White Horse Inn Blog

Know what you believe and why you believe it

The Gospel in Seven Words

D. L. Moody once said, “I can write the gospel on a dime.” Many of us were raised with the primary question of personal evangelism: “If you had less than a minute in the elevator with someone, how would you share the gospel?”

So how would you summarize the gospel—the very heart of the Christian message—in seven words?

A recent cover story (Aug 23, 2012) of The Christian Century, the magazine of mainline Protestantism, put that question to several leading pastors and theologians. The writer, David Heim, begins,

In his autobiography Brother to a Dragonfly, Will Campbell recalls how his friend P. D. East had badgered him for a succinct definition of Christianity. East did not want a long or fancy explanation. ‘I’m not too bright,’ he told Campbell. ‘Keep it simple. In ten words or less, what’s the Christian message?’ Campbell obliged his friend: ‘We’re all bastards but God loves us anyway,’ he said. To which East replied, ‘If you want to try again, you have two words left.’ Campbell and East eventually had an extended conversation provoked by Campbell’s summary. It had stuck in East’s mind. He wasn’t sure he bought it, but it gave him something to think about.

So now to the results of the Christian Century survey of answers—the seven words they’d use to summarize the gospel. I’ll leave the names out (you can find them at the link above) but give my thoughts concerning their submissions. Most of the statements cluster around the more therapeutic understanding I’ve described above:

  • “God, through Jesus Christ, welcomes you anyhow.” At least there’s the “through Jesus Christ” clause, but is there anything like this in the New Testament? Are people already “welcomed anyhow” apart from repentance and faith in Christ?
  • “We are the Church of Infinite Chances.” First of all, isn’t the gospel “good news” about what God has done in Christ to save sinners? Why does “we” become the subject of the seven-word summary of the gospel? Second, this response suggests, once again, that grace is a new opportunity for a fresh start, not God’s justification of the ungodly on account of Christ. Infinite chances for what? The idea implied at least is that God simply lets bygones be bygones and turns the page. Every day we blow it, but God is love.
  • “Divinely persistent, God really loves us.” I can’t imagine any non-Christian I know who would find this jarring, surprising, or anything qualifying as “good news.” It’s probably what they assume already—which is why they don’t take such things seriously. Not even Christ makes an appearance in this summary.
  • “In Christ, God’s yes defeats our no.” I could hear Karl Barth offer this response. Yet without the gospel, this just sounds like fatalism. Why should I respond if, apparently, it doesn’t matter either way?
  • “Christ’s humanity occasions our divinity.” Reflecting an Eastern Orthodox emphasis on salvation as the deification of human beings by Christ’s incarnation, this answer again could be easily taken by the average person (at least one capable of understanding the sentence) to mean that the “good news” has nothing to do with what God has done for us in Christ, but what he has made possible for us to do in cooperation with him.
  • “We live by grace.” True enough. The gospel of grace certainly gives us life and motivates our living. But what is the gospel?
  • “We are who God says we are.” The respondent fleshes this out a bit: “In the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ we see that God is so for us and with us that we can no longer be defined according to death, a religion-based worthiness system or even the categories of late-stage capitalism.” Again, this is so true, but is the good news that God ignored our debt (“worthiness system”), or that in Christ God has paid it through the Savior’s having fulfilled the law and borne its curse for us?
  • Wisdom become flesh, spirit roars, life transformed.” I know that it’s seven words, but…again, nothing about the cross and resurrection.
  • “Israel’s God’s bodied love continues world-making.” After explaining that sentence to a stunned passenger on the elevator, I’d still be concerned that with a statement like this I was placing the emphasis—as many of these do—on the saving work of God’s people here and now (God’s continuing “world-making”) while marginalizing his saving work in Christ on the cross.
  • “To dwell in possibility.” The response continues, “When my daughter was confirmed in the Christian faith last spring, I gave her Emily Dickinson’s poem, ‘I Dwell in Possibility.’” The horrible fact about me and the world in which I live is that I’m tormented by possibilities I fall short of. What I need is good news that someone has actually achieved something for me, not made it possible for me to achieve. In Christ, I dwell in divine accomplishments.

There were other responses that certainly included elements of the gospel:

  • According to one, “The wall of hostility has come down.” Shaped by Paul’s marvelous celebration of the “mystery” in Ephesians 3, this response certainly gets at something that the apostle considered part of the gospel itself. The wall separating Jew and Gentile has been torn down, with one new body with Christ as its head. Yet Paul saw this as possible only because of the salvation that we have in Christ by election, redemption, and calling of those “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 1 and 2).
  • Another answered, “He Led Captivity Captive,” adding, “Among Gospel epitomes I especially love the Jesus prayer, the Agnus Dei and “When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive”–the good news as I first heard it from Paul (Ephesians 4:8) and Christ’s Jubilee proclamation (Luke 4:18).” It can hardly be denied that Christ’s victory over the powers of death and hell are part of the gospel, but as Paul explains in Colossians 2:13-15, this victory over the powers was accomplished precisely because at the cross God cancelled the debt we owed to the law and its verdict against us.
  • “Once dead. Now alive. Christ reshaping people.” Again, part of the gospel in the broader sense: it’s certainly part of the good news that we are raised from death to life in Christ. However, sanctification (“Christ reshaping people”) is not the biblical answer to the question, “How can we as sinners be justified before a holy God?”
  • “Christ offers new life for all.” Like the previous answer, this offers regeneration without justification.
  • God enters history; renewed covenants promise salvation.” Having written a lot on covenant theology, I like this one a lot. It might be a good conversation-starter to get to the gospel, but I’m not sure I would adopt this as my seven-word summary.
  • “Christ was born. We can be reborn.” The response adds, “Birth is a messy, painful affair, fraught with risk and danger. Yet Jesus was born.” Actually, I was surprised that “messy” didn’t make it into more of these, along with adjectives like “radical” and “wild.” It’s true enough that our Lord’s incarnation and our new birth are part of God’s good news, but again, without the stuff in the middle (faithful life, a messy crucifixion for our sins and victorious resurrection for our justification), what’s the connection between his birth and our new birth?
  • “God is love: This is no joke.” The only reason that so many people in our society might think it’s a joke—or at least not take it very seriously—is that they already think that God loves them. Apart from Christ, why should they? Now that might get the conversation going after the elevator arrives!

Other responses were did not even include the gospel as announced by Scripture:

  • “In Christ, God calls all to reconciliation” is the gospel according to a noted Emergent church leader. Here we meet the familiar refrain of old liberalism (and increasingly some forms of newer evangelicalism): the gospel is a call to do something, not good news about something that God has done for us and for the world already.
  • “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Although Jesus said this was a summary of the law, this response offers it as the summary of the gospel. The respondent adds, “This always seemed like hard moral advice that very few of us were really able to follow. But in recent times its meaning seems clearer.” Clearer? Easier? Hmmm.
  • “Everyone gets to grow and change.” Imagine Jesus (not mentioned here) gathering a multitude to announce the good news of the kingdom. The crowd hushes, waiting for the words, as Jesus opens his lips to speak: “Everyone gets to grow and change.” Is there anything vaguely like that in the New Testament? What religious leader or motivational speaker could not fill this bill? This is the surprising news brought from a herald on behalf of the King who has reconciled enemies to himself in his Son? As if this were not enough, the respondent adds, “But not everyone will grow and change.” Indeed. Is there any good news for that person?

There were two responses that expressed what seems clearly to lie at the heart of the gospel according to Scripture. I was encouraged (but not surprised) to see William Willimon break away from the pack to say, “God refuses to be God without us.” It assumes, of course, that he could be if he wanted to. That is a direct shot at the human-centered message that pervades Christian speech today. Willimon added, “We asked God to say something definite and God, getting personal, sent Jesus Christ. We were surprised.” The one response that hit the nail on the head, in my view, was that of Yale missions professor, Lamin Sanneh, who quotes Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 5:19: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world.”

The Gospel of “God Loves You Anyway”

We saw that David Heim began his article introducing these responses with the summary by Will Campbell in Brother to a Dragonfly: “‘We’re all bastards but God loves us anyway,’ he said.” Interestingly, Heim notes, “Our respondents were not so blunt in diagnosing the human condition. Many seem determined to make grace, not sin, the prominent feature. Nevertheless, sin is acknowledged in some way.”

As I read through the responses, that summary seemed justified. “Grace” is one of those words you can still hear quite a lot across the spectrum today. Mainline Protestants, evangelicals, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics sing “Amazing Grace” and appeals to God’s grace are often heard in liberal as well as conservative circles.

But what exactly is grace? It seems to be as vague as “love” and “being nice”: reduced to subjective feelings rather than God’s objective stance toward and gift to sinners. At least Will Campbell mentioned our sinfulness as the problem that the gospel answers. Yet even there, the good news skips over the way in which God’s love and justice embraced through Christ’s cross. Someone once quipped, “I like to sin; God likes to forgive. It’s a great relationship.” It’s as if God exists to make us happy and when we mess up, he just brushes us off and gives us another chance to do better this time. “Grace” becomes forgiveness and empowerment, but a forgiveness without a costly cross and empowerment of the old self rather than its death and the resurrection of the new self in Christ.

Several years ago, sociologist Marsha Witten concluded after surveying scads of sermons (both mainline and evangelical churches) that much of Protestant preaching today has transformed theological categories of sin and grace into therapeutic categories. Conservatives and liberals nuance it differently: for example, sin and grace in more individualistic versus social terms, but the underlying philosophy is similar: Grace is God’s letting bygones be bygones, giving us a chance to turn over a new leaf and give it another shot. (One famous evangelical leader said at Christmas on a network TV morning show that Jesus came “basically to give us a do-over, like in golf.”) Basically, grace is God’s “forget about it” and his empowerment to be all we can be, individually and collectively. The title of her book alone tells the story she documents so well: All is Forgiven: The Secular Message in American Protestantism (Princeton, 1995).

To grasp something definite about grace (at least in biblical terms) presupposes something about the problem that it answers. So if we’re good people who could be better (lacking only the right formula, motives, and strategy), grace will mean something rather different than it would if it were the answer to, say, God’s just wrath against all unrighteousness.

The worldview that many of us assume—again, across the liberal-conservative spectrum—is that God presides over a world of cause-and-effect. He built laws into the cosmos that work pretty much like clockwork. In a culture defined by Christian Smith as “moralistic-therapeutic-deism,” sin has very little to do with God—other than the obvious fact that he created the universe somehow to run like this. God is very concerned that we don’t hurt each other or his creation, but our wrongs are only indirectly an assault on God himself.

When sin becomes reduced to the horizontal aspect (the second table of the law), we can’t even conceive of the orientation that might lead David’s confession in Psalm 51. Although his penitence is provoked especially by his adultery with Bathsheba and indirect murder of her husband, the heinousness of it all is measured by its offensiveness to God: “Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment” (v 4). Sin doesn’t offend God because it violates the law of human flourishing; it violates human flourishing because it is first and foremost an act of treason against God. If that sentiment seems foreign to us, what are we to say of his additional lament in verse 5—”Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”? David is not just wracked with a subjective sense of shame, but the experience of being objectively guilty before God. Further, he realizes that he is not admitting he has morally “bad hair days”—committing particular sins that provoke God’s anger, but that he is morally unclean and guilty even from birth.

Far from ignoring the seriousness of our offenses against each other as individuals and societies, this vertical definition of sin—as an offense against God—is what makes such actions so reprehensible. Not only in what we do to harm others, but in what we leave undone for their welfare, we sin against God. Apart from this vertical reference—”Against you, you only, have I sinned”—there can be no such thing as sin at all. There can only be violations of social contracts and customs.

Yet this view of sin—as first and foremost against God, and as a condition that gives rise to certain acts rather than vice versa—presupposes a certain view of God that our culture no less disdains. A gospel that does not have Christ’s vicarious substitution for sinners at its heart reveals a truth-suppressing denial of sin as bondage and guilt from which none of us can escape by our own efforts. And a therapeutic view of sin, reduced to the private and public health of human beings, has not yet reckoned with the God of the Bible whose love cannot be divorced from his holiness, justice and righteousness. As Anselm responded in the eleventh century to the moralistic rejection of Christ’s vicarious atonement , “You have not considered how great your sin is.” We can only add, “You have not yet considered how holy your God is.”

It’s not just being cranky to comb through these published responses to the most central question of the Christian faith with a critical eye. It’s a great question. It should make us think about how we would summarize the gospel in those brief encounters with strangers, friends, co-workers, and relatives.

So, if anyone cares, here’s mine, drawn from Romans 4:25: “Crucified for our sins and raised for our justification.” Sure, it’s nine words, but two more can make a lot of difference.

Now it’s your turn to offer a seven word summary—and we’ll even let you take nine if you need them.

WHI-1117 | Understanding Law & Gospel

Martin Luther once observed that the “difference between Law and Gospel is the height of knowledge.” If this ability is lacking, he argued, “one cannot tell a Christian from a Turk or a Jew.” So what is this distinction, and why are so many Christians in our day ignorant of these crucial categories? On this program, Mike takes us through a number of important passages that contrast God’s command and promise, and explain why this distinction is so important to recover in the church.

RELATED ARTICLES

The Law & The Gospel
Michael Horton

MUSIC SELECTION

Matthew Smith

PROGRAM AUDIO

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.


Click here to access the audio file directly

Greet One Another With A Holy Kiss

“Meet the Hatfields: Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and their brothers who are here in the audience.  And meet the McCoys: Philologus, Julia, Nereus, and his sister—how are you, darling?—and Olympas, and all their family with them in the studio today.  Greet one another with a holy kiss.  All the families greet you.” (Romans 16:14-16, my paraphrase)

We know more about most families who have appeared on Family Feud than we do the final cast of characters that Paul commends in Chapter 16 of Romans. William Barclay may have a novel thing or two to say about Nereus, but really, we know little about these folks other than Paul’s high regard for them all.   At least we learn a little bit about the occupations and interests of individuals who appear on Family Feud as Richard Dawson (and Louie Anderson, Richard Karn, John O’Hurley, and Steve Harvey—the whole list of hosts over the years) greets each person right on down the line.  In Romans, we don’t get to know even that much about Asyncritus and company, or Philologis and the others.  You see, it’s not about them.

The main point of this whole passage in Romans 16 is that Paul is recollecting these saints, commending these saints, loving these saints, as he considers those who have “risked their necks” for the sake of the Gospel:  Greet one another with a holy kiss.

For those who might think it unimportant to confront Osteenism and his not so equally prosperous ilk, consider what topic Paul turns to right after asking the saints to greet one another in the customary kiss.  He warns all in Rome to do what?

watch out for those who cause divisions (Romans 16:17a ESV) or as James Boice comments on this phrase, “those who divide churches into factions that will be loyal to themselves”

and those who

create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught (v. 17b), who cause skandalon, or again as Boice puts it, “[not] scandalous behavior… but rather of adding things to the gospel that get in the way of those who are merely trying to obey the Bible and follow Jesus Christ.”

Could any two phrases better capture the essence of the psychobabble that Joel Osteen parades as Bible teaching?

And what does Paul say next?  Avoid them (v. 17c). Flee Houston, we have a problem!

Moreover, Paul (who I’d like to believe had really bad teeth and unkempt hair) goes on: for such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites (v. 18a ).

Wow.  How harsh.  And how does Paul say these scandalous scoundrels operate? By smooth talk and flattery. (v.18b)

To all in Houston, who are loved by God and called to be saints: Can’t you see the parallel here?  Those of us who warn about Joel and Victoria (“Avoid them!”) do not do so because we somehow have it out for the Osteens.  No.  We’re simply greeting you—one another—with a holy kiss.

Note how Paul concludes in characterizing these smooth talkers: they deceive the hearts of the naïve. (v. 18b) That is the crime of it all.  The false gospel feeds on the naïve.  All the more reason to know what you believe and why you believe it!

Now hand me that remote…

James Gilmore is the co-author of the bestselling book, The Experience Economy. A prolific speaker and popular business consultant, Jim has also been a guest on White Horse Inn and has recently written for Modern ReformationJim is a Batten Fellow and Adjunct Lecturer at the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia. He is also a Visiting Lecturer in Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California, where he teaches a course on cultural hermeneutics.

Modern Reformation Conversations – Dr. Adam Francisco

We’re sending off the summer with two great interviews with Dr. Adam Francisco of Concordia University.  In this interviews, Dr. Francisco gives us great insight into the historical development and theological influences on the Koran, the Islam PR re-vamp, and the difference between Muslims and Islam.  Watch, learn, and be edified.

Happy Viewing!

WHI-1116 | Worship in Spirit & Truth

In John 4, Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, “God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” But what does it mean to worship God “in spirit and truth”? What are the implications of this text for our understanding of worship today in the American church landscape? That’s what’s on tap for this edition of the White Horse Inn (originally broadcast December 9, 2007).

RELATED ARTICLES

MUSIC SELECTION

Zac Hicks

PROGRAM AUDIO

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

RECOMMENDED BOOKS

A Better Way
Michael Horton
The Gospel Commission
Michael Horton

RECOMMENDED AUDIO

Joel Osteen and Family Feud

On Friday, July 13, 2012, Joel Osteen made an appearance in Cleveland, Ohio.  Fourteen thousand people filed into Quicken Loans Arena that evening to take in “A Night of Hope.”  I had no desire to attend, but I did want to head downtown and do something outside the gathering as an act of quiet personal protest.

For weeks prior to the event, I pondered what to do.  So one night, to find some inspiration, I tuned in the weekly broadcast from Lakewood Church.  When channel-surfing I will sometimes briefly watch Osteen, but on this occasion I committed myself to watching the entire show.  Within minutes, I knew what I should to do: So I paused the channel, went to my home-office, and returned with a pen and pad of paper.  I started writing down the key words and phrases I heard Osteen emphasize in his talk.  By the end of the hour, I had over twenty items on the list.

Recalling an interview (was it on CNN?) in which Michael Horton called Osteen’s teaching “Cotton Candy Christianity,” I wrote that term as a heading above the list.  I then thought about what alternative words or phrases might be listed alongside each item on the Osteen list.  I found this all too easy—and in less than two minutes, I had my companion set of terms representing “Historical-Biblical Christianity.”  I returned to my office and typed up the list.  Once completed, all I needed was a heading for the flyer.  Also easy: “The JOEL OSTEEN Scorecard.”  (Download a PDF file of the final product.)

On the morning of Friday the 13th, I printed 250 copies of the scorecard on pink paper (pink struck me as the appropriate color).  In the afternoon, I read Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, and I prayed that should God give me occasion to talk to anyone, that I would speak the truth in love.  And then early that evening, also equipped with seven copies of Christless Christianity that I had ordered for the event, I headed for “the Q” (or “the Loaner” as one Cleveland friend of mine likes to call it), most curious about what I would encounter.

After parking, I asked a police officer where I was permitted to stand and hand out pamphlets.  He directed me across the street, off the private property of the arena.  There I joined two Mitt Romney volunteers soliciting signatures (for what I did not know, as Romney had already won the Ohio G.O.P. primary and secured the Republican nomination).

People streamed by me.  I quickly had to figure out what to say as my pitch.  I tried, “Get your scorecard,” which generated little interest.  When I changed it to “Get your Joel Osteen Scorecard,” well, that drew much more interest.  And interestingly, when just one person in a passing cluster took a pink sheet, others were much more inclined to take one as well.  The flyers went out in bunches.  A few people asked what the sheet was for; I simply explained it was for note-taking and “checking off the terms you might hear tonight.”  That seemed to satisfy most all takers.

I also had to consider to whom I would give away copies of Horton’s book.  I decided to give to the first people I spotted carrying Bibles.  I gave away two such copies, but decided to change my criteria after one woman took a copy, crossed the street, but after examining the book, crossed back and returned to me. “I’m not interested in this,” she politely said, giving back the book.

So I decided to give my remaining copies of the book to young adults who appeared of high school age.  The highlight here: the final kid to get a copy really lit up in excitement.  He looked me in the eyes, really looked me in the eyes, unlike anyone else that evening, and said, “Thank you; I appreciate this.”  I said a quick prayer for him as he crossed the street clutching the book, and the kind of clutching one does with something truly valued.

I gave away all 250 scorecard sheets in just under one hour.  That’s about one every fifteen seconds.  The time flew by, and the experience was much more hurried than I had anticipated—a function I think of the proximity to the arena and the eagerness of most folks to get in.  As busy as I was, within a few minutes I had decided to take note of two phenomena: (1) the number of people I saw toting Bibles (those prepared to say, “This is my Bible…”), and (2) the number of people who stopped to engage in a more in-depth conversation. (I was prepared to cease all pamphleteering for just one serious conversation.)

Let me here report the results:

Bibles: 15.   That’s not fifteen carried by people who took a pink sheet.  That’s fifteen among everyone who walked by.  Bear in mind, I was practicing very intentional looking: I looked at every person who passed by my street corner.  I noticed a lot in the short amount of time I had.  Two carried iPads, for example, and maybe they had Bible software loaded; more likely not (“This is my iPad…”).  And I estimated that for every person who took a scorecard, five others did not.  By my calculations then, that’s 1,250 who walked by me.  Considering my spot was one of about a dozen crosswalks available to get to the arena, the 1,250 estimate also jives with the reported figure of 14,000 who attended.

So do the math: 15 bibles, 1,250 passers by.  That’s 1.25% Bible-carrying Osteenites.

Conversation: 2 parties stopped to spend a few minutes to talk.  Just two.

The first was a father with his three sons.  It turns out the dad was not dragging his boys to hear Osteen; they were on their way to another event.  The man was most curious about what was on the sheet, what I was doing, and why.  I showed him the scorecard.  After studying it closely, he said, “I get it.”  He then shared that he had only a slight familiarity with Osteen, that he was Roman Catholic, and that he was from Georgia.  He also commented that “down in Atlanta, we have lots of mega-churches and televangelists, and most of them are bad news.”  I shared that I was unashamedly Protestant, and was hoping to simply provoke some attending the Osteen event to pause and question what they were hearing.  The gentleman’s parting words to me: “Good for you.”

The second interaction was with a married couple, David and Kim.  Kim carried a Bible; David did not.  After taking a copy of the scorecard and examining it, David got very excited.  He shared that he had never watched Joel Osteen, had never read one of his books.  “She dragged me here,” he explained, with a nod toward his wife.  “Go on in,” I said, “But be sure to check off what words and phrases you hear tonight.  And when you get home, I have a suggestion: read the book of Galatians, the whole book.  And compare what you read from Paul with what you hear from Osteen.  In fact, I’d encourage you to read Galatians every day for one week.  It will only take twenty minutes each day.”  David looked at me, smiled, pointed at me, and said, “I’ll do that; I will.”  Then he crossed the street, with an extra hop in his step.

I did too after I ran out of scorecards.

When I returned home, a bit exhausted, I sat down and turned on the television.  A few channels into surfing, I stumbled upon Family Feud.  I watched three or four survey questions, and five or six attempts to guess the top responses for each.  Each time, regardless of the quality of the guess, family members shouted “Good answer, good answer.”  Even when the answer was an obviously bad answer, a decidedly miserable answer, the participants wishfully chanted, “Good answer, good answer.”  And it hit me just how much like Family Feud is the spectacle of Joel Osteen and his misguided followers: “Good answer, good answer.”

Make no mistake: A good answer is not the Good News.

If you have a friend who watches Joel Osteen, consider giving her or him a copy of the scorecard (on pink paper, please) and most importantly, follow-up with a conversation.

James Gilmore is the co-author of the bestselling book, The Experience Economy. A prolific speaker and popular business consultant, Jim has also been a guest on White Horse Inn and has recently written for Modern Reformation. Jim is a Batten Fellow and Adjunct Lecturer at the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia. He is also a Visiting Lecturer in Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California, where he teaches a course on cultural hermeneutics

Loving Muslim Neighbors

In the third and final installment of Michael Horton’s reflections on the relationship of Christianity and Islam, he turns to the personal nature of our relationship with our Muslim neighbors.

You can watch the previous installments here and here.

Be sure to read Dr. Horton’s article, “Loving Muslim Neighbors,” in the July/August issue of Modern Reformation (subscription required).

Part 2: Horton on the Koran

How does the message of the Bible and the message of the Koran differ? In this video (2 of 3), Michael Horton continues his discussion of the differences between Christianity and Islam.

Part 1 can be found here.

You can also read Dr. Horton’s article “Christ and Islam” from the July/August issue of Modern Reformation, on which these discussions are based.

New Modern Reformation Video

“Islam is all law. There is no good news.”

Curious about Islam? Want to dig a little deeper after reading Michael Horton’s article in the July/August issue of Modern Reformation? This is the first of three video conversations that Dr. Horton recorded to help us understand the differences between Islam and Christianity.

First up: Salvation.

WHI-1115 | Recovering Focus in a Distracted Time

Life in twenty-first century America is distracting. Thanks to the ubiquitous nature of media and countless interruptions from beeping gadgets, it’s becoming difficult not merely to finish a book, but perhaps even a thought. On this program, Michael Horton discusses this new culture of distraction with Maggie Jackson, author of Distracted: The Erosion of Attention & The Coming Dark Age. In the second half of the program, Mike continues this discussion with Los Angeles Times Book Review Editor David Ulin, author of The Lost Art of Reading: Why Books Matter in a Distracted Time.

RELATED ARTICLES

Bombarding Images
Douglas Groothuis

MUSIC SELECTION

Zac Hicks

PROGRAM AUDIO

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

RECOMMENDED BOOKS

Distracted
Maggie Jackson
The Shallows
Nicholas Carr

RECOMMENDED AUDIO

Digital Nation
(Offsite Video)

Page 28 of 97« First...1020...2627282930...405060...Last »