jdgreear.com

Bart Ehrman - Dinesh D'Souza debate @ UNC on "the Problem of Evil"

I have to admit that I was not all that pleased with the outcome of the Bart Ehrman-Dinesh D'Souza debate last night. I have enjoyed a number of D'Souza's writings, and am much more (obviously) in his camp, but don't feel that he well represented the biblical position on the problem of evil. Ehrman was at his best, raising all the right questions. I found D'Souza's answers mostly flat, unsatisfying, and not really representative of the biblical/Christian position.

(Parenthetically, I will note that I am not sure why D'Souza was the one chosen for this debate... there are a number of Christian theologians who have written incredible books on the problem of evil. D. A. Carson, William Lane Craig, NT Wright, Tim Keller, John Piper, and Bruce Little (at SEBTS)... just to name a few. I have never heard D'Souza as a "go to" guy for the problem of evil. Ehrman is one of our nation's leading critics; I'm not sure why he wasn't matched with someone who has written on the topic).

Ehrman raised a number of questions that went, for the most part, unanswered. Let me BRIEFLY (this is blog, not a book) sketch the beginnings of an answer to some of them, and point  you to some resources if you'd like to go deeper.

Why would a good God allow suffering? D'Souza's answer, for the most part, went back to God using suffering to teach us something. We could never develop virtue (compassion, courage, etc) without danger, pain, and suffering in the world.

This may be partially true, but it ignores the most fundamental reason why suffering exists: OUR COSMIC TREASON AND REJECTION OF GOD.

At one point, Ehrman said, indignantly, "I reject the idea that all this suffering, the holocaust, etc, was necessary just to create virtue in us." I had to sympathize with Ehrman's retort! Did God really create tsunamis just to teach us bravery? Was the massacre of thousands of Jewish children, and millions of unborn today, necessary just to make us compassionate? That's not convincing to me as a reason why a good God would allow evil.

Well, if not, why couldn't God create a world where suffering didn't exist?

Quite simply, He did. "Shalom" (peace, harmony) ruled God's world, our sin brought that crashing down. God is so fundamental to shalom that when we rejected Him and His order, the entire universe literally began to unravel. We rage against the idea that we are rightfully cursed because of our sin, but that is the plain biblical truth, as offensive as it is. We think this bad world is worse than we good people deserve. The Bible flips that on its head: if anything, any goodness in the world is better than we bad people deserve. Our rejection of God deserves ultimate condemnation. The fact that we woke up this morning, and the sun shone on our face, and we had food, friends, and love, is undeserved. God, in HIs mercy, is allowing us a space to repent. If we do not, we will face what we rightfully deserve: eternal suffering.

Jesus said as much in Luke 13:1-5. When asked why certain people died in a natural disaster, and whether the victims were deserving of what happened, Jesus said, "Not at all! In fact, unless you repent, you will all face the same judgment."

If we suffer because God allows us to have free will, how can there be no suffering in heaven? Do we not have free will there? Ehrman's question here was an attempt to challenge the assertion that our suffering is the result of our free will. This is not a really well thought out objection, in my opinion. Being free to do something doesn't mean that we automatically want to do it. As a grown man, I am "free" to eat rat dung or to jump off the Dean Dome in an attempt to fly. Though I am technically "free" to do either (i.e., if I could figure out how to get up on the Dean Dome), I probably will never choose either--so long as I retain my sanity and my good taste.

The Christian doctrine is that those in heaven are indeed free, but have been given a heart redeemed and purified by Christ, so that they would freely choose to avoid wickedness, perversion, injustice and sin because they abhor it like I do rat dung. Because they have been healed, they will not choose the insanity of sin any more than I would chose to jump off the Dean Dome.

Why then, you may ask, did Adam and Eve choose to sin in paradise, and how were they different than the people in heaven? That is a good question. A & E possessed less "sight" than we will have in heaven. They were given enough sight that they could have chosen God, by faith, if they wanted. Sadly, they (we) did not. In heaven, for those whom Jesus has rescued, our eyes will be opened sufficiently and our hearts accordingly changed that we would never choose the filth of sin any more than Ehrman would choose to eat his own children.

What is ironic is that Ehrman's point--again, that there can be free will without suffering--does not really help his case at all. Even he acknowledges that a lot of suffering does indeed rise out of free will. We all recognize that at times we use our freedom to hurt each other! So, then, how can we eliminate the suffering that arises from free will? There are only 2 options: external control (whereby you take away people's freedom so that they can't hurt others) or internal change (whereby they are changed so they wouldn't want to hurt people). The former answer is the answer of the dictator, attempted in the 20th century by Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse Tung. The latter is the Christian answer, enacted by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago when He died on a cross to purchase our forgiveness and produce a change of heart). These are the only real two solutions--change imposed from the outside, or change beginning on the inside! I'd much prefer Jesus to Stalin on this.

I don't understand why the cross was the necessary way to save us, and why God doesn't just go ahead and stop all evil... I would have done it differently! Ehrman never said these exact words, but this is the undertone of much of what he said. Ehrman did say, "If God is good, then He would want purposeless evil to be stopped. If God is all powerful, then He could stop it. That evil exists proves the Christian God could not exist."

The hidden premise in this is that if there were a purpose in evil, Ehrman could perceive it, and if Ehrman can't perceive the purpose, then it must not exist. This is an extraordinary faith in his own powers of reasoning! This confidence, imho, is quite unfounded, if not illogical. Don't get me wrong, Ehrman is brilliant... but just think about it: if God is INFINITE in love, and INFINITE in power, does it now also follow He is INFINITE in wisdom? And if he is INFINITE in wisdom, and the magnitude of His wisdom exceeds ours as the magnitude of His power must exceed ours, does it not follow that there will be many things on earth we can't understand yet?

You can't have it both ways, Dr. Ehrman. If God is infinite in love and power, you have to concede He would be infinite in wisdom also. And if He is infinite in wisdom, of course there are things that your finite mind, though comparatively brilliant, cannot yet understand. Think about it: If God is as big as Christian doctrine teaches, and the immensity and complexity of creation demands, that He is, how could we possibly think we would understand all His purposes?

It's foolish to set ourselves up as the judge of the wisdom of God. That's like my 2 year old declaring herself the best judge of the political turmoil in Iran. Let's be temperate and rational about our own brilliance.

Is that unreasonable?

Where was God when the Holocaust was happening? Quite simply, He was on the cross. If the Christian revelation is true, then what was happening on the cross was truly staggering: the only ever truly innocent and perfect One died the most unjust and cruel death of all. Why? He was doing what was necessary to save us. Our sin requires any true salvation to do 2 things: Satisfy justice, and change our hearts to make us love the good. Jesus' death did both. In His death He satisfied the righteous wrath of God for our sin; in His resurrection He gave us the power of a new life.

Ironically, the best answer for the problem of evil for the night was given by Ehrman himself, when He said that the "historical" Jesus believed that through His Kingdom all wrongs would be put to right. That is exactly true. What Ehrman doesn't understand, or doesn't believe, is that our salvation required more than just a change of politics and circumstance. Jesus' Kingdom was not just a new regime. Jesus' Kingdom required a heart change and the removal of God's wrath.

Dr. Ehrman underestimates the damage our sin has caused to us, as well as the majesty of the God that was offended. He underestimates the true "sinfulness of sin"; how truly evil our evil really is. That's why, I think, He finds the Christian explanation for the cross so offensive.

Dr. Ehrman also believes that history proves that Jesus was mistaken in His hopes that a Kingdom of justice and righteousness would come. Almost 2000 years later, injustice still abounds! So how, Dr. Ehrman contends, could Jesus not be wrong in His hopes? But again, think about the size of God. 2000 years may look like a long time to us, but is it really that long for the Creator of the Universe, light years, black holes and string theory?

The weakest part of Dr. Ehrman's defense, and one I so wished D'Souza would have gone after, was Ehrman's very unsatisfying explanation about how he can call certain actions, like the Holocaust, truly evil. Ehrman said something about accountability to each other, but never really spelled out what me meant by that or WHY I need to feel accountable to anyone. If there is no God, then we might be able to say that certain actions are UNHELPFUL for the human race, but we can't ever say something is truly evil. To say something is morally evil requires that there be a higher good that you compare it to. The moment you say "This ought to be  different way," you have implied a higher standard, or a higher law, than what is. To say that actions are unjust requires that we have a higher law that tells us what justice is.

For all its philosophical wrangling, at the end of the day evolution cannot supply that law. Evolution can only explain what is, not what ought to be. You may say that is unhelpful for humanity to rape and for Hitler to murder the Jews. But that is not how evolution works. Each of us in in competition with others to have our genes replicated in future generations. If survival of the fittest is the predominant law of the universe, then our species is here and our genes are preserved because our genetic ancestors conquered and sometimes murdered their competitors. That's how survival of the fittest works.

Furthermore, Hitler, and many others, would have disagreed with you about what is "helpful" for the human race. Peter Singer, ethicist at Princeton, says that it is helpful for the human race to eliminate entirely retarded and disabled children from the gene pool. I say that even if you can prove its helpful for the gene pool, the slaughter of a 2 year old mentally challenged child is evil.

If our "morality" is determined simply by what the current majority of people think is helpful for the human race, then we are on shaky ground indeed. Martin Luther King decried the evil of racism by appealing to a law higher than majority opinion. At least for MLK, if there was no God, there would have been no civil rights movement. If there is no Law Giver, there can be no true evil.

At the end of the day, I find blind, atheistic evolution a very unsatisfying answer to my deepest questions. Nothing x nobody = everything? Really? Hitler just died and faces the same future as Mother Theresa? The smothering of a 6 month old by a drunk parent is unhelpful, but not evil? When a parent buries a 4 year old killed in a car wreck, that's it--life is over altogether?

Dr. Ehrman's rather facile "kum ba yah" passage from his book that he read at the end of the debate I find VERY unsatisfying. I'll stick with Nietzsche and Richard Dawkins as MUCH more consistent agnostic/atheists than Dr. Ehrman. They are not afraid to follow their logic to its despairing end.

*****
Again, these are just the beginnings of an answer. I hope I have not been too hard on Mr. D'Souza. I have a great deal of respect for him, and appreciate his time and spirit in coming, as well as his wittiness and brilliance and passion.

I would appeal, however, to the Christian Apologetics Association to choose a more suitable "opponent" when setting up these debates. D'Souza is as smart as Dr. Ehrman, but this is just not the area of his expertise.

For those of you who really want to go deeper in this, I would commend to you Tim Keller's book The Reason for God or D. A. Carson's How Long O Lord? for starters.

Here are a few free messages, one by Dr. Tim Keller (pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan) and two 1 2 by yours truly that might also be good to download and listen to. If you're only going to do one, do Tim Keller's.

For those of you reading who are/were truly troubled by all this, please know that I or any of the pastors at the Summit Church would love to talk with you about this or anything on your heart...

The Four Most Important Things I Believe About the Gospel

1. Gospel is spelled "d-o-n-e," not "d-o". The word "Gospel" implies an event that has already been done, not something we must go and do. The Gospel is not, then, primarily about what we are to go and do for God, but about what God has done for us. The Gospel is good news, not good advice.

2. The core message of that good news is that God saves sinners. From start to finish, it is all God's work, not ours.

3. Christ saved us by substituting for us. He lived the life we were supposed to have lived, and died the death we were condemned to die. Whatever "metaphor" you choose for salvation--justification, redemption, cleansing, defeat of the evil powers--substitution is the core of it. For example, Christ's blood cleanses us... but how? Because He substituted for us and absorbed the curse, corruption and condemnation for sin.

4. "The Gospel is only good news if it gets there in time."

In Christ am I still "Scots-Irish"?

This is from a discussion in the comments of my blog... and it intrigues me so I thought I'd move it to the 'main stage.' This discussion is one I'm really interested in, and feel like I have little understanding on...

Perhaps I have interpreted D. A. Carson's talk, and even the Bible, wrongly here. I am trying to learn.

Below is a response to my blog from two days ago from someone who described her/himself as "an ethnic Christian," and below that is my response to them.

What can you add? I really do want to understand this better, because it is so crucially important in our culture...

Dear J.D., 

have some serious problems with this interpretation of Carson’s talk and, ultimately, this depiction of ethnicity. I would like to ask some questions.

1. How does an individual who is a new creature in Christ live out his/her "supra-race" identity?

2. Is race/ethnicity only the color of one's skin? If it is not then how can we talk about race/ethnicity being tied to our flesh?

3. Is our flesh tied to everything that is created? If so, and our flesh is to be resisted, how do we make sense out of heaven being a place where every "tribe, nation, and tongue" is represented?

4. What role does ethnicity play in a Christian's life outside of its purpose for missions (i.e. becoming all things to all men)?

5. Are we to have a Christian identity which "supercedes ALL characteristics of [our] human flesh" or one that would make me "not [racial/ethnic] any longer" making me "only Christian?" These are clearly two different conceptions.

Finally, after listening to Carson’s talk myself I realize that he intends something very different by the “third position” or tertium quid than has been asserted here. Far from promoting some sort of colorblindness or ethnically neutral ontology for Christians, Carson actually points out that Paul understood himself to be ethnically Jewish. Carson references Romans 9:10 and that Paul sometimes makes distinctions between Jewish Christians and other Christians. Carson even says, “Paul knows full well that ethnically and racially at the end of the day he is still a Jew…there are many contexts in which he is grateful for his heritage and identifies with it.” However, in this context he speaks of his ethnic identity differently. So when Paul says that he becomes a Jew it does seem that he assumes he is not one. But as Carson points out, Paul is actually trying to show that in a certain sense he is not one, namely, that he is not under the law (which he highlights in the subsequent verse). The point of the tertium quid is that we are not slaves to our “rights,” as Carson puts it, ethnicity being one of them. This is in order that we might not think more highly of ourselves than we ought, or so cling to our “rights” (or ethnicity) to the point that we hinder the spreading of the gospel, and specifically for Paul this means not offending an immature brother in Christ who has a weak conscience. In other words, we as Christians should, as a result of our “third position,” be able to put off in a sense our rights in order to reach people with the gospel. If we were slaves to our ethnicity we would not desire to be flexible, as Carson puts it, in order to win someone outside of or inside of our ethnic group. Therefore, Carson is not trying to promote some sort of colorblindness, ethnically neutral identity, or dualistic framework.

Posted by: An Ethnic Christian | June 27, 2009 at 03:16 PM

Dear Ethnic Christian,

Yes, I don't think Carson was saying that Paul was somehow unaware or embarrassed that he was ethnically Jewish. Yet, as Carson asserts, here and in Galatians 3:28 he clearly says that Jewness and Gentileness is not part of his new identity in Christ. It's hard to make a stronger statement than, "In Christ, there is no Jew or Greek." Surely Paul would say that means in Christ there is no black or white. And, to "become a Jew" means that, in at least one sense, he didn't consider himself one. (As you point out, in a natural sense, however, he still saw himself that way.)

Thus, in Christ, am I really a white man? I'd say no, I'm part of the newly redeemed race, which is only one race. In Christ, is there truly "no" Asian, black, white or Hispanic?

Further, Paul says, "From now on we know no one according to the flesh." When you identify yourself as "an ethnic Christian," aren't you insisting we know you, even in your Christianity, still according to the flesh? I am not trying here to be antagonistic... so I hope it doesn't come across that way. But why is it part of our identity? When you call yourself 'an ethnic Christian,' aren't you implying you are something I am not? Am I not ethnic too, i.e. ethnically white? In Christ, there is, in at least one very important way, no more ethnicity. Our identity, in essence, is in Christ alone.

This does not mean we can't notice each other's cultures, or even embrace the cultural distinctives about ourselves. After all, Gal 3:28 does not mean either that we are all genderless and that dudes can marry other dudes. I am still a male, and, in the same way, still an American white guy.

Yet, Paul pretty boldly states that positionally, in Christ, I have a most fundamental identity beyond either of those things. I am part of a new redeemed race in Christ in which ethnicity and social status no longer matter.

The balance to this, that I am trying to work out, is how the Bible intends to celebrate the cultures to the point that we take them ALL (Rev 7:9, ch 22, etc) into heaven with thus. There is a forever preserved American Christianity, a Nigerian one, an Indonesian one, an Arab one, etc... but more fundamentally we are the new supra race in Christ.

My fear is that for most of us ethnicity has become some kind of defining idol we have added to the new humanity in Christ.

Reforming Bean, your comment is appreciated as well. Yes, I don't mean to imply gnosticism as if Christ only died for our "colorless soul," and I see how my statement could imply that... you are right, Christ, in every way, raises our physical body... yet, at the same time, Paul does say that in Christ there is no more Jew or Greek, and that now we know no one according to the flesh. He has made us all one by being raised as the Lord of all humanity. What is a better way of expressing that?

Rob Bell... presenting the Gospel on Twitter

This is from a Christianity Today article where Rob Bell is asked to present the Gospel on twitter, i.e. in 140 characters or less:

CT: How would you present this gospel on Twitter?

Bell: I would say that history is headed somewhere. The thousands of little ways in which you are tempted to believe that hope might actually be a legitimate response to the insanity of the world actually can be trusted. And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty, and a movement has actually begun that has been present in a sense all along in creation. And all those times when your cynicism was at odds with an impulse within you that said that this little thing might be about something bigger—those tiny little slivers may in fact be connected to something really, really big.

I don't like criticizing other people publicly, but salvation with no mention of...

The cross?
Sin and Rebellion against God?
God's justice?

Can we have a Christianity with no cross? Is the earth, rather than God, really at the center of Christ's work on the cross? Is Christianity a movement of renewal in creation, or restoration of the worship of a Person?

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in HIs blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness... so that He would be just and the justified of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:24-25)

"I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified..." (1 Cor 2:2).

"For I delivered unto you as of first importance that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He  was buried, and raised again..." (1 Cor 15:3-4)

Again, I don't like criticizing other people, especially ministers, publicly, and I never want this blog to become "that blog," but some things (the Gospel) are just that important...I listened to some old Rob Bell the other day (like from about 8 years ago) and he really presented the Gospel then. It was fresh, revolutionary, and engaging. Come back, old Rob Bell.

How would YOU present the Gospel on Twitter? (i.e. 140 characters or less)...P.S. Another group that is doing this... our friends at 9 Marks... they're even having a little contest...

Colbert and Ehrman on the Resurrection and Whether Jesus is God... and a girl at our church's perspective on it

Stephen Colbert goes at it again with Bart Ehrman on the Colbert show this past Thursday...This one is even better than their first encounter a couple of years ago...

 

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

(*My note... sorry, I can't resist... Ehrman in this video re-makes the claim that I posted about a few weeks ago... that only in the Gospel of John is Jesus presented as God; in the other Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), He's just a "super-prophet." If this is true, of course, this might mean that only a small portion of Jesus' followers believed He was God, and it was only over time that they won out over the others.

As N. T. has shown, you can all but dismiss that argument with one word: "temple." In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus, at the beginning of his ministry and again before Caiphas the High Priest on the last night of His life, claims to be the "temple" that, if torn down, will be raised in 3 days (26:61). The temple was the centerpiece of Jewish life, religion, culture and thought. And the most important thing about the temple was that it was where God was. It was not like a church or synagogue today, which are simply rooms for worship... there was only one "temple," and in it was the Holy of Holies where God had dwelt with the Jews through history. When Jesus claims to be the temple, He is claiming to be the presence of God. That is one reason why Caiaphas tears His clothes and screams "blasphemy" (26:65). In his view, a man has claimed to be the very presence of God! In Caiaphas' judgment, Jesus is only a man. Ehrman, of course would agree. Neither of them were interested in Jesus being worshipped as God.)

And if that doesn't do it for you, here is the video we used for our Easter "bumper" of a girl we baptized at our church last year named Emily Hogan. Her story is powerful... "One thing I do know, is once I was blind, and now I see." (John 9:25).
Unexpected from The Summit Church on Vimeo.

Jesus' Condemnation of Religion

I’ve been spending a lot of time in the 23rd chapter of Matthew... and thinking about the "religious" circles I run in.  I find Matthew 23 to be one of the most insightful and, at the same time, most incredibly disturbing chapters of Scripture. It is Jesus’ famous chapter against religion. I have gleaned 3 things in my time studying this chapter.

 

First, Jesus acknowledges that over time, religion tends to creep in and replace the Gospel among God’s people. In vv. 34–35, Jesus speaks about a war between religion and the Gospel within the people of God, which dates back to the time of Adam and Eve.  This war between religion and the Gospel penetrates so deep even to separate people of the same family. God has sent Prophets, wise men and scribes (from among their own people) to avert this great conflict, as described in verse 34, but the religious people have killed them. 

 

Secondly, Jesus tells us that we have a tendency to see this conflict in the past but not in ourselves. Jesus states in verse 29, “You build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.” 

The Pharisees do not identify themselves with religious in the past who killed the prophets; rather they thought of themselves as the friends of God! Notice what they have going for them... what they pride themselves on, what they told themselves proved they "loved" God:

• They love missions: Verse 15, they “travel across sea and land” to make converts.  They are hefty "Lottie Moon Christmas Offering" givers and they boasted the sending of a lot of missionaries.
• They love doctrine: Verse 5, they wore broad “phylacteries.”  These were small cubed shaped cases made of leather, containing Scripture passages written on parchment they’d wear on the arm.  In other words, this was the Jewish version of the AWANA vest.  Then in verse 16, you see they get into a minute discussion of what made for a proper and improper approach to swearing. 
• They taught disciplined obedience: verse 23, they “tithe mint and cumin…”  When you go through your spice drawer and tithe the powders... well, that’s pretty intense.

In other words, the Pharisees knew God’s book and they cherished God’s teachings. Because they stood for God’s standards and genuinely tried to live them out, they looked back at Cain and the generations of faithless Israelites and bemoaned their sin.  “Oh, we’re not like that," they declared. "We serve God zealously. We’re His friends. We stand for truth. We would never have resisted, much less killed, the prophets of God." The irony is that they were about to kill the greatest prophet of all time.

Generations later, the papists in the time of Luther would look back at the Pharisees and think, “We’d never do that,” while at the same time trying everything they could to shut up Martin Luther.  We have a tendency to see this conflict in the past but not in ourselves. But we need to see that we are they. That we love doctrine and missions and discipline is good; that we have replaced them for the love of God is detrimental.

 

Third, religiosity makes us horribly ineffective at evangelism. Jesus chides the Pharisees in verse 15 saying, “You travel across sea and land to make a single convert.”  In other words, you search and search to try and get converts, but it’s incredibly difficult for you. That's because religion repels people, especially those unlike us in the culture. Compare that to Jesus.  People flocked to be around Jesus, including sinners and prostitutes and tax collectors and Roman soldiers. He didn’t have to go around the world, He just walked down the street and all cultures flocked to Him!

We have a tendency to dismiss that by saying, “Well, that was Jesus, He worked miracles.”  But this doesn't hold up.  Jesus said in Luke 5 to Peter, after he filled his boat to overflowing with fish, "from now on you will catch men like that.” 

For how many of us has that (i.e. having a boat overflowing with converts) been our experience?  Do we attract people like Jesus did, or are we more like the religious people Jesus was describing?  The baptism numbers of the Southern Baptist Convention, with which our church cooperates, have steadily dropped for years now. Many of the churches are half full, and in large part many of the churches are graying and dying. Furthermore, most Southern Baptists look very alike culturally--same race, same background, same political convictions. Many of us "travel the world to make a convert..." and seem to struggle even with that... is it because we're more defined by our traditions than we are the Gospel?

We defend our lack of growth by saying, “Well, that’s because our culture doesn’t like hard preaching, discipleship preaching.” The fact is, Jesus preached hard about discipleship, and sometimes He turned people away, but we don’t even have the people to turn away! We have to recognize and acknowledge that there’s a difference in driving people away and no one showing up!

What exactly does religion replacing the Gospel look like? Jesus gives 7 woes... I would describe them in these 5 categories:

• Religious people are obsessed with recognition (vv. 5-6). They love conventions, titles, and public praise.
• Religious people focus on external conformity to tradition and not inward transformation (vv. 25-26). It's not to say that they don't also teach inward transformation, just that they are defined more by the externals than the internals. As D. A. Carson says, "Error is truth out of proportion."
• Religious people focus on the sins of other rather than on their own sins (vv 2, 28).
• Religious people esteem secondary traditions over a love for God (vv 16, 23-24). If you conform to their traditions, they consider you godly. If you don't, there's no way you possibly could be. They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
• Religious people are generally judgmental and angry in their tone (v. 23)

I can write about these things because they have described me so well. Not just in the past, but many of these are my own tendencies now.

My whole point is this: pharisaism is alive and well and at work in the church. Especially in Baptist churches.

 

Time Magazine and the "New" Calvinism

(Hey, somehow I got enrolled in a "march madness" blog competition. I got assigned the 6th seed position in the East Division. If I win, I get free books and I could really use some more books. So, if you're feeling generous, go vote for me.)

Here's a new Time magazine article that talks about the resurgence of the "new Calvinism." It is a predecessor for a forthcoming magazine article that says that the "new Calvinism" is the "3rd most influential idea" at work in the world today.

Here are the other 10:

1. Jobs Are the New Assets
2. Recycling the Suburbs
3. The New Calvinism
4. Reinstating the Interstate
5. Amortality
6. Africa, Business Destination
7. The Rent-a-Country
8. Biobanks
9. Survival Stores
10. Ecological Intelligence

What is "new" about the "new Calvinism?" Well, in the words of Mark Driscoll, the 2 things that separate the new Calvinism from the Old Calvinism is that the new Calvinists still believe that it is their responsibility to win every person to Jesus and the new Calvinists are not angry about Calvinism.That may not be entirely accurate, but it's a good place to start.

Where does the Summit Church stand in all of this? We certainly get that question a lot and I have attempted to answer it here. I'd say that this idea is listed as the #3 most influential idea in the world right now is a pretty profoundly positive development. I do regret that, however, that it is the name of Calvin, rather than the Gospel of Jesus, that has become the defining moniker. This is not necessarily the "new Calvinists" fault, as the media chooses what it will emphasize for its own interests. It is regrettable however. The already-controversial Gospel is the one message we should strive to be known for, defined by, and the one message that we should be looking to get out there.

Thanks to our Pat Sawyer at the Summit Church for the find on this one. Of interest, a similar article appeared in 1947. Thanks to Justin Taylor for finding that one.

Whether our Church is "Calvinist" or not on "Between the Times"

I've been asked to be a contributor to a blog put together by David Nelson, Nathan Finn, Danny Akin, and Bruce Ashford. The first post is here concerning whether or not our church is "Calvinist." I thought I'd post it here, too.

"Pastor J.D., are you a Calvinist?"

I get this question about once a week. To be honest, I’m actually grateful that I get it, because I hope I preach in such a way that makes people ask… i.e. that I wrestle with the glory of God and the awesomeness of the Gospel to such an extent that some would infer that I’m a Calvinist, and then that I plead for people to come to Jesus in a way that makes people think I think it’s all up to my ministry, which would imply that I am not.

I am not going to answer that question fully in this blog, but hopefully just say a few things that I think Gospel-loving Christians can all agree on.

Often Calvinists will say that Calvinism is the essence of the Gospel (see Piper, Sproul, Spurgeon, etc). Unfortunately, that statement often gets translated to mean that the particulars of the 5 points are the essence of the Gospel, which they clearly are not. But I don’t think that’s what those guys mean. What they mean is that Calvinism gets at the heart of the Gospel.

There are 4 things Calvinists often teach which really do get to the heart of a Biblical theology. Regardless of where you come down on the “5 points,” these are things I think Gospel-centered Christians should agree on:

THE ‘PRIORITY’ OF GOD’S WORK IN SALVATION: The Bible teaches that no person can come to God unless Jesus first works in Him. Our own hearts, naturally, are so dark and hard that they hate God rather than love Him. It takes a work of God’s grace in us before we will desire to know God. How that happens, what role our cooperation plays in that… those things we might disagree on. But we must agree that God must work in us before we can choose Him (John 1:13; Philippians 2:13; John 6:44)

THE PREEMINENCE OF GOD’S GLORY IN SALVATION: Calvinists often emphasize, correctly, that the biggest reality in the universe, and the priority among God’s purposes on earth, is His own glory. Thankfully, God’s glory is most shown in our salvation, but God’s glorification takes priority over our salvation, because God takes priority over us. This is made very clear in Ezek 36:22-23, Romans 3:24-25). God is so incredible that He glorified Himself by emptying Himself, being trampled on and crucified for us (Philippians 2:5-11). This is important because if the fact that God’s glory is ultimate in the unverse were not true, then a lot of things in the Bible won’t make sense to us. (Why is there an eternal hell? Why isn’t everyone saved?)

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN THE SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL: Even if you don’t believe that God determines, individually, who will be saved and who will not, we have to recognize that God has maintained control of when and how the Gospel has been preached. It was Jesus who chose to choose 12 (He could have chosen more than 12, or even an army of angels to do it). It is He who chose where to send them. He told Paul to go certain places and steered Him away from others. He transported Philip into the desert. He chose to let me be born to Christian parents. God has an agenda He is pursuing and is, ultimately, in charge of. That is a promise to me that even the hardest, most closed Muslim places will one day experience the Gospel.

THAT GOD, IN NO WAY, OWES ANY SALVATION: We all deserve hell, no exceptions. The fact that God saves any of us is an act of lavish grace. God does not award salvation, or even the chance to be saved, because of any good He sees in us. He didn’t choose me because He saw I’d believe. From start to finish, His work in those He saves is ALL grace.

Anyway, that’s my .02. I try to pray like it’s all up to God, and then preach Christ like it’s all up to me. Or, as one has said, I work like an Arminian and sleep like a Calvinist. The strange thing is, the more people I share Christ with, the more people seem to keep getting elected. Honestly, I care less whether you’re a “Calvinist,” and more whether you are a Gospel-centered, glory of God-loving, fire-breathing missiologist. God give me the head of a Baptist, the heart of a Pentecostal, and the feet of a Jehovah’s Witness.

"Why John Piper is on the Planet"

I thought this was a concise, well articulated definition of what one of the most influential theologians alive right now thinks about what God has most put in his heart to say.

Piper has been one of the biggest influences on my own ministry to this point.

It also is a good example of what I blogged about Tuesday, i.e. knowing what God has made known to you for the body of Christ.

I would encourage all pastors, worship leaders, and serious-minded believers to take a look!

"Pastor J.D., Are You a Calvinist?"

I get this question about once a week. To be honest, I'm actually grateful that I get it, because I hope I preach in such a way that makes people ask... i.e. that I wrestle with the glory of God and the awesomeness of the Gospel to such an extent that would imply to some that I'm a Calvinist, and then that I plead for people to come to Jesus in a way that makes people think I think it's all up to me, which would imply that I am not.

I am not going to answer that question fully in this blog. I did preach a message (here) where I explain my position and my hesitations with both sides of the question more fully if you'd like some food for thought, or just something to put you to sleep at night.

Often Calvinists will say that Calvinism is the essence of the Gospel (see Piper, Sproul, Spurgeon, etc). Unfortunately, that statement often gets translated to mean that the particulars of the 5 points are the essence of the Gospel, which they clearly are not. But I don't think that's what those guys mean.

There are 4 things Calvinists often teach, however, which really do get to the heart of a Biblical theology. Regardless of where you come down on the "5 points," these are things I think Gospel-centered Christians should agree on.

The "priority" of God's work in salvation: The Bible teaches that no person can come to God unless Jesus first works in Him. Our own hearts, naturally, are so dark and hard, that they hate God rather than love Him. It takes a work of God's grace in us before we will desire to know God. How that happens, what role our cooperation plays in that... those things we might disagree on. But we must agree that God's work must come before we can choose Him (John 1:13; Philippians 2:13; John 6:44)

The preeminence of God’s glory in salvation: Calvinists often emphasize, correctly, that the biggest reality in the universe, and the priority among God's purposes on earth, is His own glory. Thankfully, God's glory is most shown in our salvation, but God's glorification takes priority over our salvation, because God takes priority over us. This is made very clear in Ezek 36:22-23, Romans 3:24-25). God is so incredible that He glorified Himself by emptying Himself, being trampled on and crucified for us (Philippians 2:5-11). This is important because if the fact that God's glory is ultimate in the unverse were not true, then a lot of things in the Bible won't make sense to us. (Why is there an eternal hell? Why isn't everyone saved?)

The sovereignty of God in the spread of the Gospel: Even if you don't believe that God determines, individually, who will be saved and who will not, we have to recognize that God has maintained control of when and how the Gospel has been preached. It was Jesus who chose to choose 12 (He could have chosen more than 12, or even an army of angels to do it). It is He who chose where to send them. He told Paul to go certain places and steered Him away from others. He transported Philip into the desert. He chose to let me be born to Christian parents. God has an agenda He is pursuing and is, ultimately, in charge of. That is a promise to me that even the hardest, most closed Muslim places will one day experience the Gospel.

That God owes no man salvation: We all deserve hell, no exceptions. The fact that God saves any of us is an act of lavish grace. God does not award salvation, or even the chance to be saved, because of any good He sees in us. He didn't choose me because He saw I'd believe. From start to finish, His work in those He saves is ALL grace.

Anyway, that's my .02. I try to pray like it's all up to God, and then preach Christ like it's all up to me. The strange thing is, the more people I share Christ with, the more people seem to keep getting elected.