August 31, 2007
Great Commentary Sale at WTS Books
Up to 55% off on commentaries like The Gospel According to John (Pillar NT) by D.A. Carson.
(HT: Challies)
August 30, 2007
David Dockery on Christian Higher Education
Christianity Today interviews David Dockery, President of Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. Dockery is the co-editor of two books on Christian higher education (Shaping a Christian Worldview: The Foundation of Christian Higher Education
CT: One of the significant divides in terms of conceiving the Christian university is between the "two spheres" model that aims to provide an excellent secular education in a Christian environment and the integrationist model that aims at distinctively Christian education. You endorse the latter. Why?
Dockery: A two-sphere model recognizes the place of chapel, campus ministry, mission trip opportunities, and residence-life Bible studies. This model sees a place for faith on one side of the campus and learning on the other. This model can be achieved with parachurch ministries on secular campuses. I do not believe this model represents the best of Christ-centered higher education nor do I think it represents the best of the Christian intellectual tradition through the years.
Read the whole thing.
(HT: JT)
Albert Mohler on Mother Teresa
Dr. Mohler weighs in on the recent revelations of Mother Teresa's spiritual struggle by David van Biema in this week's Time Magazine cover story. Dr. Mohler's reflections appear in the On Faith forum (a conversation on religion) co-sponsored by the Washington Post and Newsweek magazine. His main points are:
1. We ought to trust Christ, not our feelings.Dr. Mohler expresses concern, "that part of Mother Teresa's struggle was that she did not consider herself worthy of salvation. "
2. Doubt can be healthy. It can drive believers to a deeper knowledge and embrace of the Gospel. Alternatively, doubt can be a form of sin . . . a refusal to trust God and his promises. Doubt can thus be at the root of spiritual depression.
3. The heart of the Christian gospel is that salvation comes by grace through faith alone. Not faith in our ability to maintain faith, but faith in Christ. Though there is an emotional aspect to the Christian faith, our faith is not ultimately anchored in our feelings but in the facts of the Gospel.
Read Dr. Mohler's summary or his entire article.
August 29, 2007
The Blogworld Conference - November 8-9, 2007
Hugh Hewitt talked about this today. The Blog World and New Media Expo (in Las Vegas, NV) is:
"The first and only industry-wide tradeshow, conference, and media event dedicated to promoting the dynamic industry of blogging and new media. In addition to the only industry-wide exhibition, BlogWorld will feature the largest blogging conference in the world including more than 50 seminars, panel discussions and keynotes from iconic personalities on the leading-edge of online technology and internet-savvy business."
The conference is apparently for bloggers of all types. The program organizers say, "If you blog about business, technology, politics, sports, lifestyle & culture, general news items, or celebrity gossip, If you are a Milblogger, or Godblogger, or advocate a social position you need to be at BlogWorld & New Media Expo."
I found these blogging statistics to be interesting:
* Over 12 million American adults currently maintain a blog.
* More than 147 million Americans use the Internet.
* Over 57 million Americans read blogs (that's almost 40%).
* 1.7 million American adults list making money as one of the reasons they blog.
* 89% of companies surveyed say they think blogs will be more important in the next five years.
* 9% of internet users say they have created blogs .
* 6% of the entire US adult population has created a blog .
* Technorati is currently tracking over 70 million blogs .
* Over 120 thousand blogs are created every day .
* There are over 1.4 million new blog posts every day .
* 22 of the 100 most popular websites in the world are blogs .
* 120,000 new blogs are created every day .
* 37% of blog readers began reading blogs in 2005 or 2006.
* 51% of blog readers shop online.
* Blog readers average 23 hours online each week. (But do we read our Bibles?)
My two-cents worth: Though much of the blogosphere can be ugly, blogging can be a great way to reflect on significant issues/events, to bless others, and to grow as a writer. Blogging can promote engaging discussion and the solidification of personal convictions on a range of issues. But it also presents the dangers of aimless time-wasting (and its inevitable corollary: failure to read the Bible and pray), narcissism (who is saying what about ME today? how many people are visiting MY blog?), and writing mean things which one would never say to someone face-to-face. For those who blog, I would commend these suggestions from Abraham Piper on blog reading and blog writing.
Update: The GodBlogCon Conference this year is being held in conjunction with the Blogworld & New media Expo. (HT: Ted Slater)
Reading Classics Together Via The Blogosphere
Tim Challies has initiated (another) great idea: Using blogdom as a vehicle for accountability in reading through some of the classic Christian books. The first book selected is Holiness, by J.C. Ryle, which is absolutely fantastic. If you've never read it, you might consider checking out Tim's plan and perhaps joining in.
August 28, 2007
Adam's disobedience and Jesus Christ's obedience
John Piper's sermon on Rom. 5:12-21, entitled The Fatal Disobedience of Adam and the Triumphant Obedience of Christ, is now available. Excerpt:
"I want us to focus on the glory of Christ as the main purpose that God had in mind when he planned for and permitted Adam’s sin, and with him the fall of all humanity into sin. Remember what I said last week: Whatever God permits, he permits for a reason. And his reasons are always infinitely wise and purposeful. He did not have to let the Fall happen. He could have stopped it, just like he could have stopped the fall of Satan (as we saw last week). The fact that he did not stop it means he has a reason, a purpose for it. And he doesn’t make up his plans as he goes along. What he knows to be wise, he has always known to be wise. Therefore, Adam’s sin and the fall of the human race with him into sin and misery did not take God off guard and is part of his overarching plan to display the fullness of the glory of Jesus Christ."
August 27, 2007
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Resigns
Howard Schneider writes:
"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has resigned from his post, according to an administration official, ending a controversial cabinet tenure that included clashes with Congress over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and over the use of warrantless wiretaps in the war on terror.The official said Gonzales told President Bush of his decision on Friday, but the announcement was withheld until he met with Bush at the president's Crawford ranch. His resignation will be announced at a press conference scheduled for 10:30 today."
(HT: Denny Burk)
August 26, 2007
Nancy Pearcey and Total Truth
As I prepare to teach a course entitled Engineering from a Christian Worldview, I am increasingly impressed with the writing of Nancy Pearcey. Nancy Pearcey is a homeschooling mother who has authored two award-winning books on Christian worldview: How Now Shall We Live?
Nancy Pearcey has posted articles on topics such as evolution, preparing homeschoolers, and intelligent design. I found these three articles to be helpful introductions to the clear thinking and lucid argumentation which her books also exemplify.
August 25, 2007
Salvation to the Ends of the Earth
While we're on the missions theme, I want to highlight an interesting book that traces the foundational principles of world missions back to their Old Testament roots. Salvation to the Ends of the Earth by Andreas J. Kostenberger and Peter T. O’Brien was written to show that God's saving purposes for the entire world originated not at the Great Commission but at the very beginning of God's creation. From what I know of these authors, I imagine this book represents a helpful addition to mission literature. Zioneer writes:
"From the original intent of creation, the significance of Abraham’s call, the purpose of Israel as a nation of priests, the monumental covenant made with David, the grand and sweeping eschatological visions of the writing prophets; to the predominantly Jewish ministry of Christ on earth, his forecast of universal expansion following his death, and the actual outworking of that forecast in Christian history, as his disciples, empowered by the Holy Spirit, began to turn the world upside down for the sake of the Name – in short, from beginning to end of divine revelation, a thrilling picture of worldwide, salvific import begins to emerge, with a unity and complexity that is as staggering as it is beautiful."
August 22, 2007
Review of Let the Nations Be Glad!
Though the second edition first appeared in 2003, Let the Nations Be Glad! by John Piper continues to be an important book for any Christian who takes the Great Commission seriously. The book is neatly divided into three section, all of which deal with the theme of making God supreme in missions:
Part I -- The Purpose, the Power, and the Price
Chapter 1 argues that worship is the ultimate goal of the church, not missions. Missions exists because there are millions all over the world who do not worship. In addition to being the goal of missions, worship is also the fuel of missions. Those who do not cherish the true God cannot commend Him to others with sincerity. Non-Christians would rightly observe the hypocrisy of those who pronounce bold claims (such as "all must trust in Jesus Christ to be saved") but themselves have little love for the Savior.
Piper then argues that God's main desire is to glorify and enjoy Himself forever. He unfolds a dizzying array of biblical texts which make this argument (Eph. 1:4-6, 12, 14; Isa. 43:6-7, 49:3; Jer. 13:11; Ps. 106:7-8; Rom. 9:17; Exod. 14:4, 18; and Ezek. 20:14 to name a few). His point is that if the glory of God is God's main passion, then it should be ours as well. Indeed, the infinite horrors of hell are a vivid demonstration of the infinite value of God's gory.
Piper responds to the criticism that self-exaltation on God's part cannot be love. It is love because (a) love seeks its own joy in the joy of others, and man's greatest happiness is found in the exaltation of God; and (b) God must exalt that which is infinitely glorious (i.e., Himself). For God to do otherwise would be idolatry. So while any creature except God becomes an idolater via self-exaltation, God would be an idolater if He did not exalt Himself. The unifying principle is don't exalt in something that is non-God. Being satisfied with all that God is for us in Christ glories God, therefore God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him. Piper's theology on this is succinctly captured in a few words from John Dawson, which Piper quotes:
"Humanity does not deserve the love of God any more than you or I do. We should never be Christian humanists, taking Jesus to poor sinful people, reducing Jesus to some kind of product that will better their lot. People deserve to be damned, but Jesus, the suffering Lamb of God, deserves the reward of His suffering."
Chapter 2 deals with the strategic importance of prayer in the work of missions. There is a battle underway for the soul of every man and woman on planet Earth. So life is war, and believers should strip their lives from excessive, soul-depleting luxuries in order to most strategically give their energy, time and money to the mission of Christ to win a people for Himself from every tribe and language and people and nation (see II Tim 2:3-6 and Rev. 5:9-10). Prayer recognizes that confidence for missions comes from accepting the sovereignty of God, who in His word has guaranteed that Christ would receive the reward of His sacrifice. Prayer often malfunctions, however, because "we try to turn a wartime walkie-talkie into a domestic intercom." We treat God as a genie-in-a-bottle to secure our comforts rather than a commander in a battlefield who commands our allegiance and cares more for the cause than we do. God has not promised a life of ease.
As important as prayer is, prayer is not itself the work of mission. The preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ delineated in the Bible to those who have no remnant of believers in their people group -- that is the work of missions. Nevertheless, while God has made "the accomplishment of his [saving] purposes hang on the preaching of the Word," he has also "made the success of that preaching hang on prayer."
Chapter 3 is about the role of suffering in making God supreme in missions. "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field" (Matt. 13:34). The point is that the extent of sacrifice (selling all that he has) and the depth of his joy display how much value he assigns to the treasure of God (which is salvation). And if we treasure it for ourselves, why wouldn't we give sacrificially so that others can treasure it also? I Peter 2:20-21 shows that Christ died both as a substitutionary sacrifice and as a pattern for us--that we might follow in His steps. (Note: Elsewhere Piper has argued that Col 1:24 refers to bringing the saving message of Christ's suffering to the nations via our own suffering.) Piper lists six reasons why God appoints suffering for his servants:
1. Suffering deepens faith and holiness.
2. Suffering makes our cup increase.
3. Suffering is the price of making others bold.
4. Suffering fills up what is lacking in Christ's affliction (Col. 1:24).
5. Suffering enforces the missionary command to go.
6. The supremacy of Christ is manifest in suffering.
Sacrificing our all for the salvation of others is not ultimate self-denial. Rather, it is the foregoing of a lesser good for a greater good. Which is why famous missionaries have often said at the end of their lives, "I never made a sacrifice."
Part II. The Necessity and Nature of the Task
Chapter 4 is an outstanding argument against inclusivism (the idea that salvation can be procured any way other than by conscious faith in Jesus Christ). Piper carefully and biblically argues that not only is Jesus Christ man's only hope, but that eternal, conscious torment awaits those who do not believe in him. (He references a plethora of books that assess the recent departures from the historic Christian belief in hell as eternal conscious torment of the ungodly, including Hell Under Fire
"Are there devout people in religions other than Christianity who humbly rely on the grace of a God whom they know only through nature or non-Christian religious experience? No.....the focus of faith has been narrowed down to one man, Jesus Christ, the fulfillment and guarantee of all redemption and all sacrifices and all prophecies. It is to his honor that henceforth all saving faith shall be directed to him."
His chapter gives affirmative answers to three crucial questions (all emphases Piper's):
1. Will anyone experience eternal conscious torment under God's wrath?
2. Is the work of Christ the necessary means provided by God for eternal salvation?
3. Is it necessary for people to hear of Christ in order to be eternally saved?
The author also argues that giving a negative answer to any of the three questions would seem to cut a nerve of urgency in the missionary cause. In this chapter Piper interacts with writers ranging from George MacDonald (a universalist) to respected evangelicals such as Millard Erickson. There is also a detailed rebuttal of John Stott, who (at least at the time) held to annihilationism (the view that God annihilates the ungodly, rather than condemning them to eternal conscious torment in hell). Stott's view is that annihilationism is consistent with the Scriptures, since the ungodly eternally perish (John 3:16). Piper shows that many texts, however, are more naturally translated as referring to eternal, conscious torment.
Lastly, passages such as Eph. 3:4-10, Rom. 16:25-27, and Acts 17:30-31 are used to argue that hearing the gospel is in fact necessary. Piper also deals with the case of God-fearing Cornelius, arguing that he was not saved prior to hearing and embracing the gospel proclaimed by Peter (Acts 10:1-11:18).
Chapter 5 answers the question: "How do we decide what the task of missions is, or even if there should be such a thing as missions?" Intriguingly, Piper argues that "God's call for missions in Scripture cannot be defined in terms of crossing cultures to maximize the total number of individuals saved. Rather, God's will for missions is that every people group be reached with the testimony of Christ and that a people be called out for his name from all the nations."
Piper takes the word "nation" as referring to an ethnic (or people) group that may or may not have political dimensions. Much of the chapter is an analysis of the Greek word "ethnos" to substantiate this interpretation. Patrick Johnstone (Operation World) and David Barrett define a people group as a "distinct homogeneous ethnic or racial group within a single country, speaking its own language (one single mother tongue)." (So a large people group spread across multiple countries is counted multiple times by this definition.) Another ambiguity comes into play when one considers that often times different groupings of people are able to read the same Bible translation.
The point is that God intends for their to be diversity in His kingdom. Several passages in Revelation show that this has been His design all along (Rev. 5:9, 7:9-10, 14:6-7, 15:4, 21:3).
Part III. The Practical Outworking of Compassion and Worship
In a relatively brief chapter 6, Piper traces the roots of his high view of God back to Jonathan Edwards. Edwards painstakingly showed the radical God-centeredness of God. The problem in the world is that the glory of God is not honored by mankind. Worship, on the other hand, is "right affections in the heart toward God, rooted in right thoughts in the head about God, becoming visible in right actions of the body reflecting God."
Edwards wanted to honor God and rescue people from hell. Piper explores Edwards' thought on the relationship between our passion for the supremacy of God and our compassion for perishing sinners. These motives must be held in tension, says Piper, because they do not always feel emotionally compatible. Five principles from Edwards are helpful:
1. Compassion pursues the rescue of perishing sinners.
2. Fear of hell by itself saves nobody.
3. Therefore, compassion must not merely warn people about the pains of going to hell but must also lure people to the pleasures of knowing Christ.
4. It is satisfaction in Christ himself that magnifies Christ and glorifies God.
5. The aim of compassion to rescue sinners from everlasting pain and the aim of passion to see God honored are not in conflict. (Because sinners repenting and treasuring all that God is for them in Christ results in God being honored and sinners escaping damnation.)
Chapter 7 is new in the 2003 edition. Piper wanted to clarify what he meant by "Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is." Specifically, he wanted to clarify what he meant by "worship." He was not referring to corporate gatherings for worship or (still more limiting) the portion of these gatherings dedicated to singing songs and hymns. Rather, what he means by "worship" is the radically inward experience of treasuring God above all else. Piper shows that, in comparison to the Old Testament, the New Testament "is stunningly silent about the outward forms of worship and radically focused on the inner experience of treasuring God." The upshot is that we have tremendous freedom regarding the outward forms of worship in the worldwide church, since radical satisfaction in all that God is for us in Christ is the true essence of worship (and what salvation history was pointing to all along). I think Chapter 7 would be very helpful for anyone wrestling with the development of worship services in a missions context where issues of contextualization are paramount.
All in all, Let the Nations Be Glad! is a fantastic book on the global purposes of God. It calls every Christian to marshal their talents and resources to advance the Greatest Cause--the Cause of God Himself, who in Jesus Christ is reconciling lost sinners to Himself. I heartily recommend it.
August 21, 2007
Round-Up on Baptism/Membership/Communion Issues
Between Two Worlds provides an excellent round-up of the recent blogosphere debate on issues pertaining to the timing of baptism, church membership, and who should be allowed to take communion. A couple terms for any who may be unfamiliar:
credobaptism: the view that one should be baptized after he/she professes faith in Christ. Among adherents to this view, people disagree on the age at which children should be baptized. Those most conservative want to wait until the professing believer is at least 16-18 (so that their Spirit-empowered obedience to Christ can be distinguished from their natural (common grace) obedience to their (presumably) godly parents.
paedobaptism: the view that the children of believers should be baptized (see Ligon Duncan's succinct argument)
open membership: the view that one's position on credobaptism/paedobaptism should not impact whether one should be admitted into church membership
open communion: the view that one's position on credobaptism/paedobaptism should not impact whether one should be allowed to partake of the Lord's supper.
August 20, 2007
Mark Dever on "Unrepetant Sinners" (and Baptism)
In a previous post Mark Dever said:
"Jesus clearly commanded baptism and to disobey this command is sin [whether intentional or not]. To continue in such an unbaptized state is unrepentant sin [whether intentional or not]."
Abraham Piper took issue with this statement, noting that I John 3:8 associates being unrepentantly sinful with being of the devil.
Now, Mark Dever responds:
"I assume that all Christians continue to sin in this life. Our basic posture is to repent of those sins (according to I John & Romans 6 & Galatians 5) that we become aware of (though we will still struggle). There are always going to be other sins of which we are not aware.......I would only suggest that Christ's teaching on baptism seems simple, straightforward and clear to me, so that I don't understand that I have the option to set it aside. A good friend--let's take Lig Duncan for instance--honestly agrees with me that I don't have the option to set it aside, but does disagree with me on what the Bible teaches about baptism. He must act according to his own best understanding, and so must I. God will sort it out."
Read the whole thing.
Crossway Unveils iPhone Book-Browsing Application
From a Crossway press release:
"Users of the iPhone can now access and browse 130 Crossway titles through their mobile devices. Unlike other available applications, Crossway’s iPhone book-browsing application allows users to search and sample any portion of the book’s text, including complete text searches. Users can view up to 30 pages of text per title."
Check out Crossway's mobile browsing site.
Related: Online ESV Bible Launches iPhone Site
Albert Mohler to appear on CNN Tonight
From a Southern Seminary press release:
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is scheduled to appear tonight at 8:00 PM Eastern Time on the CNN special “God, Sex and Greed.” The program will explore how materialism and sexuality affect the spiritual health of our society. Mohler will appear in the opening segment of the program, along with author and media personality Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam Today.
Please keep Dr. Mohler in your prayers.
August 19, 2007
D.A. Carson on John Piper's The Future of Justification
"Are men and women saved, on the last day, on the basis of the whole life lived? But if not, what is the nature of the connection between justification and good works? The issues are not secondary, and, pastor that he is, John Piper will not allow believers to put their trust in anyone or anything other than the crucified and resurrected Savior."
D. A. Carson
Research Professor of New Testament
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL
I previously introduced this book. The publisher's description:
N.T. Wright, a world-renowned New Testament scholar and bishop of Durham in the Church of England, has spent years seeking “new” interpretations of the apostle Paul’s writings. Among his conclusions are that “the discussions of justification in much of the history of the church—certainly since Augustine—got off on the wrong foot, at least in terms of understanding Paul—and they have stayed there ever since.”Wright’s confidence that the church has gotten it wrong for 1,500 years, given his enormous influence, has set off warning bells for Christian leaders such as John Piper, a pastor and New Testament scholar. If Wright’s framework for interpreting the New Testament text and his understanding of justification find a home in the church, not only could the doctrine of justification be distorted for generations to come, but the New Testament writers’ original intent could be silenced. So Piper is sounding a crucial warning in this book, reminding all Christians to exercise great caution regarding “fresh” interpretations of the Bible and to hold fast to the biblical view of justification.
August 18, 2007
Yet More On.....Baptism & Membership
Abraham Piper (son of Pastor John) and Ligon Duncan have entered the discussion.
August 16, 2007
The singleness "issue"
Since I hardly ever write about "the gift of singleness" any more, I thought I'd mention that Lydia Brownback has recently been reflecting on the matter. I posted a comment on her second post, and today she offers these remarks.
For a different perspective, see Candice Watters' critical interaction with three recent books, each of which is (primarily) aimed at adult single women: Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age
Since some of you have commented on this topic on the past, I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts (respectfully expressed, please).
John Bunyan (on baptism) and his detractors
Aaron Menikoff offers a synopsis of John Bunyan's arguments for open membership, and also highlights a few prominent detractors.
August 15, 2007
Mark Dever on Baptism & Membership
Mark Dever weighs in on Wayne Grudem's exchange with John Piper.
Mark Driscoll to publish 7 Crossway books in 2008
Mark Driscoll announces that he is "on pace to publish seven books with Crossway in 2008." Wow!
Christian worldview makes all the difference
John Piper observes that "More evidence from surveys [confirms] what the Bible makes so plain: superficial, non-doctrinal, non-serious Christians sin pretty much like the world; but more serious, more doctrinally oriented Christians lead lives that are morally distinct."
With respect to teenagers, Piper highlights what looks like a very interesting new book by Oxford Press: Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers
Religion can and does matter, Regnerus finds, but religious claims are often swamped by other compelling sexual scripts. Particularly interesting is the emergence of what Regnerus calls a new middle class sexual morality which has little to do with a desire for virginity but nevertheless shuns intercourse in order to avoid risks associated with pregnancy and STDs. And strikingly, evangelical teens aren't less sexually active than their non-evangelical counterparts, they just tend to feel guiltier about it. In fact, Regnerus finds that few religious teens have internalized or are even able to articulate the sexual ethic taught by their denominations. The only-and largely ineffective-sexual message most religious teens are getting is, "Don't do it until you're married." Ultimately, Regnerus concludes, religion may influence adolescent sexual behavior, but it rarely motivates sexual decision making.
August 14, 2007
David Frum on Karl Rove's Influence
I recently read four or five articles on Karl Rove, but none more clearly articulated the concerns we should have with Rove's influence on the Bush Administration than this outstanding NYT op-ed piece by David Frum (a former speech writer for Bush). I do think Rove deserves some credit for Bush's victory in 2000 against an articulate, incumbent Vice-President in a time of relative peace and prosperity. And though his tactics "worked" in 2002 and 2004*, Frum explains why the chickens have come home to roost:
This was a politics of party-building and coalition-assembly. It was a politics that aimed at winning elections. It was a politics that treated the problems of governance as secondary. But of course governance is what incumbents get judged on — and since 2004, the negative verdict on President Bush’s governance has created a lethal political environment for Republican candidates.
So what went wrong?
"In my brief service as a speechwriter inside the Bush administration, I often wondered why it was that skeptical experts on issues like immigration could never get even a hearing for their point of view. We took the self-evident brilliance of our plans so much for granted that we would not even meet, for example, with conservative academics who had the facts and figures to demonstrate the illusion of Rovian hopes for a breakthrough among Hispanic voters. We were so mesmerized by the specious analogies between 1996 and 1896 that we forgot that analogies are literary devices, not evidence.In 2006, Republicans and conservatives paid the price for this we-know-best attitude. I fear that we will pay an even higher price in 2008."
But read the whole thing.
(HT: JT)
*One could also make a case that Bush didn't win the 2004 election as much as Kerry lost it.
Sidenote: Mr. Frum is the husband of Danielle Crittenden, the author of the outstanding book What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman (which I previously discussed)
Mark Dever Interview with David Wells
Mark Dever has just done another fascinating interview with David Wells on postmodernism, culture, emergent church, contextualization, preaching today, urban ministry, seeker-sensitive ministry and more. Wells also reflects on Above All Earth Powers, the 2006 Desiring God Conference that took as its theme Dr. Wells' latest book (which shares the same title
Wells draws some interesting contrasts between Piper and Driscoll (with respect to their backgrounds in Reformed theology and culture). Wells is a deep well -- you'll want to hear this one several times! (Thanks, Nine Marks, for the free download capability for these interviews.)
(HT: Chad Vegas)
Parachutist aims to break four world records
I reserve the right to occasionally post on something that is just truly remarkable. This one is eccentric and yet amazing. Michel Fournier (62 years young) is planning a supersonic free fall sometime this month above the plains of Saskatchewan, Canada. From a balloon-carried gondola, Fournier will perform a skydive at an altitude of 130,000 feet (40 kilometers)--roughly 25 miles above the Earth. This jump, if it goes as planned, is expected to break four world records:
1. Altitude record for freefall
2. Altitude record for human balloon flight
3. Time record for longest freefall
4. Speed record for fastest freefall--breaking the sound barrier in the process (calculations suggest he should reach Mach 1.7)
After Fournier jumps, the gondola will descend by parachute. Don't worry -- the base of the gondola is equipped with shock absorbers for a safe landing. And his wardrobe is taken care of -- Fournier will be wearing a spacesuit made of new synthetic material fabricated by the Textile Institute of France. The special outfit is designed to keep his temperature stable during the jump (it is very cold 25 miles above the Earth, but he'll heat up quite a bit while falling), yet is light enough to enhance his maneuverability as he plunges to the earth.
Apparently, Fourier has twice been thwarted from making the jump by weather and balloon problems. But his team ordered a new balloon and have been waiting for the right jet stream conditions until now.
Tim Challies, can you please live-blog the jump?
This story made me think of Psalm 8:4-6: "What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet,"
The majesty of man testifies to the greater majesty of His maker.
Read the original source.
Greg Boyd Responds to Piper on Bridge Collapse
Denny Burk points out some of what's wrong about Greg Boyd's response to John Piper's reflections on the Minneapolis bridge collapse.
In short, Boyd fails to understand compatabilism (the idea that God's sovereign will and man's choices go hand-in-hand.....as James White has said, "What God decrees outside of time, man freely chooses in time.") Consequently, Boyd fails to understand how God relates to His fallen creation and that God's sovereignty is not contradicted by evil acts (whether human or Satanic) or calamities of nature ("acts of God", as a typical insurance policy reads).
August 11, 2007
Billy Graham, Pastor in Chief
The Time magazine cover story this week is on Billy Graham's "50-year courtship of--and courtship by--11 Presidents." Here's an interesting clip:
"They [President George H.W. and Barbara Bush] were very grateful when he took a walk on the beach one day in 1985 with their eldest son. George W. Bush said that encounter put him on a path to a new relationship with Jesus and "planted a mustard seed" in his soul. But a few years later, he got into an argument with his mother about who exactly could and could not get into heaven. Bush maintained that only born-again Christians were eligible for entrance, as he had been learning in his Bible study; Barbara Bush disagreed and telephoned Graham to let him settle the matter. The evangelist said that while the younger Bush's reading of the Bible might be technically correct, he warned both of them that no one should try to play God--for God alone knows who has or has not received Christ as their Saviour."
And another:
From then on [after his crushing experience with the Nixon Administration], Graham operated below the radar as three old friends--Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton--took their turns in the Oval Office. To his critics, the pastoral was political. The left deplored his spending the night with Bush on the day the Gulf War began; the right objected to his praying at Clinton's Inaugural. But Graham stood by them all, including his old charge George W. Bush, whom he publicly embraced on the final Sunday before the 2000 election--in Florida, of all places.The whole article is quite fascinating.
(HT: JT)
Also, as I previously mentioned, Charles Gibson anchored a special edition of 20/20 last night called Pastor to Power: Billy Graham and the Presidents. He interviewed Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, and there were snippets from several U.S. Presidents and their wives (and even Chuck Colson, speaking about Nixon). The consensus seemed to be that Graham provided comfort and support to Presidents in times of crisis, rather than a calculated, political advantage. The reporters also explored the possibility of whether Graham ever compromised his principles for the sake of his political connections (e.g., Nixon's antisemitism). I'm no expert on Graham's political involvement, but IMHO Gibbs' and Duffy's new book seems like it would be a very interesting read.
Children Desiring God
This past April I live-blogged the plenary sessions of the Children Desiring God conference:
Session I - John Piper
Session II - Wayne Grudem
Session III - Wayne Grudem
Session IV - C.J. Mahaney
Session V - David Michel
And posted photos (I and II and III).
Now Desiring God has made all of the audio from the 2005 and 2007 Conferences freely available--including the elective seminars. They also made available several short videos from David Michael, Sally Michael, and John Piper introducing their mission and vision.
August 10, 2007
Tripp and Powlison - visiting Profs at SBTS
From a SBTS Press Release:
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary continues to bolster its biblical counseling program with the addition of several renowned authors and scholars as visiting faculty.Paul David Tripp, president of Paul Tripp Ministries and a counselor for 25 years, and David Powlison, faculty member at the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation (CCEF), have both been added to Southern’s faculty as visiting professors.
Read the whole thing.
August 09, 2007
Grudem Responds to Piper on Baptism and Membership
From Wayne Grudem (posted verbatim with permission):
Dear John,
Thank you for the kind, gracious spirit in your response!
And thank you for your friendship, which has meant so much to me for so many years.
And thank you for helping me to think more clearly about the details of what I have written. You write so persuasively! In fact, last night I printed out what I had written and your response, and gave it to Margaret, and before we went to bed Margaret informed me with a smile, “I agree with John.” Now what can I say to that??
Nevertheless, here are some responses:
(1) I do not see denial of church membership as “virtually the same as excommunication,” nor do any of the Baptist churches known to me.
Non-members who are clearly believers in Jesus Christ are welcomed as believers into many aspects of fellowship. They share in the Lord’s Supper together with members (in all but a very few of the most strict Baptist churches). They participate freely in worship and prayer and fellowship. Sometimes a Baptist church will even have a Bible-believing Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Methodist or Lutheran pastor preach as a guest from the pulpit. That is far from “excommunication”!
And in varying degrees (in different churches) non-members are encouraged to minister to others in the church – they can become active members of home fellowship groups (and in some churches, such as my own Scottsdale Bible Church, they can lead such groups). They can become (in various churches) members of the choir or worship team, youth group workers, ushers, greeters, and so forth. These all give visible signs of treating this unbaptized person as a brother or sister in Christ. (I realize that Baptist churches and denominations have varieties of allowed participation in such things, but they all allow some measure of participation and treat unbaptized Christians as Christians.)
And surely a Baptist church would not give notice to the whole church that the unbaptized non-member should be “treated as an unbeliever from now on,” which would be done in the case of church discipline and excommunication. All these examples show that Baptist churches do not consider the refusal of membership to be equivalent to, or anything even similar to, excommunication. So I am not persuaded by that part of your thoughtful response to me.
(2) But there is a still a clear difference between members and non-members. Unbaptized believers are not members, so they cannot be elders or church officers. They cannot speak or vote at church business meetings. In other words, they can have no formal, recognized part in determining the ongoing policies and teachings of the church. And there will be other activities that each church decides, for various reasons, to restrict to members. There is considerable freedom for churches to decide what they think is wise in this area, in my opinion. And I have seen considerable variety in the Baptist and other believer’s baptism churches that I have known. But there is a clear difference, which I think is right.
(3) There was an unexpressed assumption in my discussion, an assumption which your response makes clear to me. I did not express it because it is so commonly assumed in nearly all churches. The assumption is this:
Baptism is required for church membership.
I think I assumed this because, as far as I know, it has been the practice of all major denominations throughout history. Presbyterians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership (for they consider infant baptism true baptism). Episcopalians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Baptists believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Pentecostals believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Methodists believe this. The Evangelical Free Church of America (which allows both views of baptism) believes this. Independent Bible churches believe this. Even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches believe this. Apart from some unusual groups that don’t practice baptism at all (such as the Salvation Army), I think that the whole church throughout its history has held that baptism is necessary for church membership.
In the light of that assumption, which I have now made explicit by adding the words in boldface type, I think the section that you objected to makes good sense: [In this section I am explaining the problem that will arise if a church decides to allow both views of baptism to be held and taught:]
On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).
For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, and who holds that baptism is necessary for church membership [I just now added these words], admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer?
(4) Now it may be that someone would want to start a new denomination in which baptism is not necessary for church membership. Or people may decide to change their church constitutions so that baptism is no longer required for membership. People are free to do that if they wish.
In that case, I suppose a (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to someone, “We require baptism for church membership, unless you disagree with our view of baptism. For those who disagree with us, we do not require baptism for church membership. Whether we require it or not depends on what you think of baptism.” I suppose a church could say that.
In such a church, they could allow an unbaptized person to be a member. If a godly, Bible-believing, born again Presbyterian (such as your examples of our friends Ligon Duncan or R. C. Sproul, or others) came and wanted to be a member, this (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to him, “We don’t believe you have been baptized, but you can become a member anyway because we allow unbaptized people like you to be members.”
(5) But I don’t think I could support such a practice in a church. I think the reason churches throughout history have required baptism for membership is that the New Testament so clearly makes baptism the public act that every believer undergoes at the outset of the Christian life. It is right there in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). There is no such thing in the New Testament as an unbaptized person being an active member of any local church. So how could we say today that we should start allowing unbaptized persons to be members of our churches? But that (it seems to me) is what my earlier position, and your current position, would have to say.
I do not think such a position is wise, or consistent with the New Testament, and I would not recommend any church to adopt it.
Thank you again for your thoughtful, gracious response, John.
Your friend,
Wayne
Update: Grudem sends along this correction:
There is a factual error in my reply to John Piper that someone has pointed out. The Evangelical Free Church does not require baptism for church membership, contrary to what I said. This is stated in an article by an EFCA pastor, Bill Kynes. I suppose this is the natural corollary to their "allow both views" position, and it is an internally consistent position. If a church adopts the "both options" view, then it seems they also have to go to the "baptism not required for membership" view. But, as the article by Pastor Kynes shows, many in the EFCA denomination are concerned with the resultant downplaying of the importance of baptism. This is not surprising.
Baptism and Church Membership - Again
Justin Taylor highlighted a revised section in Wayne Grudem's latest edition of his (magnificent) Systematic Theology
But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).
For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.
John Piper, an articulate advocate of open membership, replies to Wayne Grudem. I offer just one question regarding Piper's reply, and would be most grateful if any who are more knowledgeable on this matter could fill us in. Piper claims, "Very few, it seems to me, have really come to terms with the seriousness of excluding believers from membership in the local church. It is preemptive excommunication."
I wonder: Does this line of reasoning have historical precedence?
This is a complicated matter, and both sides have inherent difficulties. I previously offered these thoughts.
(HT: JT)
August 08, 2007
Billy Graham and the Presidents
Charles Gibson will be anchoring a Special Edition of "20/20" this Friday evening (Aug. 10) entitled "Pastor to Power: Billy Graham and the Presidents." Gibson will explore the connection between Graham and 11 (consecutive? - yes, I should know!) U.S. presidential administrations between Harry Truman and George W. Bush. The program airs at 10 p.m., EDT, and has been timed to coincide with the release of The Preacher and the Presidents: Billy Graham in the White House
It will be particularly interesting to see how Gibbs and Duffy portray evangelicals. (You may recall that Gibbs penned an articulate, balanced story on crisis pregnancy centers earlier this year.)
August 07, 2007
Piper on Rabbi Kushner on the bridge collapse
John Piper persuasively demonstrates that Rabbi Kushner's "consolation" in the wake of the tragic Minneapolis bridge collapse is anything but.
STR interview with Frank Beckwith
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason interviews Dr. Frank Beckwith on his reversion to the Roman Catholic church. Beckwith discusses his influences and his understanding of justification, which seems to have been crucial in Beckwith's reversion.
(HT: Hugh Hewitt via Jacob)
Spencer on For Us and for Our Salvation
Michael Spencer reviews (and recommends) For Us and for Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in the Early Church
John Piper's Practical Theology Seminars
The generosity of Desiring God continues. They have now posted the audio for all of Pastor John's Practical Theology seminars for free:
1. Biblical Eldership (my post, and response paper)
2. Desiring God (my post, and response paper)
3. Future Grace (post and response paper are forthcoming)
4. Gravity and Gladness on Sunday Morning: The Pursuit of God in Corporate Worship (my post and response paper)
5. Prayer, Meditation, and Fasting (my post and response paper)
6. Sexual Complementarity: The Pursuit of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (my post and response paper, parts one and two)
7. Suffering for the Sake of the Body: The Pursuit of People Through Pain (my post and response paper)
8. TULIP (series of posts, which include my response to Walls & Dongell)
9. Why We Believe the Bible (my post and response paper)
(HT: JT)
August 03, 2007
Guest Review of Sam Storms - Chosen For Life
Given the recent discussion on Calvinism and Arminianism, I thought this would be a good time to post this guest review of Chosen For Life by Sam Storms (for which I previously offered these brief salvos). The review comes from the pen of my friend Brian Tabb (M.A. Wheaton College, 2005, and currently pursuing a Th.M. at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, MN):
Author Sam Storms opens his book Chosen for Life with what proves to be a defining illustration of two nineteen-year-old twin brothers, Jerry and Ed, whose family, church experience, and aversion to the gospel message are identical. However, on Easter Sunday Jerry experiences an awakening to his sinful condition and his need for a savior while Ed remains indignantly in unbelief. According to Storms, only the Calvinistic doctrine of divine election offers a satisfactory explanation for the difference between these two brothers. In chapter one, Storms contends that the crux of the age-old dispute between Calvinists and Arminians “isn’t the reality of election, or even its source, author, time, or goal … rather, [it] is the basis of divine election” (21). The determinative question is thus: “Does God elect people because they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, or does God elect people in order that they shall believe in Christ” (22)?
In chapter two, Storms articulates the Arminian position(s) of “conditional election.” Arminian theologians are divided as to whether the object of election is the church or individuals, but they are in agreement that God elects to salvation on the basis of his foreknowledge of faith, “a faith that all are enabled to exercise through the bestowal of prevenient grace.” (36). God’s conditional election of sinful human beings in the Arminian scheme is only feasible through this prevenient grace, in which God restores humanity’s free will that was lost in the fall of Adam. Storms’ primary critique of prevenient grace is that it is not clearly taught anywhere in Scripture and that it runs against the grain of Romans 3:10-18, where Paul insists that no one does good or seeks after God. In chapter three, he moves to address the Calvinistic view of divine election, which he defines “as that loving and merciful decision by God the Father to bestow eternal life upon some, but not all, hell-deserving sinners” (45). The basis of divine election in this view is not any act performed by humanity but rather “the sovereign good pleasure and grace of God” (44).
Storms focuses his discussion in chapter four around the nature of man and his will, and he contends forcefully that, according to Scripture, “all people are born into this life corrupt in nature and therefore ill-disposed to the gospel and to the truth” (54). He affirms that all people are free moral agents, but he specifies, “A person’s freedom consists in the ability to act according to his desires and inclinations without being compelled to do otherwise by something or someone external to himself” (60). However, Storms contends that because of the spiritual deadness brought about by sin (Eph. 2:1-2), “when confronted with the gospel, we cannot will well” (60).
In chapters five and six, Storms addresses a number of biblical texts germane to the nature of faith, repentance, and grace before returning to election. He argues that faith and repentance are not in a sinner’s power to produce, but rather gifts of God’s grace, which he defines as “treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God” (80). Storms contends that in the Arminian scheme “God’s grace is seriously, albeit unwittingly, compromised” as election is made contingent upon a person actions of repentance and faith the gospel (77).
The heart of Storm’s argument from Scripture comes in chapters seven through eleven, and his most exhaustive exegetical work is done in Romans 9:1- 23, to which he devotes 29 careful pages. He contends that Arminian scholars misunderstand Paul’s argument in 9:6-13 because they fail to see how the Apostle is addressing the massive problem of Israelite unbelief in the Messiah and the question that this unbelief stimulates: has God’s word failed? The basis of Paul’s answer, that Israel’s unbelief does not negate God’s word of promise, is God’s sovereign prerogative to call and elect whomever he wills. Thus, Storms writes, “Paul does not permit us to find the cause of God’s elective choice in anything other than God himself” (127, Storms’ emphasis). Further, “When God determines who shall and who shall not enjoy his blessings, be they earthly or heavenly, he does so according to his sovereign good pleasure and not according to anything in humanity” (121).
In chapter 12, Storms explains the order of salvation in the Calvinistic scheme. He makes a crucial distinction between the general (or “external”) call of God in the gospel to everyone through the indiscriminate preaching of the Word, over against the special (or “internal”) call of God by the Holy Spirit to the elect which then enables them to respond in saving faith. Storms makes clear that mankind receives and does not contribute to regeneration or new birth. Rather, “the Holy Spirit regenerates a person in order that a person may respond to the gospel” (151).
In chapters 13-14, Storms attempts to address a number of questions surrounding the doctrine of divine election, the two most poignant being: “How can God be loving?” (163-67), and “Why should we preach and pray?” (172-78). Storms answers the former question by stressing that we must not project ideals of human love onto God but must begin with the Biblical assertions of our heinous sin that offends God’s holiness that results in our spiritual deadness and necessitates a full-scale rescue operation by God. Storms writes, “I will tell you what love is. It is not providing a lifeline to drowning men who have no arms or hands with which to grasp it. It is sacrificing your only son to jump in and rescue someone by wrapping that rope around his waist and drawing him firmly but surely to the safety of the shore” (167). Storms’ response to the latter question is that God ordains both ends (such as Jerry’s salvation on Easter Sunday) and means such as prayers for his salvation and the preacher’s sermon. The Calvinistic doctrine of divine election rightly understood is not a disincentive to prayer and preaching, for “God’s command, not our curiosity, is the measure of our duty” (174). In fact, all prayer and preaching would be an ineffective waste of time without God’s electing grace that alone can give life to a spiritual corpse.
In Storms’ final chapter, he defends why the study of divine election is worth studying and heralding. His answer, in short, is that our right worship of God flows out of our view of who he is and what he does. Further, “We must learn to rejoice in that which makes [God] rejoice,” and Scriptures such as Matt. 11:26 are clear that “all three members of the holy Trinity are overwhelmed with joy over divine sovereignty in salvation” (188, 190).
This reviewer agrees with the theological conclusions espoused by Sam Storms in Chosen for Life; however, two minor points of critique may be offered in this review. First, in chapter four Storms points out that “the real point of dispute between Arminians and Calvinists is not so much the nature of God and his will but the nature of man and his will” (53). However, no Arminian theologians, to my knowledge, are quoted in this chapter and thus the reader is a bit unclear as to what exactly the position is that Storms responds to. Walls and Dongell in their critique of the Calvinist position call libertarian free will “axiomatic,” “practically unquestionable,” and “intrinsic to the very notion of moral responsibility,” and a careful response to these claims by Storms would have been quite helpful at this point. To Storms’ credit, he does later address the libertarian position in Appendix B, but it is in the midst of his critique of open theism and thus it is easy for the reader to miss the connection. Second, though it is unrealistic to expect an exhaustive treatment of objections to divine election, this reviewer would have benefited from a clear pastoral response from Storms to the questions surrounding humanity’s moral responsibility for their actions in the face of God’s unconditional election. Despite those minor critiques, Chosen for Life is to be praised for its careful and yet gracious argumentation, its theological precision and its pastoral orientation. Sam Storms engages his readers’ minds with truth about God and moves their hearts to worship God for the glory of his electing grace. For these reasons, I whole-heartedly recommend Chosen for Life for careful reflection and study.
August 02, 2007
Women in Ministry and the Home - III
In the last two posts I introduced the complementarian assignment in the Practical Theology seminar and provided a summary of William Webb's perspective. Here is my response to Webb:
Response to William Webb’s “redemptive-movement” hermeneutic
The over-arching concern with Webb’s hermeneutic is that it essentially invalidates the moral authority of the New Testament. If the New Testament teaching represents just one stage of movement toward an “ultimate ethic,” Christians must at all cost discover this ethic. But then this ambiguous “ultimate” teaching (itself a moving target, since culture is in flux) becomes the standard for Christian living, rather than the New Testament itself. The subtle but massive error is that apostolic teaching, instead of serving as the culmination of God’s revelation (II Pet. 1:20-21; Heb. 1:1-2), becomes subservient to the private, subjective interpretation of the individual Christian—not to mention the potentially conflicting private interpretations of millions of other Christians.
This is not the same thing as recognizing that everyone must test New Testament commands to see if they are culturally relative or transcultural. Webb would acknowledge (with complementarians) that greeting others with a holy kiss in America would probably not have the welcoming effect that it had in Paul’s day, and therefore should be replaced with culturally sensitive behavior that does send a welcoming message. The difference between Webb and many evangelicals (like me) is that we believe that we are under the permanent moral authority of the New Testament and are therefore obligated to obey its commands whenever we are in the same situation as addressed in the New Testament commands. For example, as a parent, a husband, a wife, a child, a master (supervisor), or a slave (employee), the commands of Paul remain applicable. I don’t need to first find the “redemptive spirit” in the text, as that would be frustratingly ambiguous. Though implications abound, I’ll restrict my comments below to slavery and the role of women, arguing (contra Webb) that the two issues are very different.
The liberation of slaves is implicit in the biblical texts themselves. The eighth commandment (a prohibition against stealing) coupled with Exod. 21:16 (“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”) lays an initial framework. Responding to these texts, Theodore Weld noted in his 1838 work The Bible Against Slavery : “The eight commandment forbids the taking of any part of that which belongs to another. Slavery takes the whole. Does the Bible which prohibits the taking of any thing from him, sanction the taking of every thing?”
The New Testament never commands people to own slaves, but rather regulates the institution and teaches principles that led to its abolition. Paul admonished slaves, “If you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity” (I Cor. 7:21). He also tells Philemon to welcome back his runaway slave Onesimus “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother” (Philemon 1:16) and to “receive him as you would receive me ” (vs. 17). Paul expresses confidence in Philemon’s “obedience” and that Philemon will do “even more” than Paul has said (vs. 21). This strongly implies that Paul wanted (and expected) Philemon to grant freedom to Onesimus. And if freedom should be granted to runaway slaves, how much more to those who were loyal and productive?
The following chart shows that the Bible no more commands slavery than it mandates the persecution of Christians. I Peter 2:18-23 actually connects the two, noting that Christian servants ought to serve even cruel masters. Webb fails to distinguish between circumstances or events (e.g., slavery, persecution of Christians) and apostolic commands (e.g., obey masters, joyfully accept plundering). The existence of slavery in the first-century Roman Empire does not mean Christians were commanded (or even encouraged) to own slaves.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul’s Attitude on Slavery
Text: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. (Eph 6:5-8)
Implication: Slaves should faithfully serve their masters as part of their Christian witness. There is no necessary inference that slavery was appropriate or that masters were always just or kind.
Paul’s Attitude on Persecution
Text: For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. (Heb. 10:34)
Implication: The joyful acceptance of unjust loss in persecution is commended. But clearly God does not advocate the looting and pillaging of property owned by Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a related note, Webb claims that master/slave relationships are vastly different than employer/employee relationships in twenty-first century western culture, such that Christians should not directly apply Eph. 6:5-9 but rather follow the “redemptive spirit” of the text. While there are clearly differences (e.g., employees today return to their own homes at the end of daily work), it seems Webb overstates his case. For one, slavery in Paul’s day often included the ability to earn one’s freedom, and a higher socio-economic situation than free day labors (cf. Matt. 20:1-7). And in our day, employers still direct the activities of their subordinates, who face dismissal if they are perpetually negligent. Of course, in democratic cultures we have “checks and balances” such that employees can sue unjust bosses, but the basic authority structure is still there.
Regarding the roles of women, Webb’s hermeneutic also runs into trouble due to his assumption that mutuality and hierarchy between men and women cannot coexist. For example, in I Cor. 11:3 we’re told that the head of a woman is her husband. Paul draws inferences from this verse about the way praying and prophesying is to be conducted in the formal assembly (11:4-6). Then Paul further grounds his statements with the order of creation and what this tells us about how man and woman are related (11:7-10). Everything so far is “hierarchical” and (conveniently), according to Webb, “culturally specific.” But in the very next verses Paul affirms mutuality: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.” Webb argues that these latter verses represent a “seed idea” of a more redemptive, dignified view of women that would emerge in future generations. It seems arbitrary for Webb to put I Cor. 11:3-10 in one category and 11:11-12 in another. Webb begs the question by bringing his assumption to the text. A more likely reading of I Cor. 11:3-12 is that Paul saw men and women as both mutually interdependent and possessing functional differences with regard to their marital roles.
Given I Cor. 11:3-12, other texts that appeal to the creation account should not surprise us. For example, I Tim. 2:11-15 restricts women from pastoral offices based on the order of creation and transgression. The passage is difficult, and cannot be scrutinized in detail here. But Webb’s exegesis is clearly unconvincing, as he assumes that women in Paul’s day were forbidden from teaching because their ignorance, lack of education, and inexperience made them more susceptible to deception. But Paul grounds his argument on Eve’s deception—which surely was not a result of her ignorance regarding the one restrictive (and simple!) command of God relayed by Adam. Rather, deception in the Bible is usually a moral (rather than intellectual) category: Eve’s deception is not like being fooled by a mischievous auto mechanic into spending hundreds of dollars to fix things on one’s car that aren’t broken. That would be ignorant, but not “transgression.” Yet Paul calls Eve a transgressor because of her being deceived. Paul is arguing from Eve’s action at the Fall to a general principle about gender-based restrictions on teaching and governing in the church; Paul is not arguing from the condition of women in his culture. Webb has to import such thinking into the text.
As we’ve seen, Paul often roots gender-based role differentiation in the creation order (I Cor. 11:8-9; I Tim. 2:13, note the γὰρ). Elsewhere, Paul bases his commands to husbands and wives in the Christ-church dynamic which marriage was meant to reflect (Eph. 5:22-33)—if wifely submission to husband was only culturally relative, and should now proceed identically in both directions, then by implication the church and Jesus Christ should now identically submit to one another, which is unfathomable. So when Peter tells wives to win their husbands without a word (I Pet. 3:1-6), the missionary purpose behind this injunction is not the only factor at work. It is more likely that principles such as those found in texts like Eph. 5:22-33 and I Tim. 2:9-15 (which make no explicit reference to evangelism) were informing Peter’s instruction.
As with slavery, readers who are convinced that the Bible supports polygamy or concubinage are more likely to follow Webb’s approach. But the New Testament (and the creation account) shows that monogamy was always God’s design. That is why Christ and the apostles referred to creation when teaching on marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:3-12), male-female roles (I Cor. 11:3-12; I Tim. 2:11-15), and homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-27). Furthermore, with the institution of the New Covenant came Holy Spirit enabling for obedience: God’s laws are now written upon our hearts (Heb 8:8-13), and Jesus sets a higher standard (cf. Mat. 5-7). God’s final revelation is all we need for life and godliness (II Pet. 1:3).
Conclusion
Webb’s hermeneutic is severely flawed by a failure to apply biblical theology. The New Testament, as God’s final revelation, possesses final moral authority for Christians today. Though there is a clear redemptive thread from the Old to New Testament, we are never encouraged to go beyond the New Testament. Though it regulates slavery, the New Testament never commands Christians to own slaves and actually implies that freedom is preferable (I Cor. 7:21; Philemon). Marriage (unlike slavery) is a creation ordinance, and the apostles root their instruction on gender-based roles in marriage and the church on the order of creation, pattern of transgression, and the Christ-church dynamic, both of which are transcultural.
The paper can be read in PDF format.
Massive Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis, MN
My wife and I drove over that bridge many times every week, as did hundreds of our friends and coworkers. I don't think I have ever been so close to a tragedy of this proportion in all my life. John Piper comments on the significance of these kinds of events:
All of us have sinned against God, not just against man. This is an outrage ten thousand times worse than the collapse of the 35W bridge. That any human is breathing at this minute on this planet is sheer mercy from God. God makes the sun rise and the rain fall on those who do not treasure him above all else. He causes the heart to beat and the lungs to work for millions of people who deserve his wrath. This a view of reality that desperately needs to be taught in our churches, so that we are prepared for the calamities of the world.The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.
Read the whole thing, and please pray for unprecedented revival in Minneapolis and beyond. The collapse occurred within sight of Bethlehem Baptist Church.
August 01, 2007
Women in Ministry and the Home - II
Following up on my last post, here is a summary of William Webb's perspective:
Introduction
William Webb has set forth an ingenious apologetic for egalitarianism in his book Slaves, Women & Homosexuals
Webb’s “redemptive-movement” hermeneutic (as it applies to slavery and women’s roles)
Webb observes that there are two ways of approaching the biblical texts: (1) with a redemptive-movement appropriation of Scripture, which encourages movement beyond the original application of the text in the ancient world, or (2) with a static approach that “understands the words of the texts in isolation from their ancient historical-cultural context” and with minimal “emphasis on their underlying spirit.” Webb describes his redemptive-movement hermeneutic with an XàYàZ principle. The X represents the perspective of the original culture on a particular topic (slavery, women, etc.). The Y represents the specific words in the biblical text (which Webb calls “an ethic ‘frozen in time’”). The Z represents “an ultimate ethic”—God’s ideal to which the Bible is moving, though the New Testament may not represent that arrival. Webb derived his interpretive grid by observing that the Scriptures (Y) generally offer a more gracious and humane view of slaves and women than the surrounding culture of their day (X), but still one that is less than the ultimate ethic (Z). We begin with the example of slavery, and proceed to the issue of women and leadership.
Slavery in the Bible and in the culture of its day
In the Old Testament, slaves were regarded as the property of others (Exod. 12:44; 21:20-21; Lev. 22:11). Israelites struggling with infertility used slaves to produce offspring (Gen. 16:1-4; 30:3-4, 9-10). The sexual violation of a free woman was more severely punished than that of a slave woman (compare Deut. 22:25-27 with Lev. 19:20-22). Slaves could be beaten, provided they survived for a few days afterward (Exod. 21:20-22). The very lives of slaves were less regarded than that of free people (Exod. 21:28-32).
However, the biblical texts are significantly more gracious than the ancient Near Eastern culture of the Old Testament era. Israelite slaves had a generous number of days off (Deut. 16:10-12) and a weekly Sabbath rest (Exod. 23:12). They could participate in worship services (Exod. 12:44; Deut. 12:12,18). Hebrew slaves could earn their release after six years of service (Lev. 25:39-43; Jer. 34:8-22), and (in addition) receive material assistance (Deut. 15:12-18). Biblical legislation limited the severity of physical beatings (Exod. 21:20-21) and any slave damaged by his or her master automatically obtained freedom (Exod. 21:26-27). Female slaves likewise received protection in the form of food, clothing, and conjugal rights (Exod. 21:7-11).
According to Webb, the New Testament improves the situation for slaves, but falls short of prescribing God’s ultimate intention of emancipation. Slaves are told to obey their earthly masters as they would Christ (Eph. 6:5-6), while masters are told to stop threatening their slaves, and to remember that God is the ultimate Master of all (Eph. 6:9). Nevertheless, even the New Testament does not teach abolitionism. Christian masters are not straightforwardly commanded to abolish slavery, only to take care of the slaves whom they own. While kinder and gentler than the culture of its day, the “ultimate ethic” of freedom for all is only found by extrapolation.
Women in the Bible and in the culture of its day
The Old Testament likewise contains some “oppressive” teaching about women. For example, we see examples of polygamy (Gen. 29:14-30) and concubinage (Gen. 35:25-26). The Mosaic Law institutes an unequal valuation in vow redemption (Lev. 27:1-8) and a two-week season of impurity after the birth of a female child (Lev. 12:1-5), in comparison to just one week for a male child. We see women being treated as trophies of war (Josh. 15:16; I Sam. 18:12-27). However, the Old Testament also protected women from more abusive forms of patriarchy imposed by other ancient Near Eastern cultures. For example, Israeli women could inherit land (Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-13; Job 42:15) and received fairer treatment in cases of suspected adultery (Num. 5:11-31), rather than a presumption of guilt (which was more common elsewhere).
In the New Testament, even greater dignity is afforded to women. Husbands are commanded to love their wives in a Christ-like fashion (Eph. 5:25-28), monogamy is held in high regard (Tit. 1:6), and sexual mutuality is established (I Cor. 7:3-5). However, women are called weaker vessels (I Pet. 3:7), told to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-24), and forbidden pastoral roles (I Tim. 2:11-15). So while patriarchy is ameliorated, Webb argues, it is not yet removed. While Paul pushed beyond the ethic of his day, he did not disclose the “ultimate ethic”—namely: positional (functional) equality of men and women, such that all submission in marriage is completely mutual (meaning, for Webb, the same in both directions), with “deference in decision making based on expertise in a particular area rather than on gender” and (consequently) no gender-based leadership restrictions in the home and in the church.
Summary observations
It is noteworthy that Webb claims the New Testament itself, rightly understood, endorses the institution of slavery (just as it endorses the subordination of women in marriage and in the church). He thus differs from many other egalitarian scholars, who argue that finding subordination in passages such as Eph. 5:22-31 and I Tim. 2:11-15 represents a misinterpretation of the texts. For Webb, the Bible goes beyond the culture of its day, but not too far, as that would have threatened social cohesion. Rather than seeking to establish a utopian society with complete justice and equity, the Scriptures were “written within a cultural framework with limited, incremental moves toward an ultimate ethic.” What remains is for contemporary cultures like ours to heed the “redemptive spirit” in the biblical texts and to follow the “trajectory” to its logical (ultimate) conclusion—namely, beyond the New Testament, to the abolition of slavery and full egalitarianism.
Webb admonishes Bible readers to move from cultural forms to transcultural principles by examining the pragmatic factors in the original setting (ancient Near Eastern culture for Old Testament texts and Greco-Roman culture for New Testament texts) in comparison to our own cultural setting. Why might commands for wives to “submit to” their husbands have made sense in biblical times? Webb offers five culturally-specific reasons: differences in spouses’ ages (females being significantly younger), men having more formal education, differences in opportunities to acquire and hold resources, lack of informational sources within the home, and women’s lack of social exposure. Today, we’re to move from the cultural form (women “submit to” your husbands, and refrain from pastoral leadership in churches) to the transcultural principle (recognizing that equal dignity between men and women is inconsistent with any gender-based restrictions in the home or church). For example, passages like I Pet. 3:1-6 show that wifely submission and obedience were for the purpose of evangelism. But, in our day, such unilateral, patriarchal submission may have a more repelling effect, so Christian women should move beyond this specific injunction in their comportment with unbelieving spouses.
