The Gospel Coalition

Seven links for your weekend reading:

1. Why the 9/11 Cross Should Offend All of Us

2. Preaching Today: A Discussion with Jared Wilson and Tony Merida

3. Interesting series of posts that explores the relationship between the gospel, grace, and human effort in issues related to sanctification.

4. D.A. Carson on Generational Conflict in Ministry

5. Is Pluralism More Tolerant than Christianity?

6. What does the design of the 2012 VW Beetle say about our changing culture?

7. Ed Stetzer: Missions and Missional – Embracing Both for the Glory of God

18 seconds that have made me laugh at least 18 times:

Today, I’m having a conversation with Matthew Lee Anderson, author of the new book, Earthen Vessels: Why Our Bodies Matter to Our Faith. Matt blogs at Mere Orthodoxy and writes often for Christianity Today.  I wrote this endorsement of his book:

Tattoos, cremation, abortion, gay sex, yoga, online church: No subject is off limits in Matthew Anderson’s provocative book on the body. Anderson challenges us to deepen our understanding of what it means to be embodied. When it comes to body matters, the body matters. Though few will agree with all of Anderson’s diagnosis and prescription, all who read this book will be challenged to consider how our views of the body line up with (or depart from) Scripture and Christian theology. This is a highly ambitious project that deserves careful consideration. 

Trevin Wax: Matt, one of the points you make in your book is that evangelicals have not given enough attention to the body. Are you talking about book-length treatment of the body, or are you speaking more generally of our view of heaven, resurrection, spiritual discipline, etc.”? How does this lack of attention work itself out in practice?

Matthew Anderson: I should probably narrow my claim there to, “Evangelicals have not given enough attention to the body from a uniquely theological standpoint.”  That is, we haven’t made it a point of conscious reflection in our theological efforts.  I think there are lots of strands of evangelicalism that contain aspects of an account of the body that is evangelical, which is why I think the complaint that evangelicals are gnostic is somewhat overstated.  But have we been as consciously attentive to the body from a theological perspective as we should be?  Probably not.

Trevin Wax: So, we’re not gnostic per se, but we have not been consciously thinking about our bodies theologically? What does “a uniquely theological standpoint” look like? How does it play out practically, let’s say, in how we consider tattoos and piercings?

Matthew Anderson: Yes, I think that’s the right way of putting it.  I think in order to be “gnostic,” you should consciously be trying to escape the body.  Not everyone is going to agree with that, of course, but inattention is not the same as repudiation or rejection.  And honestly, there hasn’t been nearly as much of the latter (that I can find) as people tend to say.  I qualify this, though, and note I’m not a historian and could be wrong.

As for a “uniquely theological standpoint,” I think it’s one that starts with the revelation of Jesus Christ and reflects on our embodied experience and our matter through that lens.  We talk a lot about why Jesus had to die to accomplish our salvation, and rightly so.  But why did he have to take on a body?  And why did he have to die bodily?  And what significance does that have for our bodies?  Those are all questions we can ask of the counsel of Scripture without thinking about medicine or science or dieting.

How that plays out practically in, say, tattoos….someone should write a book on that.

Trevin Wax: You talk about viewing our bodies through the lens of Jesus’ incarnation and bodily death. Curious, you didn’t mention the resurrection (which you do in the book, so you’re off the hook, I guess!). How has the truth of the resurrection influenced (historically) Christian thought on the body? And how should it influence the choices we make today?

Matthew Anderson: Well, leaving the resurrection aside was definitely a mistake.  It’s hard to say how pervasive the influence of the doctrine has been on Christians throughout the centuries.  But I think one of the central things the resurrection grounds is hope, which seems to be a uniquely Christian virtue.  The possibility of restoration and an embodied life after death allows for a sort of flagrant disregard for death.  In light of the resurrection, death’s power turns out to be no power at all.  And that enabled the martyrs to enter cheerfully into their sufferings (even while it sometimes might have made them a little too eager to die) and others to kiss those who were dying of deadly diseases as a way of bringing comfort.

Which is, I think, precisely how the doctrine should affect us now.  With all our emphasis on the intrinsic goodness of the body and of sexuality, we have to remember the corruptibility and decay of the body and look elsewhere for permanence and stability. When it comes to choices that we make, I think we need to be careful to see the counterfeit resurrections that are being held out to us, if I can use a phrase that echoes your own “counterfeit gospels,” and ensure that our hope is found in nothing less than Jesus’ blood, righteousness, and risen body.

Trevin Wax: You mentioned our need to look elsewhere (and not the body) for permanence and stability. What about identity? Our society is becoming increasingly muddled on issues of gender and sexuality, with men claiming to be women trapped in male bodies, etc. Likewise, one of the reasons it is so difficult to have a conversation about the nature and morality of homosexuality is because those who engage in homosexual behavior often conflate their behavior/attractions with their identity. Sexuality becomes the primary identity, the defining aspect of who they are. How does a Christian view of the body affect our identity when it comes to gender (male or female) and sexuality (attractions and actions)?

Matthew Anderson: Do we get to the hard questions after this one?  Oh, wait….

This is a really delicate issue, and one that I probably can’t do justice to here (though I give it a fighting effort in the book).  On the one hand, Christians want to relegate the status of sexual identity to the edges, rather than the center.  Our identity is to be firmly in Christ and we are to take the narrative for our own lives not from our sexual desires or dispositions (whether toward people of the same sex or not), but from the narrative of the Gospel.

However, that narrative leaves no part of us untouched, including our sexuality, as it establishes genuine norms for the expression of our sexuality.  Part of the problem of our contemporary sexual confusion is a subtle rejection of the body’s role in shaping our identity and self-understanding.  Culturally, “gender” sometimes gets treated as though it can be totally separated from the structure of our physical bodies, which turns our bodies into objects that are infinitely malleable either by our own wills or by the social forces and influences around us.  A Christian view of the body, though, sees it as a gift that has been given to us by God, and that it’s structure sets the conditions for our freedom and joy.  Whatever gender is, I think it is supposed to emerge out of the body and our sexual differences, not overwhelm them and treat them as irrelevant or reconstructible in light of our felt experience of the world.

Trevin Wax: What’s the takeaway from your book in regards to the day-to-day choices we make as Christians? How does a thoughtful, theological perspective on the body affect our choices daily?

Matthew Anderson: A couple ways. First, I think that it changes the way that we pray, such that presenting the members of our body becomes something that we intentionally practice, in the way that we might tithe intentionally or worship on Sunday mornings. That means becoming more attentive to how our feet, ears, eyes, etc. have been trained as “instruments for unrightousness” and deliberatively asking God to retrain them as “instruments for righteousness.”

Related to that, I hope that it makes us engage our whole person in the spiritual disciplines, such that if we are claiming that Jesus is Lord, we are actually kneeling before him to acknowledge his Lordship with our knees as much as our lips and hearts.

Much of the discussion surrounding the New Perspective on Paul is centered on the definition of “the righteousness of God.” In a manner similar to my “Gospel Definitions” series, Nick Nowalk has compiled a variety of scholarly definitions of “the righteousness of God.”  (Some of the quoted scholars are Doug Moo, N.T. Wright, Michael Bird, Thomas Schreiner, etc.) In his introductory post, Nick writes:

This series will explore how scholars of various stripes have understood the meaning of Paul’s allusive expression, “the righteousness of God” (dikaiosyne theou), which appears almost exclusively in Romans (1:17, 3:5, 3:21-26[4x], 10:3 [2x]), but once also-very notably-in 2 Corinthians 5:21.  Some interpreters also introduce Philippians 3:9 into these conversations.

How could C.S. Lewis consider a photo of his deceased wife to be a snare?

He was terrified at the prospect of shaping Helen into a phantom of his own making. Particularly alarming was his inclination to long for certain aspects of Helen’s personality more than others. Of course he would never intentionally import something fictitious about her, but, he mused, “won’t the composition inevitably become more and more my own?” What worried Lewis most was that Helen would become to him merely an extension of himself, of his old bachelor pipe-dreams.

The Danger of Defining Yourself By What You’re Against:

Of the many things I’ve learned about pastoral ministry over these years one stands out among the most helpful: There is a real danger in consistently defining yourself and your ministry by what you are against. Take it from a recovering fundie. Here are some “warnings.” Pun intended.

Seth Godin on being under pressure:

Unless you’re in a James Bond movie, it’s really unlikely that the pressure that you’re feeling is anything but self-induced.

Brief notes on two books I’ve read recently:

Rediscovering the Church Fathers:
Who They Were and How They Shaped the Church
Michael A. G. Haykin (Crossway)
My Rating: ****

Michael Haykin celebrates evangelicalism’s renewed appreciation for the church fathers and encourages us to drink deeply from the wisdom of those who have gone before us. Haykin’s treatment of the fathers is a good mix of biographical information and theological reflection. He quotes extensively from some of the most important church fathers, disagreeing charitably at times but always with an eye toward understanding them within their context. Rediscovering the Church Fathers succeeds in increasing evangelical awareness of our need to appreciate the pearls of the ancient church.

Heaven Revealed:
What Is It Like? What Will We Do? . . . And 11 Other Things You’ve Wondered About
Paul Enns (Moody)
My Rating: ***

Brokenhearted after suddenly losing his beloved wife of many years, pastor Paul Enns began an extensive study of the Scriptures that describe the life of heaven. In this book, Enns shares the comfort he found in studying the truth about heaven. Heaven Revealed
is strongest when Enns describes the glories of God’s presence and the embodied nature of our life on the new earth. It is less effective when Enns delves into the specifics of a dispensational theology that sometimes leans toward escapism.

These reviews were first published in Christianity Today, June 2011.

George Guthrie writes about his  son who is heading to college - On Sending a Prophet to the Moon:

As a professor at a Christian University, I see “prophets” of all shapes and sizes, of many callings and passions and pursuits, young men and women set on changing the world for Christ. Is it tough for us as parents to send them out? You bet. But that’s what happens when you raise a prophet.

Interesting (and sad) articlefrom a teenage fan of Christian contemporary music who abandoned the faith:

Despite all the affected teenage rebellion, I continued to call myself a Christian into my early twenties. When I finally stopped, it wasn’t because being a believer made me uncool or outdated or freakish. It was because being a Christian no longer meant anything. It was a label to slap on my Facebook page, next to my music preferences. The gospel became just another product someone was trying to sell me, and a paltry one at that because the church isn’t Viacom: it doesn’t have a Department of Brand Strategy and Planning. Staying relevant in late consumer capitalism requires highly sophisticated resources and the willingness to tailor your values to whatever your audience wants. In trying to compete in this market, the church has forfeited the one advantage it had in the game to attract disillusioned youth: authenticity. (HT)

 30 Ways to Bless Your Workplace:

It is important for us to know what it looks like to bring gospel intentionality to our jobs. Hopefully this will help spark a few ideas for connecting with and blessing your coworkers. (HT)

John Starke: What To Do with Creeds and Councils

The church—be it Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant—has long debated the role of creeds and councils without reaching full consensus. Evangelicals care about sound doctrine, and we would be wrong to think it didn’t exist until the Reformation. So what’s an appropriate emphasis on creeds and councils for evangelicals in particular? What authority should they have in our life and doctrine?

Not too long ago, I watched a television documentary about the increasing number of practicing Muslims in small-town America. At one point in the film, a mainline Protestant pastor visited the local imam in his home. At the outset of their conversation, the pastor made his intentions clear:

“My purpose in meeting you is not any sort of conversion. I respect you and your beliefs. You’re not going to change, and I’m not going to change.”

There is so much to unpack in those three sentences that I hardly know where to begin. Interestingly, the imam restated the last of those three sentences, offering his total agreement to framing the discussion this way.

“I respect you and your beliefs.”

Let’s begin with the second sentence first: “I respect you and your beliefs.”

The pastor is right to respect the imam, if for nothing else than the fact that the imam is a fellow human being created in the image of God. It’s the image of God in humanity that separates us from the animal world and gives us intrinsic value and a unique vocation.

When speaking about “respecting beliefs,” we should tread little more carefully. Most of the time, when pastors and church leaders speak of “respecting someone else’s beliefs,” they mean “respecting the sincerity with which a person holds to a belief.” In that sense, it’s fine to speak of “respecting another’s beliefs.” But in the more literal sense, “respecting someone else’s beliefs” can be foolish.

If my seven-year-old son were to watch Peter Pan and then decide to jump off the house and fly through the neighborhood, it would be ridiculous of me to say, “I respect your belief.” I might respect the tenacity of his childlike faith, but I’d be the first to say, “That’s silly.” I can respect my son as a human made in the image of God; in fact, I can love him as a father should love a son, and yet still point out the fallacy of his belief.

In the same way, Christians need to distinguish between (rightly) showing respect to people and (wrongly) advocating respect for any and every idea that someone else believes. I can respect a Muslim friend without at all respecting the Muslim view of the afterlife, or the Muslim explanation of the cross of Christ, or the Muslim idea of works-righteousness. Such beliefs are not worthy of respect because they are wrong, even if the people who hold these beliefs are valuable, precious individuals made in the image of God.

“My purpose in meeting is not any sort of conversion”

More troublesome than conflating respect for people with respect for one’s beliefs is the first statement made by the pastor: “My purpose in meeting is not any sort of conversion.”

As a Christian committed to the teachings of Jesus, I cannot understand how this statement is anything but an abdication of the responsibility Jesus gave His disciples after His resurrection: “Go and make disciples of all nations.” Notice the absence of any qualifiers. Jesus didn’t say: “Go and make disciples among the nominally religious in your area.” Or “Go and make disciples of those who don’t believe in any God at all.” Or “Stay within your church walls and make disciples there.” No… Jesus’ command is crystal clear. He is the King who possesses all authority in heaven and on earth. When we place the Great Commission together with the stark claims of Christ’s exclusivity, we see just how wrongheaded it is to say that we have no purpose to convert an unbeliever.

Of course, this pastor will be lauded by many in society today. He seems so open-minded and tolerant. “My purpose is not to convert you,” he says, eliciting a Whew! from the filmmakers as the tension in the room immediately subsides.

But when the pastor’s statement is placed within the entire context of the Scriptures and what Jesus Himself says about salvation, it’s tantamount to saying, “I don’t want you to be with me in the new heavens and new earth.” It’s a tacit condemnation to eternal perdition. There are all sorts of implications to saying such a thing:

• My purpose is not to introduce you to Jesus. (You’re getting along just fine without Him after all.)
• My purpose is not to show you how to escape eternal judgment. (I’m not taking Jesus seriously when He talks about hellfire and all that stuff.)
• My purpose is not to worship side by side with you, singing the praises of the Lamb whose blood was shed for you. (You stay in your mosque, and we’ll stay in our church, thank you very much.)

Then there’s the most troublesome statement of all. The imam and the pastor both state very quickly, “You’re not going to change, and I’m not going to change.”

Now, there’s no surprise that the imam would say such a thing. But for a minister of the gospel – the most explosive, transformational news ever unleashed in our world – to say “You’re not going to change” is an explicit denial of the gospel’s power to change the human heart. There’s no faith here that God can work miracles. No faith that God can so work in a heart that its affections and beliefs shift dramatically.

What if the pastor applied this logic to the alcoholic who comes to him for counseling. “Well Joe, you’re not going to change.” Or to the man who is on the brink of destroying his marriage with pornography, “Sorry, Sam. You’re not going to change.”

The Truly Inclusive Gospel Message

The gospel is for everyone. It is a radically inclusive message. Though the world balks at the exclusive claims of Christ, we rush forward with the inclusive news that He is Savior of all the world. If I fail to proclaim this message, I am not really following Jesus. Instead, I’m just cloaking 21st century ideas in traditional Christian garb.

What would have been the better way for this pastor to handle his conversation with the imam? It would have been better to say something like this:

I respect you as a person made in the image of God. I respect your right to hold to any faith that you choose. I would never coerce you or force my religious beliefs upon you, as such a practice would detract from the truth that you, like me, are made in the image of God. And yet, as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am commanded to share the gospel. When the time comes for me to seek to persuade you to follow Jesus, it is not out of a heart of oppression or desire for control, but out of love and concern. Since I truly believe the gospel offers hope for all humanity, I cannot keep it to myself. The gospel is too precious and you are too valuable for me to keep silent. 

God Has a Wonderful Plan for Your Body:

Evangelicals desperately need, then, an ordered account of how Scripture informs our understanding of the human body and its uses. But with few exceptions—like James K. A. Smith and Amos Yong—evangelical theology is still playing catch-up. As Westmont College theologian Telford Work recently pointed out in these pages, the theology of the body is one of evangelicalism’s least developed doctrines.

How to Perform the Heimlich Maneuver in 6 Different Situations:

Today’s the day you’re finally going to commit this important and potentially lifesaving skill to memory, and not only that, learn how to do it in six different situations-on an average person, an obese person, a baby, a pregnant woman, a dog, and even yourself. Bet you never thought about giving the Heimlich to your pooch did, you? Well now Fido can sleep easy at night, with visions of gristly bones dancing in his head.

Darryl Dash – “Nothing is Confidential”:

One of the lessons: Never assume that something you write in an email will stay confidential. Assume it will get out there, and write accordingly. We now minister in a Wikileaks world.

Michael Bird on Liberal Christianity:

Perhaps the most negative criticism I could make about contemporary liberal or progressive Christians, is that they are little more than “chaplains for Nero”.

The blogosphere is filled with tips from bloggers on how to blog well. I know. I’ve chimed in myself with tips from time to time. The advice generally follows a well-worth path: choose a good theme, work on your writing, post consistently, build a network, etc.

All of these tips are helpful. But lately, I’ve been thinking, What is it about a blog that makes me a regular reader? Which bloggers feature articles that consistently attract my attention? No matter what kind of blog or blogger it may be, I’ve discovered a common characteristic in the best of them: curiosity.

Curiosity works itself out in two ways:

1. The blogger provokes a sense of curiosity and wonder in his or her readers.
2. The blogger has an innate curiosity that enables him or her to write from a unique perspective.

Let’s look at each aspect.

Writing with an Eye to Provoking Curiosity

Good blogs pique your curiosity. The headline grabs you. The first few sentences draw you in. A quote from the blogger’s Twitter causes you to click over and see what the discussion is about. Sometimes, you’re as interested in what the blogger’s community of commenters thinks about a given subject than you are the blogger’s perspective. No matter your exact reason for reading, it’s usually curiosity that drives you to a blog.

Writing with an Innate Sense of Curiosity

But then there’s the second aspect – the blogger’s innate sense of curiosity. Here is where it gets a bit tricky. Some bloggers succeed well at #1 (grabbing a reader’s attention), but aren’t that good at #2. These blogs quickly become stale. The blogger draws me in, but doesn’t deliver what the curiosity-piquing element promised. The title was arresting; the post was so-so. The quote was stellar, but it was only one sentence out of a largely unorganized collection of thoughts.

Interesting Blogs from Interesting People

The best blogs are a combination of the two. The blogger has a curious nature, and this curiosity manifests itself naturally in his or her writing interesting material that grabs the attention of readers. Cultivating a sense of curiosity, a sense of wonder and awe at the world we live in, is vitally important for delivering interesting content day after day.

I have found that interesting blogs are written by interesting people. What makes an interesting person? The ability to be continually fascinated by ideas.

Likewise, I’ve found that the bloggers who are most interesting to read are the bloggers who are most interested in reading. Bloggers more interested in themselves than in ideas rarely have engaging blogs. If you’re not fascinated by something bigger than yourself, chances are – your readers won’t be either.

This is why attempting to build a successful blog is the wrong way to look at the whole blogging endeavor. Readers can see right through it. If your blog merely exists to push yourself in front of others or sell your products, your blog will never be very interesting. The best blogs are driven by the curiosity and generosity of the blogger. Curiousness pushes the blogger into interesting subjects and territory. Generosity is the ability to point to good content wherever it may be found, even if it doesn’t increase your own stature or necessarily build your own reputation.

Three Curious Examples

Here are three blogs that excel at provoking my curiosity:

• Roasted Peanuts: This blogger has interesting content because he posts multiple strips of Peanuts each day. (His goal is to make it through all fifty years in the next decade or so.) But what really makes this blog interesting is the blogger’s comments on Schulz’s work. JohnH finds neat aspects in every panel. He points out interesting art features and unusual character developments. It’s JohnH’s curiosity regarding Peanuts that makes this such an engaging blog.
• Timothy Dalrymple: Though the saying goes, Politics and religion aren’t discussed in polite company, Dalrymple recognizes that without politics and religion, you lose two of the most important and most interesting topics of conversation. Timothy demonstrates his innate curiosity by tackling a variety of subjects. He also succeeds at stirring up interest in the way he delivers his content.
• Mere Orthodoxy: It’s rare that a group blog consistently delivers fresh, engaging content. Why does it work in this case? Because the ever-engaging Matthew Lee Anderson has assembled a variety of interesting thinkers and writers to speak to issues concerning faith and culture. The word that best describes MereO is “thoughtful,” though I would contend that this thoughtfulness on behalf of Matt and the writers is actually rooted in curiosity, a love for good conversation about issues that really matter.

What about You?

I could continue with a long list of blogs that cultivate curiosity, but three should suffice. Now I’m curious to get your feedback on the blogs you read. What are the factors that determine a good blog for you? How important is curiosity (both the blogger’s curiosity and the ability to stoke yours) in blogs?

Our Political System – Not Broken, but a Quagmire:

I don’t think the system is broken, but I do think it’s wounded.  We’re so powerfully riven between two competing visions of what America is and should become that we’ve been slowed to near paralysis.  It’s not complete paralysis; we are capable of turning the ship to some extent.  But it’s close.

Matt Perman shares the notes from “the best message on humility I’ve ever heard”:

“Humility is the noble choice to forgo your status and use your influence for the good of others. It is to hold your power in service of others.” The best leaders are marked by humility. Humility is what makes the great, great. 5 evidences of this…

Art Azurdia on the temptations that are particularly strong for ministers of the gospel

Ed Stetzer - Willow Creek, Homosexuality, and the Future of Evangelical Response:

Moments like this elevate the issue and create important discussions. The issue of homosexuality will need to be increasingly addressed– and addressed graciously– in the Christian community.