None of my theology professors taught me that a sense of humor is one of the attributes of God. However, I am convinced that He has one. I believe that not only does God smile down upon His children, sometimes He smirks. One of these “God-smirks” came in the form of a Facebook message from Nathan Cravatt, co-host of the Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast. He asked me if I would be willing to write a blog review about the RFP’s “For the Sake of the Gospel Conference.” He sent me links to the different sessions, and said that he wanted my honest opinion. He also said that he didn’t want to see the draft, but just to publish it and tag him with the link. I appreciate his willingness to be critiqued by someone who is far from being a homer. That speaks volumes to me.
I need to lay some groundwork in order to explain why this is somewhat humorous and unexpected. I am not a Recovering Fundamentalist. The one time that I was asked if I am a RF, I simply smiled and replied, “no, I’m a Reforming Fundamentalist” (let the reader understand). The truth is that I am an Independant, Fundamental Baptist Pastor. I love the old hymns. I am a happy tee-totaler. I still wear a suit and tie to church. Although, if I am honest, I have worn a sweater vest and tie on Wednesday nights for quite some time. I am aware that taking off my suit coat is a slippery slope, perhaps if I bathe in the living waters below the mines of Mandalore I can be restored to the way. I am also a KJV man, although I’m not angry about that. Truth be told, my allegiance lies much more with the TR, but that’s another story for another day.
I have never met any of the RFP co-hosts. The only interaction that I’ve had with Nathan was an online interview that I did with him following the King James Bible debate between him and Mitch Canupp. I wrote a blog about that debate in which I came to Nathan’s defense. I didn’t defend Nathan because I agree with his position, but because I completely disagree with the way that he was slandered, and because I felt like my side of the debate was horribly misrepresented. He reached out to me and asked if we could do the online interview. I felt like the conversation was very cordial and enlightening, which is one of the main reasons that I agreed to do this blog review.
One final disclaimer before I get into the review. I realize that I am walking a fine line between two very polarized groups of Christians. There will no doubt be people on both sides that will be angry because they feel that I was either too hard on them, or too soft on the other side. There is a very good chance that I will wake up tomorrow morning to find a horse’s head in my bed, leaving me to figure out which group put it there. However, I feel both honored and compelled to do this.
Please understand that I have never met, nor heard any of the speakers prior to the research for this blog. I do not have a large body of work to compare their one sermon with. Therefore I don’t have the “I know where they are coming from” factor to draw from. In areas where I express disagreement, it may just be a case of needing more clarification. The individual sermon reviews also aren’t that long, as I had to review eight different sessions (I apologize for the length of this blog). I will attempt to be as honest and courteous as I can as I present my opinion (and that’s all it is) with the usual combination of seriousness, satire, and sarcasm. But I hope that this doesn’t get in the way of my heart for this blog post, which is a passion for the gospel of Christ and a desire for unity within the body of Christ.
By unity, I mean that we have a healthy respect for theological triage. We recognize and rejoice in the fact that on tier 1 issues, the IFB and RFP believe exactly the same things. As born again believers we belong to the same body, are indwelt by the same Spirit, experienced the same calling, belong to the same Lord and share one faith, one baptism and one God who is our Father. We also agree on most of tier 2. Tier 3 is where most of the back alley brawls break out. While tier 3 disagreements may give us reason not to cooperate in certain settings, it's certainly no reason to slander our brothers on the other side. With all of that said, let’s get to the review.
The Tech Guys. The conference began with a great video that mapped out the gospel from the fall of Adam to the resurrection of Christ. I thought it was really good. I don’t know if their tech guys are in-house or not, but props to them either way. I have always been impressed with the RFP’s online product. Well, except for some of the early podcast episodes. Apparently the aforementioned tech guys finally showed them the gain switch. Again, props.
The Music. The main focus of this blog will be the sermons, but I did want to devote at least one section to the music. For starters, Brian, Nathan and JC opened the conference with a couple of hymns (At the Cross and Doxology). Guys, just let me say that if the RFP trio ever goes on the road I want tickets. If that don’t light your fire, your wood is wet. There are a lot of deep mysteries of the universe that I don’t understand, but this one thing I know, the RFP fam didn’t teach you to sing like that. I’m js.
After they sat down, the praise band took over. Let me preface this section by saying that when it comes to any style of worship music, I have three basic criteria that I use as a measuring stick. 1. Is the message of the song doctrinally sound? 2. Does the song honestly magnify Christ? 3. Is there something in the music or musicians that distract or take away from the first two? Just for the record, not all hymns fit this criteria (“Mansion Over the Hilltop” anyone?). With that being said, the praise music at the conference wasn’t necessarily my flavor and it wouldn’t be right for our church, but I can say with confidence that for the most part all of these boxes were checked. The songs were doctrinally sound. They magnified Christ and the talent and passion of the musicians was obvious. They sang quite a few hymns as well. Some of my IFB contemporaries (pun intended) believe that all modern praise music is watered down and 7-11, but that’s not necessarily true, and I think that the music at the conference is proof of that.
Session 1, “The Gospel Defined”, Nathan Cravatt.
Link-Session 1: The Gospel Defined: The Importance of Scripture and Sound Doctrine
Nathan preached out of Romans chapter 1 in order to define the gospel. This is extremely important in the day in which we live. For example, the valley that I live in is 86% Mormon and less than 2% Christian. The Mormons talk about the gospel all of the time but have no idea what the biblical gospel is.
According to Nathan, “The gospel is not an easy message, but it is a simple message, that Christ died for sinners to redeem us from the law.” I say, amen. He went on to state that there are three ways historically that the gospel has been shared; 1. Announcement (preaching the death, burial and resurrection), 2.Stories (connecting the cross with other biblical themes like the fall, creation, redemption, etc.) 3. Gospel Community (God’s church as the embodiment of the gospel).
Overall I thought that the content was solid and there wasn’t really anything that I disagreed with. I did want to mention a few intangibles. First, it doesn’t take very long listening to Nathan to figure out that he is very well read. Whenever I discover this about a person, my level of respect and camaraderie automatically goes way up, even with someone that I might have significant disagreements with. Second, I can tell that God was in his sermon because there were portions that he alliterated (shew!).
Session 2, “The Gospel Interrupted”, Jared C. Wilson
Link-Session 2: The Gospel Interrupted: Legalism: A Unique and Sinister Assault Against The Gospel
I can tell that Jared is the most holy of all of the speakers because he was the only one to wear dress khakis and a suit coat. Hayman goes right there! (I couldn’t resist). In all seriousness, Jared came out of Galatians 5:13-25 and dealt with hindrances to the gospel. The main hindrance that he dealt with is legalism. I appreciate the fact that he clearly defined legalism as “that which seeks to short circuit grace by adding to it.” Many people wade into very subjective waters when they hurl accusations of legalism at others.
He went on to state that there are three ways in which legalism hinders the gospel; 1. License (the standards of a legalist will never measure up to the standards of Christ), 2. Law, 3. Lacking in Power. He also mentioned the forms in which legalism is manifested; 1. Tradition over truth, 2. Works over grace, 3. Self over others.
I also really liked the concept of what he called “gospel amnesia”. In other words, it is the responsibility of each generation to spread the gospel. We can’t rely on the Christians, churches and preachers of the past to get the job done.
Other than that he had some killer quotes that I jotted down. “The gospel doesn’t announce ‘get to work’, it announces ‘it is finished.” “When you divorce the do of Christianity from the done of the gospel, you will lead people into despair at worst and happy self righteousness at best.”
Ok, so having said all of that, here is possibly my biggest red flag of the night. Towards the end of his sermon, Jared mentioned that because he preaches “free grace” that he gets an opportunity to preach to the Lutherans. I have no problem preaching anywhere and everywhere that a door is open. It’s the “free grace” part that gives me pause. Now, I don’t know this brother and I hope that I’m not misrepresenting him, but IF he is talking about free grace theology that preaches a saving faith apart from repentance, that’s very problematic.
We must understand that repentance isn’t about perfection, but direction. I may not be perfect, but because of the salvation of Christ I am going in a different direction than I used to (II Corinthians 5:17). John the Baptist, Christ and the Apostles all preached repentance. Paul even admonished the Thessalonians for how they turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God. Christ said twice in Luke 13, “repent or perish”. Saving faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin. The same God that grants saving faith also grants repentance (II Tim. 2:25-26). A belief in God without repentance is the faith of devils mentioned in the book of James.
Again, I want to reiterate that Jared could have meant something totally different (perhaps some clarification is in order). But IF this is what he meant I can’t even begin to express the irony of this moment, not only for a gospel conference but also for the RFP in general. This is the same thing that Curtis Hutson preached. I will never forget him uttering the words, “If someone preaches repentance, they are preaching a works gospel. All someone has to do in order to be saved is believe, believe, believe!” Also, It was Jack Hyles that said, “all repentance is, is going from unbelief to belief.”
To add to the irony and confusion, Jared shared the pulpit on the same night with Nathan Cravatt, a tulip sniffer. I know Nathan doesn’t believe that. I find it interesting that at a gospel conference there was such a diversity among the speakers. This is a major gospel issue (if this is in fact the case). I will gladly stand corrected if it's not.
Updated Retraction- Although I have not spoken directly to brother Wilson, there have been many people who are close to him that have reached and and told me that he does preach repentance and that he more on the Reformed side of things. He has written on this subject as well. Here is a great article by Wilson https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/easy-like-friday-afternoon-a-manifesto-on-hard-believism/ This is why I emphasized at the beginning of the article that I didn’t have any previous background concerning the speakers and that further clarification on certain things might be needed. I will leave the above section up just for reference and because I do think it's and important subject that needs to be emphasized. Thanks to those that reached out to me.
Session 3, “Evangelism- The Gospel Shared”, JC Groves
Link-Session 3: The Gospel Shared: Evangelism: Modern Methods vs. Biblical Model
To my shock, JC opened the sermon by quoting David Cloud in a positive way. If this is THE David Cloud that I am thinking of then JC is more IFB than I am 😂. I think that JC was trolling and nobody caught it but me. I just had to get that out there. Anyway, moving on.
JC preached out of Acts 28. His central thrust was that “Evangelism takes place everywhere that we are.” In other words, we cannot separate the Christian life from evangelism. I agree completely. He went on to state that “Paul preached wherever he was.” “We are to preach, 1. Wherever we are (where), 2. Lovingly (how), 3. Promptly (when), 4. To anybody and everybody (who), 5. Preach Jesus (what).
I greatly appreciate the fact that he warned against quick prayerism. I think that this has been a spiritual plague in our Baptist churches for a long time. He also had some good quotes. “The gospel doesn’t need our tactics, it preaches itself.” “Good news is worth sharing, and the gospel is good news!”
The only points of concern and clarification are the fact that he uses words and phrases like “crap” and “dad gum” from the pulpit. Call me old fashioned, but I think that we can do better. This isn’t me throwing stones, it’s a reminder to myself as well.
Also, he had another quote that was a bit of a head scratcher for me. Perhaps this is more my fault than JC’s, but he stated that, “the residue of our relationship with God is the best evangelistic tool that we have.” If he is talking about the fact that we need to walk in a way that is representative of Christ, I say amen. However, in the context in which he said this, it sounded like the old “preach the gospel, use words if necessary.” But given the fact that he talked constantly about preaching the gospel, this wouldn’t seem to make sense. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Overall I thought that the content of the message was pretty solid.
Session 4, “The Gospel Maintained- Engaging Culture with the Truth”, Mark Milioni
Link-Session 4: The Gospel Maintained: Engaging Culture With The Truth
Let me say that this brother’s passion was contagious. Made me want to take a super soaker and swing out over hell on a rotten corn stalk! He came out of II Timothy 3, with his central point being that, “we cannot maintain the gospel without truth.” He went on to say that, “truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory and being of God.”
Throughout the whole sermon, Dr. Milioni kept exalting the truth in the midst of perilous times. “We are living in perilous times. There has never been a time of such great confusion. This is the church’s greatest challenge today.” I couldn't agree more. Our society is confused and perverse and the only solution is the truth of the gospel of Christ.
I was so encouraged by his willingness to deal with the hot button social issues of the day such as the LGBT movement and abortion. He was both bold and compassionate. Just being as fair and balanced as I can, if thi sermon from Dr. Milioni was all I knew of the RFP. There is no way that I (or anyone else) could stick them with the label of “liberal”. Very good stuff, much needed. I hate that his review was a little shorter, but I really don’t have any relevant critiques.
Session 5, “The Gospel Proclaimed- The Power of the Cross”, Brian Edwards
Link-Session 5: The Gospel Proclaimed: The Power of The Cross
Brian preached out of one of my all time favorite passages, Isaiah 53. The whole gist of the message was about the power of the cross. Throughout the sermon he used very powerful imagery in order to highlight the ugliness of the cross.
I think this is something that kind of gets lost in the church today. Christ wasn’t a JCPenney model on the cross. He died a violent, horrific death. It might even be considered strange that we wear crosses around our neck. It would be kind of like wearing a necklace with an electric chair on it in more modern times.
After spending several minutes describing the ugliness of the cross, he transitioned by asking the question, “so how does it make any sense to say that the cross is beautiful?” I loved the quotes that Brian used when he began to answer this question. “No other crucifixion in history was beautiful except for Jesus. That’s because it was the only cross that was adorned with a savior.” “The cross isn’t beautiful to a Christian because of how it appeared, but because of what it accomplished.”
My short review really won’t do justice to how good this sermon really was. Between the graphic imagery, the historical information on crucifixion, how he brought out the beauty of the cross and the way that he tied it all together was powerful. I think I may have heard a little bit of Craig Edwards in there.
Session 6, “The Gospel Experienced- The Message of Justification”, Craig Edwards
Link- Session 6: The Gospel Experienced: The Message of Justification
Alright, I really need to get the intangibles out of the way before I begin. First of all, can somebody please get this man a sacred desk to preach from so that Brandan Roberston can have his lectern back? His Bible was hanging off both sides of that little thing. At least JC ran up to raise it up for Bro. Edwards. SMH
Second, if we are giving out awards for the conference, Craig Edwards gets the trophy for leather lunged, bug-eyed, high blood pressure, gravy soppin, biscuit eatin, King James Bible preachin! In all seriousness, Bro. Edwards preached an incredible message on justification from Romans 3:25-26. At the beginning, he really hammered on the holiness of God, and it was GOOD. I’ll be honest. I was listening to him while I was driving down the road and when he got to magnifying the holiness of God I caught myself going about 20 mph over the speed limit and had to slow down. I really appreciate him doing this because without the holiness of God, there is no need for justification. I mean, what do we even need to be saved from in the first place?
He went on to explain why Christ was necessary for our justification. “The cure had to be in the same form as the cause. Christ had to become a man in order to die for the sins of mankind.” I also appreciate how he pointed out that Justification is more than just being as if we never sinned. It means to be declared legally righteous.
This sermon messed me up again at the end. I was listening to him while I was standing in my driveway, installing new valve cover gaskets in my 97 Chevy truck when he began to recite a poem about the resurrection. A few minutes in I had to put my wrenches down and just listen. I didn’t realize until I looked at my phone that it seemed as if he was quoting the whole thing from memory. It was pretty awesome. I’m confident that all of my immediate neighbors heard Bro. Edwards say, “But He got up, victorious over death, hell and the grave!”
One last thing, I really resonated with something that he said at the very beginning of his sermon. “I came to a place where I wanted to make the Bible my only standard and Jesus my only example.” To me, this was one of the highlight quotes of the conference. This is my goal and desire. At times it can feel like being a man with no country. Just like with anyone else, I would not agree with brother Edwards about everything, but I can appreciate this about him. I never did care much for “yes” men.
Session 7, “The Gospel Defended- Apologetics in Real Life”, Jon Beazley
Link-Session 7: The Gospel Defended: Apologetics in Real Life
From a content standpoint, this was my favorite sermon of the conference. However, before I get to the good stuff I need to sweep off the porch a little bit. First, we have all been guilty of this, myself included. But when we do it, we should be called out on it. I am talking about broadbrushing an entire group of Christians that we might have disagreements with. While stressing the importance of both proclaiming and embodying the gospel, Jon said, “If you grew up in an IFB culture you heard alot about preaching the gospel, and maybe not as much, ‘let’s embody it.” It would require absolute knowledge to make such an absolute claim. Have I seen this in the IFB? Absolutely. But have I also met many IFB who both publicly proclaim and personally embody the gospel, you’d better believe it. I know that the RFP doesn’t like the accusation of broad brushing, but here it is again, waving from center stage. Jon made some other somewhat snarky remarks about the IFB, but I’ll leave it alone.
Second, he gave an illustration of a man that left the faith and came back to the faith. The wording that he used made it sound like a person can lose their salvation. However, given the content of the rest of the message, it is hard to fathom that Jon believes this. I just point it out on a “just in case” basis. This would also be very problematic at a gospel conference, if this is what he meant. Anyway, onto the good stuff.
Jon preached out of I Peter 3:14-17 about being ready to give a defense of the gospel. I absolutely loved that he didn’t lose sight of the fact that the context of Peter’s audience was suffering and exile. This almost always gets overlooked. Without even knowing Jon, I can almost guarantee that he is an expository preacher who likes to preach through books of the Bible.
Suffering and exile are the context in which we can give an answer for the hope that is in us! On a personal level, I feel like Jon had the quote of the conference when he said, “The doctrine of election is designed not to say that your bad isn’t really bad. It’s designed to say that no matter how bad it is, there is something good that transcends the bad.”..... “The Lordship of Christ in His death, burial, resurrection and ascension is our living hope.”
I can’t begin to explain what this truth means to my family and me. Without going into a lot of detail, because this blog isn’t about me; Four years ago to the day (April 14, 2019) my wife went to bed with a migraine-like headache and she’s had that headache every second of every day since, with no solid medical hope of getting better in this life. But in this context, we have found the gospel and person of Christ has become more beautiful to us than we could have ever imagined. In this context of suffering, the gospel brings us hope! Thank you for expounding upon this great truth Jon. (I have written fairly extensively about our situation, so here is my shameless plug) https://cross4acrown.blogspot.com/2023/01/suffering-thief-that-gives-back.html
I also loved the way that Jon communicated the different ways in which the Apostles tried to reach the Jews with the Old Testament Scriptures, in contrast to using Philosophy in order to bring the Greeks to Scriptures. In other words, they gave them the truth but they met them where they were. Jon equated this to proclaiming the gospel to a modern vs postmodern culture. I would even add that I think that we have gone full circle to the point where we almost live in a pre-Christian culture. But that’s probably not as true in the South as it is here in Utah. Overall, I thought it was a great sermon.
Updated Retraction- Jon reached out to me through Twitter and wanted to clarify that he absolutely believes that Christ not only saves His people, but keeps them as well. He was very kind to me, even in spite of my criticism. For that I am thankful.
Session 8, “The Gospel Presented”- The Authenticity of Scripture, Dr. Stephen Boyce
Link- Session 8: The Gospel Preserved: The Authenticity of Scripture
I’ll be honest, I was blown away by this message. I had never seen John 14:16-26 as a promise from Christ to the Apostles concerning the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures. In my opinion, one of the hallmarks of sound biblical preaching is that it leaves the hearer with something to chew on. It opens up new avenues of study. That being said, I will never look at that text the same ever again.
When Christ gave the promise of the Spirit to the disciples, He also promised that the Spirit would bring to remembrance the words that He spoke unto them. This isn’t some kind of charismatic, mystical experience. It’s a promise that Christ would continue to speak through the inspiration and preservation of His Word. As Boyce put it, “Christ doesn’t just promise the Spirit, He promises future Scripture to be written.” Mind=blown.
Dr. Boyce’s thesis continued along this line of, “the gospel isn’t a concept, it is words.” In other words, the gospel didn’t just come out of thin air like that book of Mormon. We have the manuscripts to back it up. “In order to have a gospel message, we must have a gospel text.” “All of the churches in the world were settled on only four gospels because they had an unbreakable chain of custody.”
I took so many notes from this sermon that it is difficult to decide what to use and what not to use. Perhaps I will come in for a landing with my favorite quote from the sermon. Boyce said, “The greatest miracle is that the God who spoke the world into creation never stopped speaking after creation.” ……”God spoke at many times and in many ways, but through only one kind of mediation, to our fathers, through the prophets.” In Boyce’s estimation, there are less than 50 people in Scripture that God spoke to directly. He has spoken unto us through the words of those Apostles and prophets, which are the words of Christ, which is the Word of God. Fantastic sermon.
My Biggest Complaint
Overall, I thought that the conference was really good, with solid content all the way through. It was actually much better than I anticipated. I was disappointed to have to put away my torch and pitchfork. However, I saved my biggest complaint for last. During the conference there was one glaring example of my biggest beef with the RFP. So here it is, both barrels. I am grieved by how the RFP flaunts their liberty to spite their brother, in the same way that I am grieved when the IFB flaunts their standards to spite their brother (For the sake of respect and avoiding a blanket statement I will limit this last statement to cage stage RFP and fringe IFB).
For the sake of transparency and balance, I will first give my grievances against the fringe IFB before moving on to the RFP. First, can we please stop idolizing men like Ruckman and Hyles? We can do so much better. And please stop protecting perverts. I don’t care if they have IFB on the sign or not. Also, Let’s get back to expository preaching, in context and with authorial intent. Is it possible to have some kind of theological triage as opposed to elevating everything to the level of the deity of Christ and giving the cold shoulder to those that don’t line up with us 100%? And for the love of all that’s good and decent, can we please stop using the equivalent of middle school locker room lingo (such as transtexuals) to describe those who disagree with us? When you are secure in what you believe you won’t have a problem showing compassion to those with whom you disagree. I am encouraged because I genuinely believe that the majority of the IFB is already doing this, especially the 45 and below generation.
To the RFP (the cage stagers). You have blasted the IFB for majoring on the minors and exalting man made tradition to the level of Scripture (much of this criticism has been fair). However, I feel like the pendulum has swung so far to the other side that the RFP majors on the minors from a different ditch, elevating their liberties above Scriptural precedent, even shaming those who don’t share in their idea of Christian liberty. Like the pigs sitting upright at the dining room table in Orwell’s Animal Farm, in many ways you have become the very thing that you set out to destroy. I could give various examples of this from social media alone, but I promised to stick with the contents of the conference, so that wouldn’t be very culotte of me.
Anyway, back to the glaring example of this at the conference. At the end of night one, JC took the mic and asked the RFP fam of podcasters to stand to be recognized. He went down the list until he announced the “Beers and Bibles” podcast. Realizing the shock value of what he had just said, JC repeated himself, “yes (as in, you heard that right) the Beers and Bibles podcast.” To be fair, this was such a small part of an otherwise great conference, but it highlights a much bigger problem, the flaunting of liberty to spite your brother.
We really need to stop and ask the question, why did JC recognize the shock value with the announcement of the “Beers and Bibles” podcast? Um, maybe it’s because a large percentage of conservative Christians (especially Baptists) still find drinking alcohol to be offensive. And they couldn’t possibly fathom the idea of cracking open an ice cold Bud light with their church members at a Bible study (or did you guys switch to Miller recently?). This doesn’t make them a legalist.
Your big saying is “The truth never fears a challenge” (I love that BTW). So I have a challenge for you and I want an honest answer. Even if you have come to the conclusion that things such as drinking alcohol in moderation are a Romans 14 issue of liberty, why wave them like a battle flag over your “weaker” brother? Do you think that if the Apostle Paul had access to modern technology that he would have hosted a podcast called “The Pork and Precepts' ' Podcast? I can see it now. “Welcome to the Pork and Precepts Podcast, this is your host, the Apostle Paul. Today we are going to be sampling some savory hickory smoked bacon while we walk through the Torah. This bootleg bacon is brought to you by the Gergesene swine company. They put the ‘I’ in swine.” I’ll take things that would have never happened for $1,000 Alex. The Apostle Paul was so concerned about the “weaker” brother that he would not even eat meat in his presence, much less beat his chest about it on a podcast or social media. The ironic thing about Romans 14 is that so many people read it and come away with what a Christian CAN do, when one of Paul’s main points is what mature Christians SHOULD do in a given situation.
Things like this don’t give a thought to the teenager who might misread the situation, the babe in Christ who wouldn’t understand, the person struggling with alcohol addiction, the elderly couple who just wasn't raised that way, or anyone else for that matter. But hey, muh liberty. This is a form of “macho” Christianity, and it’s no better than the “macho” IFB who beats the war drum of man made tradition as a means of holiness. Both are obnoxious, and both hurt people.
I know that I have poured it on over the last few paragraphs but it’s because the conference was so good, I just wish that the unnecessary extremes on both sides could be trimmed back for the sake of Christ and each other. Rick Machuga once said, “A fool fights for everything; a coward fights for nothing; a courageous person fights for the right causes, at the right times, and in the right ways.” I think that both sides should really think about this.
For the Sake of the Gospel
What a great mantra to live by. As Christians, I wonder how differently our lives would be if we were all determined to live by it. For the sake of the gospel of Christ, I will think twice before I send out that inflammatory tweet against my brother. For the sake of the gospel, I will stand against the slander of my brother, even if he is on the other side of the aisle. For the sake of the gospel, I will do my best to walk that line between compassion and compromise, even if it means taking shots from both sides. For the sake of the gospel, I will commit to not slandering my brother from the pulpit. I am not wagging my finger at anyone. I am saying, Lord let it start with me.
If each side would just trim the fat at the ends, there is a lot more that we have in common than not. And I don’t think that many would be willing to admit this, but if we ever end up in the same prison cell for our faith, we would be glad to have each other’s company. And on that day when all these ism’s become wasim's and we are in the presence of the one before whom all sin and pettiness flee, perhaps God in His humor will force these factions of bickering Christians to be next door neighbors in the Zorn Groves subdivision of Heaven for all eternity.
To Nathan- Thank you for reaching out to me and asking me to write this review. It shows a willingness to be critiqued, as well as a desire for reasonable unity. I apologize for the length, and hope that I have not offended anyone unnecessarily. We might not ever make it to tier 3, or even tier 2 fellowship, but that’s ok. I am for you, and for preaching the gospel, therein I do rejoice.
In Christ, Brandon Vaughan, SDG John 17:3 , @realbrobrandon
.png)
.png)
