that, at the moment of salvation, every sin that resides in the depths of our heart does not come consciously to mind, and it is hard to repent of something of which we are not aware. But I would also say that, when it does come to mind, and the Holy Spirit shines His spotlight of conviction on it, if we stubbornly hold on to it and refuse to do anything about it, there is good reason to doubt the authenticity of our so-called faith/repentance. Also, when we repent, we do not just repent of “sin” as a general category. We repent of specific sins as well.
David,
Also, I recognize you may not have meant it this way, and it may be I who am quibbling about semantics here, but I do not agree with the way you stated the following:
“NOw, after being saved, then discipleship enters into the picture.”
As I understand it, it is not biblically correct to separate conversion and discipleship. The Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-20, as I understand it, links them together, as do many other sayings of Jesus. If I recall correctly, this is one of the main points MacArthur makes in The Gospel According to Jesus.
“MacArthur … I think he was spot on in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus, and think what he had to say there may be helpful in this current discussion.”
Yes.
The other thing at work here is the use of the term “gospel”.
The more traditional use of the term (and the one I think is more biblically correct) is to use the term gospel to describe the good news of salvation.
The use of the term that has come into vogue recently uses “gospel” to describe everything involved not only in salvation but in sanctification and Christian living as well.
So, we all believe in the same salvation – by grace through faith in Christ – but we often have different connotations when we use the word.
Dave,
And, therein lies the problem…..using the word Gospel to mean everything from Gospel marriage, to Gospel worship, to Gospel pancake breakfast, to Gospel this, that, and the other.
The word means something. We should let it mean what it means. To use it for everything under the Sun weakens the meaning… the real meaning….of the word.
David
Dave
What you describe as the Biblical concept is spot on. We are told there is only one Gospel. It was the Gospel delivered to the saints. There were certain Jews that tried to tack on other stuff and Paul dealt firmly with it. There are those who do the same today. as volfan pointed out.
There is one and only one gospel and that is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. For by grace are you saved through faith it is the gift of God lest any man should boast.
This is not rocket science. I say again racial reconciliation and other actions, and there are many are the RESUTS of salvation. I am saved, I want to be like Christ, I follow his commands, hence I rid my self of racism.
At the risk of raising the ire of folks dare I say that as important as racism is today in our society, it is not the only important issue. There are many others. People tonight are suffering because of injustices that are not racial. We do not have the liberty to single out one and ignore the other.
DL, there’s some more that whole wisdom thing coming out of you again – you’re the man!
I love it. There’s the gospel itself – and then there’s the RESULTS or the “living out” of the reality that the gospel has been embraced.
This is what I think is meant when people speak of “gospel centered preaching”, “gospel centered marriage”, and the like – that it centered on the Gospel in that it is a result of it – a marriage can’t be gospel centered unless the couple has experienced the Gospel itself – then the couple would desire to have a christ centered marriage. You can’t honor God by preaching anything, unless “It’s in keeping with the gospel” it’s then that we preach faithfully. These are results.
Volfan, i’m also coming to the point – like you stated many times – wherein I too am coming to the point of tiring at the overuse of the word Gospel in everything – I chuckled at your comment about the “gospel pancake breakfast” – while I’ve never seen that actually used – it’s getting to the point to where it wouldn’t surprise me.
Brother Dwight, it could be, that in your post you have created a false dichotomy. The gospel is not some kind of “toy”, like legos, that any of us define on our own terms. It has always been God dispensing the definition.
This type of debate reminds me so much of the problem illustrated by Paul to the church at Corinth,… probably for the same reason.
“For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
“If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.”
The loci of the gospel is understood by the church, and is to be preached. That certainly does not exclude anyone on earth. Now if you believe that some preach it better than others, you may be missing the point of the gospel itself. The point as Paul has so well defined to those rascals in Corinth is … it “is” about love, …if we can’t love everyone, including our cohorts in the mission, then we become very noisy and accomplish little.
We all choose which path we intend to walk…. and the Apostle has given us a great letter to illustrate the woes of selfish behavior. 1 Corinthians.
Just a practical observation here–How many of us have been associated with people who, by all outward appearances, were gospel-living people, but who were not racially reconciled? I grew up around them.
Fact is, non-racially reconciled people are a huge part of our SBC history. Remember our SBC roots? The whole missionary slave-owner thing is pretty prominent there. If racial reconciliation and the gospel are inextricably tied to one another, then there are a whole lot of people out there who had a whole lot of ‘splainin to do when they stepped into God’s presence. Either they are covered by the shed blood of Christ or they split hell wide open. You can’t have it both ways.
Let me state unequivocally that I believe in and have practiced racial reconciliation in my own life. I’m just making an observation here.
Dale: I think the point is, as I made somewhere else here, that people think if we just get people saved, then racial harmony will just break out spontaneously. As you say, that is demonstrably false. When I hear the term “Gospel demand”, what I hear is that we who have embraced the Gospel, which is the message of breaking down the largest of barriers, between us and God, are demanded to also break down the smaller ones. It doesn’t happen spontaneously, it must be deliberate.
And with that particular position, I would agree.
Dale,
Can’t speak for Hall, but, my point is: the reason that one could be comfortable being a missionary owning slave master is because in SBC parlance, it is acceptable to see the gospel as distinct from the kingdom of God. The gospel and the Kingdom are inextricably combined. They live and die together. You can’t have one without the other. When one seperate the two, then one can even feel good about being a slave owning missionary, so that he can get the gospel to the slaves. One can preach the gospel one Sunday, and slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws the next. This has been the SBC history. And the root of this obvious false view of the gospel is this unbiblical mindset to disconnect the gospel from the kingdom. Hall and Moore are bringing about a desperately needed course correction to the SBC on this issue.
Therefore, a false gospel has been preached and those who believe they are saved are actually lost.
My mother died recently. She was a racist, pure and simple. She wouldn’t admit it, but by any definition, she was a racist. The only option you give me is that the gospel she believed was false. Therefore, she was lost.
Dwight, another guy put it this way……
“The kingdom of God is the rule of an eternal sovereign God over all creatures and things (Psalm 103:19; Daniel 4:3). The kingdom of God is also the designation for the sphere of salvation entered into at the new birth (John 3:5-7), and is synonymous with the “kingdom of heaven.”
“The kingdom of God embraces all created intelligence, both in heaven and earth that are willingly subject to the Lord and are in fellowship with Him. The kingdom of God is, therefore, universal in that it includes created angels and men. It is eternal, as God is eternal, and it is spiritual—found within all born-again believers. We enter the kingdom of God when we are born again, and we are then part of that kingdom for eternity. It is a relationship “born of the spirit” (John 3:5), and we have confident assurance that it is so because the Spirit bears witness with our spirits (Romans 8:16).”
“God is sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient and the ruler over all of His creation. However, the designation “the kingdom of God” compasses that realm which is subject to God and will be for eternity. The rest of creation will be destroyed. Only that which is part of the “kingdom of God” will remain.”
Is that what you are trying to say? And that this category of racial reconciliation fits into that type of definition. If so, the racial reconciliation category that you have put forward is effected by the gospel, yet racial reconciliation is “just one” of a basketful of reconciliations that are effected by a right relationship with the King, whether that be white with yellow, white with black, black with white, yellow with white, brown with brown, etc. etc.
Because of the racial reconciliation opportunities afforded us in America, we have been doing those things for the past 20 years. We certainly introduce the gospel into those situations… it is the only power that brings a relationship to the King. I’m still at a bit of a loss as to why the focus is where it is during the last two weeks. You almost have to be tone deaf to not realize the opportunity ,to pursue effective change, has existed for some time now in America.
White is wrong if he is indeed saying that Racial reconciliation is not a theological/doctrinal issue – if he said it’s not a result of the gospel he’s wrong there too.
However, he’s right if he says that racial reconciliation is not the gospel.
I dare say that most of us probably agree on these statements.
Now to define “racial reconciliation” and what that will “look like”. Good luck with that one.
Tarheel
,
The the first time you’ve ever said something that I 100 % agree with. You just responded to the White position on Hall’s position with just a few….but, very true words. Thanks.
So, Dwight, if that is what you are saying as well… that the gospel is preached to everyone, yet doesn’t become subservient to anything (because it can’t). Then at least I am beginning to see how you are judging Mr. White and Hall at this point.
Is anyone on record anywhere who has said racial reconciliation is the Gospel? Does anyone think that Southern Baptists, of all people, don’t know what the Gospel is? Do you think any SBC church anywhere is leading anyone in a sinner’s prayer that includes racial reconciliation? Do you think any church, anywhere is requiring a demonstration of racial reconciliation before someone is accepted as a candidate for baptism, or membership? Is anyone giving an altar call for salvation that includes racial reconciliation as part of the process? Is anyone anywhere passing out gospel tracts that explain how racial reconciliation is a part of the salvation process? Is anyone, anywhere adding verses about racial reconciliation to the Romans road? Of course they aren’t. This is a knee-jerk reaction and a deliberate misunderstanding. Maybe you don’t believe racial reconciliation is a Gospel demand, fine. But at least give people who have earned the benefit of the doubt that they aren’t redefining the Gospel, and at least ask them what they mean before penning screeds denouncing them as preaching a different Gospel.
Bill Mac,
I do believe that these people are saying the RESULTS of believing the Gospel should lead us to loving our Brothers and Sisters of other races. And, on that, I’d say that most of us agree. I would hope that all of us agree.
But, to say that the Gospel demands racial reconciliation, it sounds like they’re making race a part of the Gospel message. It comes across wrong….to me. I guess if I were witnessing to a skinhead, or a KKK member, I would tell them that coming to Christ would mean them walking away from that sinful lifestyle…in order to follow Jesus. But, if I was talking to the average, everyday Joe, I wouldn’t. That would be the farthest thing from my mind. I would be encouraging that ole boy to turn from living his own life, in his own way, and turn to Jesus…put his faith in Jesus….and be willing to go God’s way in life….repentance and faith…..based on the birth, death, resurrection, and ascencion of Jesus.
I agree that Jesus would point out the sins of people….to get them to see themselves as sinners….the rich young ruler, the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, etc. But, He did it to point out their sinfulness, and need for a Savior. He didn’t tell them all about racial reconciliation.
David
Don’t everyday Joe’s live a sinful lifestyle?
Yes, they do, Bill Mac. And, I talk about sin when I witness, as I imagine that you do….as did Jesus….as did Peter….as did Paul.
I usually ask average Joe if he would admit that he has sinned against God….I don’t go into details about his life; do you?
David
But you would with the skinhead?
If I was talking to a known drunk, I would probably bring up that getting drunk is a sin. BUT, I would tell him that God will take care of them for him after he gets saved. God will work on his heart.
Let me be clearer….I would encourage them to turn from their sins, and turn to Christ. I would encourage them to put their faith in Jesus. If I was talking to someone living in adultery, or in murder, like an abortion Dr., then I might talk about those things being sin…part of the sins that they would need to turn from.
Would you?
David
And wouldn’t the rich young ruler qualify as an even better than average, ordinary Joe?
I really have a problem with dividing out categories of sin—one which we ought to confront directly in the evangelistic encounter, and another for which it is best not to bring up and to leave in the hands of the Holy Spirit so He can deal with it down the road sometime.
Where do we get this idea in the Bible?
David,
And, what did Jesus tell the Rich, Young Ruler? He didn’t tell him about race relations. He pointed out the sin of this young man. He dealt with him about the thing that he needed to surrender, in order to truly repent….his love for his wealth.
But, one thing I didn’t hear was Jesus talking to him about race relations, or about how to really pray, or about being baptized, etc.
David
Jesus told the rich young ruler to deal with the particular sin that was standing in the way of him truly repenting and trusting in Jesus with his whole heart. In his particular case, this sin was materialism and trust in riches. In the lives of some people, the sin that is standing in the way of true repentance may well be racism.
Jesus was omnipotent and was able to see through to what was in this man’s heart. We do not always have the same degree of insight, so we need to sometimes be a little more general in our approach. But I think it is crucial to be clear that the gospel is intended to deal with all our sins, not just the more apparently egregious ones or socially unacceptable ones.
Bill Mac, yes. The reason that anyone would try and impugn the gospel, for the sake of an argument, is missing the point of the gospel. The gospel is not a piece of Play-dough to fashion to our whim!
John Broadus, JP Boyce, and many other founding SB’s owned slaves. Were they lost? They obviously did not do well in the race relations area. So, were they saved? while owning slaves?
David
They are a perfect example that “being saved” doesn’t automatically eliminate racism.
So, a person can be saved without the demand of race relations being added on?
George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards also owned slaves. Were they saved?
David
JL Dagg also owned slaves.
You are still misunderstanding. No one, no one is adding racial reconciliation to explaining the Gospel to the unsaved. No one. It’s ludicrous to think that they are. The message of racial reconciliation is being presented to people who claim to have embraced the Gospel. How many ways does it have to be said? You have made the points yourself, saved people can be racist. They have been reconciled to God, and that privilege also brings with it the responsibility to be reconciled to our fellow human beings, especially those to whom we have historically been estranged. (ie: people of other races). It is a demand for those who are already saved.
Bill Mac,
Which is exactly what I’ve been saying. The RESULTS of the Gospel and the LORDSHIP of Christ demand that we treat other people right, and with love and respect…regardless of race, finances, or nationality. But, we should be clear….it’s the results of Jesus saving us and changing our hearts, but it’s not a part of the Gospel message.
David
it’s the results of Jesus saving us and changing our hearts,
But as you’ve pointed it, not it’s not. You’ve just given us a long list of saved people who participated in one of the most abominable practices in the history of our species.
Bill Mac,
Yep, they never grew in their faith to see this; did they? But, they were saved; right?
David
As far as I know, they were saved.
If I had more time on my hands right now, I would do a bit of Bible study and write a post on “Blind Spots, Repentance, and the Gospel.” If someone else wants to take up this task, please do so. I think it would be a worthy and interesting topic.
In any case, I think we must distinguish between blind spots and stubborn, obstinate hanging on to known sin in ones life. We all have blind spots. The blood of Jesus covers our blind spots. But if we “regard iniquity” or “cherish sin” in our hearts, according to Psalm 66:18, the Lord will not hear us. Is this talking about sinless perfection? Of course not, because if it did, none of us would ever qualify. But it does mean, once the blind spot has been removed, we cannot claim to be regenerate and at the same time be perfectly content to be at peace with this sin in our life.
It does not mean, either, that after the blind spot is removed, we will not continue to struggle in this area, or slip and fall, even time after time after time. But we will not be able to say, “Well, that’s just the way I am. And that’s the way I will continue to be. But, praise God, I’m going to heaven anyway!”
Also, part of the prophetic ministry of the Church, and of individual believers, is to point out blind spots, so that those who are captive to certain sins may be able to see more clearly what it is that is holding them captive and to come to Christ to find deliverance from these sins. I believe we are called to point out blind spots both in society at large, as well in the lives of individuals. We must be careful not to develop a prideful “holier than thou” attitude when we do so, though.
This reply is really addressed to all of the foregoing comments and regards David Rogers comment re; “Blindspots.” That statement hits the nail on the head. JP Boyce in his biography, as cited, I think, by John A Broadus, declared that the South would have this war (the Civil War) and would lose it, because of the way Southerners treated the slave families. Speaking of blind spots, I think that shows at least one Southerner who was aware of it, a rich one by the way (from slave labor in part). John A. Broadus and Boyce had a disagreement over the War as the former supported it. Boyce was opposed to it, but he did his part like Lee. I think, like Broadus, he might have preached to Southern troops. However, I am not sure of that fact. After the war, because he had had investments outside the South, plus he still owned factories, etc., Boyce carried Southern Seminary financially for a number of years (I do not know how long). Otherwise the SBC would have lost that institution to bankruptcy.
Our present day blindspots do involve African Americans to some degree. It is hard to watch the Black man being killed on the street in NYC. I understand that he even told the policemen that he could not breathe. One of our bloggers was a policeman, and he condemned the action. When one considers the action of the guard in Florida and the fact that had he done what the police told him to do, Trayvon Martin would still be alive today. Since he was doing no wrong and apparently felt threatened by the watchman (or whatever his title was), it is a bit much to not indict the man for that killing. The same could be said for the situation in NYC. I am not so sure about the situation in Ferguson and am trying to find out more information.
Blindspots can be our undoing. We have a big one, namely, the idea that there can be no conspiracy big enough to threaten the USA from the inside, and yet some 40 years ago a writer accused one of our wealthy men as being a member of such conspiracy and in his memoirs published the 90s that man admitted he was the member of a cabal and proud of it. There is more, more blindspots in our understand and perceptions of life and experience. Consider our blindness to the reality that one outfit, the Federal Reserve System, controls our money and really determines our nation’s policies, etc. One of the former heads of that institution recently admitted it and said the institution ought to be eliminated or something to that effect.
We also have the blindspots regarding whether America was a Christian nation. It was – not as a nation with a state church – as nation based on Christian or to be a bit more precise, biblical concepts. In any case, there is no denying that in 1792 and in 1892 the US Supreme Court declared such to be the case, that we are a “Christian Nation.” Even from the beginning George Washington recommended the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, to the Native Americans, and Thomas Jefferson attended a Baptist Church service all during his presidency, a church which made use of the capital building until it could build its own house of worship. That meant Jefferson actually attended a Baptist Church service meeting in the capital building. I should point out that the Presbyterians and Episcopalians were meeting in other government buildings. Why was this the case? Because the Founding Fathers were for the most part professing Christians. Even the big deist of the crowd, Benjamin Franklin, must have joined the Episcopalian Church about two years before his death. After all, it is required that one be a member (and believe in Christ as Lord and Savior) to be buried in their cemeteries or it was so then. Also, according to one historian who cited the secret records of British Intelligence from that period, Franklin was a secret spy for the King which raises the issue of whether the Revolution was a masonic charade? After all, Cornwallis was a member of the Knights Templars. In any case, the people with the votes were the cannon fodder in the South, I mean the Baptists and the Presbyterians. They had to be recognized and honored for their support of the Revolution (charade or not, and they would not have known that), and the leaders well knew that if they displaced the Christian Faith, they would lose everything. But many of them were Christians or, at least, recognized the morals and ethics of the Christian Faith as Jefferson did. He even said the small Baptist church near his home was a nursery for democracy, because the members learned how to take part in a democratic church government (hard for some folks to believe that Sovereign Grace believers or Calvinists (still don’t care for the term) could be egalitarians, but they were. Even John Gill said a woman might speak in church as in giving testimony in a discipline case, and the famous Puritan commentator, Matthew Poole, even said a woman could preach or teach men under the rule of exceptions). Blindspots.
I will have been a Christian for 57 years, if I live until Sunday (Dec.7), having been converted Saturday night, Dec. 7, 1957. Before that I had been an Atheist for about 3-4 years, and that was due to being spiritually blind by nature from birth, blind, deaf, dumb, mute, depraved, darkened, helpless, and dead. God comes at such people, as He did with me, from or by opposites. I will leave that for you all to figure out.
O yes, and let me add that our Grand daughter will be 14 on that day, Dec. 7.
Volfan,
In terms of communicating the values and vision of the Kingdom, racial reconciliation is a”gospel demand.” In terms of how to enter into the Kingdom, racial reconciliation is not a gospel demand. Never has been. Never will be. No one is arguing that it should be a gospel demand in the sense of a prerequisite to entering the kingdom, including Hall. It is a gospel demand in the sense that the gospel of the kingdom is an invitation to all men, and all me would be valued and treated with equality, dignity, and respect in the kingdom. The gospel that Jesus preached demands racial inclusion, equality, representation, fairness, justice, liberty, and opportunity for all. That is what Hall was insisting on. And I’m in agreement with him.
I think we would do better to call these things the teachings of Jesus, or the commands of Jesus; not the Gospel of Jesus. We shouldn’t do anything to confuse what the Gospel is.
David
All of us should agree with that….good comment.
Thank you Brother McKissic for your perspective on the “Kingdom” and its relation to 21st century “Gospel” preaching. I hope the essentials you note regarding the “Kingdom of God” are not lost in blog noise dealing with current black/white tensions in America, even though practicing the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (not only preaching it) would address the crucial issues which divide us in our nation and churches.
There is a good piece over at SBC Today by Dr. Alan Street dealing with SBC’s lack of focus on “Kingdom” preaching. http://sbctoday.com/the-kingdom-solution-to-the-sbcs-membership-decline-alan-streett-phd/
Dr. Street writes:
“The Kingdom of God is the ‘open secret’ of the NT and missed by many. In my opinion the kingdom is the essential core of Christianity. If you miss the kingdom, you end up with a truncated gospel.”
Dr. Street’s book on the Kingdom paints a good picture of how the church has drifted in message and mission: “Heaven on Earth: Experiencing the Kingdom of God in the Here and Now.” A worthy read.
“Thy Kingdom Come, Thy will be done”, for me was at the age of 17. Who knew that the Kingdom could find me in Georgia? Overcome with theological incompetence and biblical illiteracy, I was simply me, consumed with me and mine. I was minding my own business, hoping to graduate high school and move on to the next what-ever. I had me a fine Camaro with 350 proud horsepower and a funny thing about this car; whenever it came upon black people walking on the roadside, it would veer towards them and scare them with closeness. It seems my dad and his friends may have put something in the front end of the car that caused it to know the difference between black and white, cause it never tried to run white folks off the road. This crazy car nearly got me in trouble more than once.
On one night, I left my car at home and went to the movies with a friend. At the end of this movie, “Cross and the Switchblade”, I prayed to receive Christ in my heart. I had no idea that a new kingdom was about to reign in my heart. With all this great biblical and theological prowess I now command, I realize, I didn’t pray properly at that moment. I never rightfully acknowledged that God raised Christ–wow, from all I know now, the miracle is that God saved me, not only while I was a sinner, but also that I was so lacking my theology.
My friend is driving us home while I fight back the tears; at times they flow without my permission. Somehow I knew that my kingdom was coming to an end, and I was overcome with joy of the prospect that it might be so. Even at 17, I was aware that my heart was not right.
You want to know the real miracle from that night? My car lost its ability to see in color. The front end repair man could not explain why it no longer moved at its on will. My dad and his friends were actually quite disappointed (this brings me to tears to this day) that the car lost this behavioral characteristic.
If the Kingdom of God can fix a Chevy…
Praise God – great testimony Glenn! In the Kingdom, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
I still think we should let the Gospel be what the Bible says that it is. I think it weakens the meaning of the Gospel when we call everything about the Christian beliefs and practice, “Gospel.” And, the weakening of the meaning could lead to confusion. And, we should never want there to be confusion about the Gospel….
David
David,
It seems to me you are getting stuck at the point of identifying the biblical use of the term “gospel” exclusively with 1 Cor. 15:1–8. I think if you will do a full word study of the terms “euaggelion,” “euaggelizó,” and their various cognates, every time they are used in the Bible, you will get a more balanced view of the biblical concept of gospel.
I do agree that 1 Cor. 15:1–8 describes and defines the core of the gospel. But I think we get a fuller and more balanced biblical perspective if we think not only of the core, but also the whole ball of wax. The gospel has its vertical and horizontal aspects, the root and the fruit, the zoom-lens and the wide-lens perspectives. I especially recommend a study of the term Dwight is referencing here: “the gospel of the kingdom.”
Is the gospel of the kingdom a different gospel than that of 1 Cor. 15:1–8? I don’t believe so, but I do believe that phrase as used in the synoptic Gospels has a different emphasis or nuance to it than the connotation in 1 Cor. 15:1–8. They are all a part of the larger package, which come together as a package deal, not as separate, different gospels.
Dwight:
Thanks for your thoughts. Lots of good affirmations.
Jesus’ primary topic of preaching was the “Kingdom of God” or the “Kingdom of Heaven.”
Former professor at Southern, Robert Stein, has written an excellent book “The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teaching” that discusses this topic. It gives a brief synopsis of how various movements and eras have interpreted what “Kingdom of God” means.
I believe the “now” and “not yet” dichotomy explains much of what those phrases mean. Some aspects of the Kingdom are “now” – the Kingdom of God is among you. Some are “not yet” – the redemption of the body, full presence with God, the abolishment of the sin nature etc.
This issue is what causes Christians to get caught up in the culture wars. I have said many times that if the SBC decided to do away with the ERLC, we would have to turn right around and re-invent it.
The question is not whether faithfulness to Jesus and the Gospel has Gospel implications (which are not in and of themselves the Gospel) impacting the way we live. Francis Schaffer pretty much brought modern evangelicals into that realization.
The trick comes with how to flesh that out.
There are many disagreements that Christians have about what constitutes a proper reflection of what is true and just – for which Christians should be working and advocating.
For example, I do not believe that the proper reading of “Justice” in the Bible means that there is no justice if every person in a society does not have some level of income or property etc.
That’s just one disagreement.
There are also many errors that come along the way.
One of these is utopianism.
Utopia – or heaven – is for the “not yet” part of the kingdom.
It does not matter which political or economic system is prevalent. We can go to that system and find a lack of justice, wrongdoing, and poverty etc.
That is because these problems are not completely solvable in this life. We must wait until the next life.
But we should work to do what we can.
Therefore, we should look to empiracle data to see which types of political and economic choices produce the best society.
Any demagogue can find the failures in a society, and then advocate for change to address those failures. But what kind of society will the change bring? Will their be failures there too, and will those failures be worse?
Communism was seen as the best hope for man by many smart people during the depression. Marxist economics, and Keynesian economics are still a large part of people’s thinking, even though they may reject the communist or new dealer labels.
But look at the millions of lives lost in the drive to create a Communist utopia. Probably 100 million world wide. Drives to collective farming, the “Great Leap forward” all promised to produce something great, but ended up killing millions of people.
The U.S. debt just topped $18 Trillion. Is it “just” that we pass that along to the next generation? What is the cost that we are paying now and will pay later for that immoral debt?
Here are some questions.
Is it true that raising the minimum wage produces justice? Or does that keep people with no skills from entering the job force at the low end while protecting labor unions from competition?
Is the continued and increasing funding of higher education by government a good thing? Doesn’t it just pass the cost of sending middle and upper middle class kids to college to people who will never go to college? Should poor people continue to pay for my kids to go to college?
Is “more money” for elementary and secondary education really helping the poor? Is there any way in which government has failed the poor in this country more clearly demonstrated than in the quality of education that the poor receive?
Has/is the public financing of healthcare a good thing?
Is the control of other people’s lives, what they chose to put in their bodies (smoke, drink alcohol or soft drinks) a good thing? I note that Mr. Garner was being arrested for selling black market cigarettes. Why has a black market for cigarettes developed in NYC? Because of excessive taxes on cigarettes paid by the poor – to finance middle class health care? So the poor resort to purchasing black market cigarettes?
Do we want to give A and B the power to “equalize” income and property in society to make it “just”? If we do so, won’t A and B (given human nature) end up deciding what C shall do for D? (and take a commission along the way).
What responsibility does government have for the rising unwed birth rate in this country? Isn’t the greatest predictor of poverty birth to a single parent? If the black community, that is now well above 60%.
In the most recent situation, do we not want policeman to question and arrest those who are committing low level offenses, such as selling black market cigarettes? If they resist arrest, do we not want to police to use force? Do we run the risk of creating more crime and less safe (and just) societies by not proactively addressing criminal behavior?
These are just few questions than can be asked.
Is there a “Christian” response to these questions?
In summary, I agree that the “Kingdom” and the Gospel have implications that are beyond the Gospel itself, and that Christians are to work for those.
But if history has taught us anything, it is that there is not always agreement about the way to proceed, and that reformers often do more harm than good.
This is an area where me must tread, but we must tread lightly and carefully.
Louis,
Best comment yet in response to my post. At least that’s my judgement. I totally agreed with the things you just stated. Amen & Amen.
Volfan,
Why would we want to call something, something other than what Jesus called it. If Jesus called His message the “gospel of the kingdom,” who then are we, what authority do we have to give His gospel another name?
Dwight,
We enter into the Kingdom of God by faith. We enter into the Kingdom of God by the Gospel. When we get saved… the exact moment that we get saved….then, we are a part of the Kingdom of God. The Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus and justification by faith…and the Gospel ushers us into the Kingdom of God.
The Gospel belongs to the KIngdom of God. It doesn’t belong to anyone else. It is the Gospel of our Lord and Savior. It is the Gospel of the Kingdom.
And, what is this Gospel? Well, we’re told what the Gospel is….Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
1 Corinthians 15:1 ” Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.”
That is the Gospel of the Kingdom of King Jesus. And, when we surrender our hearts to Jesus by faith, then we become a part of the Kingdom of God with the KIngdom of Heaven waiting on us. And, the results of being saved, justified, is that we will be changed….the Spirit of God comes inside of us….we have a new heart that wants to live for God…obey God….and, we love God and other people…and, as we grow in our faith, then we learn more and more how to live out our faith….we live out what God works into us. And, part of that spiritual growth is most certainly racial reconciliation, and treating other people with love and kindness even if they’re different than us(speak a different language; eat different foods than us; dress different; have more money than we do, or less; have more, or less education than we do; etc).
But, the Gospel is the message of God’s love to man…that God wants to know us…He wants to save us….and, He has made a way for us to be saved thru His Son, Jesus.
David
Volfan
Very good stuff. that will preach
Thanks, DL.
David
Dwight, the James Cone version of liberation theology is what I’m speaking about. I think that’s pretty precise. It’s what you’re talking about the same as he teaches or is it something different?
Tarheel,
I am only broadly familiar with James Cone’s theology. Most of what I know about his theology is based on what I’ve heard rather than what I’ve read. Therefore, I find it difficult to tell you that I agree or disagree with something that I’ve not read. I will trust you to represent his writings or teaching accurately. So, if you summarize something that you say he believes, I can tell you whether or not I agree real quick. Thanks.
Volfan,
I believe that I totally agree. Can’t say that I see anything to object to, unless I read it to hurriedly. Really good. You’ve thought through it. Now, from your perspective are you saying something different from Moore, Hall, or myself? Those gentleman may not say exactly what I’ve said how I’ve said it. But, I don’t disagree with what they’ve said, or how they’ve said it. You don’t see racial reconciliation as optional either? Do you? We certainly don’t. If that be the case, aren’t we all saying the same thing?
Dwight,
You keep mentioning “racial reconciliation” as part of the Gospel of the Kingdom.
I am confused by what you are meaning.
Certainly WITHIN the church, which is the Kingdom, racial reconciliation is a demand of the Lord.
Is that all you mean?
Thanks,
mike
Parsonsmike,
Absolutely. That is all I mean.Nothing more, nothing less. And that’s all Dr. Moore & the professor from SBTS meant. I’m actually thankful & impressed-somewhat surprised-that SBTS personalities are strongly articulating such a strong position on a biblical truth/doctrine that heretofore, SBC personalities have conveniently chose to ignore.
Dwight,
Thank you.
And you [and they] are spot on.
There should be no racial divide among us.
The people of God represent the hope of the world.
Dwight,
I think most everyone here is wanting to know more about your call for “racial reconciliation” as part of the gospel.
If we can just drill down further on one of the bullets that you position as this gospel… “The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that inherent in His kingdom is racial reconciliation, inclusion, and equality (Revelation 22:17; Matthew 13:47; Galatians 3:28).”
Are you intimating that racial reconciliation, inclusion, and equality are the responsibility of the church for the world? What I mean by that, is somehow the church is complicit in the world’s failure to govern and bring about racial reconciliation. Or, are you accusing the Saints that are preaching the gospel today of a sort of prejudice and leaving out certain privileges to specific people groups as they minister inside the church, and to the world?
There are huge distinctions and implications between those two separate understandings.
David, Parsonsmike, Furthermore, this is probably the single most important difference between Black Baptist & White Baptist. How we historically have viewed gospel & justice/racial reconciliation issues differently. Dr. Jerry Young the newly elected President of the NBC said shortly after his election, “The God of justification is also the God of justice.” That sums it up. We all ought to be able to say Amen to that. The SBC had emphasized the God of justification. The NBC has emphasized the God of justice. It is nigh time that these two emphasis that are both biblical and right, come together and not put these two biblical emphasis in conflict, but, see them as complimentary.
Dwight,
Again, you seem to bring up a false dichotomy and separation of what you call “gospel & justice/racial reconciliation issues differently” and then you separate justification and justice. As if the SBC is void of justice. That is just bizarre.
If you are talking about how some leaders engaged in things many, many years ago….I’ll give you that, but to think that somehow that distinction is a distinction today, is not at all true…at least the last 35 years I have been in ministry.
I guess you need to drill down into “gospel justice” a little more for me at least. I’ll ask again, and please don’t feel like you need to impugn your reputation by answering, but is this “justice” you speak of …anything like the “social gospel” (justice) that Obama and Sharpton encourage should be going on in the churches?
Dwight,
How do the calls you are making for Kingdom gospel/social justice relate to what is known as ” liberation theology” as advocated by James Cone?
Is what’s you are articulating one in the same or is it something totally different?
Here is the problem when you speak specifically about a group: you are often as wrong as you are right.
Certainly what Dwight said is true for many in the SBC, but it is not true of all.
The Gospel needs to speak to both Justice and Justification. The Justice is the Justice of God that condemns sin and sinful man, and the Justification is the Mercy and Grace of God through the blood of Jesus that alone can bring condemned man into peace with God.
Tarheel,
As I said to Chris earlier, I need a more precise and specific question to be able to respond. Rather than ask how “gospel of the Kingdom” relates to “social justice’ or liberation theology; unless we are using the same dictionary, attempting to answer with someone else’s vocabulary might lead to a miscommunication. So, ask a clear, specific, question. Define briefly your terms if need be. Then, I will be glad to give you a clear, specific answer.
Dwight, while I get very specific with the gospel according to Obama and Sharpton, and how they believe the Black church should interpret that gospel, I think you can give us a more specific answer to this….
“The NBC has emphasized the God of justice”…. What is the definition of justice you mention, and what have they emphasized?
Thank you in advance for whatever specific information you can provide.
Dr. Dwight
It seems to me that you use the words Southern Baptist” a little to inclusively. There are some things that Southern Baptist churches hold in common, they are core beliefs. However to take a highly visible person who says something and say that is what SB believe is erroneous. More pointy, because a seminary professor, or high profile pastor makes a statement it may or not be what SB believe
Chris,
Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with what NBC has been saying about the God of Justice.
I have no textbook definition of justice to give you. I am using the term justice in the common general understanding of the word. That generally concepts of fairness, equity, equality, accountability, responsibility etc. When the pledge of allegiance say “with liberty and justice for all,” that’s generally what I mean by justice. You have caused me to realize that I’ve never done a biblical study of the word justice. It is being added to my to-do list. But whatever Micah 6: 8 “do justice,” and I believe Amos 5:24 “justice roll down like water” mean by justice, that’s also what I mean.
Dr. Dwight and anyone
In 25 words or less what is “racial reconciliation”? In 25 words or less is there difference between racial reconciliation socially and Biblically? In 25 words or less is the Gospel concerned about “racial” reconciliation or reconciliation of all mankind under Christ regardless of race.
We have hit these areas I realize but I think more clarity would help me understand who is saying what.
Thank you again for the quick response. I’ll not keep you any longer this evening (not intending to be a nag). I think that a lot of times we talk past each other. So getting basic definitions to these terms are helpful….at least to me.
I think some may be thinking that justice can be more biblical in definition and not so much tied to social/cultural norms when the term gospel is applied. So, getting more specific about the definition is important.
Thanks again!
“Jesus’ primary topic of preaching was the “Kingdom of God” or the “Kingdom of Heaven.””
Amen Louis! The “good news” that Jesus preached was about the Kingdom! The “Gospel of the Kingdom” certainly includes the events of Jesus’ life and His ultimate sacrifice to become the Savior of the world … but the message of the Kingdom is not limited to that. It would do us all well to read the red again. Jesus preached much about the Kingdom of Heaven, as well as Hell … subjects which receive too little focus in 21st century pulpits. Praise God … Jesus who was a Son became a Priest who became a King! As believers, we are citizens of His Kingdom … but are living far below the privileges which are ours – now on earth.
Max,
You nailed it!!!!
The good news is the Kingdom has come. through Christ and entrance into His Kingdon is by the power of His Spirit, repentance of sin, and faith in His blood.
Unfortunately, Dwight, a lot of good folks are church members but not Kingdom citizens. They have been prevented from entering the Kingdom by hanging their hats on the teachings and traditions of men rather than the commandments of God … and Jesus warned us not to do that!!
Max you are so right. Over the years I have unfortunately encountered people from everywhere on the theological spectrum who professed to have faith in Christ but over time proved to be false professors by doing just what you mentioned, “hanging their hats on the teachings and traditions of men rather than the commandments of God.”
Thankfully we can all rest in God that He does and will sift the wheat from the tares and will indeed bring all His into His kingdom. And I want to be more and more faithful to be one of His ambassadors for just that.
Les,… I put this one into the wrong string. But, hearing it twice will not hurt 🙂
Les,
I am actually excited that Dwight has entered into this conversation. It helps to expose what the gospel truly is when compared to the “empty clouds” that pose as gospel presenters for the citizens, yet preach another gospel. The “social gospel” is charlatan at best, and deceitfully wicked at best, and has harmed segments of the American citizenry in outstanding ways. I welcome the discussion and exposure to what marks out the true gospel.
1. If it is a gospel that affirms homosexuality…it is not the gospel of the bible.
2. If it is a gospel that affirms violence, and not peace….it is not the gospel of the bible.
3. If it is a gospel that affirms abortion….it is not the gospel of the bible.
4. If it is a gospel that teaches youth to be “takers”, and not “givers”… it is not the gospel of the bible.
I hope we stick on this subject for some time. The light has a tendency to expose the soft underbelly of the “social gospel” seekers.
DL,
As I use the term racial reconciliation, I’m basically inclusive of all races being treated with dignity, respect, fairness, equity etc. Yes, because of past injustices I am in favor of the law redressing ills of the past. But, I belive a date certain should put in place such as maybe 2050 or before, where we can prepare a generation that color will be removed from the law at a certain point. Hopefully, by that time there will be enough people of color spread throughout the system ’till no one will feel discriminated against.
Hey Brother McKissic,
Talk about a small world, I am having supper with Danny Moody from Arlington Baptist College, he says he knows you and that y’all are supposed to have lunch sometime soon.
Absolutely,
Look forward to having lunch with him. Excited ’bout an old friend, and one that I hope will become a new friend. Great appreciation & respect for both of you.
Yes sir,
Brother Moody was the Dean of Students when I was at Arlington Baptist College 20 years ago. I love him and he is great preacher. That’s the same way I feel about you too brother.
Nice analysis, Louis.
My reaction is this: the Christian church could easily usher in a utopian society. However, it would mean eliminating people.
I am not sure how to take that last part, Jack. 😉
Dwight: Thanks. And thanks for writing such a tough post.
Jack: Thanks, also. I have always though that Christians could usher in Utopia. It would look just like the churches we run!
Dwight, I do appreciate reading through your post and comparing it to what other writers are depicting as the “gospel” as well. President Obama has tried to define a “gospel” while presiding over the work of the government on the Federal level. Do you agree with his “social gospel” concept, and is it anything close to this “gospel of the kingdom” definition/question that you have put forward here? A CNN editorial, back in 2012, outlined his “social gospel” concept fairly well, and can be found here http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/21/to-some-obama-is-the-wrong-kind-of-christian/
Do you agree or disagree with his premise of the “social gospel”?
Martin Luther King, from his jail cell in Birmingham wrote these words. A concept understanding toward freedom and gospel, an understanding polar opposite of those like Al Sharpton and “his gospel” sympathizing.
“There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period that the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was the thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.” But they went on with the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven” and had to obey God rather than man. They were small in number but big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.
Things are different now. The contemporary church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s often vocal sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. I meet young people every day whose disappointment with the church has risen to outright disgust.”
Oh to have more men like Martin! A man not preaching from the same playbook as the “social gospel” tax collectors of today, but a man that understood the precepts of the gospel of the kingdom. Martin served, ….yet the “social gospel” purveyors that pretend to know God’s kingdom make use the church and the naive as a platform for demanding a social justice, …all of those are certainly not acting in the way King (Martin) would recognize as gospel messengers.
“… they were “a colony of heaven” and had to obey God rather than man. They were small in number but big in commitment.”
A great description of the early church, Chris! How should we “do church” … what should it look like? Does the 21st century church look like “a colony of heaven” or an institution of men? A refresher course in Acts 2 wouldn’t hurt us any:
“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”
Early believers set the bar for us. They were committed, unselfish, united, prayerful, joyful, effective … and the world took note. What should the church look like today? Consider the above beginning … do we resemble the pattern? We don’t need to be “culturally relevant” … we need to be real.
Amen! Overtly clear objectives and actions! No ambiguity in what we see in The Acts of the Apostles. This should be the marching orders,…. Not the loathing of the “social gospel”. Again, I hope this conversation continues for years. It will flush out the charlatans!
I see many, who when they try to be real and honest in preaching biblical truth, become “culturally repulsive”. I then see them act out their insecurity like a teen age girl who raises her skirt in increments as if to say, “please like me–please don’t reject me.” These are the churches whose leader is saying, “let’s drag more of the world in and prove to them that we are not the hateful, prejudiced, and bigoted people they think we are.” These leaders do not give cups of cold water as an act of obedience to the Great Commission; for them it is yet another self-serving attempt at becoming popular in Jesus stead.
These leaders do not deny and abandon the historicity of hymn and gospel song in wholesale fashion as the rock-for Jesus-Praise Me Band does one-up-man-ship on Jesus as well; unless they have in mind, not a Kingdom, but an Empire.
The Kingdom of God does not make cowards of us.
It grants us power and soundness of mind.
Kingdom people who live out the Kingdom that God has placed within them will suffer the same hatred and rejection from the world as that of our Christ who assured us of this very truth.
I see those of us ministers who, in our insecurity, copy-cat and rubber stamp every color coded program or church around the corner that has a circus act raking in the dollars. We are not determined about the Kingdom, we are discouraged and disillusioned because all of our former “tricks” don’t work any more and when we try to copy other “successful” ministries we have no fruit.
Cannot churches and their leaders be spiritually indigenous too?
Max, I am not convinced that I, the world or the church of today is ready for a version of real that is truly Kingdom.
When our goal is numbers-before-proclamation, we can slip into the mindset that we need to get them in the building at any cost.
We must be willing to admit that our faithful proclaiming of the Gospel might not increase our numbers.
“I am not convinced that I, the world or the church of today is ready for a version of real that is truly Kingdom.”
Agreed. Matthew 23:13 stands in the way.
Parsonsmike
“…..faithful proclamation of the gospel might not increase our numbers”
I think that we both agree, and have little use for, the put on a show and do whatever it takes to get a crowd and increase the numbers in “baptism” type of “evangelism”.
However, I think the faithful proclamation of the Gospel WILL increase numerically the Kingdom and the local church. People are looking for answers, the fields are white, and Paul says, there is power in the Gospel. Not a powerful presentation of the gospel , but the Gospel itself is power. When these factors come together I think the faithful presentation of the Gospel will increase Christ following.
Am I splitting hairs? Am I even speaking to your comment?
D.L.,
I think you were speaking to my comment. But if you think every field is white and ready to be reaped, I think you are mistaken.
Paul said to the Jews that since that they rejected the Gospel, he would go to the Gentiles. This tells us two things at least. One that every field is not always ready for the harvest. The second, that if one field is not ready, another one will be.
A local church might be in a field that is not ready for the harvest. They might be in a place where they maintain what they have, maybe supporting with missionaries that will go to the ready fields.
As we look at history, we see that the church is not as numerous in places as it once was. Israel, Turkey, and Northern Africa were once the geographic centers of the Christian world. Now there are but remnants of what was. Europe was the hotbed of both the Reformation and getting the Bible into print for the common man, but now there churches sit empty or are being turned into stores or Mosques.
Now we look at America. The country is devolving into a sinful mess. The church has allowed the world to move in. It is more likely that preaching the Word will first decrease our numbers than expand them.
D.L.,
And it has been true for a while that there are more professed believers south of the Equator than north of it.
The fields that are white for the harvest are those where the reapers have not yet worked much: India, China, S.E. Asia, Japan.
Parsonsmike
In essence I agree with you. Two statements, however I will make. (1) Jesus said the fields are white unto harvest, so I will act on that regardless of where I am by preaching a powerful gospel. (2) One of my pastorates was in an area that was darkened by Satan. However the light of the Gospel was able to penetrate that darkness. I simply have to believe that the light of the gospel is brighter than the darkness of Satan anywhere.
However this I affirm. I have a pastor who pastors on the Reservation that is blackened by the darkness. He baptized 10 people last year. I think he did a “better job” (whatever in the world that means) than someone who baptized 100 people in an area that is not as darkened.
D.L.,
Of course you should continue to preach the Gospel. People are still getting saved in Jerusalem and Turkey because the Gospel is being preached. people are still getting saved in Northern Africa and Europe because the Gospel is still being preached there as well.
But neither is the church bloated in those places like it is in many places across America. When our churches start getting ‘real’ with the Gospel both in word and deed, many churches will lose the bloat [and their high numbers].
Is the church on that reservation full of Sunday only ‘believers’? I betcha they aren’t. I bet it is ‘real’ there.
Parsonsmike
Paragraph two..absolutely correct. I also see the day coming when the blot will disappear. I believe the day is soon upon us when it is going to be tough living a Christ like life or even being a churchman.
Paragraph three…you would win your bet. On the Res (at this one anyway) church is very real and authentic.
Chris,
I appreciate your question and hurriedly read the article that you linked to. I want to answer your question, but, I find it broad and vague. Please ask a precise, specific question about the “social gospel” or how specifically a particular belief of President Obama or something specifically cited/mentioned in that CNN article may or may not line up with my belief. When you ask such a question, you will get from me a clear, precise, and specific response. Thanks.
Dwight, I apologize for being perceived as vague about the “social gospel” that Barak Obama and Al Sharpton have pursued. I should have not assumed you were at all familiar with their interpretation of gospel. I will put together a very defined question with respect to their brand of the “gospel”, “racial/reconciliation” and scripture. Hopefully that will help frame my question to you in a less vague manner.
After spending out 3 hours on subways in New York City yesterday, I believe it would be more productive to move a different direction with articulating the difference between “the gospel”, and “another gospel” that we see continually striking out at the church. Dwight, when you brought up these differing definitions on the definition of the gospel for the church, I did not realize there was really that much confusion about the “other gospel” that has been pushed into the public square over the last 30 years. I’m finishing up on an article that addresses this issue, and is more comprehensive than simply asking you a question about your belief. I’ll get that over to Dave in the 5-10 days, and he can make a decision whether he would like to publish it or not. Again, I appreciate you bringing to our attention the importance of this matter! There is a critical distinction that all believers must know to remain faithful to Christ and his Word when we evoke the gospel.
Sweet!
Chris
Herein lies the problem. What is the “social gospel”? It has so many meanings. Classic Social Gospel was tied closely to old line liberalism. Rudolf Bultmann advocated a “Social Gospel” which fit well with his theology. For Bultmann the New Testament teachings were for this world, not the next world. The resurrection for him was the rise of the “Easter Faith” i.e. a way to live life on this earth by following the teachings of Jesus. Hence the Resurrection was not a bodily resurrection as we understand it. It follows then that the “Social Gospel” was a way to live out and apply the teachings of Christ to this world and the societies therein. From there Social Gospel branches off into many different directions. So again until we have common ground on meaning we will remain frustrated in this discussion.
I am still on first base here wondering if we are not all saying the same thing in different terms. If not I have developed some real concerns as to the understanding of the Gospel message.
D.L.,
There are some major distinctions that are being purveyed as the “social gospel”, masked as the gospel of the kingdom. I’ll try to frame it properly late tomorrow. There is too much other work to get done until then. But, this is an excellent discussion to see if we (the church) have understood the gospel in relationship to the cultural and societal/political structures. I guarantee you some would like to broaden the scope of the gospel to allow for a wide gate.
Chris
Narrow is the way
I look forward to your analysis. They are always enlightening.
To me, racial reconciliation is Christians loving each other, and treating each other with kindness and respect….treating each other as equals. White Believers looking upon Black Believers as their Brothers and Sisters in the Lord. Black Believers looking upon Hispanic Believers as their Brothers and Sisters in the Lord. Asian Believers treating Middle Eastern Believers as their Brothers and Sisters in the Lord. All of us, who are saved, just simply treating other Believers how we would want to be treated; no matter their color.
And, maybe….just maybe….the example of the Church of Jesus Christ would be a good example to the rest of the USA about race relations.
David
Amen!!!
Dave
Again, well said.
The Gospel is for both this world and the next. There is a social element to it, spelled out in simple terms, feeding the hungry brother, giving drink to him that is thirsty, visiting the people who are prison, and there is an eternal element also spelled out in faith and trust without regard to the difficulties that might be encountered on the way to the Heavenly city (cf. Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress). What some have tried to do, and apparently did to some degree, was separate the two elements and use them to the bring a division among the saints. You all ever hear of theological manipulation or eschatological manipulation? You all might want to take a look at In Praise of Folly by David Lutzweiler. It will give you some idea about eschatological manipulation, about how some one got off the hook of being the Antichrist and got some nameless person on the hook. A bureau of slick tricks. Take a look at the history of the usage of the term, “Antichrist.” Who used the term even before the Reformation and of whom were they speaking?
Bad cops should be punished. Yes. But, if I were a young man or woman, thinking about entering into the Police Academy, this anti- cop, every cop is a racist”, “all cops are bad”, “if you shoot someone to defend yourself you may end up in prison” attitude that’s going around our country, right now, would make me think seriously about pursuing another career.
David
agreed, you have touched on a major, major problem.
When the best and the brightest, the most dedicated, the ones who love the idea of serving their fellow man in this way start moving away from the profession – matters like those being discussed become much, much worse. When police departments can’t attract or keep good honest officer because they are getting so ‘handcuffed’ by constant political correctness and second guessing – just imagine what will happen. At some point all the cop hating has to become counterproductive.
I am beginning to wonder if the old adage – “do your job with integrity and the truth will win out in the end” is becoming less and less true in the law enforcement arena.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2296766557537&fref=nf
Yep, its the elephant in the room.
The now and not yet….
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2014/11/19/what-happens-when-you-judge-the-church-now-by-the-kingdoms-not-yet/