The Gospel Coalition

For those of you who may be interested, I will be on Kevin Boling’s Knowing the Truth radio program this afternoon (January 12) at 1:00 E.S.T. We will be having a conversation about Holy Subversion. You can listen live online here.

The New York Times has teamed up with Netflix to show you the top movies that people are watching in the zip codes of major cities. This interactive map gives you a fascinating glimpse at the differences (and similarities) of the movie-watching public.

15 indications that your sermon may not be going well:

15.  Your associate pastor is warming up in the bullpen.

14.  The praise band begins playing you off the stage.

13.  You are using PowerPoint.

12.  When asked to read from the King James Version, you involuntarily blush every time you say the word “ass.”

11.  The congregation is filling in the blanks of your outline before you get there.

Click here to see the rest…

Doug Baker on the rise of social media:

Blogging, however, did not remain a personal hobby for long. Bloggers soon began to scoop newspapers and transformed themselves into legitimate news outlets. Humiliating for long-standing news organizations, blogs rearranged the entire news industry.

Mark Tubbs, book reviewer at DiscerningReader.com, lists some notable releases in 2010.

The furor surrounding Brit Hume’s encouragement to Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity shows us that the prevailing sentiments of our culture is adamantly opposed to the idea of evangelism.

As Christians, we must recognize that before we can make a robust defense for the Christian faith, we may have to clear the air by making a case for evangelism in general. After having listened to some of the remarks made about Brit Hume, I have compiled a list of common objections to “proselytism” and why each of them are unpersuasive.

Objection #1: “Brit Hume’s remarks indicate that he thinks Christianity is superior to Buddhism.”

Response: Of course, he thinks Christianity is superior. Otherwise why would he remain an adherent to the Christian faith?

In the same way, I would expect a Buddhist man to think that his religion to be superior to Christianity. If the Buddhist doesn’t consider Buddhism to be superior, then why not convert to whatever religion he thinks is superior?

It is not arrogant to believe that your religion is superior to others. We should assume that religious people believe their faith to be superior.

Furthermore, if you believe no religion is superior to another, you are putting forth a viewpoint that you believe to be superior than the “religious superiority argument” you condemn. Thus, you fail to live up to your own demand.

Objection #2: “Christianity looks bad when Christians talk this way. Christians should not publicly and actively proselytize people of other faiths.”

Response: If Jesus calls us to make disciples of all nations and to preach the gospel, then Jesus is calling us to evangelism / proselytism. The issue is not about the way Christianity looks before the world. The question is whether or not someone can be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ and not evangelize.

To the person who says, “It’s arrogant to proselytize”, I say, “I consider it more arrogant that you think I should follow you in this area rather than Jesus Christ, who I claim as Savior and Lord.” It is the height of arrogance (and prejudice) to tell a Christian, “You should not follow Jesus Christ in this area.”

Objection #3: “Brit Hume implied that Buddhism is deficient in some way.”

Response: The assumption behind this objection is that all religions are equally valid. But that assumption is not so easily proven.

Do we really want to argue that no religion has any deficiency? That every religion is equally good (albeit in its own way)? Such a view is very disrespectful to the adherents of other religions. Buddhists know that they are not Christians. Christians know that they are not Muslims. By assuming that every religion is equally valid and good, you are downplaying the significant differences between these faiths.

Don’t patronize people and act like their differing views don’t matter. They do. They know they do. We know they do. Let’s agree on the fact that there are substantial disagreements and leave aside this nonsense that we all believe the same thing.

Objection #4: It is arrogant for Brit Hume to assume he believes in the only true religion and to try to lead people to the Christian faith.

Response: Is it? Most people in the world today do not believe that all religions are equally valid. In fact, most people believe that their religion is the correct one.

So by saying that it’s arrogant to insist your religion is right… well, that’s an arrogant statement too. You’re telling me that the majority of the world is wrong and you are right. Sounds oppressive. It’s also ethnocentric and prejudiced to believe that we in the enlightened West have figured out that all religions are the same and the poor, mindless Christians, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists across the world are still in the dark, thinking they have the only light.

Objection #5: Brit Hume’s attempt to evangelize Tiger Woods shows how exclusive and narrow-minded fundamentalist Christians are.

Response: Actually, no. True evangelism takes place because the call of salvation is radically inclusive. We are to call all people everywhere to repentance and faith: people from every tongue, tribe, and nation; people of every color, ethnicity, and background; yes, even people who claim other religious identities.

The truly narrow-minded, prejudiced Christian looks at a Buddhist like Tiger Woods and stays quiet about Jesus. Their silence says this: Jesus isn’t for you.

On the other hand, the evangelistic Christian recognizes the radically inclusive call to salvation. It is because of the exclusive nature of Christianity that the offer of the gospel is so radically inclusive. Christ calls all people everywhere to repentance. Forgiveness in Jesus Christ is available for all… even Buddhists like Tiger Woods.

Bob Kellemen has an excellent resource that uses the Lord’s Prayer as a paradigm for Christian prayer.

Christianity Today’s January cover story makes an important point. Check out The Myth of the Perfect Parent:

The question we ask of ourselves must be reframed. We need to quit asking, “Am I parenting successfully?” And we most certainly need to quit asking, “Are others parenting successfully?” Instead, we need to ask, “Am I parenting faithfully?” Faithfulness, after all, is God’s highest requirement for us.

What could you accomplish by simply reading three pages of a spiritual book every day?

An interesting article from Time in 1947 that profiles C.S. Lewis: Don versus Devil

With erudition, good humor and skill, Lewis is writing about religion for a generation of religion-hungry readers brought up on a diet of “scientific” jargon and Freudian cliches. His readers are a part of the new surge of curiosity about Christianity which in Britain has floated, besides Lewis, a whole school of literary evangelists (T. S. Eliot, Graham Greene, Dorothy Sayers, et al.).

Help me, dear Lord,
to walk in the footsteps of your holy life,
denying myself and becoming poor
so that those around me may be made rich.
Teach me how to gain by giving,
and to find by losing,
as you have said in your Word.
Amen.

- F.B. Meyer

It’s not the critic who counts, not the one who points out where the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood, and who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spend himself in a worthy cause, who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.

His place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat!

- Theodore Roosevelt

1. Is handwriting a dying technology?

2. Bart Stupak is defying is own party when it comes to abortion coverage in the health care bill.

3. Bob Kauflin on turning 55

4. Time reports on the desegregation of megachurches

5. The conservatism of Pixar movies

6. Kevin DeYoung on writing and getting published

7. Are dolphins non-human persons? Dr. Mohler responds.

A number of Christian publishers have begun releasing books that include various essays and interaction between opposing viewpoints. Zondervan began with the “Counterpoint” series; Broadman & Holman now has a “Perspectives” series. IVP has long had a “Spectrum” series. Last year, they published The Lord’s Supper: Five Views and Baptism: Three Views (2009).

The IVP book on baptism is unique in that it does not focus on all the different views within Christendom. Instead, the focus is squarely on the question most relevant to most evangelicals: Do we baptize infants or not?

Baptism: Three Views does not discuss baptismal regeneration (thus excluding the Churches of Christ, the Anglicans, and Roman Catholics from the conversation). But the narrow focus on adult versus infant baptism actually enhances the book by keeping the discussion pinpointed on the question of who should be baptized, not what is happening in the baptismal font.

Bruce Ware, a professor at Southern Seminary contributes an essay that explains the Baptist position. Sinclair Ferguson, the senior minister at First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, SC, describes the infant baptism view. Anthony Lane, Professor of Historical Theology at London School of Theology, outlines a proposal he describes as “dual practice.”

When I first glanced at the table of contents, I thought to myself, Oh no! There are three views here – two of which are directly opposed and a third that appears to be a hybrid. I can already assume that the book will lead to the third view as the “best of both worlds.” Thankfully, this book stays much more objective than I anticipated. (Furthermore, Lane’s contribution is significant enough in its own right to be taken as a distinctly third view, not merely as a hybrid.)

I was glad to see the strengths and weaknesses of each view presented well. For example, Tony Lane points out one of the weak spots in the Baptist understanding – the baptism of small children:

“The problem with this policy is that few small children reject the views of their parents. In practice it can end up being not too different from the paedobaptist position.” (68)

Very true. Few Baptists today are willing to challenge the recent development of baptizing small children, and because of our enthusiasm for this relatively new practice, we undermine our overall position.

Bruce Ware ably puts forth the Baptist view (which is the one that I hold). Sinclair Ferguson also does an admirable job of making a case for the baptism of infants. If you are looking for a succinct explanation of the paedobaptist position, you will need to look no further than Ferguson’s essay.

The frustrating part of Ferguson’s essay for me (as a Baptist, remind you!) is his tendency to merely state the assumptions that I want to see him prove. For example, take this statement:

“Baptism functions in relationship to the new covenant in Christ in a manner analogous to the function of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant. In a word, baptism has the same symbolic significance in relationship to fellowship with God as did circumcision.” (87)

I understand that the infant baptist position hinges on this assumption, but this kind of statement is exactly that which needs to be proven from Scripture, not merely stated. Several times, Ferguson uses the phrase “by parity of reasoning” or “through reasoning,” which helps to shine light on how he arrives at seeing baptism within his covenantal framework, one which has much merit to it, but which (on the issue of baptism) seems to me to impose a foreign paradigm on the text.

Tony Lane’s chapter is unique. In a nutshell, he says that the Bible does not specify whether infants can be baptized or only believing adults. Pointing to the early church’s apparent variety of approaches on this issue, Lane believes that we too have freedom to choose:

“The silences are there to leave the church liberty to vary its practice to suit different circumstances. They sanction the variety of practice that we see in the early church.” (166)

Lane’s view is intriguing, but it seems too individualistic for me. He argues that churches should allow freedom even to their members to decide what they want baptism to mean. That sounds like a perfect solution for an individualistic society where people construct their own meaning, but woefully inadequate for those of us trying to be faithful to the Scriptures on these very important matters. I cannot imagine that Paul would not desire uniformity among the churches when it comes to this issue.

Overall, this book is a helpful explanation of the different views of baptism. No matter which position you hold, if you are interested in finding out something about the other views, you will find this book to be a good resource.

Time really is speeding up:

Putting things into quantitative chronology rather than sentimental chronology can lead us to reassess a lot of historical prejudices. How new a country is the US? Benjamin Franklin’s birth in Boston (1706) is nearly as close to Dante’s and Chaucer’s 14th century as it is to the present. That makes the US seem positively ancient, not really a New World at all any more. On the other hand, to know that Ronald Reagan’s birth (in Tampico, Illinois, in 1911) is closer to Waterloo (1815) than it is to us makes the country sound as if it were just founded.

Why virtual churches are making us reevaluate our assumptions about ministry:

Virtual churches force us to rethink long-held assumptions about what church is, the impact of technology on the soul, and what it really means to participate in a spiritual community. The advent of virtual churches may cause many traditional churches to reexamine their own ministry values.

Michael Patton’s reflections on Mark Noll’s book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, sixteen years later:

The recovery of Evangelicalism lies in the most obvious of all places. It is a recovery which requires us to gather up our dignity and preach the certain hope of the Gospel with passion and persuasion. Timidity and the Gospel are not bed-fellows. The time for doctrinal embarrassment is over if we are to survive. The song of cultural satiation must not be sung anymore. Evangelicals have a message and it must be preached. Evangelicals have doctrine and it must be taught. Evangelicals have a message and it must be told.

Here’s a way to win three books from Michael Horton.

A new year. A new decade.

One of the banks in my city wished us all a happy new year by putting this message on their marquee: “2010 – Here we come!”

That’s a funny way to put it. It gives the impression that we are rocketing through time, blowing past the years as if they were obstacles in the way of a glorious future.

But for many people, the marking of a new year is bittersweet. The years are piling up on us. We feel stagnant, or frustrated, or anxious about the future. 2010 has come to us, whether we are prepared or not.

I have friends and family members who have recently received bad diagnoses from the doctor. For them, 2010 looks to be filled more with peril than promise.

Others face financial trouble. Some are expecting severe financial losses. Churches and non-profits are concerned about the rate of giving. Everyone wants to think that 2010 will be better than 2009, but we have few reasons to expect things to improve.

Nationally, we are deep in debt, and current proposals from Congress would only dig a deeper hole.

We are mired in two wars that seem much like a seesaw. When the war in one country seems to be going well, it gets worse in the other.

The dawn of 2010 does not provoke the same sense of wonder and excitement that we experienced ten years ago as we welcomed the new millennium. Leaving aside the fears of Y2k, most people greeted 2000 with rosy expectations. Terrorist attacks, two wars, a series of devastating national disasters, a major recession, corporate greed and scandal – these events from the previous decade have tempered our expectations for the next one.

As a Christian, all these worrisome circumstances are teaching me to cling less to my other identities and hold more tightly to Christ.

Growing up, I had the notion that America was virtually invincible. I saw our country as a beacon of light to the rest of the world. Sure we had our troubles, but the Dream was strong, and we were moving toward a bright future.

Now, I wonder if America might be like Rome before the invasion of the barbarians. The empire is rotting away from the inside out. Our military might defends an increasingly weak and decadent way of life. Evangelistically speaking, the great movements of Christian growth and expansion are taking place elsewhere: in South America, China, and Africa.

But curiously, I am still optimistic. The more biblical word is hopeful. The words “hope” and “waiting” often go together in Scripture. In Romanian, the translation often combines the two into one word: nădejde.

The more I see history as God’s Story and less as the story of America or the story of my life, the more I take comfort. We are here but a moment. Our call is to remain faithful to Christ through good times and bad.

Facing a similar downturn in his day, Augustine once remarked:

“People speak of hard times. Let us live well and times shall be good. We are the times: Such as we are, such are the times.”

There are reasons to fear, yes. But earthly fears give us all the more reason to trust. The more awesome our view of God, the less awful seem our problems.

I will not cheerfully fake optimism, but will continue to cling tightly to the only source of stability in a shifting world: Christ, who holds everything together by the power of his word.

“Hopeful waiting” – nădejde – whether in the doctor’s waiting room, the sands of Iraq, facing possible unemployment, or the inevitability of another terrorist attack.

As Lesslie Newbigin once remarked: “I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist. Jesus Christ is risen from the dead!”