Hi Lionel,

I get where you are coming from

BUT

1. I’m not really a fan of ‘the danger of’ argument. In essence it is telling someone to be wary of something good or true because of how someone else has misused it. This is basically telling people to be wary of all and every action they take, as all sin in the misuse of something good. 

2. And I think I would find this warning easier to hear if just occasionally our tribe warned us of the opposite. That is, in an effort to stop elevating an implication to the centre, we are just as likely to proclaim a centre without implications. As one of my friends puts it, ‘Sometimes the only thing we say about good works is that the’re bad’.

Tim

Hi Tim,

Just quickly, in response to your first point: it always has been and always will be important for Christians to warn one another of the dangers of drifting away from our centre in the gospel. This task is particularly urgent when the thing we are tempted to focus our entire energy on is the very thing the world around us will love us for. The history of Israel and the history of the church teach us to do it. So I make no apologies for at least trying to do it, even if imperfectly.

I gave the example of the “social gospel” in this post as an example of something that I think is a historical, not contemporary, example. My next post will deal with something that I see as very contemporary, and which I believe right now is certainly leading Christians away from their centre in the gospel, and is quite urgent.

In response to your second point, I’m not sure exactly what you have in mind by “our tribe” - but if you want to limit the critique to the Sola Panel itself, I don’t think it holds water. Not just occasionally, but frequently there are examples of people proclaiming the implications of the gospel - and in answer to your charge that “we” only say that good works are bad, check out (to give just one example) Paul’s fine post The Gospel Is All About Morality.

And Shane - in what way do you think that my post has a “slippery slope” argument? I’m simply baffled by your claim!

Hi Lionel,

Well I may have confused the slippery slope argument with the be careful argument.

Although I think the guts of what I was trying to say stays the same.

As I understand it you believe -

There is a centre - the death and resurrection of Jesus on our behalf

And that centre has implications - to love our neighbour, for example

And further that following through on those implications can have a significant influence on mission.

And not only do you think this, but I have heard it preached and seen it written but evangelicals in Sydney.

But you went the extra step of asking us to be careful because it is possible for some who get obsessed with the implications can replace the centre with the implications.

I agree

But I have heard that warning countless times.

I have never heard the warning that if I ignore the implications, that if I don’t take them seriously enough, that if I withhold love for the poor, and so on, that I will threaten my hold on the centre. That I will truncate the Gospel, that a centre without implications needs to shrivel in order to remain the centre of something.

Thanks

Tim

Hi All,

This is a topic dear to my heart. In addition to the post that Lionel points to, these posts were also written in light of my personal sense that we are afraid of saying anything about good works (Character and hope, How to stay in the middle of the road).

I think I have a comment and a question. My comment is that I think that on the whole there is a tendency in our circles to have a Lutheran understanding of the law that has flown out of a misunderstanding of the nature of the Lordship of Christ and the connection of Christ’s lordship to the gospel.

But my second question is for Shane and Tim. This post and your responses made me stop and reflect on why I have the impression that we are afraid of good works. I think for me the evidence has been mainly @ UNSW where, as I’ve preached the Lordship of Jesus and the importance of being truly Christian, people have had lots of questions about whether this denies the grace of God.

But as I think about the preachers that I hear with any regularity (and it is such a small sample - Warwick de Jersey, Phillip Jensen, Ben Gooley) none of them seem plagued by the problem I am thinking about.

I’m really interested to know where you think the problem might be coming from?

Grimmo.

I have never responded to any of the Sola panel discussion, but I thought I’d give it a shot.  In my own context, especially in my larger denomination, the center of the gospel is practically, not theologically, being replaced by a social gospel.  This is not a slippery slope argument, just an observation that causes me to pause along with Lionel. (does that mean lion of God)  It is socially more agreeable to do acts of kindness than to proclaim the greatest kindness the good news of Jesus Christ.  There is nothing slithery or slippery about it.  We in the Christian community have a phobia of sharing the greatest kindness of God which is found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ ALONE.  Particularly in my own denominational churches we are almost exclusively attracted to social action than gospel proclamation (I am not saying we don’t preach the gospel in our worship services, but our view of kingdom service is slanted heavily to good works and little to gospel proclamation).  There are good works and there is the greatest work, which is the dynamite of God that resurrects worthless men to an everlasting inheritance and it is by faith.  If the dynamite of God has explode in the heart, then the love of God will hence flow to have real and lasting compassion and action toward the nations next door and around the world.  I just wanted to thrown in my stick of dynamite to the fire.  Cheers