The book’s theology is an unbiblical and incoherent synthesis which might be described as popularized Christian anarchism for young, disaffected, middle-class Americans.
Which brings me to my question: why would the church scramble to take advice from someone who does not share its faith?
We can be grateful for some of the themes sounded in this book. Still, the lack of urgency about our need to repent and believe in the gospel is a blind-spot in Wright.
Jerry Bridges and Bob Bevington have invited the church to the lifelong effort of bringing our beliefs in line with the Bible’s teaching on the atonement in all its eternal glory.
Does the social gospel give us a more “real” Christianity?
Our churches can give the gospel a black eye, or they can be used by the Holy Spirit with magnetic effect to draw people to Jesus.
Maybe you don’t know, but there is a heavenly dilemma over you.
We’ve heard these definitions of the church’s mission before. But have we seen where they’re from, where they lead, and what theology drives them?
To put it another way, the local church itself is the best and biblically-prescribed “evangelism program.”
Throughout the Bible and the history of the church, God has used the witness of the church to draw people to himself.
When have you seen acts of hospitality commend the gospel to outsiders?
Which “evangelism courses” are the best to use with non-Christians?
Unless Genesis 1:1 is true, then we will have problems convincing anyone that there is a problem with sin and a need for redemption.
Can missionaries traveling to a country that’s hostile to Christianity and the Great Commission lie about their reasons for coming?