The Gospel, Tolerance and Religious Freedom

It's generally agreed upon in our culture that religious freedom is a good thing. I don't know of many people walking around waving signs saying, "Down With Religious Freedom! Repeal the First Amendment!" Right or Left, we all recognize (at least in theory) that religious freedom is a noble principle that ought to be a part of our society

But it's not quite as simple as that. We all have a functional religion that governs our lives, whether we like to admit it or not. Some might prefer to call this a "worldview" or a "philosophy of life" but now we're just splitting hairs. We all have a set of values by which we operate. Likewise, as cultures were have a set of values that governs our nation. In short, there's no such thing as a value-neutral government. Religious freedom does not mean a religionless nation. They don't exist. All governments must operate from a certain value set - a certain religion, if you'll pardon my language.

So, if all governments are, at least in that sense, religious how then can we have religious freedom? Well, it depends on whether the religion governing the land is one that professes salvation through faith or salvation through works. Because works are external actions they can forced up the citizenry. But faith is, by it's very nature, a free, voluntary, internal act. If faith is forced is ceases to be faith.

So, when a works-based religion gains hold over a government, religious freedom dies. Islam, for example, is a works-based religion. You can force people to utter the words, "There is one God and Mohammad is his prophet". Men can be made through coercion to practice the five pillars. If works can be forced than salvation by works can be forced as well. Thus, it's only logical for Islamist governments to bring people into salvation, by the sword if necessary. The Arab Spring is proving that the Islamist mindset cannot produce freedom of religion.

But Biblical Christianity is a faith-based religion. Men cannot be forced into having their hearts changed. They cannot be made by the sword to put their faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, a truly Christian government will not force people to become Christians, for that would ruin the whole point. A biblical State will protect the rights of non-Christians to freely and publicly worship; not because all religions are equally valid but because the State is simply not qualified to make disciples. That is to be done by churches and individual Christians, not by men in dark suits. Thus, a society can only have religious freedom if it understands the Christian Gospel of salvation by grace through faith.

Now, this is the part where someone raises their hand and says, "Um, Josh, I think you need to take world history again. Many Christian governments persecuted unbelievers."

That's only too true. I've been to Lima, Peru, and seen the old Inquisition there, complete with grotesque wax statues of tortured "heretics". It's tragically true that elements of Christendom have opposed religious freedom. But just because a nation has a crucifix on their flag doesn't mean they understand the Gospel. Just like pilgrimages to Mecca can be imposed by the State, so can baptism and saying "hail Mary". Every "Christian" government that has opposed religious freedom was operating from a gospel that had been, in some way, perverted. But if a culture does understand the Gospel it will secure religious rights for all. Therefore, it is not in opposition to religious freedom, but in defense of it, that we must be bold to spread the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Right now, the United States is governed by the Cult of Tolerance. It's is a functional religion with a functional gospel. "Tolerate and be saved." Does this religion allow for religious freedom? Increasingly, we are discovering that the answer is "no". Pastor Louie Giglio was originally supposed to give the benediction at President Obama's inauguration yesterday. However, he was dismissed after a sermon he preached against homosexuality came to light. On the one hand, I don't have a problem with this. It's Obama's gig and he can have whoever he wants give the benediction.

But it does demonstrate that the New Tolerance doesn't really give tolerance to everyone, but only to those who agree with its postmodern presuppositions. How ironic it is when the president talks of equality for his gay brothers while excluding those who disagree with him. The tolerance gospel cannot tolerate anything that disagrees with it because tolerance, unlike faith in Christ, is a work. And works can be enforced by legislation and men with guns. The State can force people to be tolerant. Thus, a tolerance-obsessed culture cannot allow for religious freedom. In contrast, a Christian nation must allow for the freedom of disagreeing religions or it is in some way sub-Christian. That's the paradox. If you say all religions are valid, any religions that disagree with that assertion will be treated as invalid. But if you say that Jesus is the only Way, than all religions will be tolerated.

Thus, may we protect religious freedom for all by insisting on the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ.

7 Tenets of a Principled Optimist

In the past, I've described myself as a "principled optimist". Likewise, I made a comment a while back on Facebook that pessimism is the result of bad theology. All that needs a little clarification and I'm just now getting around to defining my terms.

1. A principled Christian optimist is not surprised when hardship comes. In fact, he expects it as the natural consequence of living in sin-cursed world. His optimism is not based on circumstances but perspective.

2. However, the perspective of a principled optimist is not a subjective, relativistic mind-binding. It's not so much about looking on the bright side as it is looking at reality - that is true Reality, the Person of God. A Christian optimist sounds more like Paul than Pollyanna.

3. The Christian optimist rests in the character of God as his source his optimism. He places himself in the stream of Christian thought that adheres, at least on some level, to the theory of  Gottfried Leibniz which states the world that exists is the best of all possible worlds. He also agrees with G.K. Chesterton that the real world is far more magical than any fairy tale.

4. Leibnizian theory: Because God is omniscient (all knowing) He knew all possible worlds and events that He could have brought into being. Because He is omnipotent and sovereign (all powerful) He was perfectly capable of bringing any of those worlds and events into being. But because He is omni-benevolent (all good) He chose to bring into existence the best possible world and events. This is the Christian's basis for optimism.

5. However, the principled optimist also recognizes that God's original world has been corrupted by humanity's fall. But he also recognizes that even the most horrible events ultimately conspire toward the glory of God and the good of humanity. Take for example the most horrific event in human history - the crucifixion of our Lord. It is also in another sense the best event in human history for it brought God glory and humanity redemption.

6. The principled optimists trusts God to work all things together for good, believing that even the most horrid of trials will be used by God to accomplish His ends. Therefore, the Christian can be optimistic even as he faces tribulation.

7. The principled optimist reads Romans 8 a lot.

The Symbols of Power

I recently read Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism by Doug McLachlan (which you should totally read, by the way). I found it to be a very interesting and helpful book. In particular, I enjoyed his chapter on servant leadership. In that chapter he made an observation that is very relevent to the Christmas season:

“The symbols of God’s power are a manger and a cross. What could be more vulnerable or more powerless than a newborn baby in a manger or a crucified man on a cross, yet the incarnation (the manger) and the crucifixion (the cross) were both works of great power. The most powerful thing Jesus of Nazareth ever did was to assume our humanness in the incarnation and our fallenness in the crucifixion. Likewise, real power is released into and then out of us when we are prepared to identify with sinners (as Christ in the incarnation) and sacrificially give ourselves to meet their needs (as Christ did in the crucifixion). Yet, how many contemporary Christian are interested in either sinners or a cross?”

This season let us remember that God became a helpless infant. And as we marvel at the awesomeness of the Incarnation, way we embrace the power of weakness.

Rob Bell Is Not The Issue

The dust is beginning to clear on the whole Love Wins controversy. Not that the debate is over, mind you, but the lines have been drawn. The one team is convinced that Rob Bell is a heretic who has officially betrayed historical Christianity. The other team is convinced that Bell is a victim of pharisaical traditionalism. Likewise, all that can really be said about the theological debate has pretty much been said. I don't think we're going to see a lot more "discussion" on this issue. Everyone's pretty much had their say and we've officially arrive at the part of the debate where everyone just stares menacingly at each other.

However, in all this debate and fuss, I think it's important that we not lose sight of the main issue here. Whether or not Rob Bell is a true Christian really isn't the point. I think most on the orthodox team has failed to acknowledge that Bell and the other Emergent times have a tendency to both feed off of and feed into the current cultural mood. Bell is popular because he helps reconcile people's external religion (traditional Christianity) with their internal religion (anthrocentric postmodernism). This is just another attempt to make Christianity comply with postmodern thinking.

Bell is giving the people what they want to hear. This raises the question of why do they want to hear it? True, people don't like the idea of a God who sends people to Hell. I like what Randy Alcorn says to that, “Many imagine that it is civilized, humane, and compassionate to deny the existence of an eternal Hell, but in fact it is arrogant that we, as creatures, would dare to take what we think is the moral high ground in opposition to what God the Creator has clearly revealed. We don’t want to believe that any others deserve eternal punishment, because if they do, so do we. But if we understood God’s nature and ours, we would be shocked not that some people go to Hell (where else would sinners go?), but that any would be permitted into Heaven. Unholy as we are, we are disqualified from saying that infinite holiness doesn’t demand everlasting punishment.”

However, I think there's something else going on here to. Perhaps we don't want the responsibility that comes along with a belief in a literal, eternal Hell. Bell keeps telling people that this really isn't that big a deal. Maybe that's because, until Bell upset the fruit basket, we haven't treated it like a big deal. Isn't it true that we often live like functional Universalists? Lately, the Holy Spirit's been driving a hot iron through my conscience in this area (as a side note, please pray that I would have the courage to follow through on this conviction and the wisdom to do so effectively).

Condemning Rob Bell really isn't the issue. The issue is that people need Jesus and He's charged us with pointing people to Him. Does our lifestyle match our theology? Would my life be any different if I truly acted like I really believe billions of souls are a breath away from eternal, horrific torment? Am I living as though I've truly been commissioned with the making of disciples? Would I treat people differently if I were living with that truth in mind?

So, don't get distracted with Rob Bell. He's not important. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is.

St. Patrick's Day Roundup

Yesterday, like a good Irish redhead, I wore green and paid my respects to Saint Patrick. He was a great missionary with a passion for reaching the barbaric peoples of Ireland (my ancestors). I have a lot of respect for this man. So, I've compiled some of the best of the blogosphere's tributes to St. Patty.

The Baptist Bulletin makes the argument that St. Patrick was actually less of a Catholic than many people think and may have been one of those pre-Protestantism Protestants. Saint Patrick the "Baptist"?

Pastor Mark Driscoll wrote an interesting post on the Resurgence website, in which he argues that Saint Patrick's Day is really all about missions and that we should use it as an opportunity to spread the Gospel. St. Patrick: One of the Greatest Missionaries Who Ever Lived

Last but not least, Shane Vander Heart of Caffeinated Theology wrote an inspiring post recounting a prayer that is generally attributed to Saint Patrick. The Shield of St. Patrick

I hope you all enjoy the articles. I certainly enjoyed getting to know more about this inspiring man.

Rob Bell and Judgementalophobia

Good ol' drama. Not even Christianity can escape it. This drama came in three acts. Act 1: Rob Bell (pictured), the patron saint of the emergent church, releases a promo video for his upcoming book, Love Wins. In the video he "raises some questions" with some implied Universalist answers. Act 2: Justin Taylor of Crossway Publishing wrote a piece raising concerns about the potential heresy being promoted in the video. You can read it as well as watch Rob Bell's video here. Act 3: Those theologians within Taylor's circles (Piper, Driscoll and their whole gang) pass on his article and condemn Bell's book.


Enter the drama. The response has been incredible. We'll there is a good chunk of people who agree with Taylor and his supporters, there others who clearly don't. These people typically throw out two arguments. To me, these two arguments reveal an underlying phodia that the contemporary Church as.

Therefore, I've decided to create a new word just for kicks (hey, if Shakespeare and Tolkien can do, I should be able to too, right?).


Judgementalophobia: "The fear of initiating or receiving something perceived as indignation."

This is the most common argument being used in Bell's defense. "Don't judge him." "He's just asking questions." "Give him a chance." This, I believe, portrays a common sentiment among Christians. Granted, that sentiment does have some legitimacy. But I think we're so afraid of being one of those "judgmental Christians" (a very real concern) that we're afraid to call things what they are. Jesus was never afraid to call falsehood falsehood or sin sin. While God would never have us to act proud, arrogent or hateful, there is certainly a place for pointed out sin if our heart is right. Jesus said this is Matthew 7:5.

Also, there is a flawed idea of what judgment is. Today, we think any criticism or moral assessment is judgmental. But that's not the case. We are told to be wise, discerning and to expose wickedness and falsehood. Being judgmental is when we take the place of God and condemn the person rather than the falsehood.

There is a balance to be had, but really it's not as complicated as we might think. The answer is to simply be as wise as serpents and as peaceful as doves (Matthew 10:16).

Why the Gospel Matters to Believers

I'm very confident in my salvation. I've confessed with my mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in my heart that God has raised Him from the dead. But when did I first get saved? I have no idea. I know when I first prayed a prayer and I know that I prayed a prayer many times after that. In fact, if the sinner's prayer was a credit card I would have maxed out by the time I was six. I've always known the Gospel and there's never really been a time in which I've rejected it (though I did go through a period of doubt in my younger days). And so, it has only been recently that I've truly fallen in love with the Gospel, not just because it saved me but because of what it means for me as a believer.

The imperatives (commands) of Scripture always derive from the indicatives (statements) of Scripture. For example, in Exodus 20, before God gives the infamous Ten Commandments, He first reminds that them that, "I am the LORD thy God who has brought thee out of the house of Egypt." Every command that God was about to give the Israelites hinged up this truth. I am the Lord and I've rescued you, God told them. Everything we do as believers is based on who God is and what He's done for us.

It's only recently that I've truly begun to appreciate what God has done for me. It is a beautiful concept that the Creator would become His creation and die for them. That our Judge would be our Advocate. That God would be mindful of man and chose to claim them as His own.

The more I ponder all the ramifications of the Gospel's indicatives the more I realize the need for imperatives. Because of all that God has done for me I am willfully bound to take action. His patience and forgiveness toward me ought to motivate me to patiently forgive others. His desire to see souls have fellowship with Himself ought to give me the same desire. His love for me ought to cause me to love Him and all those He loves. His hatred for my sin ought to cause me to hate it as well.

The more I begin to think about who God is and what He's done for me, the more I realize that there is no room for laziness in my life. The Gospel ought to motivate believers to take action. That's why it's so important that the Gospel never becomes old or familiar to us. We must be in continual awe of God's beautiful masterplan. A failure to fully appreciate the indicatives of God's Word will turn the imperatives into legalism and vain religious motions. However, the more we fall in love with the indicatives the more joyous the imperatives will become.