I might not come back.

The blog’s likely to be pretty quiet this week.

Jesus the Debater

We tend to think of Jesus largely as a nice guy. And I feel certain he was quite nice– he perfectly displayed all the fruit of the Spirit, including love, patience, kindness, gentleness, etc. But he also spoke very strongly at times, and reading an extended discourse in Luke 20 I was struck by how aggressive he was in his rhetoric.

• In 20:1-8 the Jewish leaders question his authority. He turns the question back on them, knowing that their desire is to accuse him, not gain information. His question stumps them.
• In response (20:9-18) he tells the parable of the tenants, a crushing indictment of unbelieving Israel, especially its leaders.
• In 20:19-26 the scribes and chief priests, knowing the parable is about them, try again to trick him with the question about paying tax to Rome. His response is simple and avoids their trap; they’re stumped again.
• In 20:27-40 the Saducees ask a question about the resurrection of the dead (which they don’t believe in). He answers their question (there’s no marriage at the resurrection), but then in verse 37 thrusts back at them, proving the resurrection of the dead from Scripture. They had granted the resurrection for the sake of argument, but he’s not willing to let that lie; he shows they are just plain wrong.
• 20:41-44 is another thrust, showing the error of the scribes in not seeing that the Christ would be superior to David (i.e. not just another good king, but something greater).
• 20:45-47 is his conclusion to the crowds, who have presumably seen the entire exchange: Don’t be like these guys. I’ve shown you that their arguments don’t hold up, but there’s more: They’re all about their outside image, but the inside is evil.

There are a few things we can learn from this.

• Debate is legitimate (with all the right caveats about Christian charity, honesty, kindness, etc).
• Crafting an argument effectively is legitimate, including parrying by setting aside false charges, thrusting by showing the other side’s errors, and continuing to thrust by going to the bigger picture.
• This must all be done in the service of God’s people. The crowds saw Jesus defeat the scribes and their colleagues; they knew he was right and they were wrong. But they also got his warning to beware seeking the praise of men.
• We have to keep the right goal in mind, which is greater conformity to the Word of God and the image of Christ. It would be very bad, in learning to “fight” like Jesus, to fall into the errors of the scribes and love our own wisdom, our reputation for being smart and right.

A Wee Little Man

The story of Zaccheus in Luke 19, among other points, shows that we should hang out with sinners.* What seems to have struck Zaccheus the most about Jesus is that Jesus would actually come to his house– even though as a tax collector for the Romans he was hated by his own people.

* Calvin: “In this passage, as in many others, the word sinner is not taken in the ordinary sense [i.e. the sense in which we're all sinners] but denotes a man of disgraceful and scandalous life.”

Book Review: Why We’re Not Emergent

Imagine someone’s showing you a copy of the Mona Lisa. You look at it and think, that’s pretty good-there she is sitting there in her dress, faint smile, etc. So you’re standing there admiring it, and then your friend pulls out a print of the real Mona Lisa. And he starts to show you a few things: Look, her hair is kind of reddish in the copy; in the real thing it’s almost black. Her dress is a different color. The scenery in the background is all different. Her eyes are closer together. On and on. Gradually you realize, this copy isn’t nearly as good as I thought it was. When I looked at it by itself it looked all right, but compared to the real thing it’s got serious problems.

That’s what Kevin deYoung and Ted Kluck do with the emerging/ent church in Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). They show how, for all the good first impressions emergent authors might make, what they’re presenting is substantially different from the gospel as it’s presented in Scripture.

This book is an excellent critique for many reasons. First, deYoung and Kluck understand that not all emergent leaders or followers are the same.. So they’re able to distinguish between more and less orthodox emergent spokesmen. Second, they’re widely read in the relevant material, from books to blogs, so they’re not arguing against a boogeyman; they’re showing specific problems with specific statements from specific people. Third, they understand what’s at stake. This isn’t a book designed to win an argument; it’s a book holding up the central tenets of the emergent church to Scripture, and calling people to see the difference.

A key strength of this book is the authors’ ability to quickly see through some of the big ideas of emergent writers and show their weaknesses-without delving into 10-page excurses on philosophy (although we need books that do this too). As an example, emergent writers fend off theological concerns by saying they’re just “asking questions” or engaging in a “conversation.” DeYoung responds:

No matter what new label you put on it, once you start selling thousands of books, speaking all over the country and world, and being looked to for spiritual and ecclesiastical direction, you’re no longer just a conversation partner. You are a leader and teacher. And this is serious business, for as James says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness”. (17)

The book is broad enough to cover a lot of ground without oversimplifying. It’s a good overview of the differences between the emergent and “traditional” church, hitting things like the knowability of God, the place of the Bible, Jesus as savior vs. as moral example, and a several other key topics. Where the other major book-length response to the emergent church, D. A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, is a more academic point-by-point response, this book is like a friend who saves you from paying to see a bad movie.

Why We’re Not Emergent is a great read from cover to cover. But it wasn’t until I finished it that I saw what my favorite thing about the book is: it comes from a love of the church, with all its imperfections. Yes, the church has all kinds of issues. Sometimes those issues are sinful; sometimes they’re just a matter of cheesiness. But Jesus loves the church, and so should we. The solution to the church’s problems isn’t to blow her off and hang out with a bunch of other angsty white guys in a coffeehouse. It’s to saddle up with an imperfect church and seek to make her better-that is, more faithful to Scripture.

A Case Against Same-Sex Marriage (3)

The final post in a series responding to requests that I explain my opposition to same-sex marriage. Read parts 1 and 2.

The potential effects of gay marriage on the culture’s view of marriage. For the entirety of our country’s history, marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman, which is why advocates of gay marriage are having to fight to change this historical definition. I’m under no illusion that if gay marriage becomes legal, my marriage will be in danger-Melissa and I will both be as heterosexual as ever. But I have concerns about what will happen to the cultural view of marriage if gay marriage is legalized. I don’t want it to be assumed in our culture that there’s no difference between the legal, emotional and physical union of two men or two women and that of a man and a woman. To be sure, some would consider that a step in the right direction. That’s where questions about morality and absolute standards would come into play.

A common argument in Christian circles is that legalizing gay marriage will cause a downward spiral in terms of how marriage is viewed, that the number of marriages will drop, that the expectations of monogamy in marriage will suffer, etc. I’m not sure that legalizing gay marriage would cause such a trend, because I believe we’re already in it. But I think the legalization of gay marriage would be one more step in that trend, and that we should be seeking to move in the opposite direction. Again, many people would disagree with me here because of different ideas about what marriage and morality should look like. That’s where, again, things will come down to worldview issues, ultimate standards, and the like.

Possible logical conclusions. For all of our legal history in this country, marriage has been interpreted as the union of a man with a woman. So it’s not only gay marriage that’s been outside the bounds, but also polygamy, incestuous marriages, and the like. If two men or two women are allowed to marry each other, should a brother and sister be allowed to marry? What if a group of five people wanted to all be married to each other? Or a 30-year-old and a 10-year-old? Or what if a man wanted to marry his dog, or his motorcycle? It seems to me that you could make some of the same arguments for these arrangements that are made for gay marriage: Who are we to deny two people who love each other from making it official? If the objection were raised that with gay marriage we’re talking about “consenting adults”, we’d have to ask, why do they have to be consenting adults? What’s the basis of that rule? In short, I believe that opening marriage to same-sex couples will lower the bar for what marriage is, and what commitments are involved. And I think that’s a bad thing.

A Case Against Same-Sex Marriage (2)

This is the second of three posts responding to a request that I explain my opposition to gay marriage. Read part 1.

Marriage as the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of society. The lifelong union of a man and a woman has historically been understood to be the basic building block of society. This is the best context for the raising of children, which ensures the future of the society. Some caveats are certainly in order here: Bearing children is not the only reason for marriage, just one of the major ones. Some families do not consist of a father, mother and children for various reasons; they are not for that reason less valuable or real families. But the point stands that a family including a mother and father is the best, most natural environment for raising children. This is so ingrained to the way nature works that it is biologically impossible for two women or two men to produce a child. Even with all the medical advancements we have today, at the end of the day you need a sperm and an egg. If at some point it becomes possible to synthesize one or the other, it will be because humans created an artificial workaround to circumvent how things naturally work.

The role of government in sanctioning morality in general, and marriage in particular. It is not the government’s job to prescribe our religious choices, exhaustively govern our behavior, etc. But it is the government’s job to enforce some moral standards and curb some types of immorality. For someone to deny this, they would have to oppose laws against murder, theft, rape, and many other offenses. Nobody I know of opposes these kinds of laws. So the difference between advocates and opponents of gay marriage lies in which moral standards we’re going to enforce-a difference in degree, not in kind. It is good for the government to officially recognize marriage and grant certain rights to married partners, because marriage is good for the stability and healthiness of society. Same-sex marriage does not carry those same benefits or bring that kind of stability.

A Case Against Same-Sex Marriage (1)

In a post last week I briefly mentioned that I’m against gay marriage, and a couple of people have asked that I explain why that is. That is a very reasonable request, so I will seek to explain my opposition to same-sex marriage in the next three posts. Of course, this can’t be exhaustive, and I’m not an expert, but I’ve spent some time on this and will try to explain some of my reasons.

A couple of things I want to make really clear at the outset. First, I do not hate homosexuals. I don’t think they’re worse than me, or that their behavior is wrong simply because it grosses me out. I believe that God is the author of sex, that he therefore has the right to stipulate how it’s used, and that he limits sex to the confines of the marriage of a man and a woman. And I believe all this is because sex is good, because God is good, and because he wants us to use it in the way that’s best for us.

Second, I don’t think homosexuality is in a category of its own as some kind of especially bad, send-you-straight-to-hell sin. All sin, including mine, is an offense against a holy God, and all of it can be forgiven and wiped off the slate when we repent and trust in Christ.

Third, as I said in two posts last week (this one and this one), the solution to everything that’s wrong with society is not the prevention of gay marriage, or the institution of any kind of moral code. It’s the gospel of Jesus Christ. So I don’t mind talking about this stuff as a matter of presenting my beliefs, but I’m under no illusions that homosexuals are ruining everything or that stamping out gay marriage will turn the country into a wonderful Christian hetero-paradise.

With all that said, then, I’ll start with my most fundamental reason for opposing same-sex marriage:

The consistent Biblical definition of marriage, and the prohibition of same-sex intercourse. From creation (where one man and one woman are given to each other) to the law of Israel to Jesus’ affirmation of that law to Paul’s specific comments on homosexuality, the Bible is consistent and clear that sex is to be enjoyed in the context of marriage, which is between a man and woman. These are just a few examples; there are many others.

There are basically three ways to look at Scripture’s position on homosexuality. One possibility is that Scripture prohibits homosexual acts, and that it is right to do so. Another is that Scripture prohibits homosexual acts, and it is wrong to do so. The third is that Scripture does not prohibit homosexual acts. Of these, the last is by far the least plausible. It makes a lot more sense to say “Of course the Bible forbids homosexual acts. Who cares?” than it does to suggest that the Bible permits homosexual acts. And if homosexual acts are forbidden in Scripture, and marriage defined as the union of a man and woman, then it follows that Scripture forbids same-sex marriage, although there is no verse that says “you shall not allow a man to marry another man.”

Adventures in Missing the Point (2)

Not five minutes after finishing the last post, on the way home from lunch I heard NPR interviewing an Israeli journalist about the Christian Zionist movement. He was followed by an excerpt from a John Hagee sermon in which the Rev. explained how whatever prophetic passage he was on that day showed that once America and Europe were no longer be able to defend Israel, Russia and the Arabs would come in and attack.

This isn’t just a bad way of engaging the culture, it’s theological foolishness. How about this: forget about trying to unravel some supposed code about the end of time, and preach the gospel. Not the great hope of a restored Israel, but the great hope of reconciliation with God through the blood of his Son. People will still hate you, but for a much better reason.

Adventures in Missing the Point

Last night PRI’s Fair Game had a story about a Christian group in San Diego, The Resistance, who are very upset about the new Starbucks logo (actually, it might not be much of a “group,” and the leader is upset about a great many things). The logo is a revival of an old logo that depicts– gasp– a mermaid’s breasts. Mark Dice, the leader of The Resistance, helpfully explains that “the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks.”

Leaving aside the high likelihood of me using the word Slutbucks several times over the next few days, I think this is a great, although dramatic, example of where Christians totally miss the point in our engaging the culture around us. Seriously, how much of a threat to the fabric of civilization is a topless mermaid on a coffee cup? Now, I’m a man, and I’m raising a son, and given the choice between R-rated mermaid and PG-rated mermaid, I’m going PG. But we have much bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

Although it’s a lot more serious, we can even draw an analogy here with things like gay marriage. I’m against it, of course, for many reasons ranging from the theological to the Constitutional. But as Abraham Piper pointed out this morning, we have much worse things going on– in the church and out of it. We miss the point when we pick behavioral things like this, especially silly ones, to major on instead of the gospel.

A good question to ask in the “culture wars” is this: what if we (using that loosely) won? What if mermaids kept themselves covered, and people either didn’t fornicate or kept it to themselves, and all the TV shows were clean, and everybody parted their hair and was nice? Would we be satisfied?

I hope not. I hope we’re looking for something bigger than proper behavior in the public square. I hope we’re looking for the gospel to change people’s hearts, and then we can address behavior issues. I hope we can get beyond reducing the gospel to a three-point political strategy. I hope we can stand firmly where we need to, articulate God’s truth in a loving way, and make it really clear that our goal isn’t decently attired mermaids. It’s bigger than that: it’s the knowledge of God in Christ, something only he can bring, and something that brings true holiness, not just outward morality.

One Year

God is good to us!

(more here, if you’re into that sort of thing)