The Gospel

During the 1960 Olympiad in Rome, an obscure Ethiopian named, Abebe Bikila, captured gold in the men’s marathon. The track-and-field world responded with collective incredulity: “What on earth is an Ethiopian doing in a marathon?” At that time the world’s premiere long-distance runners hailed from the cool climates of Northern Europe—the British Isles, Scandanavia, the Soviet Union. Bikila’s victory was widely dismissed as a fluke.

Bikila’s victory was no fluke. It turned out to be the spark that ignited a revolution. Just eight years later, no less than nine east Africans won medals in long distance races at the Olympics in Mexico City. Three Kenyans captured gold at those games, including a most inspiring victory by Kipchoge Keino.

Kip Keino arrived at the games suffering from a gall bladder infection. He ran anyway. Keino led the 10,000 meter race with only two laps to go when he collapsed and was disqualified. Two days later Mr. Keino ran again and won a silver medal in the 5,000 meter race.

With his gall bladder infection raging out of control, doctors sidelined Keino for the 1,500 meter race in which he had hoped to compete. Convalescing in the athlete’s village, Keino decided he would rather die than disappoint his fellow Kenyans. The fire to run burned too hot in his soul to quench. He hailed a cab and set out for the Olympic stadium. A mile from his destination, his taxi was stopped in its tracks by a gnarly traffic jam. In jeopardy of missing the race, Keino jumped out of his cab and jogged past stalled commuters to the stadium. He arrived in time and lined up against then world-record holder, Jim Ryun. Ryun had not lost a 1,500 meter race in over three years. Kip Keino won the race by 20 meters! [Ed.: Watch Keino’s victory here.]

The thunderous response that rocked Mexico’s Olympic stadium did not begin to compare with the fire Keino’s victory ignited in his fledgling and impoverished homeland of Kenya—particularly among Keino’s own Kalenjin tribe. Since that day, long-distance running has been a path to glory among the Kalenjin.

According to researcher, John Manners, 75 per cent of Kenya’s top runners hail from this single tribe. From 1987-1997 Kalenjin runners captured 40 per cent of the top international honors in men’s long distance running—including placing first, second, and twelfth in the Boston Marathon in 1996. “I contend” says Manners, “that this record marks the greatest geographic concentration of achievement in the annals of sport” (www.pewfellowships.org).

To this day a major long-distance race anywhere on earth will invariably find an east-African—if not a Kenyan—contending for the prize. Following the inspiring lead of Bikila, Keino and others have led the underdeveloped and thinly populated nation of Kenya to world-dominance in long-distance running.

[amazon 1433515008 thumbnail]

At this time in the history of the church we can celebrate that we have unanimously agreed on the core message and content of the gospel! Or perhaps not, says Greg Gilbert in his new book What Is The Gospel? Right from the start he states, “What is the gospel of Jesus Christ? You’d think that would be an easy question to answer, especially for Christians. My sense is that far too many Christians would answer with something far short of what the Bible holds out as ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ’ ” (p. 15). Unfortunately, after all the time the church has had to study the Bible, there is still confusion as to what the core teaching of the gospel is.

Gilbert gives the four-fold outline through which he lays out the gospel:

1. Who made me, and to whom are we accountable? (God)
2. What is our problem? (man)
3. What is God’s solution to that problem? (Christ)
4. How do I come to be included in that salvation? (response)

First, God is the righteous creator. Gilbert rightly contends that if you don’t get God right then you will not get the gospel right. “Everything starts from that point, and like an arrow fired from a badly aimed bow, if you get that point wrong, then everything else that follows will be wrong too (p. 40).” Since God has created us He has the right to tell us how to live.

“In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you” (KJV, 1 Thess. 5:18).

In this Thanksgiving season—and throughout the year—let us thank God for Who He is, what He has said and what He has done, is doing and will yet do.

We thank God the Father for His perfect holiness and His infinite love: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” (John 3:16). He did not simply forgive our sins. He maintained His holy character and standards by paying the essential price for our sins. “He loved…he gave!” This was not cheap grace. “He…spared not His own Son, but delivered him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). Thank You, Heavenly Father for giving Your Son for us!

We also thank God the Son for the marvelous display of His wisdom and power in creating the universe, the earth and all living things. “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible” (Col. 1:16). “In him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Thank You, Lord Jesus, for creating us!

We also thank God’s Son for His moment-by-moment work of maintaining the universe that He created. “By him all things consist” (i.e., hold together. Col. 1:17). He “uphold(s) all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3). Not only does He prevent things from sinking into non-existence, He also directs everything toward a God-honoring ultimate goal by His providence. Thus, the Father has appointed Him to be “heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (literally, the ages—i.e., mass-energy through time. Heb. 1:2). It is only because the Son of God is in charge of the universe (not Satan or chance) that “all things” can “work together for good to them that love God” (Rom. 8:28). Thank You, Lord Jesus, for preserving and guiding all things!

They beat me! I knew the day would inevitably arrive, but it was still difficult to process. I stood there blinking, humiliated. They beat me. All three of them!

On a hot summer day in my 46th year on earth, I took my three school-aged sons jogging around a lake near our home. None of them had ever outstripped me in anything athletically related. Ever. But as we readied for our run, they seemed to collectively sense that this was their day. They stood quietly like vultures circling a dying man. It was pitiful.

I first cued in to their sense of pending conquest when they decided to give me a head start. A head start! Who on earth did they think they were? I could blow them away—always had. Slightly miffed, as I bolted off the starting line ahead of them, I determined to prove that their estimation of my physical eclipse was not only premature but delusional.

I had apparently brushed aside her bashful requests too long. So over Christmas break our youngest child and only daughter renewed an old petition: She wanted her ears pierced! Such a mundane entreaty has a strange affect on an old dad who finds it a bit disconcerting to watch his little girl mature into a young…well, you know—I can’t even bring myself to write the word.

We sat down on the couch for a talk—a short one for me, a very long and unnecessary one in her estimation. I asked if she couldn’t wait a while longer, like maybe another 30 years or so. I asked rather melodramatically if she had counted the cost—if she was willing to endure the pain and follow the disinfecting regimen without grumbling. Most important I asked her why she wanted her ears pierced. She explained very matter-of-factly that she wanted to “look good.” I explained very matter-of-factly that I had no idea why that mattered or how earrings could help her attain such a ridiculous objective.

She sighed and rolled her eyes a good bit during our conversation. She endured my stall tactics with commendable patience. She also found revolting my insinuation that her request might perhaps be motivated by a desire to impress boys. I found solace in her repugnance toward the notion, while conceding in my mind that my relief is doomed to have a short shelf-life.

Maybe three years in Poland has left me somewhat nostalgic, but I love America; I miss America. As Ginger and I learn the language and observe this culture so foreign to our own, we often find ourselves comparing the two. One culture is home, and the other, well … it’s growing on us. Many similarities can be observed but a few stark differences exist.

Tertullian was the first Latin theologian and one of the most creative minds of the second and early third centuries. In particular, his writings contributed greatly to later articulations of the Trinity. This essay focuses on the negative, but not because I think Tertullian was worthless or because I think all good Protestants should bash the Fathers to prove their orthodoxy. On the contrary, we Protestants could probably use quite a bit more familiarity with, and appreciation for, the first five centuries of Christianity. It is precisely because of how much I enjoy Tertullian that his sub-biblical gospel stings me so sharply. I’m writing this because I think we Christians could benefit from understanding how this powerful theologian and apologist came to his misunderstanding of the gospel.

Tertullian believes that there are several unforgivable sins—“murder, idolatry, fraud, apostasy, blasphemy; (and), of course, too, adultery and fornication; and if there be any other ‘violation of the temple of God’ ” (On Modesty, 19). To Protestants, this alone appears unnecessarily harsh, but Tertullian goes farther still. It is not that the Church (or at least the New Prophets, i.e., Montanists) lacks the power to forgive these sins, in Tertullian’s view; it does have the power, but it ought not forgive such sins (On Modesty, 21). Disregarding Tertullian’s scriptural arguments, which are intriguing, his practical argument is that such leniency will simply encourage more sin in the Church, which is clearly unacceptable. There are a few hints that perhaps God in His mercy will forgive the repentant, but in any case, they cannot be returned to the fellowship of the Church.

What a twisted view of the gospel! Yet, it is more profitable to explain the context of this error than simply to decry it. We must start with Tertullian’s view of the Church. He is a perfectionist, or very nearly so. The Church is the bride of Christ, so no spot or blemish should be allowed in it. Anyone who could be condemned by the outside world on moral grounds should have already been cast out of the assembly (Apology, 44). Tertullian’s apologetic strategy both presupposes and necessitates this perfectionist tendency. Tertullian’s main argument for Christianity is the moral blamelessness of Christians. According to Tertullian, Christians simply don’t engage in bad behavior, at least nothing too bad. Although he does grant that Christians may need one (and only one) dose of post-baptismal forgiveness for some non-mortal sin (On Repentance, 7), Tertullian does not paint a picture of Christians struggling against sin, except in an unending stream of victories.

The Lincoln memorial in Washington D.C. is hallowed ground in my book. I stood at this sacred spot in 2005 and was deeply moved.

Lincoln’s memorial stands at the head of a cross-shaped layout of memorials on the Washington mall. Most guides will adamantly deny any intentional symbolism. My guide was willing not only to concede the obvious, but to reference primary source documents wherein the original designers of the mall detail plans to arrange the memorials in the shape of a cross so as to pay tribute to the profound influence of Jesus Christ upon this nation.

Possessed of this insight, I stood on the steps of the Lincoln memorial looking down the length of “the cross” toward the Washington monument (at the cross’ nexus). Owing my spiritual life and joy to Jesus (whom having never seen I mysteriously love, 1 Peter 1:8), my heart surged with thanksgiving and wonder to contemplate the hand of divine providence upon this nation and upon my own life.

My near ecstasy continued as I read Lincoln’s second inaugural address etched into the wall of the north enclave of the memorial. The third column in particular held my rapt attention. Herein Lincoln explicates the doctrine of divine providence. Only a dwindling minority of Americans could define the meaning of God’s providence today. This was not the case during the Civil War. Nor was it the case for Lincoln who found in the doctrine of divine providence—God’s preserving and governing power over nature and history—essential ballast to endure those tumultuous days with hope.