January 2006 Archives

Pray for this year’s Bethlehem Conference for Pastors which is already in progress (January 30th-February 1st). John Piper, who recently learned that he is suffering from prostate cancer, explains this year’s BCP focus upon pastoral suffering:

The theme for this year’s Bethlehem Conference for Pastors is How Must a Pastor Die? The Price of Caring Like Jesus. It says something about what I think the world needs from the Christian church. It isn’t the power of political influence. It is the power of being willing to take up our cross and suffer with Jesus on the Calvary Road. “If when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:20-22). I don’t think church-growth and church-planting seminars should wave the banner: “Come have fun working for Jesus,” but “Come discover the meaning of ‘sorrowful yet always rejoicing’ (2 Corinthians 6:10).”

This will be the first conference in four consecutive years that I’ve missed. I'm wishing I were there. Anyway, Piper’s biographical message should be superb this year. It is on William Tyndale who was martyred for his passion for the spread of God’s written word. So let us pray for these 1000+ pastors who have gathered to hear the call not to turn from suffering when it comes but to embrace it in the life-giving power of the gospel.

Here are a couple of my stated beliefs:

1. God in Christ alone is my salvation. 2. God has made Christ to be my righteousness, my worth, and my significance.

These are beliefs that I am quick to state and explain if provided an opportunity. I am quick to affirm verbally that there is no salvation for me apart from that which God has accomplished in the Messiah. He alone is my righteousness, worth, and significance. It is only in the Messiah that I am accepted in God’s sight. Only in him is true humanity progressively restored in me.

I could go on and on with statements like these, but I have learned that stated beliefs are often just that—stated. Those beliefs listed above are too often not functional in my life, that is, too often my thinking, desiring, and living do not flow out of them. So, I am learning to ask myself questions like these:

1. Where am I actually seeking my salvation in any given moment? 2. Where am I actually locating my righteousness, my worth, or my significance right now as I teach this class or lead my community group? 3. What am I thinking I must have right now in order to feel truly human?

Questions like these force me to move beyond thinking merely in terms of beliefs that I affirm intellectually. They aide me in discerning what my heart is currently functionally believing regarding where my salvation, righteousness, and worth are found. Too often I find myself seeking salvation in how people think of me or in how successful I am at this or that. Though my stated belief is that Christ is my significance, I often catch myself locating my significance in my performance as a husband or father or as a professor.

Fortunately (understatement), the gospel frees me to admit this and face it head on. Jesus once said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick…I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:12-13). Seeking my salvation, righteousness, worth, or significance in anything other than God are symptoms of the sickness of which Jesus speaks, that is, they are symptoms of a profoundly fractured and corrupted humanity. My default mode as a fallen human being is to seek my salvation in something other than in God’s Son, to seek my worth and significance in my vocational performance rather than in Jesus. But this means that Jesus came to seek someone like me, to call someone like me. He came to restore in me that which was lost at the fall, namely, a humanity that is joyfully centered upon God.

So, because of who Jesus is and what he accomplished in his life, death, and resurrection, I am free to confess my sin of wayward seeking and locating and rejoice afresh in what God has made the Messiah to be for me. Amazingly, the good news of God’s accomplishment in Jesus is His power to progressively make my stated beliefs functional in my living.

The Lord has given my wife, Melissa, and me the great privilege and joy of adopting two boys. It continues to be an occasion for us to rejoice in God's grace to us in the gospel. Melissa and I are coming to see more clearly that the ministry of caring for orphans in their affliction through adoption finds its basis and ultimate significance in what God has done for us in Jesus. When I read the following paragraph by T.F. Torrance, the flame of my passion for adoption is stoked afresh.

In Jesus God himself descended to the very bottom of our human existence where we are alienated and antagonistic, into the very hell of our godlessness and despair, laying fast hold of us and taking our cursed condition upon himself, in order to embrace us for ever in his reconciling love. He did that in such an incredible way that he pledged his very Being incarnate in Jesus for us as the immutable ground of our salvation and peace against all the onslaughts of the forces of evil (T.F. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ, 43-44).

Why care about adoption? Because in Christ God has laid fast hold of us in our affliction "in order to embrace us for ever in his reconciling love." Believers should visit orphans in their affliction because God has first wonderfully visited us in our desperate affliction. Adoption is a breathtakingly beautiful way to live out the gospel of Christ among those who are afflicted.

Below you will find an organization that provides opportunities to serve orphans in China, Russia, Honduras, and Ethiopia. We were members of the team they sent to Fuling, China this past July. I'd love to go here or here this summer. If you are at all interested joining one of their teams, they are sending eight teams to China and one each to Russia, Honduras, and Ethiopia.

Here are the blogs of a husband and wife who, like us, have adopted transracially. I just recently had the privilege of meeting them in the blogosphere. Give them a visit.

Pilgrim in Progress: Life. Family. Thoughts. Culture. Church. Gospel
James127: Spirit of Adoption

If you are interested in reading about the gospel-basis for adoption, read Orphans, Adoption, and Fuling, China (James 1:27). It's really a biblical theology of adoption.

I’m having my Principles of Bible Study class study Romans 1:1-4 over the weekend. For years I saw verse one as merely an introductory verse. Its true significance had sadly escaped me. In an age where believers are tempted to locate their identity in all the wrong places, verse one speaks volumes of gospel-transforming truth.

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, [2] which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, [3] concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh [4] and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 1:1-4).

At first look, it appears that Paul is primarily concerned with introducing himself in verse one. But at a closer second look, we’ll notice that Paul is not so much concerned with introducing himself to the Romans, though he is introducing himself, as he is concerned with introducing a radically different, counter-cultural view of the world, a gospel-centered view of the world—of its history, its present, and its future. Paul begins his epistle to the Romans by looking at the world through the transforming lens of the gospel.

First, notice that Paul identifies himself as a slave, which given his historical context meant that he was identifying himself a social outsider among those of social standing within the Roman Empire. The world of Paul’s day, the world of the Roman church, was passionate about image. What mattered most to the citizens of Rome was attaining a social classification that would provide one with the rights, possessions, and property necessary to secure a prosperous future (cf. Matthew 20:20-28). But here we find Paul introducing himself to people who live in the very heart of the Roman Empire as one who is himself without social standing, as one who, according to the imperial worldview, had no social classification of any value whatsoever. Yet, though he identifies himself as a slave, Paul will not allow his identity as a slave to be defined by the prevailing worldview. Rather, he defines his servitude in terms of who Jesus is, namely, the Messiah. He is “a slave of the Messiah, Jesus,” the one in whom God would rule all the kingdoms of the earth establishing His justice and shalom. The one before whom Paul stands as a slave is none other than God’s Messiah who said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18). What we have in this first clause of introduction is a gospel-centered view of the world; and it is this worldview that ultimately defined who Paul was.

Second, Paul then adds that he was “called to be an apostle” and “set apart for the gospel of God.” These second and third parts of Paul’s “introductory comments” are parallel with each other. When Paul was called to be an apostle, he was also set apart for the gospel, which, as the text indicates, finds its origin in God himself (“the gospel of God”). So the entirety of Paul’s life—his worldview, his identity, his vocation, his mission—was centered upon and defined by God’s gospel. Blessed be the God of the gospel for his unspeakable grace to us.

Matt Hand writes: When I used the term "kingdom" in my original posting, I meant for it to be understood in two simple ways. The first is to think of the kingdom in terms of the in-breaking of Christ's reign, bringing true righteousness, justice, holiness, and peace. Dan explained this aspect of the kingdom well in his posting (Part 2, comment #4), so I won't belabor that.

The second is to think of other believers in terms of "fellow citizens" of God's kingdom. A key passage in my thinking that stresses this kind of unity is Ephesians 2:11-22. Paul is exhorting believers to live in the reality that Christ came in the flesh and, through his bloody death, killed the social/ethnic/racial/political hostility that too often exists between fellow believers (in context, Jews and Gentiles). He tells them all to live with the new perspective that they are fellow citizens of God's kingdom, fellow members of God's household, and fellow stones of God's temple.

It's not my purpose here to write an exhaustive theology of the kingdom. I simply want to think in terms of these two aspects of the kingdom (the in-breaking of shalom, etc., through the incarnation of Christ, and our resulting fellow citizenship). Kingdom work, as this passage continues into chapter 3, involves making known the mystery of reconciliation in Christ so that the glorious wisdom of God is put on display.

Suburban churches can display these two aspects of kingdom living by partnering with like-minded urban churches for the sake of the gospel. Urban churches (like ours) have on-the-ground know-how, but few resources. Suburban churches often have those resources, but may (repeat: may) be guilty of using those resources fairly selfishly for maintaining happy church people, rather than reaching out to the unchurched/lost in their own urban centers. When I use the term "maintenance" I'm not talking about a discipleship program or Bible study curriculum or anything like that which is designed to grow believers in Christ. I AM talking about the tendency for suburban churches to "tear down barns and build bigger barns" just because they can. I'm talking about professing Christians who have an insatiable appetite to have more, bigger, better, newer, glitzier stuff -- all in the name of doing church. I'm talking about Christians who limit their conception of (and interest in) the work of Christ to what He's doing in their own heart or just their church. Is it really that selfless to give away a dollar when you know 99 cents of it is going to be used on you?

One way suburban Christians can advance the gospel of the kingdom is by looking at urban Christians and genuinely thinking of them as fellow citizens in Christ -- as brothers and sisters and members of the same Body. If the watching world began to observe that degree of community among believers, it would destroy their ability to stereotype the Church as being urban or suburban, white or black, rich or poor, young or old. If suburban Christians had a kingdom-like concern to eradicate the disparity of wealth, healthcare, crime, abortion, etc., THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE TEACHING OF THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM in their own urban centers, what would be the result? The world doesn't have categories for explaining away that kind of radical commitment to Christian reconciliation and shalom. As a result, the Church (not a church) would be a city set on a hill, an alternate kingdom of God in the cities of men.

Chris Giammona, who formely served with Tim Keller at Redeemer, adds his thoughts to the discussion on The Gospel and Suburban Churches at A Mind Awake.

The primary objective for my blog is to focus weekly on the centrality of the gospel in all of life. Behind almost every post of mine is the conviction that, as Tim Keller puts it, the gospel is not just the A-B-C’s of the Christian life but the A to Z of the Christian life. One key text that is behind this conviction is Galatians 2:11-16. What I wish to do in this post is unpack this text’s teaching concerning the functional centrality of the gospel for all of life (I am profoundly indebted to Tim Keller’s exposition of this text in his article entitled, “The Centrality of the Gospel.” You can find it in the article section of the far right column of my blog.) If you asked me to identify what my main problem in the Christian life is, I would answer that it is the failure to believe the gospel functionally, that is, to believe it in such a way that it deeply affects the way I live each day.

The Confrontation

At the center of this gospel-centered text is a confrontation where the apostle Peter is confronted by the apostle Paul. Some might see two “heavy weight” Christians squaring off in this text, a battle of egos. But what we do not have in this confrontation is play for power. Rather, what is put on display here is a Christian’s passion for the gospel and gospel-centered living. Paul was keenly aware that the gospel and gospel-centered living was at stake here, primarily because of choices Peter had made.

Gospel Identity

Have you ever wondered how it was that Paul, a relative newcomer to the rank of Apostle, found the courage to confront Peter who was the most eminent Jerusalem apostle? After all, Paul was still persecuting the church when Peter was preaching powerful gospel-centered sermons. How was it that Paul was able to locate the necessary courage to do what he believed was the right thing to do, namely, confront a man who had been so powerfully used of God in the building of the church?

I think we can find an answer to that question if we thoughtfully consider the first several verses of chapter 2. Paul makes a curious statement four times in verses 2-9. In verse 2, Paul says that he went to Jerusalem to set the gospel before “those who seemed influential.” Who were these seemingly influential men? They were at least Peter, James, and John (verse 9). Again, in verse 6, Paul refers to “those who seemed to be influential” adding, “what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality.” Verse 6 then ends with these words, “Those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.” Finally, in verse 9, Paul refers specifically to Peter, James, and John as those “who seemed to be pillars.”

Why does Paul repeatedly refer to Jerusalem apostles as “those who seemed influential”? We find the answer in verse 6.

“And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6).

What point is Paul making when he says, “what they were makes no different to me; God shows no partiality”? Paul realized that God does not choose or accept anybody on the basis of external advantages such as apostleship. As great of an honor being an apostle was, it was not the basis for the reception of God’s favor. Paul knew that with regard to favor God shows no partiality to those of “superior” reputation. Paul’s sense of identity was not threatened by potentially being positioned against those of great reputation. Paul was a man whose sense of identity was not dependent upon any man or religious institution. His sense of identity was not derailed or disturbed because he did not fear being thought poorly of by “those who seem to be influential.” When Paul went to Jerusalem there was the potential that “those who seemed to be influential” in the church would not take his side. This would have meant that “those who seemed to be pillars” disapproved of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. But Paul’s sense of identity was unflappable in the face of this potentiality.

It is important to note that Paul’s main concern in his Jerusalem visit was not so much his personal identity as it was the ongoing fruitfulness of the Gospel. Consider verses 4 and 5.

“Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— [5] to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you” (Galatians 2:4-5).

Paul’s primary concern was that the truth of the gospel might be preserved among the Gentiles. He understood that if the apostles in Jerusalem did not grant full acceptance to an uncircumcised Gentile, the entire church and even the subsequent history of the Christian church would be brought into slavery. Humanly speaking Paul knew that there was the possibility that the church would be condemned to bondage and barrenness if the Jerusalem apostles caved in to the Judaizers. So Paul demonstrated enormous courage here.

How was Paul able to demonstrate so much courage before those seemed influential? I believe the answer is found in verse 5. Note the italicized words.

“To them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you” (Galatians 2:5).

Only one thing really mattered to Paul, namely, “the truth of the gospel.” He knew that nothing was as important as the Gospel. It alone was “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). It was the only way of life and blessing and peace! Paul knew that without it there was not only no freedom but no church. So what is the truth of the gospel that Paul fought to preserve at the risk of his own reputation? In short, it was the truth that God fully accepts all, whether Jew or Gentile, through faith in Christ alone. Paul was able to lay everything on the line, to risk his acceptance among men because of the truth of the gospel. He knew that he already enjoyed the full acceptance of the Father. He was able to face those who seemed influential because he was convinced that nothing would or could put his acceptance before God in jeopardy. Paul was a man who found his identity not in the opinions of men but in the full acceptance of God alone through faith alone. So at the very center of Paul’s confrontation of Peter was the gospel. It was both the reason he confronted and the power of his confrontation.

Gospel Proof

Galatians 2:11-16 gives us clear evidence that Paul did not derive his sense of identity from those who seemed influential. In verse 11, Paul says, “When [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” One significant piece of evidence that testified to the fact that Paul did not derive his sense of identity from men was that he confronted a very important and powerful man. Confrontation is a really tough test! I don’t think there is anything quite like having to confront someone else especially when they are influential that reveals from where we really derive our sense of identity. Paul definitely passed the test here. His sense of identity was not shaken even in a most difficult circumstance.

Confrontation is a great revealer of where a person locates his identity. If you are an individual who finds your identity in the opinions of others, you will find it difficult to confront especially when it involves a person of influence. I wonder if one main reason so little Christian confrontation takes place in the church is that so many believers locate their identity functionally in man rather than in Christ. Galatians 2 should give us hope that it is possible to functionally derive our sense of identity from Christ rather than in man.

The Problem

What was the occasion for Paul’s confrontation of Peter? We find out in verse 12. Notice first, what it was Peter stopped doing; and second, why it was that Peter stopped doing it.

“[Because] before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party” (Galatians 2:12).

First, what did Peter stop doing? He stopped enjoying table fellowship with the Gentiles. Second, why did he stop this? Because he feared the circumcision party. Now, what exactly was Peter’s struggle here? Before we answer that question, let’s look at why it was that Peter originally began eating with the Gentiles in the first place. In Acts 11, we read:

“Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, ‘You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.’ But Peter began and explained it to them in order: ‘I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' But I said, 'By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' But the voice answered a second time from heaven, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.' This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven” (Acts 11:1-11).

Peter’s struggle at that time was that his conscience was still bound to the ceremonial law, that is, to a series of extensive regulations that God’s people had to follow in order to be found acceptable in the worship. It was God’s way of teaching His people that sinful people cannot go into the presence of God without cleansing. Thus, God was seeking to reeducate Peter’s conscience. “Peter, what God has made clean, do not call common.” This reeducating of Peter’s conscience is what freed him to eat with the Gentiles. Later on in Acts he shares the content of the theological education he received from God back in Joppa.

“And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed [i.e. made clean] their hearts by faith’” (Acts 15:7-9).

What Peter came to realize was that it is through Christ alone that all believers are “made clean” and acceptable to God, because now it is Christ who makes us “holy and blameless and above reproach before him” (Colossians 1:22) and “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that [we] might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:27). So why did Peter draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles? Paul says that it was because Peter feared the circumcision party (Galatians 2:12). He drew back out of fear. He did not draw back out of a firmly held conviction but out of fear. Peter fell into the trap of trying to derive his sense of identity from those who seemed influential. His “need” for a sense of identity from those who were seemed influential beat out what he knew concerning the truth of the gospel. What was worse was that he took others with him. Verse 13 states that “the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with [Peter], so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.”

One of the things we learn here is that whenever believers make a decision based upon the fear of man they are being hypocritical because they are betraying “the truth of the gospel.” Paul says that Peter’s “conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2:14). We believers are hypocritical whenever our conduct is not in step with the truth of the gospel. Whenever we make a decision based upon the fear of man we are not walking in line with the doctrine of justification by faith alone which is “the truth of the gospel.”

Galatians 2 teaches us that the gospel sends out lines into all of life—justification-by-faith lines—and it is the responsibility of believers both to know how those lines manifest themselves and walk them. When Peter and the other Jews drew back from the Gentiles they were not walking in line the doctrine of justification by faith. So Paul confronts him to the face because he stood guilty of not believing the gospel functionally. Peter was not guilty of not believing the gospel theologically. He would have been quick to affirm the doctrine of justification by faith theologically. His problem was that in that situation he failed to believe it functionally, that is, he failed to walk in line with the truth of the gospel.

Peter’s failure manifested itself in two ways. First, it manifested itself by his withdrawal from table fellowship with the Gentiles. How was it manifested in this way? Because his behavior indicated that faith in Christ is not enough for Christian fellowship. Peter’s behavior essentially said that if Christian fellowship is to be extended, it is to be extended not just on the basis of faith in Christ but also on the basis of some other external religious marker. In other words, Peter’s actions said that in order for Gentiles to be accepted by the Jews into fellowship they had to believe in Christ and be circumcised. His withdrawal from fellowship with Gentiles was essentially a denial of the doctrine of justification by faith. Peter would not have denied justification by faith theologically, but his behavior showed that he denied it functionally.

Lest we think that the church today does not functionally deny the gospel consider this brief example. Many churches today that are conservative musically will refuse to fellowship with churches that utilize drums and electric guitars. Is not this a failure to believe the gospel functionally? Probably all of these conservative churches would affirm the doctrine of justification by faith theologically. But Galatians 2 teaches that it is not enough to affirm the truth of the gospel doctrinally. We must also affirm it functionally. Could we not conclude that the failure of conservative churches to do so is hypocritical due to the failure to walk in line with the truth of the gospel?

Second, Peter’s failure manifested itself by caring too much about man’s opinion. Paul says that Peter withdrew from the Gentiles because he feared the circumcision party. The doctrine of justification by faith means that the believer’s identity is found in Christ and not anything else. But when a believer “forgets” that reality, that is, when the reality of being accepted by God through faith in Christ alone ceases to be central to his thinking and believing, he will try to locate his identity in something or someone else. This is what happened to Peter. In his spiritual forgetfulness, he began locating his identity in the acceptance of those who seemed influential. It seems to me that the fear of man is essentially a justification by faith issue. Could the reason the fear of man is such a problem for us today be because the doctrine of justification by faith is not central to our consciousness? Could the reason the fear of man is such a stumbling block for Christians today be because we do not begin each day standing strong on the reality that we are fully accepted by God in Christ? Galatians 2 teaches that whenever we fall to the fear of man we are not walking in line with the truth of the gospel.

So, what did Paul do when he saw Peter’s failure? He confronted him with the gospel and this is what we must do with ourselves everyday. If we are not daily confronting ourselves and being confronted with the truth of the gospel, we will quickly fall out of line with the gospel.

The Solution

The content of Paul’s verbal confrontation is found in Galatians 2:15-16. Paul said to Peter:

“We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:15-16).

Interpretation Issue

If we are to properly understand these verses we must understand what Paul means by “Gentile sinners.” Paul, speaking to Peter says, “We ourselves (you and me, Peter) are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners.” Is Paul saying that as Jews Peter and he are not sinners? No, Paul is not using the term “sinners” in this way. Paul makes it clear elsewhere that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners.

“What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (Romans 3:9).

What we need to keep in mind in Galatians 2:15-16 is that Paul is making a contrast between Jews and Gentiles in the context of a discussion on the ceremonial law. Gentiles were considered “sinners”, as Paul uses the term in verse 15, because as non-Jews they habitually neglected observing the ceremonial law. Jews, on the other hand, did not neglect it because it was specifically given to them by God. It is within this context that Paul says to Peter, “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not those who from birth neglect the ceremonial law, namely, the Gentiles; yet though we were not born as ceremonial law-neglecters we know that a person is not justified by observing the ceremonial law but through faith in Jesus Christ alone, so we also (like Gentile believers) have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the ceremonial law, because by works of law no one will be justified” (my paraphrase).

In confronting Peter, Paul says, “Peter, you know that we are not found acceptable to God by keeping any part of the law. You know that we are found acceptable to God through faith in Christ alone. So whether you are a law-keeping Jew by birth or a law-neglecting Gentile by birth, you are justified the same way, namely, through faith in Christ.”

Application Focus

What Paul is seeking to drive in to Peter’s consciousness is this, “Peter, if you are already justified in God’s eyes, why do you need to be justified in man’s?” You see this was Peter’s problem. When he drew back from the Gentiles, he was seeking to justify himself in the eyes of the circumcision group. Peter had “forgotten” that God loved and had fully accepted him. Peter’s justification before God was not functionally central to his thinking and believing.

Now does that mean that after hearing Paul’s’ words, Peter said, “Oh, yea! That’s right! God has fully accepted me! How in the world did I forget about that?” No, remember, Peter did not forget about God’s acceptance in that he had no recollection of it. We are not talking about the difference between having something in your head and not having something in your head. No, Peter had forgotten that we are justified through faith in Christ alone in that he was not feeling the reality of it. He knew the reality of it, but he wasn’t “feeling” it.

As I see it, there are really two reasons for Paul’s confrontation of Peter. First, the gospel was at stake. The Apostle Peter’s functional denial of the gospel led many others astray (Galatians 2:13). His failure to walk in line with the truth of the gospel was in direct opposition to the Christian mission (Matthew 28:18-20). So Paul confronted Peter to set things right.

Second, Paul was not just concerned with the advancement of the gospel in the world. He was also concerned for Peter himself. Paul confronted Peter in order that he might feel the reality of the gospel again. He essentially did Hebrews 11:24 on him.

“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works.”

In the context of Hebrews 10, “to stir up” means to provoke others unto love and good works by encouraging them with the truth of the Gospel. Hebrews 10 (as well as the entire book) is jammed full of gospel truth. For example, verse 10 says that believers have been “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Verse 12 says that “when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.” Verse 14 says that “by a single offering” Christ “has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” If we started back in chapter one, we could list verse after verse of gospel truth.

What was the writer of Hebrews trying to accomplish with all of this gospel truth? He was seeking to stir them up unto love and good works. Hebrews 10:24-25 is a call for them to do that very same thing with one another. This kind of stirring up always aims at the heart where we are prone to forget the gospel, that is, where we are prone not to “feel” the reality of the gospel’s truth. It doesn’t take long for this to happen. That’s why Hebrews 3:12-13 says (note the italicized words):

“Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.”

What must we do in order to be people who walk in line with the gospel every day? First, we must think through the implications of the gospel for every area of life. How should the truth of the gospel, that we are accepted by God through faith in Christ alone, influence relationships between single men and women? What kind of individuals should you be willing to consider as marriage partner? Should you only first consider those who are externally beautiful or handsome? These are the kinds of questions Christians need to be asking. Does the truth of the gospel have implications for relationships between single men and women? Absolutely. So if we are to be a people who walk in line with the truth of the gospel, we must think out it’s implications for every area of life. Why? Because the gospel sends out lines of implication into every area of life (see diagram below).

Second, we must learn to be our own Paul’s. We must learn to preach the truth of the Gospel to ourselves everyday. Otherwise we quickly forget and not feel its truth in our hearts. So learn to be your own Paul.

Third, we must have people in our lives that are Paul’s for us. Peter needed a Paul and so do we. Find a few Paul’s and ask them to regularly (everyday if possible) preach the truth of the Gospel to you applying it to your life situation. This is one reason why we gather as the people of God (Heb. 10:25). The church gathers together to be Paul’s for each other in order that we might be stirred up unto love and good works not forgetting the gospel.

*Article was originally posted on June 13th, 2005.

We need to keep the dialogue going on this issue. So below you will find Matt Hand’s thoughts on The Gospel and Suburban Churches from the comment section of the original post. Let’s continue to think hard about what it means to be missional in suburbia. Matt writes:

For a suburban church to be truly gospel-centered, it must be kingdom-minded. We can’t miss this connnection between the gospel and the kingdom in Mark 1:14-15 – 'Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel.'" Authentic belief in the gospel of Jesus is inseparable from kingdom living.

Local churches (both surburban and urban) are often guilty of losing (or never having) a kingdom mindset. This myoptic worldview is perhaps more clearly recognizable in suburban churches, simply because they tend to grow faster and they tend to own more real property than comparable urban churches. Even a new church can very quickly shift focus from mission to maintainance. The church budget, programs, and even teaching drift from an emphasis on reaching out with the gospel (to make and mature disciples) to maintaining happy church people. While the teaching of the church may still be relatively “gospel-centered, Christ-centered,” the applications of the gospel are dangerously limited to the individual or that local church, rather than to the kingdom of God. No amount of this kind of teaching will undo the harm unless the body of Christ re-focuses itself on the broader mission of Christ’s good news, which is to draw other sheep that are not of this fold.

Practically, that means suburban churches need to continually “jump the curve” from maintainance back to mission. One way to do this is by gradually eliminating impersonal missions endeavors and, instead, partnering with urban ministries in the area. This breaks down the “us vs. them” mentality of the suburban church toward the urban church and helps members apply the gospel with a view toward the kingdom of God, whose influence extends well beyond any individual or single local church. Partner churches could, on occasion, worship together. They could certainly cooperate in endeavors of mercy on behalf of their city, demonstrating both to members and to the unchurched that the gospel requires selfless participation for the sake of the kingdom.

Blogitude is blogspeak for gratitude (at least it is in my mind), and it’s time that I express some. There are several bloggers who I wish to thank because they have recently linked to Eucatastrophe. It is to them that I express blogitude.

Milton Stanley @ Transforming Sermons – Milton has three blogs: Transforming Sermons, To the Word, and The Storage Room. He’s also a published author. Bob was right when he wrote that Milton is an indispensable blogger.

Dave Bish @ Beginning with Moses – Dave has two blogs: Beginning with Moses and thebluefish: adventures in joy seeking. If you love biblical theology, you will love his blogs. Thanks, Dave, for your love for BT!

Mark Lauterbach @ The Gospel Driven Life – Mark has listed Eucatastrophe under Blog Resources (left-hand column). Given the title of his blog…do I really need to tell you that I visit it frequently? His posts are filled with gospel-rich content. Check out why do I get angry.

Steve McCoy @ Reformissionary – His two blogs, Reformissionary and Missional Baptist Blog are a recent discovery of mine. Steve is gospel-centered and writes excellent stuff. He’s a great resource for missional thinking.

Mark Swanson @ Best of the God Blogs – Mark’s blog’s goal “is to help you sort through the thousands of Godblogs floating around cyberspace to find the best content with the least hassle.” Great work, Mark!

Dave Cruver @ totellyouthetruth - No one has linked to me more than Dave. He is my brother and a great lover of the gospel. If you are looking for gospel-centered posts, his blog is a must stop.

I recently learned that Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer NYC, has a blog that was launched in conjunction with Redeemer’s Vision Campaign. Tim explains that “Redeemer's vision is to build a great city for all people through a gospel movement that brings about personal conversion, community formation, social justice, and cultural renewal in New York and throughout the world.” His church’s strategy flows out of the Apostle Paul’s practice of planting urban churches. He writes, “The greatest missionary in history, St. Paul, had a rather simple, two-fold strategy. First, he went into the largest city of the region (cf. Acts 16:9, 12), and second, he planted churches in each city (cf. Titus 1:5—appoint elders in every town). Once Paul had done that, he could say that he had preached the gospel in a region and that he had no more work to do there (cf. Romans 15:19, 23).” Tim then argues that “the way to most permanently influence a country was through its chief cities,” and “the way to most permanently influence a city was to plant churches in it.”

Tim Keller’s blog provides him the opportunity to answer commonly asked questions regarding Redeemer’s vision for the city, NYC in particular, as Redeemer moves forward with its Vision Campaign. So I thought I would submit a question that addresses a tension I have felt with this emphasis upon the city. I did and he graciously replied. Hopefully my question and his answer will encourage suburban pastors and churches to give this issue serious thought.

My question:

Tim,

I have visited Redeemer several times over the past few years and my appreciation for Redeemer's gospel-centered, missional vision continues to grow. I also recognize the importance of planting like-philosophy churches in major cities. But what about churches like mine that have been located in "suburbia" for years. Should there be any differences in the mindset and approach of a gospel-centered suburban church than of a gospel-centered inner-city church like Redeemer?

Dan

Tim’s response:

There will be have to be some necessary differences in mindset between urban and suburban churches because context always affects us deeply. Our own daughter churches in the NYC suburbs have the same theological vision and love of the city, but they simply aren't a) as multi-ethnic and b) as close to the poor--because the zoning laws of the suburbs tend to homogenize things economically and therefore, to some degree, racially. So it is just harder to show how the gospel brings down racial and class barriers in the suburbs. (According to Ephesians 2, that is a major sign of the truth of the gospel.) It doesn't mean that suburban churches are 'inferior' or that it is easier to be a pastor in the suburbs--I actually think it will take more ingenuity and creativity to demonstrate the power of the gospel in the suburbs than it will in the city.

Do any of you blog readers have any ideas about how the suburban church can be creative?

I recently discovered a blog that hooked me the first time I visited it. It is wonderfully gospel-centered. I read my first post at Gospel Driven Life this past Saturday. Through it God graciously provided me the opportunity to rejoice afresh in the gospel when I was in the “beat myself up” mode because of my own sins of the heart. Mark Lauterbach's post was both assuring and convicting at the same time. It was exactly what I needed. So let me strongly commend to you Mark’s gospel-centered blog.

(HT: Scott Anderson)

These are posts that I personally wrote this past year (except for one). I gave myself about 5 minutes to rank them. It may be that you would rank them differently. In any case, here is my personal Top Ten list for 2005 posts.

#1 – NT Survey Lecture Summary – If you want to know what doctrine has had the greatest impact on me over the last 8 years and only have time to read one of my Top Ten Posts, this is the one to read. The truth of the Messiah’s vicarious humanity has been a life-giving fountain for me.

#2 – Real Men and Women are Gospel-Driven – I really do not like the title, but I do really love the content of the post. It represents my thinking on biblical interpretation and living… I’m currently revising these notes in preparation for presenting it at a pastors’ fraternal on January 24th.

#3 – Moralism Versus Christ-centered Exposition by Tim Keller – I ranked this post third because it fits very nicely with post two. Most significant (and why it makes the top ten lists for posts that I have written) are the comments that follow Keller’s thoughts. It generated some great discussion. Also, I must include Functional Gospel-Centeredness at #3 because it is an article that was heavily influenced by Tim Keller's exposition of Galatians 2 in his article entitled The Centrality of the Gospel.

#4 – Spiritual Blessings that Value the Physical Creation: A Gospel-centered View of the World – This post will tell you what most occupies my thoughts as of late. I will never read Ephesians or Colossians in the same way again.

#5 – Orphans, Adoption, and Fuling, China: James 1:27 – This one is about adoption. Need I say more? It’s really a short biblical theology of adoption.

#6 – Leadership in the Home: Morals-driven or Gospel-driven – Guess what one of my New Year’s resolutions is…

#7 – Sanctification: Becoming More Than a Mere Outline of a Human Being – If you want to know a little about how I view sanctification, curl up with this post with a cup of hot chocolate.

#8 – Preaching Matthew 18:15-20 from a Gospel-centered Perspective – What thinkest thou?

#9 – The Gospel of Deliverance – Deliverance is an absolutely wonderful thing! If you feel the need for it, Psalm 3 is a great place to go.

#10 – The Wonder of Bobble Heads – This post is last but it’s not least. It generated more hits than any other post this past year. Go figure…

Which of my Top Ten is your top choice?

My blogger bio page has been updated with several new family pics. Within the next week I'm hoping to post blog entries that have a little more substance than the last few have had. But if you want to see something new, you'll have to look at my bio page for now.

The new pics are courtesy a girl with a camera. Thanks, Angela!