Showing posts with label Phillip Johnson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phillip Johnson. Show all posts

Phillip Johnson Sounds Off At Shepherd's Seminar

A few months ago Politics & Christianity conducted an interview with Phillip Johnson, executive Director of Grace to You, a Christian tape and radio ministry featuring the preaching ministry of John MacArthur. We have long admired Phil not only for his theological insight, but also for his approach to society and culture from a biblical worldview.

In a recent seminar speech, "Politically Incorrect? How To Shepherd Your Congregation In An Election Year", Johnson provides thoughtful analysis and historical context for the Christian's place in the world of politics. How is the believer best able to make truth known? What are the consequences of lobbying, lawmaking, and moralizing taking the place of Christ and the Gospel message? What is the healthy balance of political activism and the Christian servant's duty to serve the Kingdom?

These are important questions which Phillip Johnson answers with wisdom and clarity. In this election year, consider it must reading.

*****

Politically Incorrect?
How to Shepherd Your Congregation in an Election Year

If you came thinking I’m going to tell you how to vote this year, or suggest ways to mobilize your people to sway elections in your home town, you are probably going to be disappointed. In fact, those of you who know anything about me might be surprised that I’m even dealing with a topic like this one. I was frankly surprised when the guys who organize these seminars assigned me this session. Election-year politics are not really my cup of tea. And I don’t mean I’m not interested in the subject. I mean that I purposely try to keep my distance from it.

There’s a good reason for that. Before I became a Christian, I was a hard-core, obsessive political activist. Throughout my high-school years, I thought I wanted to be either a politician or a newspaper pundit when I grew up. That was my highest worldly aspiration, and the political power-struggle was the single, central, driving interest of my life. But when I became a Christian, I gave that passion up for something infinitely better—something of eternal value: the gospel of Christ.

I won’t give you my whole testimony about that. It’s on an audio-recording of one of my sermons somewhere downloadable from the Internet. But the short version is that from the night of my conversion until today, I have deliberately steered clear of partisan politics in the same way most of you would try to steer clear of pornography or recreational drugs. Because in my own experience as an unregenerate person, party politics represented that same kind of addiction. In fact, it was the very first worldly fixation I set aside when I became a Christian—because it struck me almost from the outset that an obsession with earthly power and political ideology is basically an addiction to the wisdom of this world, which is foolishness with God.

That’s not to suggest that I’m naturally apathetic about politics. To this day, I know that if I listened to a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, I would begin to feel rising fits of those same old political passions. But political activism was so much of an idol in my old, pre-Christian life that today I think of it in pretty much the same way the apostle Paul said he regarded his former life as a Pharisee: I count it as dung. I’ve relegated those passions to the rubbish heap of things I count as loss, “In order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.”

Some of you are probably already thinking that sounds pretty harsh. If you are inclined to be a political activist yourself, you no doubt think I’m terribly short-sighted, or too much of an isolationist. I hasten to say that I’m not suggesting there’s anything inherently sinful about holding electoral office or doing public service. If it’s your calling to be mayor of your town or a congressman from your district, you’ll get nothing but encouragement from me as long as you seek to fulfill that task to the glory of Christ. But you need to do that not merely by flexing your power, but mainly by being a consistent example of Christlike service and humility. Of course, that’s just what every Christian in the secular workplace should endeavor to do. In the words of 1 Timothy 4:12, “in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.”

I thank God for Christians whose vocation is to serve faithfully in our government—including those elected officials who are devoted Christians. But let’s be clear, here: that’s a different vocation from the calling of a pastor. And I am speaking to you as pastors and church leaders: It’s well-nigh impossible to be a good pastor full time if you also fancy yourself a political lobbyist.

We need to remember that political clout has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual power. Study the priorities for the church in the New Testament; look at the duties Scripture outlines for shepherds of the flock. You’ll find no mandate to press the government for legislation on moral issues. In fact, what you’ll see is that jockeying for political clout is one of the very strategies Jesus named as worldly methods that are not to characterize leadership in His kingdom. He said His kingdom is permanently set apart from every earthly dominion because Christ’s kingdom is advanced by humble service rather than through the kind of political strategies that depend on the exercise of human authority.

I’ll show you that in a moment, but first I want to stress this: Nothing in the past half century has done more damage to the evangelical cause than the notion that the best way for Christians to influence society is by wielding our collective political clout. If you think the most important answer to the ills of our society is a legislative remedy; if you imagine that political activism is the most effective way for the church to influence culture; or if you suppose the church is going to win the world for Christ by lobbying in the halls of Congress and by rallying Christians to vote for this or that type of legislation—then both your trust and your priorities are misplaced.

Personally, I think the tendency to seek legislative remedies for every social ill is one of the absolute worst tendencies of contemporary secular society, and it disturbs me greatly to see Christians more or less follow that pattern blindly. To borrow a thought from the title of John MacArthur’s least-popular book ever, Government Cannot Save Us. The only power that can truly and permanently rescue human society from its own spiritual ills is the transforming power of gospel of Jesus Christ. And that happens through the regeneration of individual human hearts, right? We need to remind ourselves of that fact often, and put more of our energies into the task of evangelism.

We are pastors and church leaders who formally and confessionally recognize the authority of Scripture. Practically the worst kind of spiritual treason we could ever commit would be to supplant the gospel message with a different message, or to allow an earthly agenda to crowd out our spiritual duties. That is exactly the risk we take when we pour money and resources into political and legislative remedies for our society’s spiritual problems.

At the moment, America is in the throes of one of the most hotly contested presidential elections ever. For the first time in more than two decades, the so-called religious right has no clear-cut favorite candidate in the race. None of the likely nominees from either party has credibly expressed any distinctly evangelical convictions. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that the leading candidates on both sides are essentially secular humanists. The candidate who it now appears will be the Republican nominee is a man who has been wobbly on the issues of abortion and same-sex unions, and he has repeatedly made it clear that he doesn’t share the passions of evangelical voters. He once referred to evangelical Republicans as “agents of intolerance.”

Now, consider the bitter irony of this: For more than two decades the number-one issue on the agenda of the evangelical wing of the religious right has been abortion. The number-one legislative goal of evangelical political activists has been to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized abortion. Politically-active evangelicals have been instrumental—in fact, they have been the decisive factor—in the election of every Republican president from Ronald Reagan until now. And yet not only have they failed to achieve their single most-coveted political goal, but they are now approaching a presidential election without a single viable candidate who shares their views.

And meanwhile, if anything, America’s moral decline has accelerated dramatically since evangelicals became politically aggressive in the late 1970s. Although by most accounts evangelicals constitute the largest single voting bloc in America, they have been remarkably ineffective when it comes to using politics to reverse America’s moral and spiritual decline. In fact, if you measure their success or failure according to their own stated political ambitions, evangelicals have failed spectacularly in America’s political arena. Over the past quarter-century, they have not accomplished any of their long-term legislative or constitutional goals.

Worst of all, during that same period of time, the evangelical movement has completely lost its spiritual influence, because the evangelical segment of the church has grown increasingly worldly. Evangelicals have become accustomed to compromise. They have abandoned (or else are in the process of abandoning) virtually all the doctrinal distinctives that made them distinct from Roman Catholics and nominal Christians whose faith amounts to a kind of civil religion. Evangelicals have pretty much forfeited whatever real moral and spiritual authority their movement ever had.

Consider the fact that almost no one in the evangelical world had more political savvy than Ted Haggard, the now-discredited president of the National Association of Evangelicals. He actually advised the White House on evangelical issues. Before his fall from grace, The Wall Street Journal called him “one of the nation’s most politically influential” ministers in America, and Harper’s Magazine said this about him: “No pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than does Pastor Ted.” But whatever his accomplishments in the political arena, by his own admission Ted Haggard was a liar and a fraud in his private life.

I’m not suggesting that political activism is what made Ted Haggard a hypocrite, nor am I saying that he is typical of everyone in the mainstream of evangelical politics. I certainly hope he was a singular case.

But I am suggesting that any religious organization that’s more concerned with political expediency than with biblical truth is by definition following the error of the Pharisees and will breed the grossest kind of hypocrisy. (I’m also suggesting that if the National Association of Evangelicals had been more concerned about their leaders’ spiritual qualifications and less enamored with worldly skills like personal charisma and political shrewdness, they would never have had Ted Haggard as their president. He had never really distinguished himself in any of the biblical categories the apostle Paul outlined as qualifications for an elder. His one qualification was his mastery of the political process.)

And let’s face it, brethren: Whether we like it or not, in the eyes of an observant world, Ted Haggard seems like a perfect mascot for the evangelical right.

Despite our outspokenness on selected issues in the political realm, American evangelicals have sent a mixed and often flatly contradictory message to anyone who looks at the big picture. Evangelical pulpits are notoriously weak and shallow. Evangelical churches are lukewarm and worldly. Evangelical people as a community tend to be increasingly unholy and are now virtually indistinguishable in lifestyle and behavior from their non-Christian neighbors. Evangelical leaders on the whole seem more concerned with being stylish and admired than with being clear and consistent.

For more than a decade now we have been hearing poll data that suggest people who identify themselves as evangelicals are just as susceptible to divorce and alcohol addiction as their unbelieving neighbors—which can only mean that our church rolls are filled with unconverted people. In fact, just about the only significant difference remaining between evangelicals and unbelievers is how we vote. (And certain forces in the Emerging Church are doing all they can to bring the church in line with the world on that front, too.) No wonder the world hasn’t taken the evangelical wing of the religious right seriously. The evangelical movement hasn’t shown itself serious about what we profess to believe.

How did the evangelical movement get so far off track? I wouldn’t suggest that evangelicalism’s recent obsession with political activism is the only factor, but I do think it’s a major one. If the same energies and resources that were poured into failed political efforts had been channeled into evangelism instead, I’m convinced that would have been instrumental in producing more spiritual good and hindering more of society’s evils than all our lobbying, demonstrating, and voting combined.

READ MORE...


An Interview With Phillip Johnson

Contributed by Kevin Stilley

Phil Johnson is the executive Director of Grace to You, a Christian tape and radio ministry featuring the preaching ministry of John MacArthur. Phil has been closely associated with John MacArthur since 1981 and edits most of MacArthur's major books. Phil pastors an adult fellowship group called GraceLife at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA. He is a board member of The Martyn Lloyd-Jones Recordings Trust in England, and a member of the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals (FIRE).

More than fifteen years ago I met Phil Johnson on the old Reformed Listserv. Since that time I have benefited greatly from his Biblical exegesis, theological formulation, and cultural insight. I am privileged to share here some answers he provided to questions we posed to him.

P&C: I have on occasion referred to you as the internet's most famous Phil, to differentiate you from some other Phil Johnsons. To help readers understand how you became the internet's most famous Phil, can you explain the genesis of Pyromaniacs?

Phil Johnson: I may be the Internet's most famous Phil Johnson (and I don't know whether that's a good distinctive or something to be ashamed of), but there are at least two other Phil Johnsons who are a lot more famous than me. One is the late architect who designed (among other things) the Crystal Cathedral. The other (much more a hero of mine) is the Berkeley professor known for his critiques of Darwinism. I sometimes get e-mail meant for the Berkeley Phil Johnson, and I am certain he is properly chagrined to be confused with me. He's much smarter and far less irritating than I am. Much more distinguished looking, too.

I think I noticed the earliest weblogs almost a full decade ago and immediately thought blogging would be a fun and profitable way for me to develop some of my ideas in written form. But I put it off for years. I knew it would be very time consuming and I'd be tempted to be obsessive about it--and I certainly didn't need more writing deadlines in my life. But about two and a half years ago a very popular post-evangelical blog published a twisted critical account of something I had written, along with a very unkind personal assessment of me. When I tried to point out some fundamental factual errors in their post, they deleted my comments from their blog (and even closed their blog permanently to all commenters). So I decided to start blogging more or less out of self-defense. I enjoyed the exercise, so I stayed with it.

I originally thought I might get (at most) 500 readers per week--which is about the size of the Sunday School class I teach. Almost from day one, the daily traffic was double that number. So after what was supposed to be a six-month experiment, I decided to keep blogging, but I recruited a handful of other writers to help fill out the week with daily posts. Frank Turk and Dan Phillips have stuck with it for two full years now, and the three of us have turned out to make a great team. (Traffic is up, too. We've had more than two million readers since I first started blogging.) I barely knew the other members of TeamPyro when we started team-blogging, but I chose them because I thought they were some of the freshest, finest, most thought-provoking writers in the blogosphere who also happened to share most of the same theological convictions as me.

P&C: Regarding "politics" and Christianity, WWSS (What Would Spurgeon Say)?

Phil Johnson: Spurgeon was a devoted liberal in an era when being liberal really did mean taking the moral high ground, truly caring about the needs of the poor, disadvantaged, and disenfranchised, and opposing the institutionalized abuses of Victorian society that tended to depersonalize the lower classes. He lived in the era of Dickens and Jack the Ripper, when orphans were routinely sent to workhouses, large sections of London were cesspools of crime and unspeakable poverty, and public welfare barely existed. "Liberals" like Spurgeon advocated public policies that sought to remedy rather than exploit those problems.

If Spurgeon saw the state of American liberalism today--championing the abandonment of moral values, choreographing poverty and race for political advantage, and taking a deliberately tolerant stance on crime and national security--he would be appalled. He would probably eschew the label "liberal."

P&C: Some months ago you wrote "evangelicalism right now is at least as much in need of Reformation as Medieval Roman Catholicism was before Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the castle church." Does this have implications for Christian efforts to reform and inform the cultural milieu? Do you think we must get our own house in order before we encourage Christian involvement in politics, government and public policy?

Phil Johnson: Well, yes. I'd go even further and say that a large part of getting our own house in order would be to realize that the church's main priorities lie outside the political process anyway. And we need to wake up and face that fact. Given all the energy and resources evangelicals have invested in the political process over the past three decades, they have precious little to show for it. But surely preaching the gospel ought to consume as much of the believing community's time, energy, and resources as lobbying for a secular party's agenda--and if we had done that as vigorously as we have lobbied against government policies that are hostile to religion, perhaps we would actually have made better progress in both areas. Christians are outraged that the government took prayer out of public schools and wants to get religion out of the public square. But I think it's an even bigger outrage that so many churches and Christian ministries have effectively taken the gospel out of the message they proclaim to the world, and replaced it with incessant talk about earthly and political issues.

I'm not saying the political issues are unimportant. I'm saying they are far less important than the gospel. Paul ministered while he was literally bound in chains by order of Rome, and he didn't expend his energies lobbying for religious freedom in the empire. He preached the gospel.

P&C: There is a reason why the word "political" prefaces political correctness. Do you think that if would be fair to say that a salient pragmatism and a twisted understanding of tolerance has resulted in a form of civil religion that is infecting Evangelicalism? Should we be concerned? What should we do about it?

Phil Johnson: Yes, there are two major factors that have given rise to the problem you describe. One (as your question suggests) is the climate of popular postmodernism, where "tolerance" has been redefined as an attitude that eschews clarity, certainty, authority, and strong convictions in favor of a soft and pliable approach to every truth--especially moral and spiritual principles.

The other problem is that the more savvy Christians get in the political realm, the more apt they are to tone down or capitulate on the very distinctives that set them apart from non-Christian and secular conservatives--toning down the gospel for the sake of strengthening political coalitions. After all, ecumenical broad-mindedness is the oil that keeps those political coalitions going. But it has been severely detrimental to evangelical clarity and conviction.

The evangelical movement is no longer even truly evangelical in the doctrinal and historic sense of the word. A lot of factors--worldliness, pragmatism, and spiritual entropy--have contributed to that problem. But putting so much of our time, energy, and resources into political activism certainly accelerated the demise of evangelical doctrinal conviction as much as any other factor.

P&C: You have written about the left-leaning politics of the emerging church and quoted Scot McKnight who characterizes them as "a latte-drinking, backpack-lugging, Birkenstock-wearing group of 21st-century, left-wing, hippie wannabes. Put directly, they are Democrats." Do you think this is another example of the emerging church asking the right questions but arriving at the wrong answers?

Phil Johnson: Yes, precisely. Anyone who is truly concerned about the health of the church, church history, and sound doctrine can hardly fail to notice the negative effects I've been describing, which problems stem (to a large degree) from the shallow evangelical obsession with Republican Party politics. Emergents seem to think the answer is a swing to left-wing politics. That's exactly the wrong answer, and an even more stupid way of burying eternal gospel truth under temporal political concerns. I think a lot of Emergents (influenced by secular media propaganda) think their liberalism is a badge that proves they are more sophisticated than the Evangelical right. In reality, they have made the same kind of error they profess to deplore. They're selling their spiritual birthright for a mess of partisan pottage. (And it's even less nutritious pottage than the Republican variety.)

P&C: You make available a couple of audio downloads on postmodernism and the emerging church movement. Are there other resources on the emerging church to which you would point us?

Phil Johnson: I think Don Carson's Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church is a superb resource. (I wish it had been available when I started studying the phenomenon.) Ca
rson has been criticized by various post-evangelicals for focusing too much on Brian McLaren, but I think that complaint is a deliberate dodge. Carson acknowledges the differences between various Emerging types, but he uses McLaren as a test case to show what kinds of ideas and tendencies stem from absorbing postmodernism rather than confronting it. It's a valid approach, properly qualified by Carson, in my view. Anyone wanting to make sense of the postmodern tendencies in the larger evangelical movement will find Carson's book extremely helpful.

P&C: What are you currently reading? Can can you recommend a few books that would help us to have a more Biblical understanding of the intersection of politics and Christianity?

Phil Johnson: I'm reading Derek Kidner's commentary on Proverbs and Tim Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. I
need to do some fresh reading on the intersection of Christianity and politics because I'm doing a seminar on the subject at the Shepherds' Conference later this year. Books on the subject that I've found helpful in the past are MacArthur's Can God Bless America? and Why Government Can't Save You; and The Bully Pulpit: The Politics of Protestant Clergy, by Guth, et al.

P&C: And, is it really true that your beagle Wrigley always agrees with you?

Phil Johnson: Absolutely. He not only always agrees with me; he does so enthusiastically, with his tongue hanging out in absolute awe.

__________

For those of you who were confused by that final question and response, Phil once had a disclaimer on his blog which read:

NOTE: Phil Johnson bears sole responsibility for these remarks. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of his pastor, his employer, his wife, his children, or his friends. Only Phil's beagle, Wrigley, always agrees with Phil.



I usually agree with Phil also, but I try to avoid having my "
tongue hanging out in absolute awe."

__________

Want to read/hear more of Phil's thoughts? Check out the following:




__________

In the interview above Phil mentions his associates Frank Turk and Dan Phillips. In addition to posting at PyroManiacs, they both have their own blogs;

Biblical Christianity: A Blog By Dan Phillips

... And His Ministers A Flame Of Fire - Frank Turk aka Centuri0n


design by Dwayne Hunter
design by Dwayne Hunter