An astute observation

from iMonk:

It doesn’t seem that a majority of the voices I heard on a day of Catholic radio have a sense of how the church itself, and the mysteries of Christ, the church and personal faith, are experienced differently in Roman Catholic spirituality as compared to Protestantism. The reformation isn’t just a historical and doctrinal event. There has developed a significantly different experience of the church, the Gospel and the Christian life in these two traditions. It’s not simply a multiple choice question, but two very different ways of living, trusting and being a Christian. Overlooking this is a real mistake. It isn’t easy to talk about, but I’m convinced that, at the end of the day, it has to be counted far more important than most make it.

Good on him, and please continue to keep him in your prayers. I know he and I have not always been chummy, but I am honestly filled with pity for him right now and am asking God for more than just emotional peace: may God heal Michael and be powerful to save from disease.

And that's the hat-trick

From the BHT:

Turk’s closing swipe at me from the 5th post fisking me in the last two weeks:

..so my examples of you being “not Gospel centered” would be for the benefit of trying to explain something else to you — something which, after years, you simply cannot hear. And it’s a shame, really.

What should trouble the reader here is what the elipsis covers -- which is (as you can see below), 'Well, I think that I have listed some pretty specific content here. Anyone who calls you "not Gospel centered" should cite an example, and we can gage it from there. I could cite an example of such a thing, but oddly I wouldn't call you "not Gospel centered"'.

And for the record, it was iMonk who said I "have to fisk him 3 times a week". I hadn't really done anything to or about him for quite a while before that -- and his randy comments about John Piper. It's been fun, but as you can see, it doesn't work really for Michael's sense of well-being. It's slander, you see, to tell him he's not half as generous or credible as he thinks he is.

Obviously, the key to my spiritual life is to receive Godly counsel from a man who continually lies and slanders me, misses no opportunity to claim knowledge of my life and motives and who entertains delusions of being God’s agent to get truth to me.

Ah. The lies and the slanders. Like the lie that your interpretation of Timmy Brister's reading list is that it is too narrow -- not diverse enough.

I am sure neither you nor Timmy will be the same. For the record, Michael has e-mailed me his denial of that statement by me, and I accept it. We'll keep that on file for the next time he goes off on Young Reformed types and their narrow vision for the theological world.

Since we're setting the record straight, I see myself as a fellow blogger who, frankly, thinks you have never once in your life received a citicism you thought was constructive -- especially when you're wrong. Your tolerance for people who think you are honestly wrong can only be measured in microvolts -- which is why I send criticism in megawatts. I like to see your meter ping.

Frank, go find a pastor. Show him what you’ve written about me these many years. All of it. Look at him and tell him that you are in the will of God when you’re doing this, and I am out of it for not listening to you.

Mine always has -- and still does even as I am seeking a new church. Thanks for asking. When you can return the favor, and find a pastor you can tolerate who will also tell you the truth, let the rest of us know and we'll be glad to receive your high-handed rebukes with a light dusting of credibility.

This is #2 for the week

1) Does Gospel centered mean reformed? Specifically, young reformed Calvinists looking for a label that doesn’t complicate relationships with the debates about predestination and infant baptism?

One of the reasons I think it's important to do these little shellackings of the author of these questions is that he seems so reasonable, doesn't he?

"Gospel centered"? Isn't that for the immature trying to form a club?

Let's put it this way: what "Gospel-centered" means is that somehow what Jesus has done is more important than, for example, denomination and politics. Anyone who wants to tell people about Jesus in any of the ways you can find in Acts (to keep the conversation inside some kind of finite boundaries) can be "Gospel-centered".

2) Does Gospel centered imply that other Christians aren’t Gospel believing? Every group of Christians I’ve been around recently- from mainline liberals to emergers and Arminian leaning evangelicals- would passionately argue that they are Gospel centered? For example, are conservative evangelicals in the PCUSA Gospel centered? Is the Billy Graham Association Gospel centered? Is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Gospel centered?

Not any more or less than adopting, for example, a "Jesus-shaped spirituality" implies that other Christians aren't "Jesus shaped".

It's more than a little ironic that someone who can snipe at fundies for raising Marylin Manson, tacitly call John Piper a dangerous man, and blame "evangelicalism" for having a faith which is too lame to answer atheism in real life will, at this point, accuse those who advocate for a "Gospel-centered" faith and life of being somehow divisive or unfairly judgmental.

The Gospel is what it is. Some people get that wrong, and then they chase after misinterpretation of the Gospel. Some of them are "reformed"; some of them are not.

Which brings us to ...

3) Who- specifically- isn’t Gospel centered? And I don’t just mean TEC. I mean, who in some proximity to those using this label, isn’t described by this label? What disqualifies?

All non-Christians are not Gospel-centered.

Anyone who has replaced the Gospel with some other idol is not Gospel-centered. For example, anyone who would place a singular political reality (in government, in a church) ahead of what Christ has done is not Gospel centered.

If you want me to name names, I'd be glad to review any list you proffer.

4) What is “centered” as compared to believing, or motivated or preaching, etc.?

The conceits we can have but not lend to others always make me itchy. I suggest that "centered" is not any more or less ambiguous than "shaped".

Since I am the one fleshing it out, here's what I think of: I think of all our efforts in some kind of motion in the universe, and Christ is in the Universe. Some things we do are in a high-speed trajectory away from Christ; these are obviously not Gospel centered. Some things are in a trajectory which looks like it is heading straight into or at Christ, and I suggest that none of these are Gospel-centered because they are seeking to replace Christ.

Some trajectories, however, are in motion around Christ, and adorn Christ, and make much of Christ. These are Gospel-centered. They do not seek to abandon him or supplant him: they exist for his sake.

5) Is this describing an existing group or is it a way of doing church? If so, what are we talking about? A certain emphasis on preaching? An intentional effort to put the cross in all sermons and all songs? Fewer church programs?

Maybe a version of the Bible? Or how about a t-shirt we can wear?

Like #1 in this list, this question is a pretty unamgiguous swipe at its object.

And again, to expect more from a two-word phrase than one expects from one's own 3-word phrase is ungenerous at best. The Gospel Coalition web site has plenty of resources to describe the phrase. Feel free to inspect those and then reconsider your question.

6) Is Gospel centered the beginnings of a label to create a sub-denomination in the SBC? A kind of signal to those who might be considering leaving the SBC that a network of churches is forming with similar values to the Great Commission Resurgence? Is this a label to build a kind of evangelical ecumenism within and outside of the SBC?

It's very subversive, I am sure. What if it's only a way to say, "you know what? I'd rather talk about Jesus than beer. Can we talk about Jesus rather than beer?"

7) Is Gospel centered the beginnings of a door out of the SBC to a “Together for the Gospel,” Acts 29 or “Gospel Coalition” shaped network or denomination?

Maybe it's just a way to say, "I'd also rather talk about the ways in which we agree about Jesus than all the ways we can invent to hate each other for doing what we think is right."

Which is ironic, isn't it? You'd think that the John 3:16 conference came first and then T4G and TGC -- but oddly, no: the "Gospel-centered" crowd turned out to come first and reach out across some weird lines (baptism, cessationism, polity) to try to forge some kind of unity in essentials.

So I think the answer is "no".

8) What is most distinctive about a “Gospel centered” church that allows the term to cross denominational boundaries and still be descriptive?

The orbits of all the things a church like this does circle around Jesus and not around, for example, style, fashion, or other things which rust and whither.

I know you have previously been completely vexed by the idea that a person or an activity can have an "orbit", but I am sure you can grasp this much: when a church revolves around money, or "growth", or "political action", it is not revolving around Jesus. When it is revolving around Jesus, Jesus looks great -- because all the things going on make much of him and treat him like the center of attention and the main doer, the prime mover.

This reaches across denominational boundaries by appealing to Christ rather than preferences.

9) Plenty of people will say I’m not Gospel centered even though that’s my passion. Who makes the call? Why can so many bloggers use the term and it be meaningful if there’s no specific content?

Well, I think that I have listed some pretty specific content here. Anyone who calls you "not Gospel centered" should cite an example, and we can gage it from there. I could cite an example of such a thing, but oddly I wouldn't call you "not Gospel centered" -- so my examples of you being "not Gospel centered" would be for the benefit of trying to explain something else to you -- something which, after years, you simply cannot hear. And it's a shame, really.

Any other questions?

HT: iMonk via Twitter

The pendulum swings about sex talk. I'd call this essay a conversation starter and not the final word.

Therefore, let the conversation start.

You won't believe it

iMonk asks very real, serious questions and publishes the sober, sound, pastoral advice of a level-headed traditionalist.

I think I just heard a shout and a trumpet. The end has come -- see you on the other side.

More advice for iMonk

Sorry for the interruption. Don't take a job situated on the edge of a political knife; own the part of the displacement you have made for yourself. Right? I said that already.

Advice #3 is this: make sure you understand why you are working in the first place. You know something? I work for the paycheck. No offense to anybody, but if this was the 23rd century and we lived in the United Federation of Planets were replicators made everything we needed, I promise you I wouldn't be working in manufacturing. Not because Manufacturing is bad in some way, but because I'd rather read and blog. Sadly, blogging isn't the cash cow some people make it out to be, but in my non-blogging time I'm a pretty good leader and job coach -- and there's decent money in that.

I work for the money, and I hope for heaven's sake you do, too. If you work for the status, the "satisfaction", the "challenge", or any other non-money reason, I think the odds of you sleeping well at night are pretty low -- because those things are fleeting.

"Cent," you might say, "money is fleeting, too, don't you think?" Indeed, moth and rust and thieves and all that -- but the common experience is that money spends to a budget and you can know when the money is going to run out. You just have to have a paycheck come in before the money runs out. You can't possibly gage when status, "satisfaction", or any other apparently-lofty aspiration will run out.

The exception to this, such as it is, would be full-time ministry, and again: you should ask your questions clearly about that exception rather than expect me to run up 3 pages on the subject and bore the other readers with your inquisitiveness.

Work for the money. That means you should find a job that requires as much of you as you are willing to trade for the money. Realize that money can't buy back years of your marriage, or your kids' childhood, or your health. Work for the money, and keep money in its rightful place.

But if you find working for the money somehow base or uncouth, then if you choose to work for the status or the power or the admiration of others, work as if those things matter to you. For example, if you're a teacher, you prolly won't get rich. But you will get 35 years to influence the minds of young people. That's what you're working for: don't waste it.

Last one: Don't attach your personal worth to employment. Not to get too God-centered here, but if you're an adopted son of the God of the universe, and the One and Only Son of God has shed his blood for you, none of that happened in order that you can be president of the convention or CEO of the company: it happened for a purpose God has already established, so whether you get to be famous or homeless your worth is not a function of your performance. If you get walked out, rejoice. Hope in God.

I am sure the readers have other good advice, and I leave it to them to go ahead and give it. Cruel and stupid remarks will not be tolerated.

Advice for iMonk

The blogger formerly known as iMonk has asked the following:

One new development in my life, post sabbatical, is an increased possibility that I’ll lose my job.

This could happen in several ways. Even though I am respected, liked and have a great ministry here, political and administrative realities are there. A couple of scenarios are possible.

I could get fired for things I’ve written. Even though I’ve taken extraordinary steps to make my blogging a non-issue at my job, it is still controversial with some people, and some of the people who have been unhappy with it could decide I need to go.

Another is this: A major leadership change will happen in the next year and a half, and I am a likely person to be moved out under new leadership. (Fairly normal in SBC life.) I’m an old geezer in a job that increasingly belongs to 20-somethings.

Here’s today’s question: Have you ever been fired/pushed out from a real job? What did you do to regroup and move on? How did this event work into your personal journey?

As a person who has left several jobs under his own power and has also been relieved of duty, the first thing I can say about this situation is that whoever you are, that hasn't changed just because your job is at stake. Sometimes "they" are going to fire you because "they" are jerks; most often "they" are going to fire you because you were a jerk. I know this factually because most of the people I have seen relieved of duty have been walked out because they didn't do the things their job required.

My first piece of advice is this: "don't take a job which is situated on the edge of a political knife." You are far better served to be in a job where they will fire you if you can't or won't do the work than you would be in a job where they can fire you because you don't look good in the new t-shirt. I would say this especially in the case of ministry work -- and I know that seems to many people to be an impossible requirement. We could talk about that specifically if somebody had a question about that.

That's advice about regrouping, btw -- because it brings into focus what you're going to do for a living after they give you the empty box and the handshake.

My second piece of advice is this: "Own the part of the displacement you made for yourself." I have been fired by neglegent posterior-shielding people (who, themselves, also got fired), and in spite of their shortcomings there was a kernel of truth under the reasons they proffered for separating me from their payroll. So whatever I did that contributed objectively to their extremely-subjective judgment, I need to own that so I don't do that again for someone who, frankly, deserves better. It is possible that you didn't do anything -- that the company went belly up, or they really do make it cheaper someplace else. If that's the case, there's nothing to own except the reality that you need to choose an employer who really does make it cheaper, better, faster -- and they still exist in the US.

I have two more pieces of advice, but I have actual work to do today. Maybe I'll drop the balance after lunch.