Redeemed Rambling

Just Don't Call it Preaching

2012-01-31T10:13:00.001-06:00

There is a growing trend among evangelicals. This trend is "life-talk" speeching, and it is often found on the platforms of evangelical churches. I would say "behind the pulpits", but no one seems to use pulpits anymore. I do not have any problems at all with these life talks in principle. Sure, I have problems with the execution sometimes - I don't think Ed Young Jr. knows enough about the dynamics of sexual relationship within marriage to really speech on it. But in principle, most of these talks are quite sound and good. I remember listening to a prominent evangelical pastor speech a series on "vision". It was good stuff - stuff I still use today.

The problem I have with all of this is that it isn't preaching. That would be just fine except this stuff has supplanted preaching. I am going to agree with Al Mohler's perspective in He is Not Silent. Preaching is the public exposure of God's Word. Preaching is an act of worship precisely because it is commanded in Scripture, and it is the means by which God speaks to his people today. Cessationist? Hardly! God is alive and actively speaking to his people - and He does it through His living Word. This is why preaching - the public exposure of God's Word - is so dynamic and exciting. I dare say some would be far more excited about being entranced by the Holy Spirit and caught up to the third heaven. We have an inbred lust for theological glory. But this kind of experience is not God's normal means for speaking today. The normal means is through his spoken Word. And this is why preaching is so important, and why it should never, ever be supplanted by life-talk speeching.

So go ahead and talk about finances and leadership and vision. You can even do so from a "Christian" perspective (Although we must concede that there is nothing Christian about having sex for a week). Just don't call it preaching.

The Gospel at Work

2012-01-30T09:21:00.001-06:00

Join me for a monthly men's group, "The Gospel at Work". This group is designed to bring together men who work in the "secular" world, to talk about what the gospel means in their workplace, who they are witnessing to, and share prayers and praises in that regard. Our inaugural meeting will be Sat., Feb. 18th at 9am. We will have breakfast and discuss "Materialism and the Gospel at Work". All men welcome.
Held here:

View Larger Map

An Elephant in the Room

2012-01-29T20:39:00.000-06:00

Redeemed Rambling is not a "watchblog." In fact, I consider watchblogs to be the worst kind of garbage - American pop sentimentality and voyeurism plastered with just enough veneer of Christian language to justify those who waste their time reading them. Reality TV for Christian glory hunters. So, if I take the time to address a book, or ministry, or Christian happening in a negative light (such as my recent fair, but generally negative, assessment of Smith's book) it is not because I think it is my sworn duty to protect all and sundry from those that disagree with me. Rather, it is because I detect something that will help my readers - even if that help is in the form of a warning. That is why I am writing about the Elephant Room and why I have waited to write about it. I am going to think through some things, and I want to make sure that you, dear reader, have had sufficient time to cool your jets before embarking on this little adventure with me. The Elephant Room has elicited a lot of feedback - by which I mean a general ruckus of course - and I certainly hope that my own words neither egg this visceral response on, nor contribute to such infantile reactionary blathering.

But while I may not get my kicks out of rousing the ever-excitable rabble, the Elephant Room begs to be addressed in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. I hope to at least move toward that in this post. In the interest of fair disclosure, I have listened to some, but not all, of the Elephant Room, and have read some transcripts of some of the talks. Having listened and done a bit of digging on the Internet, I think several things need to be addressed by the Evangelical community at large.

Double Speak

Its hard not to use the word "hypocrisy" here, but I want to be as fair as possible. The ER (hah, that's funny) seems to foster a weird kind of double-speak where things can be and not be at the same time. For example, Chris Rosebrough (@Piratechristian), an outspoken critic of ER, was actually threatened with arrest when he showed up, even though he paid to attend. In any case this would seem an absurd case of censorship (its not as if Rosebrough has done anything threatening - except preach the truth, imho), but in the case of the Elephant Room it is even more disturbing because it directly contradicts their own Purpose Statement:

The Elephant Room is more than an event. It is the outgrowth of an idea. The idea that the best way forward for the followers of Jesus lies not in crouching behind walls of disagreement but in conversation among all kinds of leaders about what the scriptures actually teach. We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently.

This is a rather obvious example of actions speaking louder than words - drowning them out, really - in a rather blatant contradiction. You can read Chris's full account here. Another example of this double speak is highlighted in the following video by Todd Friel (of Wretched):

<p>&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;lt&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/span&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;lt&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/span&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Now&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;lt&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/span&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;lt&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/span&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;</p>

Friel is pointing to an obvious contradiction - both MacDonald and Driscoll have called the prosperity gospel a false gospel. As Paul shows us in Galatians, false gospels are damned to hell, so calling something a false gospel is about as strong of language as one can use for heresy. This leaves us with a problem, because as Friel highlights above, Jakes clearly and consistently preaches a prosperity gospel. And yet, ER concludes that Jakes is a genuine brother in Christ. So, either MacDonald and Driscoll are abusing the term "false gospel", or they don't think that Jakes' teaching is "really" prosperity gospel. Either way there is something rotten in Illinois.

Fast and Loose with the Athanasian Creed

Central to the ER debate has been the inclusion of T.D. Jakes. I quite understand the hubris raised around this decision. Now don't get me wrong - I have pagan friends at work and we argue about theology all the time. So, there shouldn't be an issue with sitting Jakes down and having a good old fashioned jawing over a mint julep. But, MacDonald insisted on called Jakes a "brother". Let's not fall into the trap of conflating a reluctance to call someone brother with a reluctance to engage in conversation. There is a reason many evangelicals are uncomfortable calling Jakes a brother. For starters, there is the whole prosperity gospel thing. It is hard to have the very hosts of ER call it a damnable thing, and yet embrace someone who pretty clearly preaches it. But even more concerning is Jakes' modalism. Now, there is some important nuance Jakes' theological growth, as described in this Christian Post article, but at the end of the day, Jakes doesn't accept the orthodox, ecumenical understanding of Trinity.

Jakes denies being a modalist (frankly, this falls in the "duh" category - I hardly expect anyone to jump up and down and yell "pick me for the heretic team!"), although he admits he was one at one point. But while he may have left modalism behind, he hasn't quite come to terms with orthodoxy (or Hebrews, for that matter). Jakes says that he believes in one God, three manifestations. Sorry, Jakes, that isn't Trinitarianism, it's Sabellianism. See Tom Chantry's transcript to read it for yourself.

Now early thinkers realized this was more than just a matter of how one perceived God - it has implications for God Himself. In fact, it is fear of God's name that drives all of the ecumenical councils and results in the harshest of language - heresy - being associated with disagreement. As Tertullian rightly reasoned, Sabellianism gives way to Patripassianism (the idea that God the Father suffers, particularly regarding the sufferings of Christ on the cross). Patripassianism is pretty clearly contradicted in Hebrews.

But for some undisclosed reason, these objections are just swept under the rug by the ER. Strange.

Deeds and Creeds

All of this highlights a very important aspect of Christianity that ER seems to have ignored. Throughout Christian history, equal weight has been given to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Both are necessary but insufficient parts of the Christian walk. It seems as if, for the ER folks, having Jakes declare that he is trinitarian is enough. But when, dear friend, are we going to get it through our collective cro-magnon fontanelles that saying the right doctrine is not the same as believing it. True faith, James points out sternly, works. A tree and its fruit, my friend. And the fruit coming from the likes of Jakes (and Noble, and Furtick, and...) is frankly rotten. I don't care what Jakes says he believes, he preaches a prosperity gospel and modalism (Oh, yes. Watch some of his messages, or read his books).

All of this raises a very, very important question in my mind - what exactly is the point of the Elephant Room? Look with me through the circus lights and clown paint to the question below. Assume for a moment of sorely burdensome suspension of disbelief that we all agree with ER on everything. What is the point? ER's Purpose Statement says "We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently."

Well, the Elephant Room hasn't insisted on the biblical Gospel, it hasn't insisted on right doctrine, and it hasn't insisted on right practice. The ER, my friends, has failed. (For some excellent insight, read Trevin Wax's thoughts about how to think about ER2 at his new TGC blog location).

The Holy Spirit in Luke One

2012-01-28T06:33:00.004-06:00

Discreet vs. Paradigmatic Wisdom in Proverbs

2012-01-16T22:56:00.002-06:00

The shelves of various Christian bookstores are filled with an endless array of books on "Biblical" dating, relationships, self-help, and prosperity. Contrary to popular belief, these books were not written because of a secret alliance of high-level book publishers determined to shove pathetic and poorly written books down the open throats of so many baby-bird Christians. Rather, these books exist because there is a market for them. Occasionally I am asked by a well-meaning soul if I could recommend a good "Biblical" book on marriage, or counselling, or automobile maintenance. I usually smile, and ask in simple honesty if they have read Proverbs recently. The response that I get is usually something to the effect that Proverbs has got great wisdom, but it is hard to get to. One has to wade through all sorts of stuff to get to the verses on marriage (still looking for the auto maintenance bit).

This response stems from a popular-level understanding of Proverbs that only comes to term with the book's discreet wisdom. Proverbs is full of discreet wisdom - memorable little sayings about all kinds of topics. In fact, one hardly has to be a spiritual giant to recognize the legitimate truisms in Proverbs. "Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it." (Prov. 13:11) One has only to read stories of lottery winners filing for bankruptcy to realize the truth of this saying.

This of course leads to the obvious question - if these sayings are so, well, obvious, then what is so special about Proverbs? Well, there is a reason that one has to wade through whole chapters of stuff to get to the verses on marriage. The greater wisdom of Proverbs is not in its discreet wisdom, but in the way it puts it all together. Proverbs emphasizes what is important, and suppresses what is less important. In so doing, Proverbs creates a values paradigm for thinking wisely about life. It is this higher-order paradigmatic wisdom that is the great strength of Proverbs.

Maybe the reason Proverbs doesn't answer your questions about marriage is that you are asking the wrong questions. Perhaps you should read the book, seeking not to find your way through discreet packets of wise counsel, but in reordering your thoughts to align with the values paradigm of the book as a whole. I suspect the latter might truly make one wise.

Free PDF Download of "Bloodlines"

2012-01-16T22:10:00.003-06:00

In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. day, John Piper is offering a completely free download of his new book "Bloodlines". No purchase necessary, no registration, no nothing. Just downloadable PDF goodness. Get yours here.

The Bible Made Impossible

2012-01-06T20:30:00.002-06:00

Smith, Christian. The Bible MadeImpossible: Why Biblicism is not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2011. 220 pp. $22.99.

In the ongoing conversationregarding the use and meaning of the Bible, Smith offers a unique andchallenging first offering. The gist of Smith’s work is evident in its title –Smith believes and attempts to demonstrate that Biblicism (as Smith defines it)is not truly “good news”. Specifically, Smith seeks to demonstrate that thecore tenets of Biblicism are rendered irrelevant by the outcome(s) ofBiblicism. Not content with deconstruction only, Smith finishes his work bypresenting some alternatives to Biblicism.

Upon first picking up Smith’s volume, it is hard notto conclude immediately that it is destined to fail. No matter how articulate,cogent, or poignant Smith’s work may be, one can be sure that it will not betaken seriously by conservative evangelicals. At this juncture, conservativeevangelicals have set up inerrancy as the primary fence between those “in” andthose “out”. Coupled with the reductionistic binary “good guys and bad guys”paradigm that shapes much of American thought, this shibboleth hinders theconservative mind from taking Smith seriously. Recent early reviews alreadydemonstrate this tendency. Nearly every reviewer has tried to understand Smithas being against inerrancy (despite Smith’s explicit claim that he is not doingso on page 176). This is a shame, because Smith has a few good things to say. Onemust exercise care to take opposing viewpoints seriously without falling intothe equal and opposite errors of rejecting God’s Word and uncriticalself-congratulation. Ironically, Smith recognizes the sociological constructsthat result in some failing to come to terms with or adequately think throughvarious concerns, and yet Smith himself does not in any way try to mitigatethese factors in the style of his work.

What Smith is Saying

What Smith is essentially saying has several parts. Histhesis is that Biblicism is unsustainable because the way in which it works outin practice is contradicted by what it says in theory. This is contingent uponSmith’s definition of Biblicism, which has nine markers that converge to form atenth, defining, marker. Smith also explores some ideas about language,authority, and theology in order to provide some alternatives to Biblicism.Smith’s great contribution to the conversation here is in the term “pervasiveinterpretive pluralism” (17). Pervasive interpretive pluralism is a descriptiveterm that encompasses the vast differences between evangelicals who claim tohold the same beliefs about how Scripture works and yet disagree strongly onthe meaning of Scripture. Smith warns against mitigating these differences, andhe is correct in noting that these are by no means “surface level” differences(22). They are real, and deep, and meaningful. Smith is right to believe thatthese differences demand that we look at our theory of the Bible.

The Ten Marks

Any logical analysis of PIP must take into account theten marks upon which it is built. The ten marks are listed verbatim withdescriptions below. This kind of block quote is unusual in a review, but it isessential for further discussion:

1. Divinewriting

a. TheBible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is identical withGod’s very own words written inerrantly in human language.

2. Totalrepresentation

a. TheBible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity,both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusivemode of God’s true communication.

3. Completecoverage

a. Thedivine will about all of the issues relevant to Christian belief and life arecontained in the Bible.

4. Democraticperspicuity

a. Anyreasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language andcorrectly understand the plain meaning of the text.

5. Common sensehermeneutics

a. Thebest way to understand Biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit,plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value,which may or may not involve taking into account their literary, cultural, andhistorical contexts.

6. Soloscriptura

a. Thesignificance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance oncreeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of largertheological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can bebuilt up directly out of the Bible from scratch.

7. Internalharmony

a. Allrelated passages of the Bible on any subject fit together almost like puzzlepieces into a single, unified, internally consistent body of instruction aboutright and wrong beliefs and behaviors.

8. Universalapplicability

a. Whatthe biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remainsuniversally valid for all Christians at every other time, unless explicitlyrevoked by subsequent Biblical teaching.

9. Inductivemethod

a. Allmatters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down withthe Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical”truths it teaches.

These nine converge to generate the tenth mark which is:

10. Handbookmodel

a. TheBible teaches doctrines and morals with every affirmation that it makes, sothat together those affirmations comprise something like a handbook or textbookfor Christian belief and living, a compendium of divine and therefore inerrantteachings on a full array of subjects – including science, economics, health,politics, and romance.

Smith makes it clear that one can vary on the strengthand number with which one holds to the first nine propositions; it is the tenthproposition which constitutes an “impossible” reading of the Bible. Thehandbook model is rendered irrelevant as a theory of reading the Bible by thegreat number of divergent doctrines and practices within the evangelicalchurches which hold to it. Smith calls this phenomenon pervasive interpretivepluralism. For those who might be tempted to sweep these differences under therug, Smith overviews the dramatic differences between different sects of“Biblicist” Christianity – including differences regarding salvation, baptism,sacraments, eschatology, and social interaction.

A Logical Analysis of PIP

The logic of PIP is undeniable. Given the vast disparityamong “Biblicist” Christian groups, one can only conclude that the “handbook”model presented by Smith is irrelevant. The Bible may indeed be a “compendiumof divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects”, but noone and everyone seems to be able to articulate what those teachings are.

A Logical Analysis of the Ten Marks

All of this so far is very neat and tidy – perhaps a bittoo so. Reading through Smith’s ten marks, one is immediately struck by thewording. These propositions all begin with propositions that Biblicists acceptand take them too far. Consider the seventh proposition: Internal Harmony - All related passages of the Bible on anysubject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into a single, unified,internally consistent body of instruction about right and wrong beliefs andbehaviors. In truth, it is hard to imagine any evangelical scholar whowould agree with this statement. Upon this author’s bookshelf is a section onhermeneutics and Biblical interpretation, replete with Ryken, Treier,VanHoozer, Carson, Silva, Kaiser, Plummer, and Poythress. They would all agreethat Scripture is harmonious, but it is hard to imagine that Smith’s definitionof internal harmony is in any way congruous with what any of them write orthink or teach. Perhaps the most egregious mark is the tenth, with which noevangelical scholar seems to agree and which many of the most conservative“Biblicists” have strongly denied. One could go through all ten marks and cometo the conclusion that none of them, as defined by Smith, have got any supportamong evangelical scholars.

This problem of inaccurate descriptors is oddly mirroredin another problem with Smith’s ten marks. Apart from the descriptions thatSmith provides, it is impossible to find any Christian writer anywhere thatdoes not agree with at least some of Smith’s points. Even Smith’s final pointhas some truth in it – certainly there are portions of Scripture which areclearly intended to instruct the reader in how to live, including portions ofProverbs which include Divine wisdom on finances, learning, and humanrelationships. This phenomenon begs the question – at what point does one stopbeing a Biblicist? While Smith defines Biblicism carefully (to the exclusion ofactual evangelical scholars, as noted above), he doesn’t actually explain howone could be considered not aBiblicist. By Smith’s definition it would seem that everyone and no one is aBiblicist (as a case study, the reader may find it interesting to read theworks of N.T. Wright, for example, and see whether he be as much a Biblicist asJohn Piper. This author conducted such a study, and found that under Smith’srubric, both are equally culpable).

These observations bring to the fore one of the mostegregious errors in Smith’s work. Smith fundamentally fails to engage actualevangelical scholarship on the issue of the Bible and its interpretation.However, it would be unfair at this point to accuse Smith of writing aninaccurate or subversive work. Rather, one must read carefully to determine theextent of Smith’s experience and knowledge, and gauge what exactly Smith isreacting against.

Smith’s Paradigm

It would probably help here to note some of the thingsthat set Smith apart as he engages in this project. First, he deconstructs thefalse dichotomy that sees liberalism and Biblicism as the only two options forAmerican evangelicalism. This is probably a self-evident observation for anystudent of Christian history, but it is important to Smith because he denouncestheological liberalism in strong and unmistakable tones. In the introductionSmith makes clear, “I view the program of liberalism as an unworthy corrosionof historically orthodox, evangelical…Christianity. I would go so far as toagree with J. Gresham Machen that theological liberalism is not one particularbranch of Christianity; it is rather a very different religion fromChristianity.” This annotation is important, because Smith’s purpose is not topromote liberalism as an alternative to Biblicism, but rather to criticallyevaluate Biblicism on its own grounds. Furthermore, Smith has a deep commitmentto the gospel. Smith consistently points to the gospel of Christ, which hebelieves is obscured by Biblicist dogma. It is in this concern that Smithwrites. I think some of the most revealing words that Smith writes is a briefparagraph about young, mostly bucolic, students arriving at university freshfrom a rural Baptist or Methodist church and having their faith shattered whenthey find that it can’t hold up to the scrutiny it is suddenly subjected to. Isuspect that this experience has been a major driving force behind Smith’sbook.

All this to say that despite Smith’s credentials andintelligent writing style, his book isn’t actually an academic work at all. Itis rather aimed squarely at pop-evangelicalism and the “me and my Bible” crowdthat seems to produce more books than all the rest of Christianity combined(see, for example, Smith’s list of books and bumper stickers on pages 7 through10). This is complicated by the fact that Smith doesn’t seem to realize thatthis is, in fact, his audience. He spends several pages demonstrating how majorinstitutions and documents of American Evangelicalism ascribe to the ten marksof Biblicism, but he commits one major error in this section. When Smithexamines relevant evangelical documents to support his ten points, he smuggleshis own presuppositions into interpreting them.

There is no polite way to put it, but a logical analysisof Smith’s marks reveals that they are manufactured by Smith in order tosupport his thesis. There is no real evidence for these definitions amongserious evangelical thinkers. This becomes quite stark when one considers theexamples that Smith cites. For example, when the BFM2000 says, “All Scripture is totally true andtrustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and thereforeis, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christianunion, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, andreligious opinions should be tried” Smith interprets this as proof of pointeight – “What the biblical authors taughtGod’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for allChristians at every other time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequentBiblical teaching.” Frankly, one is hard pressed to see how the BFM’sstatement can be shoehorned into the remarkably un-nuanced claim of Smith’seighth mark. It simply cannot fit. Smith commits the same error in examining astatement by Westminster Seminary’s board. “Wedeny that the Holy Scripture lacks doctrinal unity on any point of doctrine, orthat it does not always agree with itself. We affirm that the Holy Scripture isharmonious in all its teachings.” Smith interprets this as an affirmationof point 7 “Internal harmony”, but the way in which Westminster holds this ideais nothing like Smith’s rendering in point 7. One look through Poythress’“Symphonic Theology” is sufficient to dispel Smith’s interpretation. A“harmonious” Scripture cannot be conflated with a “melodious” Scripture. Notall doctrinal passages sing the same notes, but they do all sing the same tune.

The Effect Upon PIP

The argument structure of Smith’s book is such that ifthe ten marks fall, so does the case for PIP rendering Biblicism irrelevant.Having concluded that the ten marks are insufficient, the rest of the argumentcrumbles. For this reason it is hard for the thinking analyst to conclude thatSmith has written a persuasive or cogent work.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Perhaps not surprisingly, given the title, the greatestfailure of Smith’s work is rhetorical. He constantly quotes Enns and Sparks aspositive influences upon a Christian view of the Bible, when the currentevangelical consensus is clearly against them both. On the other hand, hecondemns popular evangelical teachers like John MacAurther (7). In his “moreevangelical way forward” Smith quotes approvingly of Barth, a move which isessentially neutral. Nevertheless, given his previous examples, this is arhetorical fail, as Smith could have chosen much more accepted authors to makethe same point. These rhetorical blunders incline the reader to interpretSmith’s work as being essentially against inerrancy (Sparks, for example, haswritten a work specifically decrying inerrancy in highly polemical terms). Onecannot prove that this is Smith’s intention, and Smith himself denies it, buthis lack of persuasive strategy has certainly hurt his ability to communicate.The other great weakness of Smith’s work is its irrelevance. By failing toengage the scholarly work of evangelicals, Smith has almost certainly created abook that will only serve to reinforce the beliefs of those who already agreewith Smith.

However, the book is not without merit. The idea ofPervasive Interpretive Pluralism allows us to examine our relationship with theWord and with other evangelicals and see if perhaps our differences are rootedin unhealthy sources. Smith’s polemic against “bumper sticker Christianity” isalso certainly helpful and poignant. Finally, Smith is helpful in allowing usto examine our presuppositions about the Bible and cement our positions,commitments, and presuppositions.

Trevin Wax Hits a Homerun

2012-01-05T10:05:00.002-06:00

Trevin Wax discusses the question, "What Do We Do With Our Slavery-Affirming Theological Heroes?" Read it here.

Carnal Carnival

2011-12-17T19:31:00.000-06:00

What separates the believer from the unbeliever? For certain it is the blood of Christ, but there is something else - something immediate in the very worldview of the believer. While the natural man pursues the desires of the flesh, the spiritual man pursues the desires of the Spirit. Paul the Apostle says it well in Romans eight:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

St. Paul is preaching what was once thundered from a thousand pulpits - the damning effects of carnality. The word is perhaps obsolete, but no word perhaps captures better the intended meaning. The natural man - our flesh, our body, our life apart from the regeneration of the Spirit - lives its life seeking out its own pleasures. And such were we, but we have been washed; we have been sanctified! If then the Spirit lives in us, let us live spiritual lives, lives lived after the spirit, a life of growth in Godliness. Why are we then still carnal?

I am talking here of individuals, but more so of institutions. We are surrounded by an evangelical culture that is largely carnal. On one side of the road you have fundamentalism. How carefully they walk! A rule of man they apply to every situation, determined to make themselves holy unto God through physical rules. And they are carnal. For when we orient our Christian life toward physical restraints - do not touch, do not taste, do not handle - we again enslave ourselves to the flesh. For those who think otherwise, I present exhibit A: the pious Muslim cleric, who lives a life of asceticism and tithes of all that he has, prays seven times a day, and gives alms to the poor. He is doubtless a better man for it, but he is damned to hell. These are all works of the flesh, and working for the sake of works is carnal. Good works in the flesh do not a Christian make. On the other side of the road, you have the witless carnality of evangelical rock stars who peddle carnal desires in the skin of Christian teaching. But is it Christian to tell professing believers what sexual acts they may perform in their bedroom? I say that it is not. I say that all such false teaching is feeding the flesh. The spiritual man does not strive to sanctify his sexual cravings. The spiritual man strives to please his savior, to savor the Spirit of God, to bring glory to God and to serve others. Both sides of the road are carnal, and both are littered with the bodies of those who have fallen to their death off the straight and narrow.

If I sound strident it is because of the seriousness of this issue. Paul, inspired by the Spirit to guard the Roman church from damnation, says it plain. Those who live according to the flesh set their mind on the things of the flesh. Those who live according to the spirit, set their mind on the things of the spirit. Can you set your mind on sex and be living in the Spirit? Can you set your mind on clothing, or coffee, or pyrotechnics and be living in the Spirit? Paul says no, and I am obliged to agree with him. But this is no mere choice, as if some believers live lives set in the flesh, and a few saints are granted the grace to live in the spirit. Quite the contrary. Paul says that to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the spirit is life. To entirely root out the possibility of misunderstanding, Paul presses on: The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God: those in the flesh cannot please God. And here Paul exhorts his readers - this should in no way characterize them, for they have been born of the Spirit, have God's spirit within them, and are pursuing spiritual things.

In like manner, I exhort my readers: do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For the one that sows to his flesh will reap corruption, but the one who sows to the spirit will reap life everlasting. Do not allow yourself to be rooted up and tossed about by your carnal desires. Neither dress code nor music standards nor sex nor worldly success can ever, ever save your soul. Don't let these carnal concerns hinder you from pressing on toward the mark of your high calling in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

Some Kind of Zombie

2011-12-14T22:58:00.003-06:00

This just in from MSNBC: scientists are closer than ever to unlocking the secrets of eternal life. According to this article, molecular geneticist Bill Andrews is working on a way to keep telomeres (strings of DNA at the end of each chromosome) from shrinking. The shrinking of telomeres is linked to decay and aging. In theory, we may soon be able to prolong lifespans by hundreds of years. Who wouldn't want that?

But the problem with this entire enterprise is that it is based upon a false view of what humans fundamentally are. The great failing of the scientific enterprise is its reduction of humans to mere bodies in the physical realm. Humans are not mere shells of matter in motion - we are spiritual beings. This is the core of the human existence, and the center of Christian theology and hope. Man was created for eternal life, and this endless quest by science is a manifestation of the deepest spiritual knowledge and hope of man. But it is stunted.

The Christian story tells us that man was created to live forever, but lost that privilege by rebelling against God. Now, all men are born into bondage - born spiritually dead and enslaved to sin. When Adam was cast out of the garden, God placed a burning sword between man and the tree of life. Looking back in longing, man saw certain eternal life hedged up by equally certain death; looking forward man saw a painful existence of toil followed by a distant but no less certain death. The wages of sin is death.

But thanks be to God! The advent of Jesus, which Christians everywhere pause to celebrate this time of year, saw the breaking of the curse. Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life acceptable to God. He died in our place, and God vindicated his sacrifice by raising him from the dead! Now, if we approach in repentance and place our faith in Jesus' finished work, we are given his righteousness; we are accepted by God through our union with Christ. The once dead human spirit is brought to life in Christ, and a new vista of life - true life - is opened to the body of Christ on this earth. This is the doctrine of regeneration.

Unfortunately, our American evangelicalism has become almost thoroughly materialistic. The fathers spoke of the spiritual; it was understood that we are spiritual beings; discipleship was about growing in spirit as we are filled with the Holy Spirit. There are physical means appointed to God for this growth - the Word and Sacrament; giving to the poor and needy; prayer, fasting, and spiritual disciplines; loving God and neighbor - but the telos is spiritual. We are not building the physical kingdom of God. This spiritual growth is consummated in the return of Christ Jesus, when all the redeemed will inherit the earth, a new creature. And we will reign, brighter than a thousand suns, with our glorious Christ, an existence that is not merely eternal, but true life. Spiritual life, abundant life, glorious, growing, and worshipful life in perfect harmony with God and man. It is the glorious end for all found in Christ, and it is the one true eternal life that man has to look forward to.

But what has science to offer? Not eternal life at all, but eternal death. For apart from supernatural regeneration, man is already dead in spirit, and his clockwork shell ponders teetering on until it succumbs to the natural forces of decay and returns to dust. And the spirit returns to its maker. Apart from regeneration, man is but a shell, a half-man, a shade. Science offers only to prolong that agony of living death. Like Gollum we will become stretched, spread out over time like too little butter on too much toast. Some kind of zombie. And our evil natures will continue to wax worse and worse, until we cry out to the rocks and the hills to cover us. This is no salvation, it is a curse. It was a curse in Genesis three, and it remains a curse. Long life apart from a spirit growing into God stretches into hell itself, for hell is eternity apart from God.

So let us not despise our spirit or our heritage. What science strives mightily to procure has been brought to earth by the God-man Jesus, and offered up upon a cross. Let us then strive to enter the narrow gate. For upon the other side is a broad avenue. There is no darkness or night, and in the middle of the avenue runs a crystal river, upon whose banks blooms eternal the Tree of Life. Ah, yes, eternal life. That shifting chimera that barely forms the myth of science is very, very real. And it is far more abundant than any naturalistic science could imagine. This and all things are yours in Christ. Amen.

Westminster Bookstore - Up to 75% Off!

2011-12-14T09:40:00.000-06:00

Free eBook: Your Brain on Porn

2011-12-06T10:58:00.001-06:00

Covenant Eyes has a free ebook that examines five ways pornography damages the user, and three ways to combat it in your life. Download it here.

Inferno Royale: The Gospel of Vicarious Narcissism

2011-12-04T15:34:00.001-06:00

If you take a life do you know what you'll give?
Odds are, you won't like what it is
When the storm arrives, would you be seen with me?
By the merciless eyes of deceit?

I've seen angels fall from blinding heights
But you yourself are nothing so divine
Just next in line…

You Know My Name – Chris Cornell

Bond. James Bond. A thoroughly modern man with a license to kill. He is a role model and a hero – one who knows what he wants and takes it by force. He lies, fornicates, manipulates, indulges in all fleshly desires, and kills at the whim of his good pleasure. He is a narcissist, and he is a hero.

Bond is man playing God, a human antitype of the Divine, with every attribute twisted beyond recognition. He has the power of life and death over his foes, like God. He loves beauty and excellence, like God. He enables his own will for his own pleasure, like God. He fights for the good of his people, like God. And while he may appear to be at the mercy of villainous foes for a time, he always wins in the end. Like God.

But God is nothing like James Bond. The God of infinite power did not choose a Walther, but a cross. The beauty God pursues is his own excellent majesty, not the decaying flesh of morally loose women. When God came to earth, he came as a man. Not as a king, he came. He did not pursue his own fleshly desires and interests, but the will of the Father. He did not come driving a million dollar sports car, but on the foal of a donkey. He had no luxury flat, or five star hotel, or three hundred thread count sheets. In fact, the only thing he had of value was some pretty decent underwear. The soldiers who stole it from him while murdering him cast lots for it. He did not come to enjoy $100 a glass claret or Cuban cigars or topologically enhanced sidekicks of the female variety. He came to seek and to save that which was lost. Bond is man in the flesh trying to be God. Bond is antichrist.

But Bond is what man will always be when he pursues the glory of his own flesh. We humans are created in the image of God, and as such our true success only comes as we conform to the image in which we are made. The natural man, his divine image defaced, may still pursue the good, and that pursuit lies in selflessness and love. Such a trajectory is exactly opposite to Bond. James Bond passed a devout Buddhist on the street. They were travelling in opposite directions. And yet apart from the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, any man can only ever live in natural grace – a kind, compassionate soul, perhaps, but lost. Without a vivified spirit, no man can be like God, or be acceptable to God.

When God’s grace drowns a man, it kills him, and when he dies he is born again, through the water and the blood, and a new vista opens to him – the spiritual world of God’s endless love and grace. Thus born again, man no longer pursues glory, and while he may still buffet a flesh bent upon self-gratification and reliance, the man struggles to always be crucifying the flesh. Our way is not grand, glorious, or self-centered. Ours is the Via Dolorosa, the way of suffering – the way of the cross.

And yet, how many evangelicals still live hollow lives of modern men, pursuing the glory this world has to offer, licensed to kill all who would hold him back? We may have the appetite of man in us yet, but what does it say to the world when we fill our cravings in ways that emulate Bond more than Christ? We do not mourn, but rather celebrate. We do not fast, we feast. We dare not give up mother and father and brother and sister and houses and lands. Perhaps we prefer the houses and cars and toys and fields and fields of stubble.

Nor can this be battled in the physical realm. Giving up our stuff does not a spiritual man make. Many pious of pagan religions live lives of giving asceticism. It is not about what we have or do not have, but about the desires of ones heart. It is about building up the inner man, the spiritual man, the gift of Grace that God has so tenderly lain upon us. Do you not know that the laws of the flesh – do not touch, do not taste, do not handle – are of no value to curbing the indulgence of the flesh? None perhaps were more rigorous in their physical devotion than the Pharisees – and none were more condemned by our Lord.

Nor can knowledge keep our hearts from charging headstrong into the abyss of self-lording. Theology, that strange construct of spiritual truth and intellectual cognition, is no saving force. Even the demons believe – and tremble. No, the reign of our King takes hold in our hearts when we vitiate the flesh, and vivify the spirit. Do not feed the cruel red goblins of fleshly indulgence, for they have a grip on hell itself. Do not let them grip your soul. Freedom is only ever found in the cool and gentle yoke of Christ, a spiritual life of regenerated spirit, affections, and desires.

Arm yourself because no-one else here will save you
The odds will betray you
And I will replace you
You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you
It longs to kill you
Are you willing to die?

A Sad Decline

2011-12-03T10:09:00.001-06:00

Well, it isn't exactly theology, but it does speak to so many theological ideas: John Blake blogs for CNN about the decline of love and romance in R&B music. As a lover of the classic rhythm and blues, I find this article comes with a sting of nostalgia and a longing for a time that was more, well, soulful. Read the article here.

Dead People Make Us Humble

2011-11-29T10:24:00.001-06:00

Trueman, the Great Reformed Bard, has a good little piece on Stott and his recent adulation, offered, in our oddly ironic way, posthumously. Trueman points to some of the theology of Stott that was a bit off (at least according to Trueman, but I didn't find myself disagreeing much). What did I take away from it? Well, after a long full life lived to the glory of God and the furtherance of his kingdom any old Cambridge scholar can come along and pick your theology all to pieces. Which means that someone will probably do that to you and I - assuming we ever rise to the level of eliciting any kind of scrutiny. Which means that right now, we aught to be humble. We might actually have got some things wrong.

Trevin Wax: What is an Evangelical?

2011-11-28T11:05:00.001-06:00

Trevin begins a series of posts that presents a compressed view of the book "Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism" (Zondervan, 2011). This first post presents the fundamentalist response, as elicited by Kevin Bauder. A good read, here.

Building Up

2011-11-28T10:18:00.001-06:00

It seems like there are endless false teachings being peddled as Christianity today. Mind you, there are many legitimate Christian traditions that I disagree with, but the denominational lines have been blurred, and now we have the interesting phenomena of "Internet Christianity". It is now easier to categorize teaching by program, method, and telos than by any denomination, creed, or confession. No longer can one enter a church and know what will be taught based upon the sign outside - especially when all the sign says is something vague like "Newspring church". And of course, anyone can log onto the Internet and read or listen to the latest crackpot wrapping sin in Christian language and peddling it like a steaming Satan sandwich to the spiritually starving masses.

But, the curious result of this among conservative Christians is frequently unbiblical. Sound harsh? Here is what I mean. The prevalence of false doctrine has led many pastors, churches, ministries, and bloggers to spend all their effort and energy combating these false teachings. In so doing, they are missing the positive command of Christ in the New Testament. The Great Commission is called Great for a reason. It is our "prime directive". And Christ's words could not have been clearer. Making disciples involves teaching people to observe whatever Christ commanded.

As Christians, we have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This regeneration, this new birth, at last opens up to us the beautiful vistas of spiritual life. But we all begin as spiritual babes, in need of shepherding, in need of growing, in need of grace. Spiritual growth does not happen by magic, nor by time only (consider Paul's reprimand, that those who should be teachers still need milk), but by spiritual disciplines. To put it bluntly, we grow by doing good works.

So certainly there is a place for protection and placing boundaries around God's precious flock, but if that is all - or even most - of our ministry, then we may have missed the Great Commission. We must also be building up. It seems that this idea - the call to God's people to do good works, to love their God and their neighbor, to exhibit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. is the one thing majorly missing in many, many Christian pulpits, blogs, and ministries. We are to be like Christ, to do his works, and when we ignore that, we are stunting Christian growth.

So my encouragement today is to build others up in the truth, and be telling them not just what not to believe or do, but what they are to believe and do - and so fulfill the command of Christ.

JBMW Download

2011-11-28T10:16:00.001-06:00

If you are interested in the "gender debates" (I recognize that this issue is native to only parts and portions of Christianity, even in North America), I recommend that you download the free PDF of Southern Seminary's "Journal on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood". Even if you disagree with the contents, it is a great place to start researching where the lines are, what the issues are, and how people are speaking about sex, gender, and sexual identity in conservative Christian circles. Download here.

Effective Mission

2011-11-23T09:42:00.001-06:00

There have been quite a few conversations on the topic of "mission" lately. It seems everyone wants a voice in what the church is supposed to be and do. These are some very helpful conversations, and I would like to augment them by talking about effective mission. Effective mission is about actually carrying out the mission of the church. Theoretical talk about the mission of the church corporate needs to be supplemented with theoretical talk about the mission of the church local, but both need to be put into practice at some point to mean anything at all. Effective mission is about putting the mission into practice.

So how do we do that? How do we transition from a bunch of seminary egg-heads sipping $4 coffees and discussing the deeper things of "mission" (don't add an "s" on the end, or you will be forever branded as a theological troglodyte) to a bunch of seminary egg-heads actually doing mission? More importantly, how do we do it well? Today's post is about doing it well for the glory of God.

The center of the church's mission is the proclamation of the glorious good news. I choose those words carefully because we want to be careful to avoid some thorny pitfalls. The mission of the church is not centered upon saving the lost. God does that. Nor is it centered upon good works or being all that we can be in the Lord's army. Now to truly proclaim the gospel we have to live it. And when we do, God will use that to draw men to himself and gloriously save them. But the role of the church in all this is a living witness of God's grace, not a soul-winning machine or social justice engine. So any effective mission has to be able to effectively share the gospel.

For this reason, discussions of effective mission must at some point touch upon logic, rhetoric, and communication. Understand, a person or church or denomination might have a perfectly true gospel proclamation and yet have a quite ineffective mission. Sometimes this ineffectiveness has got to do with method or practice. This post is not about that. This post is about ineffective communication. I am not a pragmatist, but there is a certain amount of wisdom in Spurgeon's counsel that a man of the cloth aught to have an expansive chest. Modern microphone technology may have leveled the contemporary oratory playing field, but his point still stands - a pastor is a communicator, and must take that seriously. That being said, I would like to suggest that effective mission requires effective communication, and effective communication can be accomplished with a three-fold strategy.

1. Recognize the communication zeitgeist

If you haven't got around the "real world" lately, you might want to take a course or two on contemporary rhetoric. You can find a lot of good resources online. Here's the Cliff Notes^©: Educational institutions, international corporations, and not for profits all have communication policies in place which require associates to speak in morally neutral and relative terms. For example, if you catch an employee stealing, it is incorrect to say, "You shouldn't steal." Instead, one should say, "It is against MegaCorp's policy to embezzle funds." These two characteristics have implications for how we proclaim the gospel. First, the common "hellfire and brimstone" approach of yesteryear will not only be misunderstood, it will probably be automatically classified as the degenerate ramblings of a brainwashed, fundamentalist lunatic who probably has a bomb in the pulpit and a .357 magnum in his truck in the parking lot (innocent of the bomb charge, no comment on the other). There is absolutely nothing wrong with preaching hellfire and brimstone, and some contexts might demand just that. But most of the time this approach simply won't connect with the audience. Don't put a stumbling block before people just because you like a certain delivery style. Second, any truth presented must have a relative anchor. It usually won't do in our culture to say "because the Bible says", even if that is a perfectly valid answer. A better approach is usually to explain the historical thread of a given doctrine or idea. In general, if you can establish a tradition, most people will accept it as valid, even if they reject it. This not-too-subtle rhetorical approach uses the culture's presuppositions against them. Because they see truth as an exponent of individual human experience, they cannot discount historical theology without also discounting their own ideas. This is called the "Admiral Ackbar Maneuver".

2. Explain what Christianity is

The truth is that many Americans simply have no idea what Christianity is. Explaining Christianity will require the negative act of tearing down bad misconceptions, and the positive act of building up proper understanding. Be sure to incorporate the previous rhetorical strategy to be most effective.

3. Play hard to get

I know that sounds counter intuitive, but in our culture things advertised as free - or worse, pushed at us - are automatically classified as greedy, corporate, swindling, deceptive, manipulative...and the list goes on. The gospel should be presented clearly, but instead of emphasizing the "free" aspect, emphasize the cost. Discipleship is not for everyone. There will be a real cost to following Jesus. Your audience will appreciate the transparency, and your message will be more effective. Remember, in our culture "free" is associated with annoying pop-up ads blocking your view in Angry Birds.

In conclusion, preach the gospel! But please, take the time to serve people well. I don't think there's a brownie badge in heaven for being too lazy to think through your rhetorical strategy well.

Speaking of the Bible

2011-11-22T10:50:00.001-06:00

My personal choice for a new Bible is this hardcover ESV Journaling Bible published by Crossway. You can view a PDF sample of the inside, here. This may not be the right Bible for you; luckily ESV has a PDF comparison chart to help you select a Bible, here. I chose a journaling Bible because I think interaction with the Word is crucial to spiritual vitality and growth. I do believe that the Bible is a means of God's grace that has the power to transform hearts, but I don't believe it is magic. Don't get me wrong, there are worse things you could do than wake up every morning and read your assigned "through the Bible in a year" passage. In fact, I daresay such an exercise will expose you to God's grace in a special way and saturate your mind and life until God's very word spills out into your actions. No, it certainly isn't the worst thing you could do. But it isn't the best either. Interacting with God's word is even more fruitful. We approach the Word as disciples - as learners - and learning requires a certain amount of application. So whether you purchase a journaling Bible (for less than $20 during WTS' 45% off sale), or whether you buy a micro-tipped felt pen and write notes between the lines of your Gideon pocket New Testament, be thinking through and applying God's word. Faith without works is dead.

45% off the Bible!

2011-11-22T10:31:00.001-06:00

If you have been saving up for a new Bible (as I have been - my TruTone cover is shedding its dulcet grey fleece all over everyone and thing), now is the time to buy. Westminster is offering every Bible at 45% off. Buy yours here. Then go pray for God's word to be made available to all peoples, and tribes and tongues and nations; to break up stony hearts and fallow ground; to whisper, to thunder, to burn, to soothe; to save a people, to gather and deliver us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to God's holy Name, and glory in His praise.

Darrell Bock on Jesus' Authority in the Gospels

2011-11-21T11:24:00.001-06:00

If you know Darrell Bock, you know he is far from boring or dry, but he is an intellectual. This series of videos uncovers the ways in which the gospels teach Jesus' authority. Highly recommended.
HT: Justin Taylor

BW3 - "Leaning into the Sermon"

2011-11-21T11:22:00.001-06:00

"Too often the pastor’s ego gets caught up in trying to be all things to all people, to be pastor superstar, and instead of enabling other people for ministry, he or she ends up disabling other peoples gifts, instead of ‘equipping the saints for ministry’."

Ben Witherington has a great post on preaching the word.
Read it here.

New Testament Biblical Theology - 45% Off

2011-11-17T08:55:00.001-06:00

Until November 23, WTS is offering Beale's New Testament Biblical Theology for only $30.24 - that's 45% off the cover price. This beautiful hard-bound tome (1072 pages), hailed as Beale's "magnum opus", would make a fine gift for any theology nerd in your life. Get yours here.

Publisher's Description: In this comprehensive exposition, a leading New Testament scholar explores the unfolding theological unity of the entire Bible from the vantage point of the New Testament. G. K. Beale, coeditor of the award-winning Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, examines how the New Testament storyline relates to and develops the Old Testament storyline. Beale argues that every major concept of the New Testament is a development of a concept from the Old and is to be understood as a facet of the inauguration of the latter-day new creation and kingdom.
Offering extensive interaction between the two testaments, this volume helps readers see the unifying conceptual threads of the Old Testament and how those threads are woven together in Christ. This major work will be valued by students of the New Testament and pastors alike.
1072 Pages
Published November 2011

About the Author: G. K. Beale (PhD, University of Cambridge) is professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. An accomplished scholar, he is the coeditor of the acclaimed Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament; editor of The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament; and the author of six books: The Temple and the Church's Mission, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John, Book of Revelation (NIGTC), 1-2 Thessalonians (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series), We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority, and the forthcoming Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.

7 Misconceptions About Submission

2011-11-16T09:33:00.001-06:00

Mary Kassian has a great post about submission and its misconceptions. The only problem I have with this article is that many Christians who believe in "submission" and gender roles practice their beliefs as if these misconceptions are true. This is one reason why the whole "complementarian" thing is seen as toxic by some (especially those who were once abused, but this isn't a psychology blog). A healthy read, here.

We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us

2011-11-16T09:24:00.001-06:00

Ben Witherington has a great piece about Occupy (whatever) and the roots of sin in our lives. Read it here.

Blind Guides of the Blind

2011-11-09T09:39:00.002-06:00

Matthew fifteen is one of the most theologically rich chapters in the gospel, delving deep into what seminary types call "theological anthropology". Jesus' teaching in this chapter is especially poignant to anyone who grew up in a religious setting. The chapter begins with the Pharisees demanding to know why Jesus ate with unwashed hands - breaking the tradition of the elders. Jesus responds with a question of his own, why do the Pharisees have traditions that break the commandments of God? This is a question of authority, and as the disciples informed Jesus later (as if he didn't know!), the Pharisees were quite offended. They had received a rich religious tradition that worshiped the One True God, and yet Jesus implied that their tradition was actually subverting God's commands. Jesus quoted Isaiah to make his point: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

The hidden subtext to this story is that the Pharisees didn't think their commandments were of men - all of their teachings and traditions were based upon the Law, or Torah. Many times Jesus contradicted their understanding of Torah - his teachings on divorce, for example, contradicted the Pharisees' understanding of Torah. But in this case, Jesus says plainly that they are not just wrong, they are teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. And Jesus pronounces a woe on them.
I think we are just as capable of this evil today. We receive doctrines and we perpetuate them, perhaps because we don't know any better. But even though they are "based" on Scripture, they are actually the commandments of men.

The second part of the chapter deals with the source of evil. Evil does not come from without to defile a person, it comes from within - "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." This is a powerful statement of theological anthropology that shattered the Pharisees' works-righteousness paradigm.

Now these two stories are generally well known, but sometimes we fail to put them together. The Pharisees were concerned with eating with unwashed hands, and Jesus sort of snorts at that idea, "Don't you know that whatever you eat goes through your stomach and is expelled into the toilet?" Now, I think we can presume that the Pharisees were reasonably educated as to human physiology and bowel-movement. They didn't actually think that unwashed hands had any physiological power - rather, they thought that following this ritual would mark them as separate unto God. Jesus exposed this superstition for what it was.

When we take this into account, we see how these two teachings fit together. The second teaching is designed to explain what keeps us from being separate unto God. It is not washing hands or any physical rule of abstinence that will keep us from being defiled. The Pharisees' collective problem was that they had the whole situation fundamentally backward. In their worldview, they were pure already, and their rituals and traditions kept them from being "infected" by that great big external evil. In Jesus' worldview, we are defiled already by virtue of what proceeds from our heart. Murder doesn't come from without, but from within. In fact, every evil is produced by man. So the solution can never be to "fence oneself off" from the world. We are already polluted. What we need is not protection from defilement, but deliverance from defilement!

Let us look at our own life path and ask - do we act as if we are pure and need protection, or are poor and need provision?

Spot the Heresy

2011-11-06T22:35:00.000-06:00

Photo taken in a local (anonymous) church...

Dude, Where's your Bride?

2011-11-06T07:38:00.003-06:00

The Rev Kev posted a great article last week about men and marriage. The combox is certainly worth checking out to see how different people of both sexes - single and otherwise - feel about this topic. Excerpt below. Read the whole thing here.

As I speak at different venues across the country, one of the recurring questions I get comes from women, young women in particular. Their question usually goes something like this: “What is up with men?”
These aren’t angry women. Their question is more plaintive than petulant. I’m not quite sure why they ask me. Maybe because they’ve read Just Do Something and figure I’ll be a sympathetic ear. Or maybe they think I can help. They often follow up their initial question by exhorting me, “Please speak to the men in our generation and tell them to be men.”

New IX Marks eJournal: Revitalizing Churches

2011-11-03T10:09:00.002-05:00

The latest 9Marks ejournal (PDF) covers the "why" and "how" of revitalizing dead or dying churches. It's a bit dry, but if you are interested in this kind of thing, this ejournal is a good place to start your thinking.

Name That Author: Halloween Edition

2011-10-31T11:29:00.001-05:00

Tis now the very witching time of night,
When churchyards yawn and hell itself breathes out
Contagion to this world.

Holiness By Grace - One Week Sale

2011-10-27T11:07:00.000-05:00

Right now WTS Bookstore is offering you one copy of Brian Chappell's Holiness by Grace at 60% off - that's just $11.69. But it here.

Publisher's Description: This redesigned edition explores the relationship between holiness and grace.
"Be holy, for I am holy." Without Christ we would hear this command and shudder. How can God expect us to be holy as he is? But thanks to what Christ has accomplished on our behalf, God accepts us because of his Son's righteousness. Yet the call to holiness remains.
In this redesigned edition of his book, preacher and teacher Bryan Chapell puts good works and obedience in proper perspective. He traces the relationship of holiness and grace in three parts, outlining the principles of grace, the practices of faith, and the motives of love. This book will challenge readers to discover the gracious source of joy and strength they will need for a lifelong pursuit of holiness.
Published September 2011

About the Author: Bryan Chapell is the bestselling author of numerous books on Christian ministry and life. Christ-Centered Preaching and Christ-Centered Worship are standard seminary texts; Holiness by Grace, Each for the Other, and Praying Backwards have helped thousands find greater joy and fulfillment in the grace of Christ. Bryan has been a pastor and president of Covenant Seminary for almost twenty years. He and his wife, Kathy, have four children.

A Symbiotic Affair

2011-10-20T11:18:00.000-05:00

Imagine my surprise when I learned that jelly-fish are not a single organism, but a collection of organisms living in harmonious colonization together. To a ten year-old this is a scientific discovery of philosophical proportions. But our own human flesh is actually little different - from dust to dust is not merely a poetic device; we are symbiotically entwined with the physical world around us. There are microorganisms on our flesh that act as gatekeepers against disease. There are hitchhikers in our mouths that digest our food. And there are billions of little scavengers in our intestines that break down our food. These microorganisms are not an imposition upon the natural order, but are rather its very constitution. Without these relationships, we would die. If disease did not ravage us, we should die of starvation, for our digestive system is symbiotically reliant upon bacteria for digestion. Of course, this symbiosis extends far beyond stomach bugs. We have a relationship with all other living things in that we consume them for food. From deer to GMO corn, we rely on living things to live.

But woe to us if we admit our hopeless dependency in the physical realm only! You see, we are not only physical creatures, and our symbiosis is by no means limited to physical things. We are spiritual creatures as well, and our vitality is equally dependent upon the life-giving Spirit to survive. Just as we were designed to depend upon the world around us to survive, we were also designed to depend upon God in heaven to survive. And just as we will surely perish if cut off from the living organisms in the world around us, so we will perish if cut off from the Living One. This is the one great symbiosis apart from which the others pale to insignificance. To cut oneself off from intestinal bacteria - to sterilize the body of this foreign life - spells a slow, agonizing physical death. But to cut oneself off from God - to sterilize the soul of a Life at once foreign and terrifying - spells the death of the soul, a process no less agonizing than starvation and certainly more permanent.

Name That Author

2011-10-19T11:51:00.001-05:00

"In short, missionary undertaking, however it may be blessed of heaven, is in itself but human; and subject, like everything else to errors and abuses. And have not errors and abuses crept into the most sacred places, and may there not be unworthy or incapable missionaries abroad, as well as ecclesiastics of similar character at home? An unwarranted confidence in the sanctity of its apostles - and proneness to regard them as incapable of guile - and an impatience of the least suspicion to their rectitude as men or Christians, have ever been prevailing faults in the Church. Nor is this to be wondered at: for subject as Christianity is to the assaults of unprincipled foes, we are naturally disposed to regard everything like an exposure of ecclesiastical misconduct as the offspring of malevolence or irreligious feeling."

So You Think You're Masculine?

2011-10-19T10:04:00.001-05:00

Masculinity Is the Glad Assumption of Responsibility from Desiring God on Vimeo.

The only problem I have with this, is I can't see how this doesn't apply to women as well.

How I Wish the Homosexuality Debate Would Go

2011-10-18T10:37:00.000-05:00

Trevin Wax has a very well-written and winsome piece, here.

A Real Head-Scratcher

2011-10-17T11:39:00.002-05:00

Well, I’ve had a month to mull it over, and it still doesn’t make sense me, so I am going to blog about it and see if maybe my dear readers can help me get this straight. Last month, Al Mohler posted a brief blog about Michael Licona and his recent book regarding the historicity of the resurrection. I read Licona’s book, and it can only be called magisterial. I have yet to come across any Baptist treatment of the historicity of the resurrection that even approaches Licona’s work. So of course, I was interested in the article. Mohler’s post can be boiled down to a simple idea. Licona suggests that the language of Matthew 27:51-54 is apocalyptic language (this is the passage where dead people are raised and seen in the city of Jerusalem). Mohler approves of Grudem’s challenge that this move constitutes “dehistoricizing” the text, and is a violation of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, which is a foundational document to the ETS.

Frankly, I can’t figure out what Mohler is arguing here. He makes some assertions, but he doesn’t really present any arguments. I have thought through every angle I can come up with, and I simply can't uncover any good reasons to accept what Mohler says. I admit I am disinclined to accept what Mohler or anyone else says just because he says it. Even the apostle Peter got it wrong one time (and apparently James also, Gal. 2:11-14). Mohler has just as much of an obligation to defend his ideas as anyone else. More, probably. So here is what Mohler says:

First, Mohler calls Licona’s argument “shocking and disastrous.”¹ And why might it be so? Because in taking these verses as apocalyptic instead of historical, Licona has “handed the enemies…a powerful weapon” by which they might deny the historicity of Jesus' own resurrection.

Second, Mohler concurs with Geisler that this interpretation constitutes dehistoricizing a passage. By inference, Mohler calls this a “direct violation” of inerrancy.

Third, Mohler reminds his reader of the plight of Robert Gundry and implies that Licona might also be expelled from the club if he doesn’t recant.

I think such accusations and topics are very important, and so I thought carefully about the article. Four weeks later, I still can’t see any effective arguments for what are otherwise bare assertions. Here are the problems I see in this article:

1. The claim of dehistoricizing fails to come to terms with Licona’s project. Licona’s whole project is an historicizing one, not vice versa. Licona is attempting to approach the resurrection of Jesus with a rigorous historical paradigm and demonstrate that the resurrection is not something that can only be accessed by faith, but can in fact be known through historical method and accepted as an historical fact. Licona is not abandoning this project for two small verses – that doesn’t even make sense. If Licona were to do so, it would not be these verses that he questioned. Rather, what Licona argues in context is that his own methodology does not allow him to approach these verses as historically “literal” (Mohler does not cite, but this is found on pp. 548ff.). Now, Licona is engaged in a history project, not a theology project, and to expect his work to cohere with systematic theological concerns is incongruous. Mohler says it himself – Licona is going to do battle with historians on their own ground. Licona does not abandon this project when it suits him; rather he follows it to its natural conclusion. If Mohler wanted to argue that historical method can only take us so far in understanding and accepting the gospel accounts, he would have a good argument. Instead, he implies that Licona is “dehistoricizing” the text and denying inerrancy. This is smoke without fire. Mohler hasn’t demonstrated his accusation at all. Furthermore, Licona spends a great deal of time ensuring that he is indeed following a “grammatical-historical” approach, although apparently not according to Mohler’s fancy. It is this very concern which leads him to conclude that Matthew was using apocalyptic imagery here (Mohler also doesn’t go into the breadth of Licona’s argument, which really begins on page 209). Even if we chose to reject Licona’s method, partially or in full, what we cannot do is force a history project to become a systematic theology project.

2. Mohler rejects Licona’s argumentation in two places. First, while exploring this passage Licona points out that the text implies that the dead saints were raised, but not seen in the city until Christ’s own resurrection. Licona asks what any reasonably inquisitive reader might ask – what were they doing in the mean time? Mohler responds that we are only responsible for what the Bible says, not for what it doesn’t say. I’m afraid I find this argument not only unpersuasive, but irresponsible. For starters, every Baptist I have ever met believes things that are not in the Bible, often with great conviction. Details regarding hermeneutics (e.g. dispensationalism), creation (e.g. a “vapor canopy”), and eschatology (e.g. “the rapture”) are regularly punted around Baptist circles without drawing the disapproval of Mohler. If Licona is a threat to inerrancy, why isn’t John Darby or Henry Morris? Second, I find it ironic that a Southern Baptist would say something like this, given the convention’s support of human trafficking and slavery. Of course we are responsible for what the Bible doesn’t say.

The second argument Mohler rejects is Licona’s appeal to contemporary historical documents. Mohler says that we have an obligation to treat as historical that which the New Testament presents as historical. Of course, one must ask how does Mohler determine what constitutes historical material? He is clearly operating under some kind of presupposition regarding the text. In turn, so is Licona. And Licona is faithful to his historical method. Again, we might not (and actually most certainly should not) ever consider this sufficient for our theological life and practice, but that is not what Licona is doing. He is doing modern historical method. What Mohler does not do is cite all the references Licona includes of similar language in writings contemporary with Matthew’s gospel (within a few hundred years time span in both directions). Mohler’s response fails in two directions: first, it fails to come to terms with Licona’s historical research. Licona is arguing that we should understand Matthew in the same way as we would understand the same language in contemporary works. It makes sense for Matthew to use language that his audiences would understand in the way they understand it. Licona may be wrong, but he is not subversive. He is applying rigorous and reasonable textual historical analysis. Second, Mohler’s response fails to account for how we might treat these other works. If Matthew demands to be taken historically, what do we do with the resurrection accounts of Plutarch, Ovid, Cicero, Virgil, Josephus, and Pliny? If Licona is to be consitent, he would have to accept those as historical as well. To pick and choose would torpedo Licona’s own project (and by being rigorous Licona has succeeded hugely in demonstrating that rejections of the historicity of the resurrection are rooted in bias)².

3. Finally, Mohler is extending theological and historical presuppositions sans argument that I find unpersuasive. For example, Mohler contends that if these verses are apocalyptic then Jesus’ own resurrection must be as well. He doesn’t seem interested in Licona’s several hundred page demonstration that such a conclusion is untenable. But what Mohler is arguing for, by implication, is that there is no such thing as mixed genre in the Bible, or at least the gospels. I have to wonder what Mohler does with Daniel, or Ezekiel, or Revelation. These books clearly contain apocalyptic imagery, but also some history. So which are they? If I faithfully followed Mohler’s program I would have to conclude that Daniel must not be historical. The apocalyptic images are so clear and strong, it must be apocalyptic. Therefore, not historical. I guess the liberals had it right all along. Or perhaps it is historical, in which case, goodbye prophecy. I am tempted to write that Mohler is “handing the enemies…a powerful weapon.” Furthermore, Mohler seems to be implying that something must be “literal” to be true. But what does literal mean? Something that happened in time and space apart from any contextualized understanding? It seems as if some modernist presuppositions are seeping out here.

The conclusion to all of this is that Mohler seems to be unaware of what history and historical argument is. He seems not to grasp that if Licona abandoned his method to conform to the theological demands of the tribe, then his project would be of no value. Licona is not writing to his own tribe, he is interacting with the highly influential – and painfully misguided – writings of Ehrman, Crossan, and others who have dismantled the historicity of the resurrection in the public square. What Licona has done is demonstrated that rigorous and even secular historical method can and should result in accepting the resurrection as historical by any critical realist method. This is no systematic theology. Unfortunately, this also reveals a severe problem in conservitive evangelicalism in general, and Baptists in particular. There is a growing fideism that seems all too willing to abandon intellectual rigor for the sake of theological conformity. I speak as a confessional Baptist! I love the creeds and confessions, and believe we should hold to them faithfully. However, I strongly condemn the idea that this precludes us from rigorous intellectual activity in other areas and according to other presuppositions. In fact, I find it a contradiction of terms for a Christian. It seems as if the noble goals of Carl Henry and the first evangelicals have been sold down the river by contemporaries who are so afraid of guarding the doctrinal camp that we can no longer engage the ideas and currency of the world. Is the truth that limp?

Now, I am not the brightest glow-plug in the diesel, and it is possible that I have misread Licona and Mohler. If I have, I appologize and welcome any feedback. But this incessant drive to peg any disagreement as a rejection of inerrancy will eventually serve to alienate an entire generation from the idea of inerrancy.

1. As a side note, this is a habit of Mohler’s which I havelamented in the past – he seems unable to use accurate descriptors, insteaddefaulting to the most sensational and emotive words possible. I cannot thinkof a way in which Licona’s argument could be considered shocking to anyone, letalone someone with a bit of theological exposure, and I can think of noreasonable way in which his arguments could be understood as “disastrous”.Words mean things, and we have a responsibility to use them well. I say this ingrace and love, but I think Mohler undercuts his authority when he uses wordslike “breath-taking” and “shocking” to describe things that neither take thebreath nor induce shock.

2. I am not personally persuaded by Licona's analysis. It is clear to any careful reader that Matthew is engaged in theologizing - that is why he includes events and interpretations which other authors leave out. Matthew is recapitulating Israel's history in the Seed of Abraham. However, as Ryken would say, it is truthful theologizing. I realize that I am departing from Licona's historical method here in order to present a theological point, but I suggest that there was a real happening that Matthew records. Of course, his language and our own understanding of it is conditioned not only by a completed canon, but by 2,000 years of Christian theologizing. All of which to say, that were we present during these events we might experience them and describe them very differently than Matthew, but that doesn't make them "special effects". On the other hand, similar accounts in pagan literature certainly seem to be special effects. I am going to completely demolish any vestige of historical method here and just say I think that the myths and dreams of a thousand cultures were actually realized in Christ. God used real and genuine resurrection, blackness, and earthquake to put his real and genuine seal of authenticity upon the events of the cross. What if the gospel writers were not using literary forms to prove a point? What if God was enacting literary forms to make a point? It is a powerful possibility.

Your Own Personal Jesus

2011-10-17T09:28:00.002-05:00

Your own, personal, Jesus
someone to hear your prayers,
someone who cares

Feeling unknown
and you're all alone,
flesh and bone,
by the telephone,
lift up the receiver,
i'll make you a believer

Take second best,
put me to the test,
things on your chest...

Tim Challies has posted some “interesting” excerpts from John Eldredge’s new book, Beautiful Outlaw. Now, the general theological consensus is that Eldredge is endorsing Theophostic prayer. This practice comes from the contemplative side of Christianity, and sits firmly in the realm of spirituality. Spirituality is generally considered as the practice of cultivating one’s relationship to God through Christ¹.

Now spirituality is a very personal thing, and is in some sense already a bit crazy. For example, in all the circles I’ve run in, fasting has been considered a spiritual discipline. But in itself, fasting is bizarre. Daily “devotions” and prayer are considered normative spiritual disciplines, and the more “sold out” in Baptist circles sometimes spend nightly vigils praying instead of sleeping. There are endless testimonies from Christians everywhere of God “calling them” to this or that, of inner peace and the breaking of addictions, that are all highly subjective and frankly a bit weird, especially to outsiders. So I am not one to jump all over Eldredge’s case and condemn him just because he has spiritual experiences or interprets things spiritually. To be frank, however, I find his interpretations and experiences sad, and his writing irresponsible. And I find his representation of Jesus disrespectful and slightly gender-confused.

However, this post is not about Eldridge, per se, but about the convergence of cultural trend and Christian spirituality. You see, what disturbs me about Eldridge – and many other similar authors – is that they have latched onto a very self-interested branch of spirituality. The problem as I see it is that we might be quick to scoff at Eldredge’s nonsense because it’s nonsense, without realizing that our own spirituality, albeit more normative, is the same thing in a different wrapper.

We live in a “me first” culture, and Eldredge and others are promoting spirituality as a self-centered and frankly immature exercise. Don’t misunderstand, spirituality is about one’s personal relationship to God, and has an inherent element of self. Spiritual growth requires self-examination (one’s introspection before the Lord’s Supper is a good example), meditation, prayer, and other highly personal disciplines. But the Christian life is to be one of love, and love is outward. Healing personal hurts, achieving emotional stability, and cultivating self-actualization are not the goals of Christian spirituality. Loving God withal your heart, mind, soul, and strength are the goals of Christian spirituality, as is loving your neighbor as yourself.

The problem we face is that what Christianity values is radically counter-cultural. Instead of embracing this, some contemporary evangelicals have accepted – consciously or otherwise – the values, desires, and goals of our culture and are bending Christianity to fit those values. But our goal as Christians has never been self-actualization, but service to others. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed, by the renewing of your mind.

Perhaps we find ourselves righteous in our condemnation of Eldredge’s fluff…but we may be practicing the same thing at our core.

1. Howard, Evan B., The Brazos Introduction to Christian Spirituality (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2008), 17.

An Example of Gracious Wisdom

2011-10-11T11:53:00.000-05:00

David Murray has posted audio of a question posed to Al Mohler regarding the influence of Mark Driscoll on young pastors. I thought Mohler's response was gracious, honest, and wise. Some of the comments are interesting, which is a polite way of saying reactionary and probably not well thought through. Mohler may (and probably does, being human) struggle with many of his own problems, but that doesn't make what he said false (ad hominem fallacy). Also, Driscoll is not required to agree with Mohler, or MacAurthur, or whoever. For good or ill, isn't that part of the whole "baptist" thing? The crux of Mohler's response is that some of Driscoll's speech from the pulpit is unbecoming of that avenue. And I agree. There is a place to talk about sex, and incest, and other sins, but I don't think the pulpit is the place. But, I tend toward the liturgical, so there you go. Anyway, the audio clip is worth a listen (or right click here and select "save link as").

Living Christianity and the Limits of Adaptation

2011-10-09T14:11:00.000-05:00

A Pressing Question

From the very beginning (the penning of the New Testament, really) one question has always concerned Christians everywhere. That question concerns how believers are to live in light of the gospel. It is a good question, one that reveals a heart of willingness to follow God, and one that recognizes that gospel truth carries implications for living. If we profess Christ and speak the confessions – if we hold the Christian dogma as true and have faith in the One who delivered this truth – then it only stands to reason that such believe requires a life lived in accord with those confessions. Consider the man who says he believes that he shall never see death. Nevertheless, this man purchases a burial plot, commissions a headstone, and has his lawyer draw up an ironclad last will and testament. We would not consider this man’s profession to be genuine, for a genuine belief in immortality would render such preparations unnecessary. In like manner, the one who professes the Christian faith and yet lives in contradictory manner might be said to have no real faith at all. In any case, that is what St. James the Apostle tells us.

And so the question remains, how shall we then live?

The Philosophical Approach

One approach to living the Christian life is what I call the abstract approach – this is sometimes referred to as a philosophical approach or a systematic theological approach. In this approach, Christian beliefs about Christian living are abstracted to the point of philosophical principle. Examples might include “be at peace with all men”, “care for the poor”, or “love your enemy”. It is then left to the local church to flesh these ideas out. This is not a bad approach. In fact, the Apostles themselves often used such abstract instruction. There is certainly an aspect of Christianity that will always require applying truth to new and different contexts.

The Incarnational Approach

There is, however, another approach that is more complete than the previous. I call this approach the incarnational approach. This approach sees value in the King of Kings becoming human and attempts to imitate Christ in the way he lived. How is this different from the previous approach? Well, consider the abstract idea “care for the poor”. In the previous model, this might be applied by mailing a check to a parachurch mercy ministry every month. But the incarnational approach is concerned not merely with fulfilling an abstract idea, but in how that idea is fulfilled. It is not enough to send money to a charity, one must actually engage in feeding the poor. We are to imitate not only the ideas of Jesus, but his actual actions.

This perspective requires Christians to live out in the world, doing and being, each according to his measure of faith, and each according to his best ability and vocation. Loving your neighbor might mean mowing his lawn, or changing her oil, or babysitting their kids. Feeding the poor might mean volunteering at the local soup kitchen on Saturdays. The incarnational approach means you can’t just have an abstract theology that gets enacted through others – it means that the one claiming belief must also be the actor.

The Limits of Adaptation

This approach, however, faces a growing challenge in today’s culture. Technology and culture are evolving to a point that hinders incarnational ministry. Consider the logistical challenges of modern life. A person might live one place, work five or seven or thirty miles away, and go to church a few miles in the opposite direction. The supermarket might be two streets and a short highway hop away. Clothing might be purchased at a mall somewhere else. Consider also our communication technology – we are never more than a phone call away from anyone in America and most of the world even. From a smart phone, one can access the internet, email, and even video chat with someone on the other side of the globe. This is the new normal in America.

These two phenomena – rapid transportation of analog and digital goods – have the following effects upon American culture. In the first place is an effect that I call community diffusion. We live in many different places, interact with many different people, and there isn’t really anything to hold them all together. We work in one place with certain people. We live in another place with other people. We go to church in a third place with other people. As for shopping, market day is no longer the community practice that it once was. Because of this, building any kind of community is difficult. We don’t live “real life” with the people that we work with, and often we live it even less with the people we go to church with. Cooking, eating, changing dirty diapers and vacuuming the living room are done in solitude. Even as social networking sites allow us to present a selective face to the world at large, so too community diffusion allows us to present certain parts of our lives to certain people at certain times at our own whim. We no longer have to whitewash the tomb; we can just fence it off altogether.

The second effect is what I call influence saturation. The same communication technology that empowers community diffusion also allows us to influence and be influenced by an infinite number of people (well, several billion, anyway). This effect of influence saturation also serves to destabilize community. In former times, the individual was influenced by and in turn provided influence to, his or her specific community. The markers of this situation included two particulars that are important to notice: the individual had little or no choice in which community provided influence, and the individual had to bear the onus should his actions contradict the will of the community. Today, a person’s sources and outlets of influence can be custom tailored to his or her own tastes. The primary hallmark of these artificial communities is that the individual has almost omnipotent power to censure who is “in” or “out”, and the community remains entirely not incarnational. A social network can be navigated entirely via text and images, without any actual human interaction at all. One can choose friends, content, and interaction at will. This influence saturation is also the new normal.

Obviously these effects challenge and even interrupt incarnational ministry. How can we truly be the body of Christ in this world, when the world is engineered to prohibit incarnational ministry? This question has driven a crop of recent evangelical works on Christian living, and remains poignant to all. Incarnational living will no longer happen “accidentally” as the normal course of life; rather, it must be entered into intentionally. But what shape might this take?

A New Paradigm

I would like to suggest a new paradigm for Christian living in this world. I would like to suggest that our culture is changing to a point that might demand a different way of living. This different way is nothing less than the Way of early Christianity, but it is more. Because community and human interaction are ebbing, this different way requires making communal life choices that empower incarnational ministry first of all.

When I speak of “communal life choices” I am speaking of decisions made by the local congregation as a specifically Christian community. It should be mentioned here that there is a difference between community (an idea that is rooted in Trinitarian doctrine) and commonality (an idea that is rooted in political-economic theory). The Christian community, filled with love for one’s siblings in Christ, gives generously and even holds all things common to meet the needs of their poor. This commonality, however, is not the root, but the fruit. As the Holy Spirit rearranges the believer, his heart is opened to lavishing gifts upon his brothers in the same way that God lavished gifts upon his children – peace on earth, good will toward men.

Making communal life choices is about church members getting together to decide the most important (according to the world) decisions based upon the goal of empowering incarnational ministry in and through the local body. Where a person lives, what a person does for a living, where we shop and barbecue and eat out can be decided not on the whim of the individual, but according to the intentional choices made by brothers and sisters in communion desiring to live incarnationally in this world to the glory of God forever, amen. This might require moving closer to the church building. The church building is not an important thing in and of itself, but real estate is not cheap and if one has a building, it is a boon. But commuting to church means that the community one worships in will be different from the community one lives in. This is a partial gospel to the world, for the gospel of Christ is modeled not only in our corporate worship, but also in our daily lives. To see only one or the other is incomplete and incongruous. This might require working locally, to the detriment of pay or benefits. It might require living in an unsafe neighborhood or driving a hoopty (slang for a broken down car) or not living the American dream. It will certainly require faith however.

In the end, this is an exercise in examining the limits of adapting incarnational ministry. If being a Christian in this world requires hands on ministry, then the time may come – and may be upon us already – when our life choices may no longer be “normal”, but must be intentionally counter-cultural.

I Want You to Think About This Argument

2011-09-29T12:53:00.000-05:00

One of the most undervalued and unused aspects of the imago Dei in America today is the life of the mind. As a matter of fact, this lament (generally presented in more secular form) has been issued from so many quarters I consider it in no need of defense. Higher order thinking, critical analysis, and rigid logic are evaporating in the public square, being displaced by creative emotionalism and charismatic persuasion. As a result, some ideas and lines of rhetoric are punted about with little respect for intelligence of the listener, and with little effort on the part of the speaker. Today, I want you to think carefully about a line of conservative evangelical rhetoric you have most likely heard (if you at all come into contact with conservative evangelicalism).Here is the meme that I want you to think about: "Mainline (liberal) churches abandoned the authority of Scripture, and their attendance and influence has declined precipitously." Now, you probably haven't heard that specific phrase, in fact the phrase you have heard is probably less neutral in its presentation.

Now, first I would like to remind you of what an argument is, exactly. I can't remember who I heard this from (it was a professor of logic at Oxford that I heard online, but I forget her name) or I would credit it, but basically an argument is a set of sentences such that one sentence advances a proposition, and the remaining sentences give reason to accept the proposition. Let's use that definition to deconstruct the above rhetoric. The first part of the rhetoric advances a proposition - liberal mainline denominations abandoned the authority of Scripture. Now, we might suppose that the next part gave reasons to accept this proposition, after all, this claim depends upon certain presuppositions regarding authority and practice, and is not nearly as transparent of a statement as some wish it were. However, we find no such support; rather, we find a correlative statement. We will get to that statement shortly, but for now we must note that this is either a poor argument or that the proposition being advanced isn't actually the words of the first part of this rhetoric. Given that the correlative structure seems clear and intentional, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim regarding mainline churches is not the claim being advanced, but is rather a given in a larger, synthetic argument.

The second part of the statement above is that attendance and influence has declined dramatically among the churches characterized by the first part of the statement, i.e. mainline (liberal) protestantism. This statement is clearly not causal, which supports the idea that the actual proposition being advanced is not the state of mainline protestantism, but something else.

This is a case of synthetic argument in which the speaker intends for the hearer to extrapolate argument and meaning from two givens. This can be structured as the following:
1) Given: Mainline (liberal) protestant denominations have abandoned the authority of Scripture.
2) Given: Mainline (liberal) protestant denominations have suffered declines in attendance and influence.

The rest of the argument - if one exists - must be inferred from context. In most contexts it certainly seems as if the speaker intends the hearer to accept that given (2) is causal to given (1), but that is by no means established. From that perspective, this is a poor argument. However, in most contexts that is not intent of this rhetoric anyway. So, for the sake of analysis, let us assume a third given:
3) Given: Given (1) is the result of given (2).

We now have presumed an argument. This is terrible form, but in real life it is a regular practice. Those who use this rhetoric are presuming that their audience accepts this synthesis without any proof. This is similar to the way I might discuss the curvature of light around a stellar mass without having to give the proof of Einstein's theory of special relativity. It is just accepted by those people whom I might be talking to. But if I were engaged in such a conversation, my point would not be the presumed argument of Einstein, but something else altogether, namely the warping of light. In the same way, the presumed argument presented in the rhetoric above is not the point at all. So what is the point?

In every context I have ever heard it, this statement is presented as a negative - in other words, the presumed argument represented in the three givens above represents a bad thing. In fact, this rhetoric is nearly always presented in contrast to the growth of evangelicalism and the positive aspects of accepting Biblical authority.

In other words the implied argument is something like the following:
Proposition being advanced:
1) We should accept Biblical authority.

Reasons given to accept proposition:
1) Mainline denominations abandoned Scriptural authority.
2) Mainline denominations suffered declines in attendance and influence (implied as a result of 1).
3) Declines in attendance and influence are bad.

Now, if the gentle reader is in any way theologically inclined, this analysis should come as a bit of a shock. This is a hasty, slapdash sort of argument, but it stands, especially in more casual conversation. We use these kinds of assumed/presumed/inferred arguments all the time. So the argument is not terrible. But what it is saying is terrible. In fact, it is shocking. The reason given for accepting Scriptural authority is that we don't want to see declines in attendance or influence. Well, sir, I contend that such an argument is not only not it step with the historic Christian faith (speaking as a confessional Baptist, to make plain my own bias), but is in fact a challenge to the gospel itself.

We are called to be faithful, even to death. Christ's own ministry saw him stripped of influence (from a worldly perspective), crowds of thousands dwindled, and in the end, even his closest disciples abandoned and even denied him. Now, we haven't got time to get into what Biblical authority is, etc., but if we believe that it is necessary, then our reason for holding to it has got nothing at all to do with attendance or influence. Attendance and influence are not something that the historic Christian faith is reaching for. In my opinion, it is time to retire this meme. Permanently.

Unpragmatic Pragmatism

2011-09-27T11:20:00.003-05:00

Solid Food Media has got a good post on how the "pragmatic" approach to church is anything but. All too true. But the most poignant point of the article to me was the idea that pastors who dress up like robots don't believe in the power of the gospel on its own to accomplish the work for which God has intended it. I would take this a step further. Not only are we not commanded to dress up the gospel with robot costumes, we are specifically commanded to dress up the gospel with good works (Eph. 2:10, 1 Tim. 6:18, Tit. 2:7, Matt. 5:16, Heb. 10:24, etc.). Perhaps we would be more "attractional" if we replaced giving away free iPads with visiting the orphans.

Love Your Enemy, Part 2: Love

2011-09-26T10:57:00.003-05:00

1 Ptr. 1:22-23 Love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again.

1 Cor. 13:8 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

We are commanded to love our enemies, and no other command of Christ is perhaps so difficult. I have trouble loving my neighbor, my own kind; I have trouble loving my own spouse, my own flesh; how then can I love my enemy? With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

The greatest expression of love that we have is our Lord, Christ, and it is in imitating Him that we express love. One of the hallmarks of Jesus’ short career was his ability to preach the truth to all men. Certainly this should mark our own love for this world. It would not have been loving for Christ to feed five thousand people and not also teach them the truth. Likewise, all the ministries of mercy that we can muster, apart from the loving proclamation of the gospel, is only temporary reprieve of physical suffering – it is not the full measure of love. To be sure, it is all the same to the starving man, and our ministries of mercy should be full-orbed and sacrificial, but they should not stand alone in our worship and obedience.

Unfortunately, there have been some who seem so impassioned for the truth that they end up denying it. I have spoken with some (not many to be sure, but some) who do indeed preach the truth, and argue that this in itself is the measure of love, such that there is no need to adorn that gospel, as it were, with the marks of love. There are even those who equate gentleness or politeness of speech with capitulation to the spirit of the age, as if any meek presentation of truth is the poison of political correctness. The truth is hard and hurts, and people need to just “man up” and take it. But this is not what the Word teaches us, and these false teachers would do well to return to the Word as their good guide. Paul tells us what love looks like: it is patient and kind, does not envy or boast, is not rude or arrogant, does not insist on its own way, is not irritable or resentful. The preaching of the truth is to flow from a heart that has been and is being altered by the Holy Spirit so that it loves the unlovable and profane, and the preaching of the truth is to be in love. Mark those who preach the truth impatiently, or without kindness, who boast and self-promote, are rude in their teaching, and arrogant, the irritable and resentful. Avoid them, for they are not of love.

But the love Jesus showed his enemy was not just the proclamation of the gospel. The truth Jesus preached was for the salvation of souls – it was for the benefit of the hearer, not the preacher! In the same way, Jesus benefitted those he loved by making them wine to rejoice in, giving them bread to be filled with, healing the lame, raising the dead, and repairing a soldier’s ear. Jesus cared for and loved the whole person.

Some that I have met enjoy preaching because it is safe. You can preach without loving. You can preach without having to go out, without having to meet the unlovely, without having to make sandwiches in the church kitchen to feed the smelly and often deranged homeless people who skulk about a few blocks away. But love does these things. Love holds the hand of the drug user screaming as his body demands another fix. Love changes the neighbor’s flat tire. Love sits beside the bed of a stranger with Alzheimer’s. Love takes energy and doing.

Love spends itself in the service of others, and when it is killed, it cries out, “Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing!”

Love Your Enemy, Part 1: Your Enemy

2011-09-24T12:21:00.003-05:00

Matt. 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This is one of those Jesus quotes that makes us uncomfortable - at least, it makes me uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable because it doesn't describe me very well...and because of that, implies that I am not a son of God. It is also uncomfortable because when I look at American evangelicalism, I don't see this much. But this is who we are supposed to be.

I suspect coming to terms with this truth is not something that can be done all at once, let alone in a blog-post. Rather, it seems like love for your enemy is something that works itself in as we work it out. But before we can get to that, we have to deal with this "enemy" thing. Here, Christ specifically contrasts love for enemy with love for neighbor. I think it ok here to abstract this teaching to the difference between loving people who are like you and loving people who are not like you.

Jesus told us what this looks like - pray for those who persecute you. Jesus is not talking about loving a nebulous philosophical category when he commands us to love our enemies, rather he points to specific individuals, "the ones who persecute you." I imagine as he spoke these words, the disciples saw the faces of their tormenters flash through their minds. That one. Love him. Pray for him. We are to exercise love toward real people that really persecute us. But the category of "enemy" doesn't necessarily stop with people who torment you for your faith.

"Enemy" includes unbelievers. Despite some recent attempts to massage God's message, God remains King. He makes the rules, and he pours out wrath on those who oppose him. There are billions of souls alive today that are lost in their sin, apart from Christ, and under condemnation for their sin. They are our enemies. It is hard to claim any other; the unbeliever has rejected the King of the universe, and is damned to hell, while the righteous will reign with God forever, so how could they not be our enemy? But what are we called to do? We are called first and foremost to share the good news that they too might become our brothers and sisters and enjoy the blessings of Christ! It will not do to pretend that the reprobate is not our enemy - neither will it serve us to pretend that we are in any way allowed to treat our enemies the way the world does.

When Jesus was dying - tortured to death, really - he spent precious breath and energy to pray aloud, "Father, forgive them." Jesus loved his enemies and prayed for them even as his life seeped away. He truly practiced what he preached. This is how Jesus treated his enemies, and this is how we are to treat our enemies. Sometimes we make bad distinctions based upon the world's values. Sometimes we look at the kind neighbor as a friend with whom we need to share the gospel. Sometimes we look at Al Qaeda as a wicked enemy who needs to be bombed into oblivion. But the truth is that all those outside the kingdom are enemies - and we are to love them all. How can we call ourselves sons of God and do otherwise? Our kind neighbor is still the enemy. Al Qaeda still needs the love of Christ. This is the way that the gospel shatters our worldly conceptions of "in" and "out" of "same" and "other" of "Främling" and "Utlänning"¹. We are called to be perfect, just like God.

We are called to love our enemies.
1. With credit to Orson Scott Card, Ender's hierarchy of otherness.

Collin Hansen Reviews "Bloodlines"

2011-09-23T11:52:00.002-05:00

Over at The Gospel Coalition, Collin Hansen has posted a review of Piper's "Bloodlines". Read it here.

Free Kindle Download: Augustine and The Pelagian Controversy by B.B. Warfield

2011-09-20T09:09:00.003-05:00

Monergism books has a great offer for you: a free Kindle download of Augustine and The Pelagian Controversy by B.B. Warfield. Download it here.

D.A. Carson: The Inclusive Language Debate PDF

2011-09-19T14:05:00.001-05:00

Thanks to the gentlemen over at The Gospel Coalition for making Carson's out of print book "The Inclusive Language Debate" available in PDF format online. An important read.

Christianity is not about Power

2011-09-19T11:12:00.003-05:00

Russell Moore did an excellent job in his CNN interview regarding Pat Robertson's recent comments on divorce. Most notably, Moore got to the root philosophy underlying Robertson's response - Christianity as power. I suspect most of my readers would be quick to call Robertson's response wrong - it is evil to divorce a spouse because they are sick. Nevertheless, having the right answer in this case does not one righteous make. Might we have the "right answer" here, but still be operating under a view of Christianity that is one of power, instead of one of service? Or to put it another way, are we capable of living and articulating a faith in the positive instead of only the negative? Can we put away foolishness like divorcing an ill spouse (negative), while also putting on a faith that loves others more than ourselves, serves others, and considers others of more repute (positive)? An excellent word, Dr. Moore.

The Gospel

2011-09-16T22:58:00.001-05:00

G.O.S.P.E.L. from Humble Beast Records on Vimeo.

Fifty Rules for Dads of Daughters

2011-09-16T10:49:00.002-05:00

Some wise counsel for the dads of daughters.

Christ, the Church, and Pat Robertson

2011-09-16T10:45:00.002-05:00

Russell Moore has a great article dealing with the very sad and even wicked counsel from Pat Robertson regarding Alzheimer's and divorce. It is well worth a read for its truth and its beauty. Come to think of it, I can't think of a single Baptist writer that writes with the beauty and expression of Moore. He is truly a pleasure to read.

A Great Catechism Resource

2011-09-16T10:27:00.004-05:00

Head on over to New Demonstration and visit the catechism page. This is one of the most comprehensive resources of this type that I have seen. Worth a look!

Genders, Roles, and Christianity - The Creation Perspective

2011-09-09T12:21:00.000-05:00

Anyone who spends time around Baptists will get sucked into the complementarian gender roles debate vortex before too long. I think this is one of Screwtape's ploys to keep us off mission, but that is for another blog post. I've always found the complementarian/egalitarian debate in Christian circles to be intriguing if only for the simple fact that any kind of equality only has the possibility of existing within a Christian worldview. Apart from a Creator in whose image we are constructed, the idea of gender equality is silly. Even equality between the same gender is silly. If we claim equality, we are claiming equality according to a certain standard. When we match carpet to color swatches we are looking for equality in color tone. When we rank college football teams prior to the season, we are measuring equality according to the capability of winning football games. But how do we measure gender (in)equality?

The real difference here is in worldview. The Christian believes that all humans have the imprint of God upon them, and are equal before God regardless of gender, race, culture, etc. We are all in Adam. This is the only way humans can truly be equal. We are not equal in strength, intelligence, power, or privilege, regardless of gender. Paul put it bluntly - neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. These were all well established categories in the pagan culture of the day. Paul's response? Christ is all and in all. In Christ, these differences go away.

But to the naturalist, this idea is hogwash. There is no God, there is no such thing as "spiritual equality", there probably isn't anything like a spirit anyway. That's a myth. So equality can only ever be physical - strength, power, privilege, and education become the the measure of an equality which can never be attained, but should always be fought for. This is one of the reasons why rights groups are so militant - there is real physical inequality, and the only hope to overturn this is an exercise of force.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Christian is appalled at a perspective and worldview which diminishes gender role to an exchange of power. This is not anything like what Christ modeled, and is repulsive to the believer. Christianity truly frees women to be actually, ontologically equal in all regards to men. If the Christian worldview is true, Christianity is far more egalitarian than naturalism can ever be - and naturalism reduces the human experience to a crude smallness unbefitting the image of God.

Nevertheless, there are gender roles in Christianity that can only be described as complementarian. We have already seen above that there is a significant difference between the Christian worldview and the naturalistic view, and we have chosen to embrace the Christian worldview. If this is so, then we have got to come to terms with the creation perspective. This perspective begins with God as creator, One Who created all things very good, and who has a purpose (telos) and design His Own creation. We know this is so, because He has revealed the end of man in His book. But if this is so, then we can reasonably presume that how we are should inform who we are - ontology begets deontology.

God created men with testosterone, large frames, and consigned man to manual labor in Genesis 3. This is the physiological reality for men, and it informs our gender role. Women have wombs and breasts and smaller frames, and are consigned to childbirth in Genesis three. This physiology informs their gender roles. This post hasn't got the room to go through all the Biblical passages, but from Genesis on the Bible presumes certain gender roles based upon what we actually are. Gender is our physiology. Biblical gender roles are derived, at least in part, from our physiology - God did not just randomly assign odious tasks to us based upon our sex; rather, he created us for our roles. Creation informs our "aught" - ontology begets deontology. No matter how badly we want equality in the sense that the naturalist offers it, such an option simply isn't available to the Christian. Our bodies were created by an all-wise God, who has equipped us for specific callings. I can't bear children or breast-feed, and frankly, I'm not too good with taking care of kids (I almost drowned my nephew once...by accident I mean). I can, however, rearrange the living room furniture on my own. Needless to say, my wife is different.

Let us be careful, then, not to adopt the futile imaginings of the naturalist. It is hard to see how any naturalistic outlook does not devolve into Nietzsche. But within the Christian worldview, equality is by no means the dessicated ghost of human power that naturalism would thrust upon us. Rather, Christ is all, and in all.

A Jungle Full of Monkeys

2011-09-08T10:16:00.002-05:00

Douglas Wilson has some a written and thoughtful article on aesthetics, here. Wilson is generally worth reading for his clarity, grace, and humor, and this post is no exception. In this post, Wilson addresses the aesthetic presuppositions that lead (some of) the YRR to behave like a jungle full of monkeys. I actually snorted coffee all over my nice white MacBook when I read that.

I praise God that the gospel is being preached, but there are times when I certainly agree with Wilson. If I see one more dude walk across the seminary lawn in skinny jeans with unlaced deck shoes, too much hair (not just on the crown of one's head, either), Ray-Ban frames, and a painter's cap, I think I shall be sick. Yep, that's my "I just don't like it" rant.

Worth a read, here.

Ask A Calvinist

2011-09-08T10:10:00.003-05:00

Rachel Held Evans has a post in which various readers ask a certain reformed guy questions about Calvinism. I can't remember the guy's name, but he is one handsome stud, and I think it rhymes with "Dustin Baylor". Apparently he has some blog somewhere. Anyway, the post is a great read, in which Justin (oh, yeah, that's his name) answers some of the common, thoughtful objections to the doctrines of grace. Read it here.

72 Hour Sale - What is the Mission of the Church

2011-09-08T09:43:00.004-05:00

What Is the Mission of the Church?: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (Paperback)
Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert team up for a great read concerning the Church's mission, and for a limited time, Westminster Bookstore is offering the title for up to 69% off.

Buy it here.

From the publisher:
"In what appears to be a growing tension over what the mission of the church encompasses, DeYoung and Gilbert bring a remarkably balanced book that can correct, restore, and help regardless of which way you lean or land on all things ‘missional.’ I found the chapters on social justice and our motivation in good works to be especially helpful. Whether you are actively engaging the people around you with the gospel and serving the least of these or you are hesitant of anything ‘missional,’ this book will help you rest in God’s plan to reconcile all things to himself in Christ."
— Matt Chandler, Lead Pastor, The Village Church, Highland Village, Texas

"DeYoung and Gilbert have put us in their debt with their clear, biblical, theological, and pastoral exposition of the mission of God’s people. That mission, which they rightly understand within the story line of the whole Bible, is summarized in the Great Commission and involves gospel proclamation and disciple making. This superb book will encourage its readers ‘to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship and obey Jesus’s commands now and in eternity, to the glory of God the Father.’"
— Peter T. O'Brien, Senior Research Fellow in New Testament, Moore Theological College, Australia

"A very timely and eminently engaging book for all those who care deeply about the church’s mission in our day. Again and again, I found myself nodding in agreement as the authors made a key point from Scripture or noted the missional relevance of a given biblical passage. I highly recommend this book, not just as food for thought, but more importantly, as a call to obedient, biblically informed action."
— Andreas J. Kostenberger, Professor of New Testament and Director of Ph.D. Studies, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

"Christ is the greatest message in the world, and delivering it is the greatest mission. But are we losing our focus? Are we being distracted, sometimes even by good things? Zealous Christians disagree sharply today over the church’s proper ministry and mission. Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert bring us back to first things in an age of mission creep and distraction. Offering balanced wisdom, this book will give us not only encouragement but discomfort exactly where we all need it. It’s the kind of biblical sanity we need at this moment."
— Michael S. Horton, J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Seminary California

"Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert have written an important book on an important topic. Fair, keenly observant, startlingly honest, this book is replete with careful exegetical work. Verses are not merely cited; they are considered in context. The length of an idea is considered, all the way from its expression in the local church back to its source in Scripture. The result is a book that is nuanced and clear, useful and enjoyable to read, and that is no small gift from two young pastor-theologians who have already become reliable voices. Open this book and you’ll want to open your Bible and open your mind on everything from justice to capitalism, from mercy to love."
— Mark Dever, Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington DC; President, 9Marks

"DeYoung and Gilbert clear the fog that has settled over the nature of the church’s mission. Their tone is gracious, the style is accessible, but most importantly this book is marked by fidelity to biblical revelation and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The authors have succeeded in what they exhort us to do: they have kept the main thing as the main thing."
— Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

"Among the many books that have recently appeared on mission, this is the best one if you are looking for sensible definitions, clear thinking, readable writing, and the ability to handle the Bible in more than proof-texting ways. I pray that God will use it to bring many to a renewed grasp of what the gospel is and how that gospel relates, on the one hand, to biblical theology and, on the other, to what we are called to do."
— D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

"DeYoung and Gilbert provide clarity to some of the most complex contemporary issues facing the church. Focusing us squarely on the redemptive nature of the gospel, they ultimately point us not only to the church’s mission, but to practical ways to understand and live it. The result is a book that will be of great help to pastors, missiologists, theologians, and practitioners."
— M. David Sills, Faye Stone Professor of Christian Missions and Cultural Anthropology, Director of the Doctor of Missiology Program and Great Commission Ministries, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

"Every generation is tempted to augment or diminish, even nuance or redefine the mission of the church. Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert have provided a biblical corrective and protection for our generation in What is the Mission of the Church? With a gracious and kind spirit, this book reclaims the ecclesiastical concepts of mission, purpose, social justice, and the Great Commission from those who have redefined these words with a dictionary other than Scripture. Pastors should read this book with their elders, deacons, and leadership teams to wrestle with answers to the most pressing questions about the church in our day."
— Rick Holland, Executive Pastor, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California; Director, Resolved Conference

A Bit of Help in Managing Your Entertainment

2011-09-03T09:10:00.002-05:00

It seems that a good many people are in a flurry over ABC's recent decision to cast Chaz Bono in the next season of "Dancing with the Stars". If you are like me and had never heard of that show before, it is apparently a show where people dance with famous people. Or not - I had never heard of Chaz Bono either. S/he is a transgendered, uh, person. And that choice to "shove lifestyle choices down our throats" has a lot of people up in arms. It is difficult to be sure, but I think I have a solution for all my Christian brothers out there.

Turn off your television.

Five cents, please.

Christian Smith, Biblicism, and Theology

2011-09-02T11:28:00.003-05:00

Ok, spoiler alert: I have been reading carefully through Smith's newest book "Making the Bible Impossible", and am crafting a review - not one of those off-the-cuff, reactionary reviews that fundamentally fail to come to terms with Smith, but an actual interaction. Well, apparently I'm a slow reader, because the conversation is already off to a roaring start.

The Rev Kev has a lengthy-but-worth-it post that poses some good questions, here.

Robert Gundry suggests that the problems Smith identifies are not the result of biblicism, but the result of leaving biblicism, here.

Peter Leithart points out some inconsistencies worth noting, here.

Andrew Wilson suggests that this may be the Greatest Theological Debate™ of the next twenty years, here.

I suppose now you won't even have to read my review, when it comes out next year...

DGBlog: Fill Your Mouth With Life

2011-09-02T11:27:00.001-05:00

Not Death. Read it here.

9Marks e-Journal: The Pastor and His Staff, Part 2

2011-09-02T11:00:00.003-05:00

The latest 9Marks e-Journal is available online (download the PDF here). This issue continues looking at some of the ideas and issues that surround staffing a typical Baptist or large evangelical church. I say "typical" because frankly most of the presuppositions, language, and arguments only apply to those who pastor fairly large churches that run under typical polity. Suggestions to hire an administrative pastor, for example, conversations about paying staff, and discussions for against having a "senior pastor" have limited application. You may need some creativity and nimble thinking for this journal to mean something in your context, but it is still a great read for those who think carefully about church polity. The book reviews are also interesting.

It Was Nice While it Lasted

2011-08-29T10:14:00.002-05:00

R.C. Sproul Jr. shares some thoughts about the self-splintering of reformed theology, and how this phenomenon is rooted not so much in truth as in character. Read it here.

Three Perceptions of Christ in John 12

2011-08-28T11:17:00.002-05:00

Today pastor Bill Cook of Ninth & O Baptist Church preached a message on John 12 in which he contrasted three perceptions of Jesus. The common key behind these perceptions is the way in which our own heart colors the way we see Jesus. There was Mary, who loved and worshiped Jesus, and spent a year's wages to anoint Jesus with perfume. There was Judas who was a greedy thief and could only think about how he was missing out on a fat purse. And then there were the crowds who wanted salvation from Rome and shouted "Hosanna!" as long as Jesus fulfilled their archetype of Messianic King. How often do we remake Jesus according to our own expectations?

Minimizing Views of God Don't Advance the Mission

2011-08-27T14:01:00.002-05:00

DG Blog has a great article and video here about sacrifice, risk, and the nature of God. Read it here.

Free eBook Download: The Gospel-Centered Life Leader's Guide

2011-08-25T10:45:00.003-05:00

WTS is offering a free ebook download (PDF) of The Gospel-Centered Life Leader's Guide for a limited time. The Gospel-Centered Life is a critically acclaimed nine lesson study that explores what the gospel means for the believer's life and mission. Purchase the participant guide at WTS and save up to 20% off.

"I have not seen a better resource for training people in the implications of the gospel. It communicates both to the new Christian and to the seasoned pastor, much like the gospel itself."
— Darrin Patrick, Lead Pastor of The Journey, St. Louis, MO and Vice President of the Acts 29 Network

"This is a rich gospel-centered small group curriculum that I am really excited to see published."
— Mark Driscoll, Founding and Preaching Pastor, Mars Hill Church

"With simple and direct language, The Gospel-Centered Life helps people understand and effectively apply the gospel to their lives, regardless of where they are in their spiritual journey. It's one of the few resources out there that explicitly challenges others to reach out with the gospel, even as it is growing deeper into their own lives. I highly recommend it!"
— Dr. Steven L. Childers, President & CEO, Global Church Advancement; Associate Professor of Practical Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary-Orlando

Deconstructing Moralism

2011-08-18T12:02:00.001-05:00

According to Tullian Tchividjian, we sometimes drift toward moralism out of a fear of making the gospel "too free". Read the whole thing, here.

Rage Against the Machine: Zephaniah's God

2011-08-16T10:58:00.003-05:00

I have been reading through the prophets this summer, and have been reminded again of the complexity, beauty, and terror of the God we serve. Zephaniah's God declares a vengeance so brutal, it makes the blood curdle.

"I will utterly sweep away everything
from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord.
I will sweep away man and beast;
I will sweep away the birds of the heavens
and the fish of the sea,
and the rubblea with the wicked.
I will cut off mankind
from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord

For those who thought that God's blood-lust was sated in Genesis 6, Zephaniah brings a sharp reality - God's desire for glory will not be thwarted, and those who despise Him will bring Him glory, even if in their utter destruction.

Now we might think that the sins for which God is so stirred are utter debauchery - after all, God pronounces the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah upon these enemies of His. And yet, when we search for the sins of these enemies of Yahweh, we find something perhaps underwhelming. These people are traders - business men who gain wealth through violence and fraud. These men worship other gods as well as the One True God, and are complacent. God will do neither good nor evil, they tell themselves. They are comfortable, middle-class, and worldly-wise.

And they are damned.

You Talk Too Much

2011-08-16T10:53:00.001-05:00

Thabiti Anyabwile has a great article on why we need to shut up. Read it here.

Creeds and Councils

2011-08-12T23:00:00.002-05:00

Justin Holcomb has an excellent concise series on the major councils and creeds of Christendom.
The Council of Ephesus
The Councils of Constantinople
The Athanasian Creed
The Nicene Creed
The Apostles Creed

C.S. Lewis vs. Modern Education

2011-08-09T10:24:00.003-05:00

Joe Rigney, Assistant Professor of Theology and Christian Worldview at Bethlehem College and Seminary, has a two-part series over at DG outlining Lewis' arguments in The Abolition of Man. This is a great series! Read it here: Part 1, Part 2.

Walk This Way

2011-08-05T12:06:00.002-05:00

In business school they usually teach you how to teach people - some people are intellectual learners, and learn by reading the instruction manual. Some or visual learners, and learn by watching. Some are auditory learners, and learn by listening. Others are somatic learners, and learn by doing. In an apprenticeship, the learner should be experiencing all of these things, thus maximizing the learning experience. I think this is what Paul had in mind when he exhorted the Corinthians to "be imitators of me, as I imitate Christ." My question to you is, who are you imitating, who are you modeling, and who is modeling you?

It's interesting that Paul didn't say "imitate Christ." There is a reason for that. Even a short generation after Christ, Jesus had become plastic. The Corinthians already claimed the name of Christ, but they were living debauched lives. They needed generational, mimetic theology - a rule of faith - to imitate. I suppose the same thing applies to us. Christianity consists of community and relationships, including the relationship of mentor and disciple. Find someone concrete to imitate.

But also, be modeling Christ to others. I think we all are, whether we like it or not - someone is watching you and copying you. Parents especially take note.

Which leads me to an interesting question. Think of all the public Christian figures you know. Which one would you most like to imitate? Why? For me, I think the answer is a tie between R.C. Sproul and Russell Moore. The primary reason for both is that they are full of grace and love, while clearly preaching truth in an intellectually rigorous way. May God graciously give me a small portion of their spirit.

Sproul, Chandler, Driscoll, and That Guy with the Funny Last Name

2011-08-04T12:34:00.001-05:00

Why Does the Truth of Hell Rise to Watershed Significance?

2011-08-03T09:20:00.002-05:00

John Piper answers, here.

9.5 Thesis on Postmodern "Christianity"

2011-08-03T09:01:00.002-05:00

Matthew Milliner, Assistant Professor of art history at Wheaton College, has got a good little blog post on "9.5 Theses" directed against post-modern "Christianity". It is worth a read and good for a chuckle (take the post in the spirit in which it was written). I liked the following:
4.5 Wrestling with the difficult questions of the Christian life (the eternal destiny of non-Christians, the reliability of the Bible, church hypocrisy, etc.) does not constitute a movement. It's called normative Christian maturation. It is risky business, but followed through, opens into holy mystery and stronger, more nuanced faith. Abandoned, this process can lead to faith's termination. Perpetuating those questions indefinitely, however, is another thing entirely: Frozen adolescence.

HT: Gene Veith

Intolerant Christian Fundamentalist Massacres Liberals

2011-07-30T12:55:00.003-05:00

Ed Stetzer says pretty much what I wanted to say regarding that whack-job in Norway who murdered one hundred people. So why rewrite it? However, I would like to add a few observations.

1. There is a difference between faith in Jesus and cultural Christianity. Anders Behring by his own admission had no faith, but did believe in cultural Christianity. Some in American Evangelicalism (admittedly what I would call the kook fringe...but there's a lot of kooks out there) have hopelessly conflated the two. I believe that, as the body of Christ in this world, we must be ever more careful to not conflate the two. This gets back to an earlier post I wrote. If we blow the trumpet of cultural Christianity, focusing on cultural issues like homosexual marriage, abortion, and immorality in Hollywood, we risk two things: reinforcing the prevailing bias against conservative Christianity, and telling a lie about the gospel.

2. We don't own language. Talking loudly about how the media "got it wrong" won't change how people use language, and we have got neither the right nor the power to co-opt a word for our own use. Actually, I think Stetzer got this one a bit wrong. I suspect the choice of language accepted by editors had more to do with selling papers than reinforcing bias - but reinforcing bias sells papers. In other words it is not the bias of the mysterious "main stream media" that is being reinforced. It is our own.

3. Stetzer's article also highlights the prevalence of conspiracy-theory paradigm in sociology today. Stetzer presumes by default the presuppositions of conspiracy narrative, which have gained traction in pop American sentimentality, but which have little use to thoughtful Christians.

4. Multiculturalism is dead. Europe gets it. America will probably limp after Europe, a few decades behind, like all cultural ideas. This is not necessarily good or evil, just an observation.

All that to say that what happened in Norway was a tragedy, and I hope both our political leaders and our religious ones can learn something from it instead of political grandstanding.

Awesome Preaching

2011-07-29T12:27:00.001-05:00

Mark Dever has been reading aloud the sermons of Puritan preacher Richard Sibbes. Access the collection at the Capitol Hill Baptist Church website.

Ten Things I Chose Not to Choose

2011-07-28T10:53:00.002-05:00

If you are at all interested in consumerism, Challies has got a great piece, here.

If You Like History

2011-07-28T09:32:00.001-05:00

CT has got a "this week in Christian history" feature that is pretty cool. Check it out here.

Now That Thar is Funny

2011-07-27T10:30:00.004-05:00

Recently, Mark Driscoll posted something on facebook about effeminate worship leaders. Justin Taylor and the Rev Kev have got pretty good coverage on the issue. I observed two things about the whole brou-ha-ha that I found amusing and informative, which I believe we would do well to learn from.

First, the immediate reaction of many in Christian circles was to proclaim their moral orientation towards Mark's post. But why? Is this a case of "judging all things", or a case of judgmentalism? I suspect the primary motivation of most of these comments has got to do with self-definition. Many Christians seem to be very concerned with how people perceive them, and the responses to Driscoll's post frequently displayed this kind of attitude. Comments were not designed to engage either Mark or some specific argument, but were rather designed to show the world who the commenter really is. This is actually quite typical in behavior surrounding celebrities and other popularized concepts, including religion and politics. The person making the comment wants to have a voice in the conversation, but not at the expense of their own reputation. It is a kind of self-defense mechanism, and makes sense in the digital world. I think this tells us something about the machinations of evangelicalism.

Second, the reaction of some was neither to engage the content nor to judge it, but to pontificate on the all the gender evils in Christianity and/or other pet peeves. Brian McLaren's pontification was especially humorous to me, only because it was so predictable. Actually I always laugh when I visit his site, because the icon on the URL tab in my Firefox browser is a tiny little smiling McLaren head. The idea of a McLaren icon is funny in and of itself, not to mention how Jimmy Swaggart that whole design language is. But I digress. Someone even posted a link to this book about Jesus' masculinity and what it means for women. Ok, but the publisher's blurb reads, "At the center of Christianity is Jesus of Nazareth—whose maleness is used by many to justify the subordination of women and to emphasize that men, rather than women, better represent Jesus." Is this serious? Who are these "many" you speak of? I can't think of a single evangelical writer who uses Jesus' masculinity to argue for either! And what does "represent" mean? Are we talking about casting a male as Jesus in The Passion? Because I'm pretty sure that's a good idea, assuming such a project is a good idea in the first place.

It seems that a lot of the "controversy" surrounding Driscoll's brashness hasn't actually got to do with Driscoll at all - it has to do with people's self image and how they want to be thought of (as individuals, but also corporately as catholic Christians). Interesting stuff.

A Good Word and a Poor Word

2011-07-23T09:09:00.004-05:00

Josh McDowell has got a message that just might be one of the poorest messages I have heard in a while. According to McDowell, the internet is evil because it gives "atheists, agnostics, skeptics, the people who like to destroy everything that you and I believe, the almost equal access to your kids as your youth pastor and you have." Really, Mr. McDowell? The internet isn't some kind of digital ninja hiding behind the geraniums waiting to pounce upon and devour your little tykes and kittens. The internet is a tool, and it has to be used. I also wonder about a Christianity so weak that it can't stand scrutiny or skepticism. Frankly, I can't understand why McDowell finds skepticism a bad thing. What about global warming, the claims of most politicians, or healthy cigarettes? Can I be skeptical of that? Or is it only bad when you are skeptical of Christianity? Boy am I glad Martin Luther didn't think this way. Trying to blame a lack of faith on the free exchange of uncensored ideas (i.e., the internet) will do more to tear down the credibility of Christianity than the internet ever will (and lends ever more weight to my belief that American Evangelicalism is a kind of embryonic Romanism).

On the other hand, Out of Ur has a great little two-part series (part 1, part 2) on "mission" and its possible position of idolatry in the evangelical imagination. My take on "mission" is two-fold. First, I suspect that the term is sometimes just the uncopyrighted version of "purpose driven church". Second, it seems like "mission" can be the ditch on the other side of the road from "consumer Christianity". The author describes this as a move from consumer Christianity to activist Christianity. Frankly, I think activism is a good thing. But I think that confusing action and activism with Christianity is silly. We can't get around the fact that Christianity has certain implications for how we live - but while doing is a necessary implication of obeying the great commandments (love God and neighbor - see most of the book of James), it can never replace actually loving. In fact, Paul seemed to think that all the good works in the world meant diddley squat without love. Also, just about every catechism I can think of lists man's purpose as to know God and love him forever. Is this part of our mission? Or does our mission consist of getting people to say the magic Jesus prayer and then go do the whatever pet project the elders dream up? Anyway, the articles are worth a read.

Horton on Catholicity

2011-07-16T11:33:00.000-05:00

Modern Reformation has a great article by Michael Horton on the dream of the catholic Christian church. Worth a read.

I Want it All

2011-07-16T10:59:00.002-05:00

Russell Moore has a great update on Russian adoption, and he reminded me of why Christians are so weird.

We are so weird because we want it all. We don't long for the day when humans all pull together and rescue all the orphans - we long for the day when there will be no orphans. We don't long for the day when we take the hurts and pains and hunger of others to heart and care for them - we long for the day when such is unnecessary. We don't long for a world where the cruel, the warlord, the despot is quickly disposed and the people liberated - we long for the day when there are no despots.

We want it all.

Perception Versus Reality

2011-07-16T10:22:00.003-05:00

No doubt some of you remember your introduction to argumentation class and the sort of warped, Twilight Zone feeling you had when you learned that facts are neither true nor false. A fact just is; it is a certain measurement based upon a (generally universally) agreed upon standard. Ideas and arguments can be true or false depending upon context and their appeal to facts. It is not true that the earth is flat, because the fact is that the earth is a sphere.

However, this example highlights the difference between facts and perception. The earth generally appears to be flat in our every day experience, and we do everything from driving to building skyscrapers without ever taking into account that the earth is in fact spherical. The perceived world is generally pretty flat. Because of this we tend to live our lives in the shallow realm of perception. We accept what we have heard and live our lives and make our decisions accordingly. Rarely do we take the time to examine facts.

For example, many people have heard the perception that Japanese automobiles are reliable. What most people don't know is a fact: the top two vehicles with the most mandatory recalls in the last 25 years are the Honda Accord and the Honda Civic (212 and 208 mandatory recalls, respectively). When these facts begin to inform a person's habits, it becomes information; when these facts begin to inform a person's greater thought complex, they become knowledge.

So how does this relate to theology?

50 Extraordinary Church Buildings

2011-07-15T12:28:00.002-05:00

Thanks to the Rev Kev for posting a link to this cool photo album: 50 coolest church buildings ever.

Sexual Moralism Revisited

2011-07-14T11:32:00.002-05:00

Cranach blog has a good little discussion going regarding my recent post on moralism and the gospel. I think the comment thread is well worth a read to add some different perspective to the topic.

1644 LBC Article Three

2011-07-13T12:16:00.002-05:00

That God hath¹¹ decreed in himself from everlasting touching all things, effectually to work and dispose them¹² according to the counsel of his own will, to the glory of his Name; in which decree appeareth his wisdom, constancy, truth, and faithfulness;¹³ Wisdom is that whereby he contrives all things;¹⁴ Constancy is that whereby the decree of God remains always immutable;¹⁵ Truth is that whereby he declares that alone which he hath decreed, and though his sayings may seem to sound sometimes another thing, yet the sense of them doth always agree with the decree;¹⁶ Faithfulness is that whereby he effects that he hath decreed, as he hath decreed. And touching his creature man,¹⁷ God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of his will, foreordained some men to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of his grace,¹⁸ leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his Justice.

[11] Isa. 46:10; Rom. 11:34-36; Matt. 10:29, 30.
[12] Eph. 1:11.
[13] Co. 2:3.
[14] Num. 23:19, 20.
[15] Jer. 10:10; Rom. 3:4.
[16] Esa. [sic] 44:10.
[17] Eph. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 1:9; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29, 30.
[18] Jude vs. 4, 6; Rom. 9:11-13; Prov. 16:4.

This article is primarily about God's sovereignty and decrees, but it necessarily touches upon salvation and reprobation. Any argument against this article must begin by addressing one fact - if God ordained anything before the foundation of the world, then the result of that ordination is God's "fault". This is where Arminianism gets it wrong. No matter how "free" a person's will (and I think Luther's Bondage of the Will still stands as the authority on this subject), that will is still exercised in a world of God's choosing.

Micah's God

2011-07-11T09:52:00.002-05:00

"Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love. He will again have compassion on us; he will tread our iniquities under foot. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. You will show faithfulness to Jacob and steadfast love to Abraham, as you have sworn to our fathers from the days of old."

Micah 7:18-20

Please Stop the Moralism

2011-07-09T10:51:00.002-05:00

DG has a pretty good article on sexuality and salvation that we should all heed. To my brothers, I have this plea: please stop with the sexual moralism. True Christianity finds its all in the gospel - God's grace to take us in when we are wretched. We all come to God laden with sexual sin. The purest among us is an adulterer, for without the Holy Spirit our hearts burn with lust. This is who we are. The joy is that there is salvation! The joy is that Christ takes our filthy rags and clothes us in his own righteousness. The joy is that God's own Spirit empowers us to enjoy God's great gifts - even sexuality - in their proper and most delightful context.

But some have ignored this, and instead spend their energy "fighting" homosexuality in the public square. Do you realize, friend, that no amount of moralizing nor legislation will take away the depravity of the human heart? There is the third use of the law, but that conversation makes no sense without the first two uses of the law! Which is to say that we are sinners all and need the love, grace, and compassion of a savior who gave up everything - even His own life - to rescue a people damned to torment for our own wretchedness.

The problem, brother, is that a few of us are so loudly proclaiming that homosexuality is a sin that we may be guilty of actually preaching a false gospel. You see, some of us have got a beautiful, strong doctrinal position. On paper. But much of the world never sees that. They hear your moralizing. They read your blog. They visit your church website. And the "gospel" they hear is that until they clean up their life, they cannot be acceptable to God. Please hear me; this is a very deep evil. This is not the gospel of Christ! Are you so arrogant that you believe you are God's own instrument to stem the tide of social depravity? That is God's business, and he has ordained a means by which this may happen - the conversion of the soul.

Brothers, we must be faithful, and part of being faithful is being clear that we are sinners in need of a savior - and sexual sin is just that. Even homosexuality, today's hot topic, is a sin against the one true God. So is the rampant lust, pornography use, and divorce that afflicts our "Christian" churches. Our actions do not make us less sinners. We do not need less grace. And the other part about being faithful is being faithful to proclaim our gospel of grace! The other part of being faithful is to actually obey Christ - to love God with all our strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

So my plea to you is to please stop the moralism. I'm sure we mean well, but the gospel you take for granted is the precious water of life that alone can soften the cracked desert of the lost soul. Stop damming it up.

Digging up Gath

2011-07-09T05:45:00.001-05:00

Researchers in Tel El-Safi, Israel are continuing their excavation of Gath. Read about it here.

Show Me a Man's Library

2011-07-08T11:57:00.004-05:00

As I have been to seminary (more than one), and been through internships and other teaching opportunities, I have noticed a number of young men who love reading and libraries. Actually, I am one of them. However, in this I have noticed something else. It is embarrassing to admit, but it seems that some pastors and seminarians want to be thought of as well-read, wise, thoughtful, and basically smart. I know that I am judging somewhat here, but sometimes the vibe is so strong that electronic devices start spontaneously attenuating with the self-important energy. Others, however, actually want to be well-read. Others want to be wise. Others want to be thoughtful. Reading can be one way to facilitate this.

I think, however, that this is a good place to point out that some ministers don't read very much - perhaps they haven't got the time, or perhaps they just aren't into reading. That is ok. I have witnessed some misplaced guilt among pastors and future pastors who feel that they are somehow unfaithful or less than adequate because they don't read. Well here's the thing, friend, the only thing we know for a fact that Jesus ever read was the Word of God. Frankly, Jesus didn't spend a lot of time in the library, and when he was alone he was generally praying, not reading, navel-gazing, or sipping coffee. We are called to imitate Christ in our ministry, and I suspect America has far more use for a man who does the works that Jesus did than one who spends great chunks of his time holed up in the quiet study area of the Library surrounded by Brill publications while contemplating the implications of Fretheim's relational theology.

Rather, reading is about learning and conversation. Hearing the thoughts of others, and interacting with them, is a way of sharpening, changing, and clarifying our own thinking. It is a means toward personal growth. It is a tool, and used well it can have good results. Used poorly it can be disastrous.

Primacy of Personal Character
That being said, being smart isn't that important in the scheme of things. On the last day Jesus will say "Well done, good and faithful servant", not "well done, highly intelligent and well-rounded dude." We must - we must - believe the words of Christ, and have our minds transformed by the Spirit and the Word. The things that matter to God are not the things that matter to this world. Jesus came and served the least of these - and we are called to do the same. Personal character is far more important and valuable than learning and education will ever be. We are called to love God and love others. If you aren't doing this, please stop reading this blog, and go out and love someone. When we read, our goal should be in tune with the great design that God has for this world and for us. Reading should be a means to improving our personal character and empowering our mission of love in this world.

Goals in Reading
Presuming all that, we can establish some goals in reading. Believe it or not, the primary goal in reading is personal improvement. By exposing ourselves to the ideas of others, we reveal our own shallowness of thinking and character. Reading is window to the soul. Another goal of reading is serving others. We do not improve ourselves for the sake of ourselves - we improve for others. Ours is an outward faith, and those things we do with our time should be outward serving as well. A final and sometimes guilty goal in reading is personal pleasure. Reading, my friend, is fun. Or at least it should be. No one should feel bad about curling up with a pipe and a pencil and digesting a really fun book. It sure beats curling up in front of the TV with a plate of buffalo wings.

Wheat and Chaff
That being said, there is a whole lot of junk on the market these days. The world is full of what I call almost books. These are books that have one simple idea that is padded out to fill a book and is generally a restatement of something that a greater pen already explored in times past. Evangelical theology books are especially notorious for being almost books. I'll be frank, most of the books at your local Christian bookstore are junk. I have a whole shelf full of these books, most of which I acquired free of charge. Books on pastoring, books on worship, books on biblical gender roles - all of them "almost books", and all of them a simple-minded slice of truth that has been expounded far better and more completely in the classic literature. Books lite. By contrast, there are many good books, and frankly most of them are old. They are not old because they did it better in the mythical "good ol' days", but rather, they are old because they were so well written that they have stood the test of time. A few classics are worth hundreds of almost books. Of course, there is a subjective element in all this as well, as the reader selects books that will address the reader's own needs. I have a Volvo repair manual on my bookshelf, and I am not in the least embarrassed by it. At one point in my life it was quite a necessary read!

What to Read
I shall not tell you specific books to read, an endeavor that would be certainly presumptuous, other than to highly recommend the Holy Bible. It is an amazing book, and quite fascinating. Rather, I would like to suggest three categories for reading in. The first and most important category comprises books about how we think and act. If you haven't studied logic and rhetoric, please be slow in arguing anything to others. If I hear one more pastor commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle, I might possibly box him in the ears (well, I am still a bit carnal). Psychology, especially social psychology, is another good place to read, as well as theological anthropology, secular anthropology, social studies, history, etc.

The second category comprises books on art, architecture, fashion, and aesthetics - coffee table picture books are especially good. We are visual creatures, and these kinds of books stimulate the mind in ways that intellectual writing simply cannot.

The final category is fiction. Read good stories. And finally, read the classics. I cannot stress enough how important it is to read good books. There is no use wasting your time on fluff when you could be digesting steak. Oh, and try not to read people you agree with. You already know that stuff, and if you need a pep-talk spend your money on a good therapist, not an almost book. Rather, read people who will challenge you. Follow these guidelines, and reading might just become a useful tool not for inflating ego, but for empowering ministry.

Two Great Articles from DG

2011-07-08T11:50:00.002-05:00

John Piper writes about loving your enemies: it's now or never (read it here). Jon Bloom writes about the subversive effects of mirrors - seriously (read it here. Short articles, and worth reflection.

This is a Cool Resource!

2011-07-02T09:21:00.002-05:00

Justin Taylor recently highlighted a really cool looking resource from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts:

Today the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) announces that it is now available on iTunes U, a dedicated area of the iTunes Store (www.itunes.com) that offers free audio and video content from leading educational institutions.

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) has always been committed to helping others understand the reliability of our New Testaments, the history of translations, the study of the text, and significant figures who have made this possible.

Beginning today, CSNTM is making a series of videos concerning New Testament manuscripts, textual criticism, history of the New Testament, and expert commentary on key verses available as a free download on iTunes U.

Featured in the videos are interviews and footage shot around the world of important people involved in the work of the Center. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace will also be featured as he explains important aspects in the study of the text of the New Testament.

HT: Justin Taylor

Jonah and the Prayer

2011-07-02T08:55:00.003-05:00

There is no whale in the story, but there is a pretty impressive prayer. Jonah has chosen to flee from God, and like a jilted lover God comes at Jonah all a-tempest. Literally. The pagans against their will appease Yahweh with a human sacrifice, the sea is calm, and Jonah, swallowed by an appointed fish, cries out to God. In the midst of his anguish he utters a fascinating line that is all but ignored in our flannel-board, Sunday School, cartoon Jonah stories. "Those who pay regard to vain idols
forsake their hope of steadfast love."

Jonah's God is not a vain idol - he is living, and powerful. And he is love. It was in love that God pursued Jonah, and it was in compassion that he spared Ninevah, that great and awful city. The kinds of things that God cares about don't always agree with our sensibilities and emotions. Following God can be downright bothersome. But when we forsake him for the ease of vain idols, we forsake more than the Living One - we forsake our hope of steadfast love. We forsake the hope of a real God, who will not forget his covenant. The relationship might get wet sometimes, but it is worth it.

New 9Marks Journal: The Pastor and His Staff

2011-07-01T07:40:00.003-05:00

Some of the brothers in the 9Marks network share some helpful thoughts on the pastor and staff in the local church. You can download the PDF, here. Having read it, I have a few observations.

1. A continued tension between contemporary language and Biblical language regarding church staffing.
Michael Lawrence actually has a pretty funny little article on just this topic addressed to an associate pastor - the subtitle reads "The church isn’t yours, it’s his. Then again, it’s kind of yours, not just his. Then again, it’s neither of yours, it’s His." Like it or not, contemporary church views the local body as something like a business with a CEO (senior pastor). Frankly, I don't think this model fits the New Testament description of a church's leadership. In fact, I'm not even sure it fits with the "plurality of elders" model that 9Marks promotes. But like it or not, this is the way we are accustomed to think regarding churches, and the language permeates this issue. The title ("The Pastor and His Staff") is a painful reminder of this - in the New Testament the staff exists to serve the body, not the senior pastor. This kind of language continues throughout - "The Obvious and Not-So-Obvious of Staff Management", "Do You Disciple Your Staff?", "Senior pastors are not islands. This associate has several insightful tips for reminding senior pastors how much they have to benefit from the rest of their staff." - all of this language presumes a top-down corporate structure to the local church.

2. A continued focus on hiring people that fit a certain mold.
The language and paradigm continues to be one of hiring people in (to a corporate team). As a function of this, people with certain personality traits and capabilities are preferred over others. This ties in a bit with my previous post regarding the introverts among us. What I don't see is room to grow all members of the church and allow them to serve in their best capacity. One of the main problems with the "hiring people in" model is that is is unsustainable on the mission field. In cultures where a church may be the only Christian church, the elders must strive to raise up leaders from within this body. This is also the New Testament pattern - Timothy was to train up faithful men that he could trust to preach the word, not send off to Antioch for a "motivated self-starter".

3. A continued need for wisdom.
Pastors are human, and need wisdom. As Mark Dever put it so succinctly, read and apply Proverbs. I think that goes for all of us.

All in all, a great little ejournal to digest and think about the leadership of Christ's body.

Book Recommendation: Introverts in the Church

2011-06-30T16:30:00.002-05:00

A consistent problem I have noticed in evangelical churches is the way in which they are designed by and for extroverts. I am not an introvert, but neither am I an extrovert, and I sometimes cringe at the way that churches behave. I have heard everything from the traditional "stand up and spread germs" to even weirder experiences like impromptu "everyone serve each other" in communion to admonishments that extroverted behavior is somehow more spiritual. I suspect these foibles are sometimes a result of ignorance - pastors (who often tend to be extroverted) simply don't understand human psyche and the pain that introverted people feel whenever these schemes are introduced. Some of it, of course, is the result of a lack of class and perhaps a disrespectful view of the sacraments and their weightiness.

Well, someone has written a book about introverts in the church, and I recommend it highly. In Introverts in the Church, Adam McHugh not only explains how introverts think and feel, but demonstrates ways in which they can effectively serve in church. A great read for all, but especially pastors. From the publisher:

Introverts are called and gifted by God. But many churches tend to be extroverted places where introverts are marginalized. Some Christians end up feeling like it's not as faithful to be an introvert. Adam McHugh shows how introverts can live and minister in ways consistent with their personalities. He explains how introverts and extroverts process information and approach relationships differently and how introverts can practice Christian spirituality in ways that fit who they are. With practical illustrations from church and parachurch contexts, McHugh offers ways for introverts to serve, lead, worship and even evangelize effectively. Introverts in the Church is essential reading for any introvert who has ever felt out of place, as well as for church leaders who want to make their churches more welcoming to introverts. Discover God's call and empowering to thrive as an introvert, for the sake of the church and kingdom.

Evaluating Arguments

2011-06-24T10:29:00.003-05:00

Part of the common human experience is attempting to persuade others to see things from a certain point of view. The method used for this persuasion is usually argument (but occasionally water-boarding). Now, we could delve into classic rhetoric, but instead I would like to offer a simpler and frequently more effective metric for evaluating arguments. I call it the argument ninja.

There are two basic forms of argument: those that appeal to emotions, and those that appeal to facts (information, knowledge, or data). The first strike of the sword is to separate arguments that appeal to facts from those that appeal to emotion. Consider the following argument:
"Snorkels should be illegal! Do you know how many young children have drowned trying to snorkel?"

This is an argument that appeals to emotion. The purpose is to get one to feel bad about the death of young children, and so go along with a program of outlawing snorkels. Separating arguments that appeal to facts from those that appeal to emotion is a fairly easy enterprise; however, this is where it becomes tricky.

A truly reasoned and valuable argument gathers facts and claims, examines their context, formulates a response, and states both the response and its context in clear language (presuppositions, methodology, conclusion). This kind of method generates a certain vocabulary; words like "reasonable", "facts", "metric", and others are directly the result of the rational approach to argumentation.

This is where the tricky part shows up. There a great many people who use the vocabulary of a rational argument, but are not actually presenting a rational argument at all. They are appealing to emotion. Consider the following:
"137,000 young children died in snorkeling accidents last year; therefore, snorkeling should be illegal."

This sounds like a rational argument, one that appeals to facts. It doesn't. It includes facts, and uses a language structure that makes it sound like a rational argument, but it isn't. The second strike of the sword is to separate the truly fact-based arguments from the emotive arguments in disguise.

Written out, the previous argument looks something like the following:
1) X number of young children died snorkeling.
2) Snorkeling should be illegal.

These are completely disjointed! In fact this is the exact same argument as the previous, only dressed up to sound intelligent. There is at least one missing premise:
1) X number of young children died snorkeling.
1a) Outlawing snorkeling will reduce the number of dead children.
2) Snorkeling should be illegal.

However, even this is ham-fisted at best. A really good argument will consider the context and implications. For example, is outlawing snorkeling the most effective means of limiting child death? Is it even legal to outlaw snorkeling? Should it be? Why or why not? The third strike of the sword separates the rational arguments from the irrational arguments.

Let us return to the original arguments - both arguments have the same purpose, namely to persuade the listener to support the banning of snorkeling. The first question one might ask is why? What does the one presenting the argument stand to gain or lose? If the concern of the arguer in this case is the preservation of human life, then the real issue has got nothing to do with banning snorkeling, and everything to do with saving human life; therefore, a good argument will begin there.

So here is a brief recap of the argument ninja:
剣の攻撃-1 (ken no sutoraiki ichi): Does the argument appeal to emotions or facts?
剣の攻撃-2 (ken no sutoraiki ni): If the argument appeals to facts, is it a rational argument, or an emotional argument in disguise?
剣の攻撃-3 (ken no sutoraiki san): If it is a rational argument, is the argument sound?

Trajectory

2011-06-23T11:30:00.004-05:00

I had a sort of revelation in college. I met these guys, and they were charismatic, which was basically like saying they were borderline heretics. At the very least, they had wrong doctrine - or at least that was my attitude toward them. What I found, however, threw my neat little legalistic world into a tailspin. These guys loved God and loved fellow man. They used to do crazy things like stay up late at night on Friday to pray, not because the had to or thought it would make them better Christians, but because they genuinely loved spending time with God. They were humble, and yet the fruit of the Spirit stood out so flagrantly in their lives, that one couldn't help but notice. In an environment of spite, jealousy, meanness, manipulation, deception, hatred, and control, these men exhibited love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control.

This created a paradox for my immature faith, as I had always divided people by what they said they believed. In typical legalistic fashion, I divided everyone into two camps, "in" or "out", the boundaries of which were marked by certain specific doctrines. But now I faced the reality that some who were supposed to be "out" displayed true Christianity, while those supposedly "in" displayed, well, something else. In time I would realize that it was not merely my boundary markers that were insufficient, but my entire paradigm. However, at the time even coming to terms with this observation was difficult. All I knew was that I at once wanted to be near these guys. They were infectious, contagious, compelling. I wanted what they had. At the same time, I was ashamed to be around them, because every time I opened my mouth, it became apparent that I was not as spiritually mature. My fruit was rotten.

This influenced a fundamental change in my approach toward my brothers and sisters in Christ. Instead of jumping to what is written on paper - "what do you believe" - I ask a different question - "where are you going?" This is a warning to all those who have great doctrine. What is written on paper is only ink and wood pulp and atoms and protons. What is written on your heart? What do you value? Where are you going? How you work out your faith is a truer measure of what you truly believe.

P.S. "Trajectory" sounds totally cool and emergish. I think I'll name my church that.

Muslim Christian Dialogue Website

2011-06-22T11:45:00.003-05:00

Thanks to Thabiti Anyabwile for highlighting a great resource for Christians engaging Islam. The Muslim-Christian Dialogue web site is committed to dialogue and understanding between Christianity and Islam, and features videos of Muslim-Christian dialogue conferences. Worth a look!

The Judgment of Amos

2011-06-20T10:03:00.002-05:00

Amos has some of the more colorful judgments against Israel. There are two judgments that stand out in this book.
Amos 2:6 Thus says Yahweh: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals.

The very first judgment against Israel in this book begins with this chilling description. I say chilling because it describes our own culture pretty well; we purchase shoes built by slave and child labor in Pakistan, Indonesia, China, and other developing nations (consider this article from 2005). But this is not the only verse to describe Israel.

Amos 4:4-5 Come to Bethel and transgress; to Gilgal and multiply transgression; bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days; offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving of that which is leavened, and proclaim freewill offerings, publish them; for so you love to do, O people of Israel! Declares Yahweh God.
In these verses, Israel is strictly religious - they sacrifice every morning, and they tithe every three days (now that's real tithing!). They even offer freewill offerings on top of all that - and they love to publish their religiousness for all to hear about. God calls this a sin.

So what is the picture we get of Israel? We get a picture of a culture that goes to great lengths to be religious and give to God, but who then turns around and tramples upon the poor in order to secure material goods like sandals. And for this, God sent his own people into captivity.

To be honest with you, this sounds quite a bit like America. We are religious - there are churches all over the place. We give to churches, and missions, and charities. And then we turn around and trample the poor so that we can wear our swoosh-encrusted footwear and overpriced t-shirts. We need to repent.

RIP, Pinetop Perkins

2011-06-19T11:59:00.003-05:00

Unbeknownst to yours truly, Pinetop Perkins, the oldest living Grammy Award winner, passed away in March this year. He was 97. Pinetop was perhaps the finest Delta-style pianist ever, lauded by fellow musicians and critics alike. More than that, he was a simple and kind man who excelled at his vocation. "Two cheeseburgers, apple pie, a cigarette and a pretty girl was all he wanted." Commented his agent, Hugh Southard (from the BBC article). RIP, Pinetop. We miss you. Below is Perkins, live, rocking Austin at age 93.

Mobile Version Now Empowered

2011-06-19T11:54:00.003-05:00

Blogger has now added an automatic mobile scaling option for blogs, so Redeemed Rambling is now available on your mobile phone. Now, you can escape reality and waste time without even being tied to your computer!