renrutkram

I recently watched Kevin Vanhoozer’s presentation, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation?  The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and in Protestant Soteriology,” given at the 19th Annual Wheaton Theology Conference last month (audio or video can be found at Wheaton’s website).  Vanhoozer offers a humorous and helpful overview of the differences between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ perspectives on Paul.  In the process he clarifies where both camps have misunderstood each other and offers ways forward in the discussion of justification, salvation, and the mission of God.

Below is embedded the audio and video of his talk.

Vanhoozer Video

There is a profound difference between reading information and reading texts.  The former permits a disinterest in the question of how the matter is composed; its interest is only in the content…

When people do read today (and they don’t read often), they read almost exclusively for information or content; they almost never read for the pleasure obtained by reading an author whose command of language is exception.  Many ministers, for instance, will read the occasional book about history.  But with few exceptions, the interest in historical writing resides in the events narrated, not in the skillfulness of the narration…

[Modern readers ask what a] passage is about?… but they don’t raise questions about how the passage is constructed.

— T. David Gordon

I have, both anecdotally and formally, observed this to be the case in reference to the Bible.  Most teachers of the Bible are concerned only with the words and principals of the sacred text.  There is little concern for the syntax and grammar.  Word studies abound with no interest in paragraph structure or the flow of discourse.  This sort of textual myopia is further encumbered by a faulty view of much of Scripture regarding the importance of events recorded in the text.  John Sailhamer has been influential in cogently explaining the necessity of viewing the intentionally constructed text of Scripture in its final form as the only element worth interpreting.  Whatever so-called “event” might “lie behind” the inspired text is of no importance to the Christian interpreter.  Rather, one must spend their time understanding how the text of Scripture is intentionally constructed to communicate a message.

I came across this article from David B. Hart regarding the “New Atheists.”  The article is a true example of deep thinking and thoughtful critique.  Hart writes with genuine rhetorical flourish.  I will reproduce a lengthy portion of his critique below.

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

But how long can any soul delight in victories of that sort? And how long should we waste our time with the sheer banality of the New Atheists—with, that is, their childishly Manichean view of history, their lack of any tragic sense, their indifference to the cultural contingency of moral “truths,” their wanton incuriosity, their vague babblings about “religion” in the abstract, and their absurd optimism regarding the future they long for?

I am not—honestly, I am not—simply being dismissive here. The utter inconsequentiality of contemporary atheism is a social and spiritual catastrophe. Something splendid and irreplaceable has taken leave of our culture—some great moral and intellectual capacity that once inspired the more heroic expressions of belief and unbelief alike. Skepticism and atheism are, at least in their highest manifestations, noble, precious, and even necessary traditions, and even the most fervent of believers should acknowledge that both are often inspired by a profound moral alarm at evil and suffering, at the corruption of religious institutions, at psychological terrorism, at injustices either prompted or abetted by religious doctrines, at arid dogmatisms and inane fideisms, and at worldly power wielded in the name of otherworldly goods. In the best kinds
of unbelief, there is something of the moral grandeur of the prophets—a deep and admirable abhorrence of those vicious idolatries that enslave minds and justify our worst cruelties.

But a true skeptic is also someone who understands that an attitude of critical suspicion is quite different from the glib abandonment of one vision of absolute truth for another—say, fundamentalist Christianity for fundamentalist materialism or something vaguely and inaccurately called “humanism.” Hume, for instance, never traded one dogmatism for another, or one facile certitude for another. He understood how radical were the implications of the skepticism he recommended, and how they struck at the foundations not only of unthinking faith, but of proud rationality as well.

A truly profound atheist is someone who has taken the trouble to understand, in its most sophisticated forms, the belief he or she rejects, and to understand the consequences of that rejection. Among the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe.

To be fair there are Christians who display the same sort of thoughtless group-think and buy into a “cheap” faith.  It is important to have a faith or faithlessness in which one has considered as many presuppositions, consequences, and implications as possible.

As usual I am continually buying and borrowing books.  I feel it important, as a Christian, to constantly be reading and learning.  One of my goals is to build a modest library as a resource for my faith community.  I am always willing to lend out books and other resources I have to those who are interested.  Here are few books I have just recently acquired that I am planning to read in the next few weeks.

I recently was the winner of a Dave Black online contest.  As a result I am promised a copy of his book, The Jesus Paradigm. Dr. Black (who insists that we call him “Dave,” or “brother”, or something Biblical like that) has been a challenging influence in my life.  He is constantly encouraging others to serve Jesus in every area of their life.  I am always amazed by his intelligence, humility, godliness, and missionary lifestyle.

Sitting on my shelf is also a copy of Kevin Vanhoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine:  A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. This book was very useful to me in seminary.  I am looking forward to having my own copy and reading it in its entirety.

Zondervan has been kind enough to send me an advanced copy of Jason Boyett’s newest book, O Me of Little Faith:  True Confessions of a Spiritual Weakling, for review.  After reading the introduction and first chapter I already have mixed feelings about the work.  On one hand I find the vulnerability and honesty admirable, on the other hand there are already serious methodological, theological, and philosophical flaws.  I do not want to come to any premature conclusions, so after I finish reading it, I will post a some thoughts.

Another book on my immediate reading list is Christian Smith’s treatise on young adult spirituality, Souls in Transition:  The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. I am hoping this book will provide some cultural insight into current trends in spirituality.  My goal is to gain tools to understand and communicate the gospel to young adults.

Finally, I am giving in to the myriad of recommendations and reading T. David Gordon’s Why Johnny Can’t Preach:  The Media Have Shaped the Messengers. I have read recommendations for this book from David Nelson, Kevin DeYoung, J. D. Greear, and many others.  I figured I might as well peruse this little paperback and see what all the fuss is about.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the “20/20 Conference” at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  However, the audio and video from each session is now available online.  I would highly recommend everyone checking out the messages that were presented.

Matt Chandler spoke via video on Colossians 1 about “Defining the Gospel Clearly.”

Danny Akin described the “Proper Response to the Gospel” based on Romans 12:1-2.

David Platt explained what a “Gospel-Centered Community of Faith” looks like by teaching from Acts 3:1-10.

J. D. Greear clarified some “Cultural Assumptions That Make the Gospel Offensive” based on Acts 4:1-21.

Clayton King demonstrated “Paul’s Witness for the Gospel” in Acts 17:16-31.

I mentioned “Relevant Magazine” in the previous blog post and figured I’d officially give them an unofficial public recommendation.  I have been subscribing to Relevant for more than a year now (you can read the mag online for free).  I have been consistently impressed by the content and presentation.  The magazine is often hilarious, usually objective (sometimes low on discernment), and deeply connected with contemporary culture.  Where else can you find articles by John Piper and Rob Bell or Brian MacLaren and Mark Driscoll?  Who else offers their thoughts on social justice and premarital sex or the merits of Hip-Hop Judaism or the resurgence of midwestern, basement manufactured synth pop?  Exactly.  You need some Relevant Magazine in your life!

Anyone interested in “progressive culture” and the views of many young evangelicals would do well to subscribe to this magazine.  I promise, you will be “cooler” for it.  Further, their website is very impressive with interactive content, streaming music, and a hilarious (occasionally insightful) news “slice” feed.  I think my favorite supplement to the bi-monthly magazine publication is the weekly free podcast.  The podcast is like listening to a group of friends engaging in random conversation (e.g., punching whalesharks, the impending chimpocalypse, etc.).  The podcast also features insightful interviews with Christian personalities, artists, and musicians as well as hilarious listener games and a guide to new music and movie releases.  Give it a try!

Overall Impression

I just finished reading the most recent DeYoung/Kluck collaboration (they previously teamed up on Why We’re Not Emergent).  My only previous experience with either writer was through DeYoung’s blog and hilarious book on finding the will of God (“without dreams, visions, fleeces, open doors, random Bible verses, casting lots, liver shivers, writing in the sky, etc.).  I was excited by the subject matter (as evidenced in the title) and the praise from theological heavyweights such as J. I. Packer, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever.  This book is well-informed, balanced, readable, funny, and God-glorifying.

Positive

The basic premise of this book is that there is no such thing as a “churchless Christianity.”  The authors are clear that they are trying to correct the common notion that Christians do not need “organized churches.”  In fact, the Scriptures indicate that organization (i.e., structure in corporate worship, leadership, etc.) is essential to the health of a church.

“Community” is a buzzword among modern evangelicals, but many “emergent” (whatever that means) types are unwilling to be shaped by a community of believers that does not mimic their particular hipster style.  It is essential that each believer be a part of a church that is full of imperfect Christians.  The result of old and young coming together to worship despite differences of opinion regarding musical style and church architecture is mutual edification and personal sanctification.

DeYoung and Kluck are particularly critical of modern Christian “revolutionaries.”  Christianity, they argue, needs more “plodding visionaries,” that is, people who are concerned with obedience to the gospel and faithfulness to the commands of Christ.  Giving up on local church because it does nothing for you or because you can find a deeper spirituality somewhere else is, frankly, narcissistic and contrary to the commands of Scripture.

I was thankful for the historical perspective the authors provided in two areas:  (1)  They clarified the oft repeated maxim that “Christians have done terrible things throughout there history.”  While this statement, they say, is true it is not absolutely true without qualification.  For example, while race-based slavery was condoned by some Christians it was also abolished largely because of Christian abolitionists.  (2)  The authors also busted the myth of the early Christian utopia.  You and I have both heard the call to be a “New Testament church.”  There are few problems with this statement.  On the one hand the Bible is full of terrible churches rife with division, heresy, and immorality.  On the other hand, just because something is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean that is impure (e.g., buildings, pews, etc.).

The authors argue that the most important reasons to love the church are because it is the God-ordained means for the proclamation of the gospel and the sanctification of believers.  Good reasons that stand in stark contrast to the modern Christian’s “what’s-in-it-for-me” mentality.

Negative

This book is an admirable attempt to correct many problems in modern evangelicalism.  Despite claiming a robust ecclesiology, this book is far from comprehensive.  It has barely a mention of issues such as covenant membership and ordinances.

The authors demonstrate a great balance in their personal understanding of the church’s relationship to God and culture.  However, they set up a false dichotomy between “emergent-types” and “traditional-types.”  The authors unfortunately caricature “emergents” as a modern incarnation of the liberal social gospel.  This dichotomy is unnecessary.  One can be concerned with a true gospel and a culturally appropriate presentation of that gospel.

Though I understand the intention to defend the “traditional” church, I am still uncomfortable with the language of church as “institution” and the authors consistently assume that particular incarnations of modern church are Biblical and healthy.

Concluding Remarks

On the whole this book provides balance to contemporary tendency to “church-hate.”  While neither comprehensive or without fault, the authors are clearly attempting to glorify God and obey the Scriptures.  Love Jesus and love his bride.

This past weekend (September 25-26) I attended the 9 Marks “God Exposed” conference held at SEBTS.  My heart and head are both full from the information and exhortations I received.

Audio from the event can be found at the SEBTS website.  On the IX Marks website some blog reflections can be found.

Mark Dever opened the conference with a message from Mark 4 that was encouraging and convicting.  He challenged us to depend totally on the power of the Word of God and not on our own personality, creativity, or intelligence.  Being dependent on God and His word leads to humility and confidence (two traits that I normally view as opposed).  We have humility because we realize that God is accomplishing the growth of the Kingdom of God.  We have confidence in the fact that God will accomplish what he promised.  I was reminded through this exhortation not to confuse size with significance in my own ministry.  Further, I am thankful that God chooses weak vessels.  One memorable quote from Dr. Dever:

If you think you can be filled with the Spirit without being filled with the Word, you need to check what Spirit you are being filled with.

Dr. Akin underscored this point during the Sermon Review (an idea I wholeheartedly recommend for teachers of the Bible) by showing the connection between being filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18) through the word of Christ (Col. 3:16).

The Word of God is powerful because God is powerful.  The Word of God will be victorious because God is the victor.

You have been born again: not originating from the mortal but from the immortal, that is through the living and permanent word of God.  ‘For all flesh is like grass and all its glory is like the flower of grass.  The grass withers and the flower falls off but the word of the Lord endures into eternity.’  Now this is the word which was preached to you (1 Peter 1:23-25).