The Gospel Coalition

A couple months ago, I worked on a short video that would sum up the message of Holy Subversion. Crossway has incorporated that video into a nice little promo (see it below). So… here’s the gist of the book in 3 minutes.

Holy Subversion from Crossway on Vimeo.

My seven picks for your weekend reading:

1. Uncool people need Jesus too… (And make sure you also read Bill’s update.)

2. Some stunning new pictures of Earth. (HT – Z)

3. An interview with a Muslim preacher who has converted to Orthodoxy.

4. Read Russ Moore’s reflections on last week’s Adopting for Life conference.

5. Why did Jesus have to die?… and what liberal and some emerging theologians and Muslims have in common

6. A United Methodist church in Washington, D.C. is defying the denomination by performing same-sex weddings. Methodist Thinker provides a timeline of the discussion over homosexual unions.

7. Chris Castaldo answers questions about the pronouncements of the Council of Trent, showing how even today’s pope seems to deviate from the strict condemnation of justification by faith alone described there.

“Who do people say that I am?”

It’s interesting that Jesus didn’t start off by asking the disciples the personal question that would follow (“Who do you say that I am?”). He first asked them what other people were saying.

The views of Jesus were varied in the first century. They are even more so today.

C.S. Lewis gave us an apologetic device called the “Trilemma”, in which he argued that Jesus must be a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. He could not be simply a “nice teacher.” A brilliant piece of apologetics in Lewis’ day, it is less effective now. Why? Because the Trilemma only works if you accept the authority and authenticity of the original documents about Jesus’ life. Today, by questioning the sources, picking and choosing which parts fit their overall portrait, scholars can wiggle out of Lewis’ three options and offer a number of other views.

The Historical Jesus: Five Views (IVP, 2009) brings together some of the major players in “Historical Jesus” research today. The only thing these contributors have in common is the source material that we find in the Gospels. And even on the source materials, they are divided as to what parts should be considered as historical evidence.

The book begins with an overview of “the quest for the historical Jesus”. There are three major phases to this quest, culminating in recent research which emphasizes the Jewishness of Jesus. But even within the third quest, scholarly views of Jesus have fragmented to the point that no consensus is possible.

The first contribution is Robert M. Price’s essay, “Jesus at the Vanishing Point”. Price makes the case that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth. (If you wonder how anyone can actually make the case for Jesus’ non-existence, you will get a good dose of conspiracy theory here.) Price’s view is effectively shot down by each of the other contributors. James Dunn suggests that Price’s essay should be retitled: “The Jesus Myth – a Thesis at Vanishing Point”.

Next, John Dominic Crossan fashions Jesus as a prophet who taught non-violent resistance to Roman imperialism. Crossan is perhaps most known in evangelical circles for his statement that after Jesus’ crucifixion, his body was probably thrown into a shallow grave and eaten by wild dogs. It’s easy for evangelicals like myself to write off Crossan from the start. But I am challenged by his knowledge of Scripture, which I dare say exceeds that of a good many evangelicals, even some evangelical pastors. Unfortunately, his knowledge is like the scribes of old, always searching the Scriptures, but never coming to the true Jesus revealed therein.

Luke Timothy Johnson’s essay argues that historical study is not the best way to understand Jesus. Johnson clears up misunderstandings about previous statements which seemed to imply that no historical study is necessary. Instead, Johnson wants to shine light on the limitations of historical research, which “all too frequently turns out to be not historical research at all, but a theological agenda wearing the external garb of history.” (167)

James D. G. Dunn writes a brilliant essay on how the Quest for the Historical Jesus has lost its way. He launches a series of protests against the naturalistic presuppositions of those in the Jesus Seminar, and then he makes proposals. Dunn’s essay starts out by taking a wrecking ball to certain pictures of the “historical Jesus” and then finishes by putting down a new foundation for his own approach.

The final essay comes from Darrell Bock. As an evangelical, Bock understands the limits of historical Jesus research. But he still sees value in this conversation because it “can give us a start and can open doors for discussion between people of distinct approaches to Jesus.” (253) Bock makes the case that Jesus’ intentions can best be seen in the symbolism of his actions within a Jewish context of expectation. His essay makes the case for the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Jesus.

I didn’t think that this book could make a serious contribution to the discussion about the historical Jesus. The views are so different that there is very little common ground between the authors, except for the fact they agreed to contribute essays. But surprisingly, the book does succeed at giving an informative look at the current scholarly proposals. The responses of the authors are lively and engaging. If you are looking for a book that lays out some of the historical proposals, The Historical Jesus is a good place to start.

Related Posts:

• Why the Search for the Historical Jesus Matters 1
• Why the Search for the Historical Jesus Matters 2

Can peanut allergies be cured by eating peanuts? Maybe so.

In Israel, children are typically introduced to peanuts much earlier than in Europe and North America. Lack points to a popular Israeli snack food called Bamba (like peanut-flavored Cheez Doodles), which youngsters start eating as early as infancy. That early exposure may desensitize children to peanuts, even in kids with a family history of food allergies.

Might Reagan replace Grant on the U.S. fifty-dollar bill?

McHenry says it’s only logical for Reagan to replace Grant on the $50 because several historians have ranked Reagan as a much better president than Grant. McHenry specifically cites a 2005 Wall Street Journal survey of scholars who placed Reagan at No. 6 and Grant at No. 29.

Why there is no Jewish Narnia:

To answer the question of why Jews do not write fantasy, we should begin by acknowledging that the conventional trappings of fantasy, with their feudal atmosphere and rootedness in rural Europe, are not especially welcoming to Jews, who were too often at the wrong end of the medieval sword. Ever since the Crusades, Jews have had good reasons to cast doubt upon the romance of knighthood, and this is an obstacle in a genre that takes medieval chivalry as its imaginative ideal.

Speaking of Narnia, the film version of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader looks more promising than Prince Caspian (and I liked Caspian too!):

“This book is the most theological of them all. There are more complex themes, particularly grace, that aren’t easy to get right [in a movie]. We must’ve spent an entire day talking about grace, and the importance of showing that it can’t be earned; it has to be given. This is something that Eustace can’t do on his own; he has to ask Aslan to do it for him. I think it’s a really powerful illustration of grace.”

This is funny. A Newsweek article from 1995 explaining why the internet will never catch on:

We’re promised instant catalog shopping—just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obselete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month? Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet—which there isn’t—the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople.

Thanks to the tireless work of Tim Brister, there will be 4th meeting of the “Band of Bloggers” in conjunction with the 2010 Together for the Gospel Conference in Louisville, Kentucky.

Two years ago, I attended Band of Bloggers and enjoyed meeting many other writers who seek to be G0d-honoring and gospel-promoting in their blogging efforts. If you are going to this year’s T4G, I hope you will make plans to be at the Band of Bloggers luncheon.

The theme for this year’s meeting is “Internet Idolatry and Gospel Fidelity.” Tim writes:

With the advent of new media and the increasing influence of technology on our lives, it is important to address the relationship of the gospel to technology, especially the areas where we are tempted with idolatrous desire (power, identity, influence, acceptance, control, etc.).  While the internet, with all of its platforms (such as blogging, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) can be a powerful tool to leverage our lives for the gospel impact, we want to examine our hearts bring to light the various ways in which the idol factory of our hearts challenges and subverts the very gospel which we long to embrace.

I will be joining Justin Taylor, Jon McIntosh and Jared Wilson for the panel discussion, and I look forward to the conversation and learning from these other men. Everyone who attends will receive a number of free books.

You can find more information about the event below. If you are planning on being there, please leave a comment under this post. I’d love to connect with you at the event. Hope to see you there!

REGISTER | PROMOTE | BOB DIRECTORY

Russ Moore on the “misguided Christian outrage” over the new version “We Are the World”:

Why are we so desperate to see “God” affirmed by the outside culture, even when the “God” they’re talking about more closely resembles Zeus (or, as in this case, Lucifer) than Yahweh? When we reach this point of perpetual outrage, are we closer to identity politics than gospel proclamation? I’m afraid so.

Fulfill your ministry:

There is a grandeur to every man’s ministry.  It is a massive opportunity not to be diminished but to be exploited every day, to the end.  Let all small thoughts of gospel ministry be put out of our minds.  The world, and even the church, may not grasp how much is at stake.  But we can fill our minds with this awareness: “I have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel (1 Thessalonians 2:4).  I don’t minister for his approval; I minister with his approval.  I can go for it.”

USA Today: Where Have all the Protestants Gone?

My friend Michael Kelley has a review of Holy Subversion.

Mark’s account of the woman who anoints Jesus is shrouded in darkness. Just before the story, we see the religious leaders plotting Jesus’ demise. Right after the story, Judas makes plans to betray Jesus and wait for the right time to hand him over.

But Mark not only heightens the drama by sandwiching the woman’s action in between two acts of treachery. He also sets up the scene so that we take a step outside of Jerusalem with Jesus. There’s a subtle insider/outsider motif in this passage.

Mark tells us that the anointing takes place in Bethany (which is outside Jerusalem), in the home of Simon the leper (an outsider if ever there was one). And into this male dinner party enters a woman, in a day and age where women did not intrude unless they were serving food.

• Outside Jerusalem…
• Outside the community…
• Outside the exclusively male circle…

And what does this woman do? She worships.

True worship is the result of one’s overflowing gratitude for no longer being on the outside. The woman’s action is a microcosm of Christian worship. The Christian life is a grateful response to the God who has brought us “outsiders” into his arms and made us part of his family.

• We’re orphans, and he adopts us.
• We’re lepers, and he heals us.
• We’re sinners, and he cleanses us.
• We’re rebels, and he makes us his servants.
• We’re prodigals, and he welcomes us.
• We’re outsiders, and he brings us into his heart.

Many evangelicals today are reluctant to speak of boundaries and walls that divide people into categories of “inside” or “outside” the kingdom. We hesitate to make distinctions. We don’t want to put people in uncomfortable situations that lead them to realize they are on the “outside” when it comes to the kingdom of God.

But we not only cut out the heart of evangelism when we blur the “insider/outsider” distinction. We cut out the heart of Christian worship too! You will never worship God properly until you come to grips with the awesome grace of God that sought you out while you were still outside.

Extravagant grace leads to extravagant worship. Downplay the grace and you will never truly worship.

Anatomy of an African Explosion: How and Why Christianity Grew Exponentially in 20th Century Africa

Ed Stetzer on how the church is on mission for the kingdom:

We may now see how when everything becomes mission, nothing is mission. The church does not point to a reality in itself, but rather to the kingdom of God and the reign of Jesus Christ. The church stands for something more elemental and invasive than itself. Because the kingdom is more all-encompassing and far-reaching than the church, the church must be recognized as a servant to Christ’s kingdom.

Owen Strachan with a word of caution for ministers, challenging us to humility:

Those of us who want to avoid a limp-wristed Christianity need to remember that these traits are commended to us by God.  This does not put them in opposition to other biblical traits like agency, dominion-taking, kingdom shrewdness, boldness, courage, strength, and much more.  But it does mean that these qualities need to figure prominently in our character, and especially in areas where we are tempted to be jealous and ambitious.

Bill Kinnon has taken some flack for his review of Brian McLaren’s new book. But he stands by his review and makes a very good point the difference in “thinking” about the ideas in a book and “feeling” a certain way about an author:

The fact that so many people, many who had yet to read the book, found it necessary to defend Brian rather than discuss the points of my argument – to suggest that I simply “misunderstood him” rather than being willing to discuss the points raised – to label me as a conservative rather than engaging with me as a somewhat sentient human being – suggests that we have lost the art of vigorous debate and only want to engage in what we have labeled “civil discourse.” But really what we mean by that phrase is “we need to be nice to each other, talk to each other gently and never tell the other person they’re wrong – ’cause that just wouldn’t be nice, you know.”

It was a privilege to attend last week’s “Progress Report” delivered by Ronnie Floyd on behalf of the Great Commission Task Force of the Southern Baptist Convention. (You can read the Progress Report here.) I am grateful to the Task Force for their hard work in putting together this report. One can sense the amount of prayer and work that has gone into these deliberations.

The discussion in the blogosphere leading up to the Report indicated that the recommended changes were massive. The hype was much more controversial than the reality. These recommendations make good sense. (And Johnny Hunt is right when he says that most Southern Baptists probably think the denomination is already working according to the proposal.)

Still, I have a few questions that are not addressed directly in the report. These questions should not be taken as criticism of the Task Force or their report. I am excited about what they have proposed and look forward to the future. I am merely putting forth a few questions (about Components 1, 2, 3 and 5) that I hope will be answered in coming days.

Component #1: Toward a Missional Convention

Would that the churches and entities be motivated by this mission and committed to these core values! My question is practical: how will we rally our churches toward the missional vision being proposed?

In the past, Southern Baptist entities offered new programs and emphases to the churches. In this way, they sought to rally Southern Baptists around a common vision. But as the variety and style of our churches grows, programmatic methodology tends to lose its effectiveness.

I hope and pray that our churches and the Convention entities will embrace the missional identity outlined in the Progress Report. But if this means we will wind up with simply another program, I worry that the vision will not catch fire.

What are practical ways that pastors can work to instill this identity in their congregations? What are practical ways that the Convention can instill this identity in pastors?

Component #2: Reinventing the North American Mission Board

Those familiar with NAMB understand that serious issues are currently impeding the progress of our home mission board. The Task Force’s recommendations will free NAMB to focus on the areas of great lostness in North America and to hold church planting missionaries accountable.

Here is my question: Who will be planting churches in the South? In order to maintain growth in the South (where the SBC is currently most populous), we will need to continue to plant churches. I assume that the Task Force is giving Southern church planting back to the States and local associations. I hope that this is the direction being proposed.

State conventions will focus on church plants in their respective states. NAMB will focus on the unreached in metropolitan areas. Sounds like a plan.

Component #3: Breaking down geographic barriers for the IMB

The world is flat again. The people groups of the world are no longer “over there.” They are immigrating here. By freeing up the IMB to work within the U.S. with unreached people groups, the Task Force is preparing the way for a new synergy in international missions.

This recommendation is long overdue. Letting the IMB focus on people groups, regardless of their location, is a major step in the right direction.

Question: Does this mean that missionaries serving unreached people groups in other parts of the world may be brought home to serve the same people group here?

Let me put it another way: Are we focusing on people groups in the U.S. in addition to our focus on the same groups in other parts of the world? Or are we shifting emphasis and priority, planning to choose between going to Africa to the Wolof people or going to New York to the same group?

Question about Component #5: Celebrating Designated Gifts

The Task Force recommends that a church’s designated gifts be considered “Great Commission Designated Giving.” Churches are doing this already; the Convention is merely catching up. Our church gives 10% to the Cooperative Program and 1.5% to our local association. It’s good that the 1.5% given to the local association be considered “Great Commission” giving, even if it is not directly related to the CP. I am also happy to see the Task Force’s insistence upon the Cooperative Program as the main engine for funding.

Question: How will we keep the Cooperative Program as the main funding machine? Take my church, for example.  If we want more money to go to missions than to our State Convention, we could lower our CP percentage to 6% and give 4% directly to the IMB. As more and more people catch the “missional vision” promoted in Component 1, what will keep the CP going as the central means of giving?

Those who are for and against the new recommendations have one thing in common: both groups care deeply about maintaining the Cooperative Program. Some believe that if we change our categories of giving, we will hurt the CP and wind up losing it. Others think that if we don’t change our categories of giving, our churches’ support of the CP will continue to decline.

So, one group says, “If we change it, it dies.” The other group says, “If we don’t change it, it dies.” I line up with the second group. We’re going to have to make adjustments for the future. But I wonder how the Task Force will lead us to a thriving Cooperative Program in the 21st century.

Scot McKnight writes a review of Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianitythat is fair, but firm:

Unfortunately, this book lacks the “generosity” of genuine orthodoxy and, frankly, I find little space in it for orthodoxy itself. Orthodoxy for too many today means little more than the absence of denying what’s in the creeds. But a robust orthodoxy means that orthodoxy itself is the lens through which we see theology. One thing about this book is clear: Orthodoxy is not central.

Alas, A New Kind of Christianity shows us that Brian, though he is now thinking more systematically, has fallen for an old school of thought. I read this book carefully, and I found nothing new. It may be new for Brian, but it’s a rehash of ideas that grew into fruition with Adolf von Harnack and now find iterations in folks like Harvey Cox and Marcus Borg. For me, Brian’s new kind of Christianity is quite old. And the problem is that it’s not old enough.

Doug Wilson on American exceptionalism:

If anyone could believe in exceptionalism, and have actual verses to point to, it would have been the Hebrews. And yet note that God warns them of this pattern, which is as old as dirt. He included them. Nothing is as ordinary and boring as nationalistic hubris. Displays of this sin with the stars and stripes waving in the background are just as obnoxious and just as wicked as when anybody else does it — and everybody else has done it.

Are Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ? Chris Castaldo provides an answer:

When a Catholic confesses the gospel and lives for Jesus, I’m applying the love about which 1 Cor. 13 speaks, love which “bears all things, believes all things, and hopes all things,” a love that extends the benefit of the doubt, puts its arm around this Catholic friend and calls him brother. I’m also going to proclaim the gospel and extend discipleship so that I and my Catholic friend together realize a greater level of sanctification. Would I like to see this friend eventually leave the Catholic Church? Yes, of course.