The importance of the fourth act

My thanks to Jared Wilson over at The Gospel-Driven Church for reminding me of Tim Keller’s piece “The Gospel in All its Forms,” which is an excellent discussion (as one would expect of Rev. Keller) of the ways in which the gospel message is one, yet multifaceted, speaking in different ways to different people and different groups of people with the singular message of the good news of Jesus Christ. I was particularly interested, this time around, in the Rev. Keller’s consideration (which Jared emphasizes) of the eschatological element of the gospel:

If I had to put this outline in a single statement, I might do it like this: Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever.One of these elements was at the heart of the older gospel messages, namely, salvation is by grace not works. It was the last element that was usually missing, namely that grace restores nature, as the Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck put it. When the third, “eschatological” element is left out, Christians get the impression that nothing much about this world matters. Theoretically, grasping the full outline should make Christians interested in both evangelistic conversions as well as service to our neighbor and working for peace and justice in the world. . . .Instead of going into, say, one of the epistles and speaking of the gospel in terms of God, sin, Christ, and faith, I point out the story-arc of the Bible and speak of the gospel in terms of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. We once had the world we all wanted—a world of peace and justice, without death, disease, or conflict. But by turning from God we lost that world. Our sin unleashed forces of evil and destruction so that now “things fall apart” and everything is characterized by physical, social, and personal disintegration. Jesus Christ, however, came into the world, died as a victim of injustice and as our substitute, bearing the penalty of our evil and sin on himself. This will enable him to some day judge the world and destroy all death and evil without destroying us.

I was particularly interested in this, as I said, because I’d just read, a couple days ago, a piece in Perspectives addressing this point of view. The Rev. Jeffrey Sajdak, pastor of First Christian Reformed Church in Pella, Iowa, was responding to a fellow Pella pastor, Second Reformed’s Steve Mathonnet-VanderWell, who had taken a shot at neo-Calvinists (he called it “a friendly nudge to see if anyone is awake”) in an earlier issue. In the course of that article, the Rev. Mathonnet-VanderWell gave us a parable, what we might call the Parable of the Theater. The Rev. Sajdak responded to that parable this way, titling his article “The Fourth Act”:

His concluding story about the great theatre deftly highlights these challenges; yet the story he tells is incomplete. The drama needs another act. . . .There’s another act, an act that is dear to the hearts of many neo-Calvinists, the act of Consummation. I have personally been enriched by and preached some of the insightful commentary of Richard Mouw on Isaiah and Revelation and the New Jerusalem. The vision of this world being transformed, renewed, and restored is a grand and exciting vision. The highest aspirations of culture, stripped of their sinful taints and malicious purposes, enjoyed by all the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem and the New Earth.

The Rev. Mathonnet-VanderWell, in his own response, granted the point but argued that we should be careful not to jump there too quickly (for reasons which I find dubious, and which seem to me to say more about his philosophical and theological preferences than anything else). Personally, however, I think the Rev. Sajdak is right, as is the Rev. Keller: most of us, especially in Reformed circles, are far more prone to forget about that fourth act than we are to overemphasize it and misuse it. (What’s more, when it is misused, the best defense against that misuse is a right emphasis on the coming consummation of Jesus’ work, the restoration of the proper created order.) That’s a problem, because it’s the fourth act, the completion of God’s plan to redeem the world (not just individual people), that gives us the proper perspective on the first three; without it, our understanding of Jesus and his work will inevitably be skewed.

Redressing the humor balance

Making fun of politicians is not only our right as Americans, it’s our duty. After all, somebody has to keep those guys (relatively) humble if we’re going to preserve democracy. Unfortunately, those who lead us in this important cultural responsibility—our late-night talk-show hosts—have been falling down on the job, unable to find a good way to poke fun at Barack Obama. Part of that is the candidate’s own resistance, which is worrisome; do we really want a president who won’t let us laugh at him? We’ve had presidents before who were bad at laughing at themselves (think Nixon), which was bad enough—but not to be able to laugh at the President? It’s positively un-American. Part of this too is that audiences are resistant, which is equally concerning; if we’ve started taking politicians, even one politician, too seriously to be able to laugh at them, something is seriously out of whack with us.Fortunately, there are a few people riding to the rescue. Andy Borowitz was good enough to pass along a list of five “campaign-approved Barack Obama jokes,” and Joel Stein (in the Los Angeles Times) has collected a list of suggestions for the rest of us. We also, thank goodness, have JibJab:

With their help, it is to be hoped that we can go forth and redress the humor balance. We’d certainly better, because Maureen Dowd is right:

if Obama gets elected and there is nothing funny about him, it won’t be the economy that’s depressed. It will be the rest of us.

(As a side note, I have to admit, I feel a little sorry for Sen. Obama. Not so much because of his touchiness, although I think being able to laugh at oneself is one of life’s great blessings; it’s because of his initials. People keep wanting to refer to him by his initials, and certainly as a Democratic presidental candidate, you want to be able to hang out with FDR and JFK—though maybe not so much LBJ; but he doesn’t want to be referred to as BHO, because that reminds people that his middle name’s Hussein, and that’s bad, or something. And yet, not even Barack Obama can make BO cool. What’s the guy to do?)HT for the Stein column: Bill

The other good GOP VP option

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal got some airtime today, courtesy of Kathleen Parker. In the process, though, she pointed out the main reason for picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin over Gov. Jindal (in my book, anyway): the GOP really needs Gov. Jindal to stay in Louisiana for a while. Given the nature of the situation down there, his task in reforming Louisiana is a much longer-term one, and much more dependent on him. If Sen. McCain picks him, the Louisiana statehouse reverts to a Democrat who’ll abandon everything he’s been trying to accomplish; whereas if Gov. Palin is the nominee, her successor will be a Republican, most likely the state attorney general (since the lieutenant governor will probably be moving on himself, to the House of Representatives), who’s one of her own appointees. I continue to believe that Sen. McCain should name Gov. Palin his running mate and give Gov. Jindal the “Obama slot” at the national convention, thereby putting both of them on the national stage but leaving Gov. Jindal in place to do the work in Louisiana that badly needs doing.(Update: apparently Gov. Jindal thinks the same way; what both Kathleen Parker and I missed is that he’s taken himself out of the running, announcing he’s going to stay in Louisiana. That’s good, I think—as long as Gov. Palin can tamp out the fire in Alaska.)(Further update: here’s an excellent article from the Wall Street Journal on Gov. Palin’s spiritual journey from Hinduism to Catholicism. My thanks to James Grant for the link.)

The Reagan coalition lives

. . . at least in Pennsylvania, where a guy who can’t even campaign until next month (because he’s still on active duty with the Army) appears to be setting himself up to take down Democrat pork king Rep. Jack Murtha. None too soon, if it happens—and so far, it looks like Rep. Murtha’s constituents agree. That guy is one of those politicians I’d want out of office no matter what party I supported; as an unabashed conservative, though, I’ll be particularly pleased if he’s “redeployed” by a guy who defines himself this way:

I am a conservative. I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty. . . . I believe that no one owes me anything just because I live and breathe.

Here’s pulling for William Russell.

Maybe I can stop worrying about Palin

I am, as my wife says, prone to fret; this is because, as she also says, I am my mother’s son. At least I come by it honestly . . .In any case, however much of it is a clear assessment of the circumstances and however much is simply me, I’ve been concerned about the effect the Monegan affair could have on Sarah Palin’s VP chances. It’s not that I thought she was guilty of any significant improper conduct—like Carlos Echevarria, I believe in her; but the whole thing has been generating more than enough smoke to drive John McCain another direction in looking for his running mate, and in the long run, I don’t believe that would be good. Unfortunately, whether or not there’s any real fire to the story, there has been a fair bit of sizzle, and that makes it harder to combat; it’s not enough to make a dry, rational case that Gov. Palin made a reasonable decision to fire Commissioner Walt Monegan, you have to put out the sizzle. If Adam Brickley’s right, though, she may have managed enough to do that: the latest statement from the governor’s office certainly seems to have buried Monegan’s allegations in an avalanche of documented facts. I’m sure this won’t stop her political opponents from trying to use this whole affair to hurt her—that, alas, is politics in this day and age; I’m hopeful, though, that it will be enough to render this a minor or non-story on the national stage, and thus remove the issue as a reason for Sen. McCain not to pick Gov. Palin. No matter how hard the Romneyites try to flog this thing, if it’s a dead moose, it’s a dead moose.The other good news Adam reported is that the Alaska House has passed the governor’s pipeline plan, leaving only Senate approval still ahead. This is one of the things for which I greatly admire Gov. Palin, that she put the welfare of the state of Alaska ahead of the welfare of our oil companies—when they wouldn’t give the state a square deal, she made sure the job went to someone else who would. This is how you build a position that’s for energy exploration without being in the pocket of Big Oil. Bravo, Governor. Bravo.

Local firm does good

in more ways than one. Rabb/Kinetico Water Systems is a company based here in Warsaw that makes non-electrical home water systems (that, as I understand it, is where “Kinetico” comes in) that use far less salt than your typical electrical water softener; that also means, as I understand it, a lot less water wastage with their systems. They do good work with a good product; they also do good work in other ways, as Don Clemens, the company’s president, is one of the founders and leaders of Men Following Christ, a local Christian ministry. They’re admirable folks, and it’s good to see them getting a little attention beyond our community here: the Times-Union, our local paper, reported last week that PBS and Hugh Downs had filmed a segment on Rabb/Kinetico for the network’s “National Environmental Report.” I don’t know when that will be airing, but I hope to catch it (maybe it will be on the PBS website).

Barack Obama as overhead-projector screen

Shelby Steele, an analyst for whom I have tremendous respect, has a fascinating column up on the Wall Street Journal website—and I’m not sure what to make of it. It’s titled “Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama,” but that’s only what the first half (or so) of the piece is about; having laid out why, on his read, Jackson hates Sen. Obama, he then spends the rest of it meditating on the consequences of his conclusion (with a particular note on its consequences for John McCain). I’m still figuring out what I think of it; I recommend you read it and do the same.HT: Presbyweb

A short course in blog tectonics

Hap over at A Fundamental Shift has been talking about fundamental shifts for a while now, and now she’s shifted so fundamentally that she’s fundamentally shifted clean out of A Fundamental Shift. To wit, her blog is now titled . . . the most curious thing . . . and looks curiously different. Fundamentally, however, it’s still shifty, and it’s still Hap. If you haven’t checked it out, you should.

On heterodoxy and salvation

Dr. Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Seminary, put up a post on his blog a few days ago reflecting on another Dutch Presbyterian, the great theologian Cornelius Van Til (who was, among other things, the founder of the presuppositional school of Christian apologetics). In it, he describes a conversation he had with Dr. Van Til, a discussion of Karl Barth, which had a formative influence on his approach to Christians with whom he disagrees:

Van Til’s remark left a lasting impression on me. He was firm in his verdict that Barth was far removed from historic Christian teaching, yet he was still unwilling to offer a similarly critical assessment of the state of Barth’s soul. Ever since, I have tried to exercise a similar caution. It is one thing to evaluate a person’s theology. It is another thing to decide whether that person has a genuine faith in Christ.There are folks these days who worry about what they see as an overly charitable spirit in people like me. They think it is dangerous to enter into friendly dialogue with thinkers whose theological views are far removed from traditional Christian orthodoxy. They tend to think that if a person is unorthodox they cannot be in a saving relationship with Christ. I take a different view on those matters.

I appreciate this post because I share Dr. Mouw’s caution (and Dr. Van Til’s)—or perhaps I might better say, humility—in this respect; I think we tend to be far too quick to pronounce wrong doctrines salvation-impairing. I do believe there is a point at which people are so far from the truth that they are in fact worshiping a different God (Hinduism, for instance, is obviously a completely different thing than Christianity), but I suspect that that point isn’t exactly where we think it is, and that the line between saving faith and beliefs which do not lead to salvation is perhaps somewhat fuzzier than we assume.HT: Presbyweb