Book Review:

This book was SO good.
The end.
Good night.

That is how Abi wrote this book review for me when I first started writing it one night during our vacation with my parents in the mountains. Her gentle suggestion that I end that night’s typing worked, but I’ve got much more to say about this book than that it was merely “SO good”—although that’s 100% true! D. A. Carson’s blurb for What Is the Mission of the Church? is spot-on, and I’ve structured my book review according to Dr. Carson’s following endorsement: “Among the many books that have recently appeared on mission, this is the best one if you are looking for sensible definitions, clear thinking, readable writing, and the ability to handle the Bible.”

Sensible Definitions

In chapter one, DeYoung and Gilbert determine that the mission of the church refers to “the specific task or purpose that the church is sent into the world to accomplish” (20, italics in original). This much-needed foundational definition of a general mission leads to the authors’ following definition for the specific mission of the church: “The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship the Lord and obey his commands now and in eternity to the glory of God the Father” (62, italics in original). Put even more simply, the church’s mission “is to win people to Christ and build them up in Christ” (63).

Chapter four presents a helpful, detailed explanation of the gospel from two perspectives, which DeYoung and Gilbert (who wrote What Is the Gospel?) refer to as “a wide-angle lens and a zoom lens on the gospel” (94). From the wide-angle perspective, the gospel refers to “the whole complex of promises that God makes to those who are redeemed through Christ,” and from the zoom lens perspective, the gospel is “the message that sinners can be forgiven through repentance and faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ” (106). The authors make the following helpful clarifications: “there is only one gospel, not two”; “the gospel of the kingdom [wide-angle lens] necessarily includes the gospel of the cross [zoom lens]”; the gospel of the cross is the fountainhead of the gospel of the kingdom” (107-108, emphasis in original).

Chapter five establishes a definition for the kingdom of God. “The kingdom of God … is God’s redemptive reign, in the person of his Son, Jesus Messiah, which has broken into the present evil age and is now visible in the church” (127). Although the kingdom “is now visible in the church,” it is not fully realized in all of creation. This consummation of God’s kingdom “happens when and only when King Jesus returns in glory, and not before” (129, emphasis in original). “Through and through,” DeYoung and Gilbert add, “this final consummation is God’s work and for God’s glory” (134). And since the kingdom of God, as used in the Bible, refers to God’s redemptive reign, “forgiveness of sins, redemption, and inclusion in God’s kingdom are predicated on a person coming in repentance and faith to Jesus as the only one who has both right and power to qualify anyone to share in the inheritance of the saints” (136).

The authors even find a working definition for the term social justice, which doesn’t “really have” a definition (179). Basing their definition on Sowell’s constrained view of justice, DeYoung and Gilbert define social justice “not [as] an equality of outcome, but [as] equal treatment under a fair law” (182). Ultimately, when it comes to the elusive term social justice, “we really ought to love everyone, not all in the same way, but when we can, where we can, however we can” (193).

Discussion of the mission of the church begs the question: “Is the church any different from a group of Christians?” DeYoung and Gilbert’s answer is “no, but yes.” No, because when Christians do good works individually (or with a group that is not their institutional church), they function as “the church organic.” Yes, because “the church institutional” occurs “when a group of Christians decides to become a church, [and] they covenant together to take on certain responsibilities [which include] to make sure the Word is preached regularly among them, to make sure the ordinances—baptism and the Lord’s Supper—are regularly practiced, and to make sure that discipline is practiced among them” (232).

These definitions—and more!—are sensible precisely because they are the skeleton around which the body of the authors’ argument is built. These definitions indicate DeYoung and Gilbert’s clear thinking and form the building blocks of their readable writing.

Clear Thinking, Readable Writing

The authors’ clear thinking is evident first through the logical progression of their chapters. The numbered list below features these chapter titles along with a summary of each.

1. “A Common Word in Need of a Careful Definition.” DeYoung and Gilbert begin their book by telling the reader up-front what their goals are in writing this book. They conclude with an overview of the remaining chapters.
2. “What in the World Did Jesus Send Us into the World to Do?” The authors progress in this chapter to examine many biblical passages and argue that the Great Commission passages in the gospels and Acts form the basis of the church’s mission.
3. “The Whole Story: Seeing the Biblical Narrative from the Top of Golgotha.” An integral part of the Great Commission—and of the church’s mission, consequently—is the gospel. And this gospel is the Bible’s answer to life’s most important question: “How can hopelessly rebellious, sinful people live in the presence of a perfectly just and righteous God?” (69, emphasis in original). This chapter thus explores how the Bible answers this question from start to finish—the gospel presents the solution.
4. “Are We Missing the Whole Gospel? Understanding the Good News.” Since the gospel answers the question at the heart of the Bible, it is important that we understand what the gospel is. DeYoung and Gilbert here explain that in the Bible, the gospel refers to either all the blessings given to God’s redeemed, or that salvation comes through Christ alone, or both. These two perspectives, though, are one and the same gospel: the second view is but more specific than the first, and the first flows from the second.
5. “Kings and Kingdoms: Understanding God’s Redemptive Rule.” Although some argue that we Christians have a hand in “building the kingdom of God,” the authors demonstrate that according to the Bible, the kingdom of God is what God himself accomplishes, and this will not be fully consummated until Jesus comes again.
6. “Making Sense of Social Justice: Exposition.” DeYoung and Gilbert here exposit various Bible passages that have been cited as supporting the idea of social justice, or the cultural mandate. They demonstrate that these passages, rightly understood, show that biblical social justice is “no fraud, no favoritism, help the weak, freely give as we have abundantly received” (171).
7. “Making Sense of Social Justice: Application.” This chapter features seven applications of the exposition in the previous chapter.
8. “Seeking Shalom: Understanding the New Heavens and the New Earth.” Chapter 8 defines the Hebrew term shalom, reiterates some of the material from chapter 5, and develops the idea from chapter 5 that God’s kingdom will be fully consummated when Jesus comes again.
9. “Zealous for Good Works: Why and How We Do Good, both as Individuals and as Churches.” DeYoung and Gilbert here maintain that it is important to do good both as individuals and as churches, and it is equally important to do good for the right reasons.
10. “The Great Commission Mission: What It Means and Why It Matters.” This final, short chapter crescendos the book’s central argument into a grand finale. “In the end, the Great Commission must be the mission of the church for two very basic reasons: there is something worse than death, and there is something better than human flourishing” (242).

The authors’ writing is readable to a great extent because the above chapters are divided into sections that outline their thesis.

The Ability to Handle the Bible

DeYoung and Gilbert “handle the Bible” very well. The numerous expository passages in What Is the Mission of the Church? are the building blocks of every argument they make. I found myself agreeing with them at almost every point, and any disagreement I had with them was minimal. Below is a list of every Bible passage DeYoung and Gilbert exposit in chronological order by chapter.

Chapter 2:

• Genesis 12:1-3
• Exodus 19:5-6
• Luke 4:16-21
• Matthew 28:16-20
• Mark 13:10; 14:9
• Luke 24:44-49
• Acts 1:8
• John 20:21

Chapter 4:

• Matthew 4:23
• Luke 4:18-19
• Acts 13:32-33
• Acts 10:36-43
• Romans 1:16-17
• 1 Corinthians 15:1-5
• 1 Corinthians 1:17-18

Chapter 6:

• Leviticus 19:9-18
• Leviticus 25
• Isaiah 1
• Isaiah 58
• Jeremiah 22
• Amos 5
• Micah 6:8
• Matthew 25:31-46
• Luke 10:25-37
• Luke 16:19-31
• 2 Corinthians 8-9
• James 1, 2, 5

And these are only the Bible passages that get a whole section devoted to them! On nearly every page of the book, DeYoung and Gilbert either quote or reference the Bible. What Is the Mission of the Church? seeks to base every point and sub-point on the Bible.

Conclusion

I couldn’t agree more heartily with Dr. Carson’s endorsement of this book. The current evangelical discussion about the mission of the church will greatly profit from DeYoung and Gilbert’s Bible-based and Bible-centered contribution. The Bible exposition alone makes this book worth its price. An edifying read for any Christian!

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi:

SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hearby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ:

SECTION 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” (source: http://yeson26.net/media/3932/definitionofperson.pdf)

Since the infamous decision of the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion has been legal in the United States. However, the legality of abortion as determined by the majority opinion hinges on one vital piece of (wrong) information: the unborn child is not a person. As section IXA of the decision concedes,

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. … If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. (source: http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_f.htm)

Thus, the passing of Amendment 26 conceivably could lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade. And the overturning of Roe v. Wade (or, at the very least, the circumventing of it) is necessary for the abolition of legal abortions in the United States. And abortions ought to be outlawed because they are the murdering of human life. Even science teaches that life begins at conception. And since human life begins at conception, then abortion is murder, which the Bible forbids (Ex. 20:13, 1 Tim. 1:9, Rev. 21:8, et al). And since murder is an evil that government outlaws (and that rightly so, since one of the functions of government is to restrain and to punish evil – see Rom. 13:4), the government should also outlaw abortion, since abortion is demonstrably a form of murder.

Currently, however, the United States government does not ban abortion, and Roe v. Wade indefinitely upholds abortion as legal. Therefore, if you have the ability to vote for Amendment 26 tomorrow, I strongly encourage you to vote yes to Amendment 26 not only to affirm the biblical (and scientific) truth that human life begins at conception, and thus is a person, but also to begin a process of overturning Roe v. Wade and enabling our government to rightly outlaw a currently legal form of murder, abortion.

I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon,

so that I too may be cheered by news of you.

For I have no one like him,

who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare.

For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.

But you know Timothy’s proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel.

I hope therefore to send him

just as soon as I see how it will go with me,

and I trust in the Lord that shortly I myself will come also.

Paul’s Plans to Send Timothy

Paul has received the Philippians’ gift (Phil. 4:18). Now he plans to send this letter to the Philippians by Epaphroditus, their emissary to Paul (2:25). But Paul also plans to send Timothy behind Epaphroditus “soon.” Paul’s reason for doing this is twofold:

1. so that he may be cheered by news of the Philippians upon Timothy’s return to him (v. 19) and
2. because Timothy is the only trustworthy messenger Paul can send back and forth (v. 20).

“So That”

Paul “hope[s] in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that [he] too may be cheered by news of you [the Philippians]” (v. 19). This begs the question, “How could Paul be cheered by news of the Philippians?” Paul answers this question for us earlier in chapter 2, just before the passage we examine today. Paul commands the Philippians in 2:16 to hold fast to the word of life (persevere in the faith) “so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.” As we saw in the last post, “Paul rejoices with the Philippians even in the midst of his hardship—which could lead to death. Paul’s joy does not rest in his own present circumstances; it rests in the Lord, in what the Lord is doing in the lives of the Philippian believers.” Timothy would note whether the Philippian church is implementing all of Paul’s varied instructions in this letter. Timothy would note whether the Philippians are

• united for the defense and propagation of the gospel (1:27)
• acting with humility toward other believers (2:3)
• looking to the interests of others (2:4)
• working out their salvation (2:12)
• doing all things without grumbling or questioning (2:14)
• holding fast to the word of life (2:16)
• joyfully welcoming Epaphroditus home (2:29)
• rejoicing in the Lord (3:1; 4:4)
• guarding against “Jesus-plus-what you do” theology (3:2)
• thinking maturely (3:15)
• holding true to what they have attained (3:16)
• imitating Paul’s and other leaders’ examples (3:17; 4:9)
• standing firm in the Lord (4:1)
• overcoming strife in the church (4:2-3)
• letting their reasonableness be known to everyone (4:5)
• praying with thanksgiving (4:6)
• thinking on things that are worthy of praise (4:8)
• greeting every saint in Christ Jesus (4:21)

and Timothy would report back to Paul whether they were doing these things. Of course, Timothy’s report would result in Paul’s cheerfulness; Paul has already noted that God will “bring to completion” the “good work he began” in the Philippians “at the day of Jesus Christ” (1:6) and that the Philippians will work out their own salvation with fear and trembling because God is at work in them (2:12-13). Paul is assured that the Philippians will persevere in the faith; hearing this report from Timothy would only cheer him more (cf. 1 Thess. 2:6-7).

“For” (meaning because)

The reason that Paul plans to send Timothy is also because “no one like him will be genuinely concerned for [the Philippians'] welfare” (Phil. 2:20). No one else around Paul at the time of his letter writing would care for the Philippians as Timothy would. Other messengers around Paul were “seek[ing] their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (v. 21). These would have included the envious preachers who “proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment” (1:17). Also, Timothy had been with Paul at the church’s inception (Acts 16:1-4, 13-15, 40). Therefore, the Philippians “know Timothy’s proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22). Paul thus hopes to send Timothy to the Philippians “just as soon” as Paul knows what will happen to himself (v. 23), but he trusts “in the Lord” that he will come “shortly … also” (v. 24).

Persevere Because We Await One Greater Than Timothy

If, as Martin suggests, Philippians 2:6-11 is the key passage of Hebrews; if he is also right that the main message of Hebrews is to live under Christ’s lordship (I would maintain that we do this, in part, by rejoicing in the Lord), then the application of this text, according to Philippians when taken as a whole, is to persevere in our faith because we await One greater than Timothy. I say we are to persevere because of what Paul has already said in Phil. 2:12-13, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” I say that we are to persevere because we await One greater than Timothy because Paul will later command in Phil. 4:1 to “stand firm thus in the Lord” on the basis of 3:20-21, “Our citizenship [recalling the central command of 1:27] is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.”

Epaphroditus has long since delivered the letter to the Philippians. Scripture does not record whether Timothy ever visited the Philippians, nor if he did, whether he reported their conduct back to Paul. Scripture is clear, however, that “we await a Savior” from our heavenly country. “Stand firm” in your faith, persevere, because we await One greater than Timothy who won’t be reporting back to Paul … Jesus will be judging the living and the dead.

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. -Hebrews 9:27-28

Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, NICNT (Eerdmans: 1995).

Gordon Fee’s commentary on Philippians is excellent. Fee argues for Pauline authorship and for the traditional view that Rome was his place of writing. He is thorough and scholarly, but not unreadable. If you are looking for a single commentary on Philippians to read, this is your commentary! It is hefty and sometimes wordy, but Fee’s depth of insight is superb. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Moisés Silva,Philippians (2nd Edition), BECNT (Baker Academic: 2005).

Moisés Silva’s commentary on Philippians is roughly half the size of Fee’s commentary, but Silva’s commentary is much more reader-friendly. Silva also argues for Pauline authorship and Roman provenance. Silva provides his own translation, and although perhaps a handful of his conclusions are far-fetched, his scholarship leads him to many valuable insights of which Fee does not write. Silva’s own excellent translation and highly readable commentary make his work a must-have for those who preach through Philippians. 4 out of 5 stars.

Gerald F. Hawthorne, revised and expanded by Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, WBC (Thomas Nelson: 2004).

Of other WBC New Testament commentaries I have read, Philippians is my least favorite. Like Silva, Hawthorne/Martin offer their own translation. Unlike Silva, Hawthorne/Martin often depart from traditional translations, which in most instances produces far-fetched conclusions. Particularly in the first two chapters of Philippians, Hawthorne/Martin regularly offer differing translations than those given in most English Bibles. Furthermore, Hawthorne/Martin seem to be more amenable to secular scholasticism; they regularly nod to rhetorical criticism, and unlike other conservative commentators who, even hesitatingly, adopt the theory of Rome as being the place of Paul’s writing, Hawthorne/Martin adopt the provenance theories of Caesarea and Ephesus, respectively. Furthermore, Hawthorne/Martin speculate (not edifyingly) as to Paul’s psychological state. Commenting on 2:6, they write of the phrase “form of God”:

This somewhat enigmatic expression, then, appears to be a cautious, hidden way for the author to say that Christ was God, possessed of the very nature of God, without employing these exact words. It appears to be a statement made by one [Paul] who perhaps, althrough reared as a strict monotheist and thus unable to bring himself to say “Christ is God,” was compelled nevertheless by the sheer force of personal encounter with the resurrected and living Christ to bear witness as best he could to the reality of Christ’s “divinity,” to use the language of later creedal formulations. (114; cf. lxii-lxiii)

Coupled with this psychological speculation, Hawthorne/Martin’s speculative translations greatly detract from their commentary’s hermeneutical value. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. -Ecclesiastes 1:9

According to the CDC, exactly 1 out of every 2 marriages in the United States will end not at death, when brides and grooms vow they will part, but with divorce. Even for first-time brides and grooms, they have a nearly 40% chance of divorcing. Numerous books, some movies, and at least one theatrical production is devoted to the idea that the American culture has fallen from its supposed godly roots in its distant past, and they cite this high divorce rate as proof. But no culture, let alone America’s, has started with a godly culture. Even Israel, God’s chosen nation, as soon as it received God’s law in Exodus 24:3, had committed idolatry with their golden calf in Exodus 32 before Moses came down from Mt. Sinai with the tablets of the law. Even those who had seen God’s judgment on the Egyptians, who had seen God’s salvation through the Red Sea, chose idolatry, both in this incident at Mt. Sinai, and later at the edge of the promised land (Numbers 14:1-4). Their latter idolatry proved final and fully fatal; for this rebellion God refused to let them enter the promised land (vv. 28-30). The writer of Hebrews attests that the first generation of Israelites was eternally lost in Hebrews 3:18-19; 4:9-11.

And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. … So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.

These verses indicate that the Israelites were unable to enter not only the physical rest of Canaan but also the eternal rest of heaven. If God’s own chosen nation was sinful from the beginning, how can we claim that our nation, born out of a non-biblical rebellion (Romans 13:1-7), has been righteous even for a moment?

The point I am getting at is this: sexual sin is nothing new. Divorce rates may be higher, but spouses have been cheating on each other since biblical times. The Greek poet Horace, writing mere decades before the First Coming of Christ, writes in his Odes, Book III Poem 6, “Moral Decadence” (trans. A. S. Kline):

Our age, fertile in its wickedness, has first
defiled the marriage bed, our offspring, and homes:
disaster’s stream has flowed from this source
through the people and the fatherland.

The young girl early takes delight in learning
Greek dances, in being dressed with all the arts,
and soon meditates sinful affairs,
with every fibre of her new being:

later at her husband’s dinners she searches
for younger lovers, doesn’t mind to whom she
grants all her swift illicit pleasures
when the lights are far removed, but she rises,

openly, when ordered to do so, and not
without her husband’s knowledge, whether it’s for
some peddler, or Spanish ship’s captain,
an extravagant buyer of her shame.

…

What do the harmful days not render less?
Worse than our grandparents’ generation, our
parents’ then produced us, even worse,
and soon to bear still more sinful children.

Well could his culture as well as ours heed the warning in Hebrews 13:4—”Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” In his commentary on Hebrews, William L. Lane quotes this same poem before provding his own insightful comments:

The awesome prospect of the final judgment throws into high relief the ultimate importance of respect for marriage and for sexual integrity. They represent aspects of the pursuit of holiness that are foundational to the worship of God. (p. 517)

And Jesus details how we are to show “respect for marriage and for sexual integrity” in Matthew 5:27-32. There, Jesus equates respect for marriage and for sexual integrity with abstaining from lust and divorce, for lust is adultery, and divorce results in adultery if one lies with a divorced man or woman.

Past cultures sidestepped Jesus’ teachings on marriage and sexual integrity by hiding their sexual sins with secret affairs and clandestine meetings under the cover of night. Our culture is not doing anything new; it is merely doing these sexually immoral acts in broad daylight and without any sense of shame. Paul’s words in Romans 1:28-32 about sinful society was applicable just as much in his day as it is in ours:

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Sexual sin is nothing new. Sexual immorality has been around since before the Flood in Genesis 6. Homosexuality, fornication, and adultery have all been present for millennia. The only difference is that these things are now done openly and in broad daylight. We ought not beseech our country to come back to God; communist and socialist ideas have been too-readily adopted (if unwillingly) by the American church. We cannot change a country corporally before we can change it individually. Our country’s moral decadence, while a problem, is not our country’s biggest problem. Our country’s biggest problem is the lostness of its citizens individually. God does not command societal reform; God commands evangelism and discipleship (Matthew 28:18-20). By his grace, let’s be about his work of spreading the gospel and tending to its growth … one individual at a time.

This passage teaches that as we Christians work our “real-world” jobs (for kids and youth, this corresponds to school), we are actually “serving the Lord Christ.” He is our boss even more than our supervisor, manager, or teacher is! It is only sensible, then, to “work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men.” Furthermore, Paul teaches “that from the Lord [we] will receive the inheritance.” The inheritance to which Paul here refers is eternal life in heaven with God; as he writes earlier in Colossians, the Father “has qualified [us] to share in the inheritance of the saints in light,” which is to be moved “from the domain of darkness … to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (1:12-13).

In applying these texts from Colossians to our daily lives as believers, we ought to “work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance,” which is deliverance into God’s eternal kingdom, “as your reward.” Students, this means do your best in school. Do your homework faithfully and don’t cheat on tests. Use the intelligence that God has given you, and seek to increase your knowledge by paying attention in class and by studying your books diligently. Adults, this means to do your best at whatever work you do because all work is a calling from God, if you are a Christian.

Martin Luther understood this and had this to say on the matter: “A cobbler, a smith, a farmer, each has the work and office of his trade, and yet they are all alike consecrated priests and bishops, and every one by means of his own work or office must benefit and serve every other, that in this way many kinds of work may be done for the bodily and spiritual welfare of the community, even as all the members of the body serve one another.” So, Christian, whether at work in an office, factory, field, or classroom, work to the glory of God in Christ Jesus, for he will reward you in heaven—not because of the work you do on earth but because you are his child.

This post was originally written for the Calvary Baptist Church August 2011 Newsletter, which will be released this Sunday, July 31, 2011, prior to morning worship.

Even those who object to Goldsworthy’s comments must admit that the gospel makes people feel better in an ultimate way; a saved person, by the gospel, knows that he or she is a child of God for all eternity! What can make a person feel better than the grace that God offers in Christ? Likewise, the gospel makes the world a much better place to live in, not by magically suddenly erasing all the world’s ills the moment a person is converted, but by giving the converted person hope in a renewed world that will come at the end of time. Unsaved people have no hope of ever making the world truly better; any solution for the “betterment” of the world apart from the gospel is actually hopeless; man-made solutions will only perish. In fact, the redemption of creation cannot happen until the end of time. As Paul writes in Romans 8:20-21, “For creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” Creation will be recreated as our bodies are raised immortal, at the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-18).

So, from Goldsworthy’s analysis, in what way should sermons be relevant? Sermons should show people “the real nature of our human problem as well as God’s answer to it.” In short, a relevant sermon shows from Scripture that people need salvation and that this salvation is found only in the person and work of Christ Jesus our Lord. Should sermons be relevant? Yes. Sermons should be relevant by presenting the gospel and by showing how the gospel affects every aspects of a Christian’s life. Relevance is not achieved by preaching to felt needs; relevance is achieved by preaching the gospel to people and showing them from Scripture how the gospel answers their every need.

Last Friday, New York became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Its Senate voted 33-29 in favor of the measure, and Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law shortly thereafter. As Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, notes, this means that fully one out of every nine Americans lives in a place where same sex marriage is “the law of the land,” and if California’s Proposition 8 is ultimately declared unconstiutional, then over 33 percent of Americans will live in such a place.

Later in the same article, Dr. Mohler has this further analysis:

One of the lessons learned in this sad spectacle is the fact that enough Republican senators changed their positions on the issue under intense pressure, thus enabling the passage of the legislation. The same was true for the minority of Democratic senators who had previously voted against the measure. One of these, Carl Kruger, changed his vote because the nephew of the woman Kruger lives with was so outraged over the issue that he had cut the couple off from an ongoing relationship. “I don’t need this,” the Senator told a colleague, “It has gotten personal now.”

Well, of course it has. But what this statement really means is that many Americans, including many in the political class, simply fold their moral convictions when they conflict with the lifestyles or convictions of a friend or relative.

The above reminded me of a passage in Matthew where Jesus says that Christians should not “simply fold their moral convictions” in the face of relational adversity on the human level. To quote Christ directly:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (10:34-39)

Carl Kruger is no Christian (he is Jewish), but we Christians should learn from this situation. We must remember that we must not allow cultural pressure to overcome our biblical convictions. And as I have already written in a previous blog from almost a full year ago, the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong. So we must not allow those around us to scare us into backing off from our convictions.

There are those who may say, “But Jesus’ own words here are that ‘those who do not love me more than they love their parents are not worthy of me.’ And aren’t we all unworthy of Christ?” Yes, those are Jesus’ own words, but we must allow context to protect us from avoiding a text’s unpopular, though valid, application. How does Jesus conclude this paragraph? “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” So to be unworthy of Jesus (to use this passage’s language) is to lose one’s life from finding life outside of Christ. This is the clear teaching of Scripture (Acts 4:10-12, et al).

To find life outside of Christ is to not love him supremely. To find life outside of Christ is to love father or mother or wife or children more than you love Christ. True faith in Christ includes an all-surpassing love for him that exceeds your love for all others. And let us not forget the Holy Spirit’s words in 1 John 4:18. “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.” If we truly love Christ, that love will overcome any fear of the people around us who support the legalization of same sex marriage. (And we all know at least someone who supports it.) Let us not be like Carl Kruger, an unbeliever who goes against his previous votes against same-sex marriage “because the nephew of the woman [he] lives with was so outraged over the issue that he had cut the couple off from an ongoing relationship.” (There is also the grievous evil of cohabitation in this situation, but that’s another post for another day.)

Fellow Christian, by the grace of the Holy Spirit of God who empowers you to persevere, keep finding your life in Christ, and don’t be afraid to stand by the increasingly unpopular conviction that homosexuality is wrong. Love Christ more than you love (or is it fear?) those around you who condone homosexuality by advocating for same-sex marriage.

I hope you are all having a wonderful 2011! May God bless you all with more experiential knowledge of himself as the year goes on!

I have had an exceedingly productive month of December and start of the new year, and I look forward to blogging in the future about the lessons that God has taught me in the past month alone. It has been great taking my own unannounced (and unintentional) leave of absence from blogging, and I feel refreshed and invigorated to press on in the race before me. (Blogging will still be kept to a minimum … I have more pressing engagements to attend to. I mustn’t make an idol out of this to the neglect of other, higher, God-given responsibilities.)

But I digress. Back to John Piper. He turns 65 Tuesday, and I continue to be amazed by this man’s humble devotion to the Lord. From his leave of absence report:

One could look at this [my age] two ways: 1) it’s the age most people retire, or 2) it’s the age Winston Churchill became Prime Minister and led England and the Western World to victory over Hitler’s aggression. I find Churchill much more inspiring than retirement.

John Piper is aging, but he’s still serving the Lord faithfully. You’ll have to read his whole report to get its full effect, but from reading that report, John Piper’s love for the Lord is clear as crystal. As someone young just entering (youth) pastoral ministry, I pray that God would give me the same ever-growing love for Christ that John Piper has. I pray that one day I will have the humility he had to nurture his and his family’s spiritual health almost exclusively for 2/3 of the year. That takes humility, that takes devotion, that takes a heart that is filled with the Spirit. And John Piper’s faithfulness spurs me to greater faithfulness in the ministry that God has superabundant-graciously given me. I thank God for John Piper, and I thank God for the work that he’s doing in John Piper’s life … and I pray that God would do the same work in me, throughout my life.

Very few of you readers are vocational ministers, but you are all Christians, and thus you all have ministries. I mean that we are all Christians, all disciples of the Lord, and disciples are to make other disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). So I pray that your prayer is the same in substance (that God would make us faithful, to His glory) as John Piper’s, and as mine. I’m excited about 2011, for what God will do in us and through us—his people—this year.

John Piper is back and ready. Are we ready, too, not in our own power but in the power of God’s indwelling Spirit?