Thursday, January 22, 2009

Something worth reading

Two excellent articles: The President, the Passenger, and the Patience of God (John Piper), and Obama's Sermon on the Steps (Dave Black).

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mike, I hope you're doing well.

I appreciate the articles. I enjoyed Black's article until the last paragraph where he says, "...Christians need not join the befuddled multitude, wringing their hands and wondering what our nation is coming to or, conversely, praising the new messiah. God has told us what we are to be about – the Gospel business – and we know what time it is: the end times when many false saviors will appear with their strange recipes for health, wealth, and happiness."

The more I come to an understanding of what the gospel means - perhaps summarzied most succintly as "Jesus is Lord" - the more I see that it touches on all areas of life including politics.

It seems to me that Black is creating a bit of a false antithesis here, as if to say that being out the gospel business necessarily excludes deep thought about - and perhaps even participation in - American politics.

jdb

MJK said...

Hi Joel,

Thanks for your comments of late. Yes, we're doing well; I trust you are enjoying your new city.

I think the antithesis might be one you are introducing, not Black. As one who has read quite a bit of what Black has written the last couple years, I can say that he does think deeply about politics, and he even participates in it (in the ancient sense of the word at least, i.e., financially).

I don't believe Black is asking us to choose the gospel instead of politics; I think he's asking us to allow the gospel to shape how we involve ourselves with politics. My guess is that for him, the good news that 'Jesus is Lord' means that we cannot respond to the recent political events in Washington in a way that contradicts the truth of that gospel. Thus we can not "join the befuddled multitude, wringing their hands and wondering what our nation is coming to or, conversely, praising the new messiah".

Joel, in summarizing the gospel in the way you have, are you being influenced by N.T. Wright and the NPP? I'm asking because I genuinely want to know where you're at with that debate, not to make an argument of guilt by association!

If you have, I think, frankly, that it's because you're biased. You got this sweet job as the right hand man of Stephen Harper, and now you need to make the gospel justify it! It's a slippery slippery slope brother! :)

Blessings
MK

Anonymous said...

Hi Mike,

Glad to hear you're doing well.

We must be reading different articles. ;) Nowhere in the article do I see a call to "allow the gospel to shape how we involve ourselves with politics."

From my reading of the article, Black is pointing out the presence of a prosperity gospel in American politics. And the last paragraph looks like a call for Christians to be about the "Gospel business" contra political involvement. These words look like a heads-in-the-sand approach to me:

"In the meantime, Christians need not join the befuddled multitude, wringing their hands and wondering what our nation is coming to or, conversely, praising the new messiah. God has told us what we are to be about – the Gospel business – and we know what time it is: the end times when many false saviors will appear with their strange recipes for health, wealth, and happiness."

To clarify, brother, I'm not a political staffer in Ottawa, nor do I have ambitions to be one. I'm not articulating this view as a function of living in Ottawa. Yet I realize that I have a bias just as you do.

My view of the gospel hasn't changed. It's just become more fleshed out. The idea that the gospel can be summarized as "Jesus is Lord" is: (1) a view that's been around much longer than the NPP, and (2) not to be taken as the sum total of the gospel.

Rest assured, I still hold a very evangelical (in the historical use of the term!) view of the gospel. But I think it's important to realize that "Jesus is Lord" was a very politcally-charged message in 1C Christianity.

Your turn. :)

jdb

MJK said...

Hi Joel,

I should do some clarifying too. First, the stuff about your bias, Ottawa, and Harper, was just for fun. And regarding your understanding of the gospel, I have no objection to the definition you supplied, and I wouldn't even have been concerned if it was Wright who had moved you to embrace it.

And the last paragraph looks like a call for Christians to be about the "Gospel business" contra political involvement.

I see where you're getting this from, but Black does not state this specifically. Again, based on what I know of him, I took him to be calling us to 'Gospel business' contra a certain kind of political involvement--the kind he describes in his article. To say that Black is juxtaposing the gospel and politics is to go farther than what he actually says, I think. Then again, I could very well be miss-reading him. But is it possible, brother, that you are assuming, without warrant, that Black's definition of the gospel is different from yours? Re-read the paragraph that you have quoted, but this time assume that Black also understands the gospel as the politically-laden message that 'Jesus is Lord'; that changes things completely, right?

I don't believe Dave sees a conflict between the gospel and politics in principle. This can be seen by the plug he puts in for the constitution within the very same article.

Anyways, I suppose we could really settle this argument and just ask him! Either way, the most important thing is not what Dave believes, but what we believe. You've made it clear what you think, and now I'll do the same: I agree with you!

Let me know if I should be locked up somewhere safe.

God bless
Mike

P.S. We're enjoying mountains in Fernie right now. Hence the slow response.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

Glad to hear you're enjoying BC!

My apologies for missing the humor. Clearly, I take myself and others too seriously sometimes. :)

Your suggestion that Black is only warning against a certain kind of political involvement is plausible, I suppose. But it's much easier to take away from his final paragraph a strong either/or dichotomy between gospel work and politics.

At best, Black is unclear. At worst, he's objecting to political involvement.

Anyhow, I've beaten this dead horse.

Overall, I enjoyed the article. The last paragraph...not so much.

You need to post something else so I can disagree with you. ;)

jdb

MJK said...

Clearly, I am not very humorous!

Back in MB now, where I belong. Will try to post something controversial soon!