Memo to Christian artists

If people have been singing a song for a few hundred years, chances are your edit isn’t going to make it better.

Mike Kruger Dismantles Bart Ehrman

Read my professor/pastor/mentor/friend Mike Kruger’s review of the latest book from the predictable-but-always-available-for-an-NPR-interview Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman is chair of the Religious Studies department at UNC-Chapel Hill, and in odd-numbered years he tends to put out a book basically alleging that everything orthodox Christians believe is wrong. This year it’s Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them).

***

UPDATE: More than one intelligent person hasn’t picked up on it, so I need to point out that I’m being sarcastic/ironic/less than serious in the following.

(Incidentally, In the process of making sure I got Ehrman’s title right for this post, I noticed this:

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies.

This is the most confusing thing I’ve ever seen. Which is it? Is he a Distinguished Professor, or is he the department chair? Or is he head of Graduate Studies? We’re obviously looking at a conglomeration of at least 3 original sources, all of which had differing– and mutually exclusive– views of Ehrman’s job. Someone doesn’t want us to know the truth.

Moreover, if Ehrman can’t even get his own story straight, why are we supposed to trust that whatever he says about the Bible is right?)

Ordination Vows

On August 16, I was ordained as a Teaching Elder and Evangelist in the PCA. (Pictures, video, details over at the family blog.)

Far from a mere formality, this worship service involved me taking vows that bind me for life– not unlike those I made almost seven years ago before God to Melissa. I plan to reread them often to remind myself of my calling from God, my obligation to keep my word, and my accountability to my brothers in the Lord. Following are the vows I took, with a couple of explanatory comments.

Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice? Since our denomination has a confession, it’s important to show that Scripture, not the Confession, is our ultimate standard.

Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow? This one makes a couple of points:

1. I agree that the Westminster Confession of Faith contains the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. Again, the authority is Scripture, not the Confession. Incidentally, this is why it matters when a Presbyterian minister teaches something out of accord with WCF: not because WCF has the same authority as Scripture, but because the minister has taken an oath affirming WCF as an accurate summary of Scripture.
2. If my view changes (acknowledging that it could, as I’m bound by Scripture), I have the responsibility to report that to my presbytery so they can determine what the change means for my continued ministry. This applies only to the fundamentals of that system of doctrine.

Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity? I like this one because it doesn’t claim that the PCA has the only legit form of church government, only that I approve of it, and that it’s in line with the general principles of Biblical polity.

Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord? This is because Presbyterian government is based on the plurality of elders. Each individual is accountable to the body as a whole.

Have you been induced, as far as you know your own heart, to seek the office of the holy ministry from love to God and a sincere desire to promote His glory in the Gospel of His Son? This one is a big deal. I thought about it a lot.

Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace and unity of the Church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account? Also a big deal. I now have a sworn responsibility, as a Christian and as a pastor, to preach the Word faithfully no matter what happens.

Do you engage to be faithful and diligent in the exercise of all your duties as a Christian and a minister of the Gospel, whether personal or relational, private or public; and to endeavor by the grace of God to adorn the profession of the Gospel in your manner of life, and to walk with exemplary piety before the flock of which God shall make you overseer?

Do you now undertake the work of an evangelist, and do you promise, in reliance on God for strength, to be faithful in the discharge of all the duties incumbent on you as a minister of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? PCA trivia: Being ordained as an evangelist means that I’m not taking a charge at a particular PCA church, but am being sent outside the bounds of the presbytery (all the elders in a given geographic region) as a missionary. Otherwise question 8 would bind me to take charge of a specific church and keep the terms of the call they had offered me. As it is, it’s more broad, since the circumstances vary pretty widely for missionaries.

Back in the Saddle

Things that have happened since my last post:

• We spent 3 weeks at a missions training center in Colorado. It was awesome.
• We had our 20-week ultrasound, where we could have found out the gender. We chose not to.
• I told Sam he couldn’t do something. He said “Why?” and I answered “Because I said so.”
• I realized that reading about news and politics makes me angry, so maybe I shouldn’t do it as much.
• I unsubscribed to about half the blogs in my reader.
• I didn’t miss my own blog any more than I did the others.

But I’m going back at it, I think. We’ll see.

Miscellenies

Sorry for the absence. Things happen, you know. I’m back.

Political stuff, feel free to skip
I didn’t watch election returns last night; I’m happy to say I hung out with real people. But this morning I was thinking “Obama probably won everything, and Clinton has probably already talked about how she’ll fight on. So I planned to come in today and write, “Seriously, the Clintons have jumped the shark. It’s over. The ship has sunk.”

Not quite. My bad, Hillary. You probably still can’t win, but carry on.

In other news, Huckabee finally dropped out. I don’t think he did himself or anybody else any favors by languishing this long. But I am glad that I won’t have to read any more AP stories about how every evangelical in the world voted for him (because we’re all so much alike). Can the next overtly Christian candidate please be a principled conservative who articulates those principles well? And can he please not say things like “I’m in the miracle business, not the math business”?

Other observations
Paul McCartney was in the Beatles. For whom he wrote the song “Hey Jude.” Then he was in Wings. What happened there?

You’re about to notice some book reviews, including several from Crossway. This is a great publisher. I don’t know how they do it, but it seems like everything they put out gets bumped to the top of my list. I think what I really like is that they put out really solid stuff that’s not just for pastors. Which, as I’ve noted before, is hard to come by.

We have Life Group tonight. This is one of my favorite things in life. This spring we’re sharing “life stories”– every time we meet somebody tells the story of their life, with emphasis on how God has moved to bring them to where they are now. These are not all rosy, but they always end with us being amazed at God’s goodness to us.

The Rich Young Ruler (2)

I made the case Monday that, contrary to what might be our first impression, Jesus is not telling the rich young man in Matthew 19 that he can be saved by selling his possessions and giving the money to the poor. What, then, is he telling him?

The young man starts by asking Jesus, “What good deed must I do to have eternal life?” What’s implied in this question is that whatever Jesus tells him to do, he’s willing to do it, and assumes that he’ll be able to do it. Jesus’ response is somewhat abrasive: “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.” Right off the bat, this should make the man question his original assumption. If there’s only One who is good (presumably not him!), then what should make him think he can do whatever “good deed” is required for eternal life?

Jesus’ next response should also give the man pause: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” Note that he does not say “If you would enter life, try to keep the commandments.” Or “If you would enter life, keep most of the commandments.” Or even “if you would enter life, have a lifestyle that generally reflects the commandments.” No, he simply says, “Keep the commandments.” Like, all 614 of them (or whatever). All the time. Without exception. For your entire life.

This is where our hero should say something like “But I haven’t! I can’t! Now what?” But he doesn’t miss a beat. Instead, he says, “Which ones?” Give me some specific criteria, Jesus. So Jesus does: “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Notice that, with the exception of the last one, Jesus generally picks commandments that are more externally-oriented– or at least seem to be. Most of us would feel like we could look at that list and say, “Done.” That’s what the young man says. “All these I have kept.” OK, Jesus, I’ve done all that. Check. Now what?

So here’s what’s gone on so far. The man has asked Jesus what “good deed” is necessary for eternal life. Jesus has said obedience to God’s commandments is necessary, and the man responds (!) that he has done that. Obeyed God’s commands. All of them (or at least the ones Jesus listed as examples). He’s claiming his own righteousness on the basis of having fulfilled God’s law. It’s in that context we have to look at Jesus’ response: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

Now, keep in mind: Jesus is the one who searches hearts, who “knew what was in a man.” He knows this kid is not about to go sell all his stuff. Sure enough, as soon as the young man hears Jesus’ words, he goes away sad, because he has so many possessions. But he said he would do whatever he needed to! What just happened here?

What just happened is that Jesus held up a mirror to the young man’s heart. If he were keeping the commandments of God, he would, among other things, “Love the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might.” If he did that, not to mention if he “loved his neighbor as himself,” then selling a bunch of camels and giving away the money wouldn’t be any problem at all. But in reality, his heart is caught up in his riches. He does not love God with his whole heart– his affection is divided between God and his stuff. He’s an idolater. He can’t truthfully say about God’s commandments, “All these I have kept.” Jesus shows him that, and he’s unable and unwilling to turn away from his idolatry.

The story of the rich young ruler isn’t about how much we need to do to enter eternal life, as though if the man had sold his possessions Jesus would have congratulated him and said “Now you’ve done enough.” The story tells us there’s nothing we can do– we are incapable of obeying God’s law the way we would have to to earn eternal life. We are the rich young man; we share in his idolatry. Like him, we have to let go of our own efforts, abandon hope in our own righteousness, and flee to the One who alone is good.

"Anything Written by Men Must Be Flawed"

You may have heard it stated, “Why should I believe the Bible? It was written by men, and anything written by men must be flawed.” Notice two problems with this argument. First, this argument overlooks the fact that the Bible claims to have been written by men under God’s influence. Second, to believe this argument, one would be forced to disregard every historical fact one has ever read in a book. After all, humans have written every history book, every math book, every science book, and every other kind of book. Imagine a student standing up in her math class and proclaiming, “I cannot believe the Pythagorean theorem because it came from a book written by a man!”

– Voddie Baucham, The Ever-Loving Truth

The Rich Young Ruler

The story of the rich young man in Matthew 19 (and parallels; Luke calls him a “ruler”) has got to be one of the most misunderstood passages in the NT. It is confusing on the face of it. Because at a cursory read, it really looks like Jesus tells the guy he can have eternal life if he sells his stuff and gives the money to the poor. And, of course, this could be contrasted with other passages that make it seem like we can only get eternal life by trusting in Christ.

A few reasons I don’t think Jesus means to tell this guy he’ll be saved by selling his possessions:

• It would contradict numerous other texts, including words out of Jesus’ mouth, that say we are saved only by grace through faith (for example, Matt 20:28, which is discussed below).

• The first thing Jesus says to the young man is “Why do you call me ‘good’? There is only one who is good.” This would not be true if selling his stuff would make the young man good enough to inherit eternal life.

• In v. 21 Jesus tells him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess,” etc. Since the man asked what he needed to do to have eternal life, it seems like Jesus is saying that you have to be perfect to inherit eternal life. Surely he’s not admitting that the young man has never sinned, and that if he did this one thing he would become “perfect.”

• When the young man walks away, Jesus comments on how difficult it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom. His disciples ask him, “Who then can be saved?” His reply: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” If the young man could actually be saved by selling his possessions, why would Jesus say “with man this is impossible”?

• The very next passage is the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, the point of which is that God’s grace, not the amount or quality of our work, is the issue in salvation. Matthew chose to place these passages next to each other. Why would he do that if they contradicted each other?

• In the next chapter Jesus says “the Son of Man came… to give his life as a ransom for many.” We would not need such a ransom if we could be saved simply by giving away our possessions.

So what does Jesus mean to tell this young man? More tomorrow.

Mark Driscoll and Rush Limbaugh

Once again there’s a lot of ink being spilled in the blogosphere (not literally, of course) over Mark Driscoll. His new book Vintage Jesus comes out next week, and advance reviews are coming out this week. As is usually the case with Driscoll, a common reaction is that most of the content of the book is good, but some of Driscoll’s provocative– even off-color– statements cross the line between what’s appropriate and what’s not. Here’s the most popular example:

Jesus’ mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the “fact” that she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom.

This is the kind of thing that makes some people think Driscoll is the greatest thing since Bono and some people think he’s the Antichrist. (Of course, some people like Tim Challies are in between.) I myself like his stuff a lot, although he regularly says things I wouldn’t say and occasionally says things I wish he wouldn’t.

This is where Rush Limbaugh comes in. Rush, although many of his detractors would disagree, is a very smart guy. He has a great understanding of conservative principles and is very good at explaining them on the popular level. He’s also an entertainer, which is why about every other thing he says is something like “half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.” With Rush, I figure you get about 50% thoughtful analysis and 50% obnoxious smoke-blowing. But the thoughtful analysis is there, make no mistake about it.

Driscoll is similar. But I actually think he’s a lot better. Don’t be fooled by the macho/hip exterior– Driscoll has a degree in philosophy, is a voracious reader, and is basically wicked smaht. He also loves Jesus. A lot. He loves the Bible a lot, loves good theology a lot. He consistently takes all kinds of solid Biblical stands that are incredibly unpopular, like the substitutionary death of Christ, God’s sovereignty in salvation, the importance of the local church, even the importance of God-given gender distinctions. And he does this in Seattle, a city that, he frequently remarks, has “more dogs than evangelical Christians.” So there’s a lot of content there. He is also an entertainer. He is funny and provocative, and he uses those traits in his preaching and writing. I’m sure part of this is just his personality and part of it is a deliberate effort to reach out to the young urban crowd he’s trying to impact.

Sometimes in the effort to make a point dramatically or get a laugh, he says things that I think are inappropriate. It could be, as the anti-Driscoll bloggers suggest, that this is because he has no concept of the holiness of God and the importance of the preacher’s task. But seriously, read his books or listen to a few sermons and I think you’ll see that’s not the case. If Rush is 50/50, Driscoll is at least 80/20 on the side of solid biblical content. So even if you do roll your eyes or cringe occasionally, it’s worth it for the good stuff, and for the impact he’s having in places where nice preachers with ties don’t even typically go.

So as if anyone cares, I’m happy to take sides with the Driscoll defenders. Sometimes I do think he’s over the top– so does he; he’s made public apologies. But almost all the time, he’s simply a great communicator of the truth of the Gospel, someone God is using mightily to raise up worshipers of Jesus.

And maybe, since I’m a sinner too, I just delight in the torment he brings to some people who take themselves way too seriously.

Mark Driscoll and Rush Limbaugh

Once again there’s a lot of ink being spilled in the blogosphere (not literally, of course) over Mark Driscoll. His new book Vintage Jesus comes out next week, and advance reviews are coming out this week. As is usually the case with Driscoll, a common reaction is that most of the content of the book is good, but some of Driscoll’s provocative– even off-color– statements cross the line between what’s appropriate and what’s not. Here’s the most popular example:

Jesus’ mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the “fact” that she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom.

This is the kind of thing that makes some people think Driscoll is the greatest thing since Bono and some people think he’s the Antichrist. (Of course, some people like Tim Challies are in between.) I myself like his stuff a lot, although he regularly says things I wouldn’t say and occasionally says things I wish he wouldn’t.

This is where Rush Limbaugh comes in. Rush, although many of his detractors would disagree, is a very smart guy. He has a great understanding of conservative principles and is very good at explaining them on the popular level. He’s also an entertainer, which is why about every other thing he says is something like “half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.” With Rush, I figure you get about 50% thoughtful analysis and 50% obnoxious smoke-blowing. But the thoughtful analysis is there, make no mistake about it.

Driscoll is similar. But I actually think he’s a lot better. Don’t be fooled by the macho/hip exterior– Driscoll has a degree in philosophy, is a voracious reader, and is basically wicked smaht. He also loves Jesus. A lot. He loves the Bible a lot, loves good theology a lot. He consistently takes all kinds of solid Biblical stands that are incredibly unpopular, like the substitutionary death of Christ, God’s sovereignty in salvation, the importance of the local church, even the importance of God-given gender distinctions. And he does this in Seattle, a city that, he frequently remarks, has “more dogs than evangelical Christians.” So there’s a lot of content there. He is also an entertainer. He is funny and provocative, and he uses those traits in his preaching and writing. I’m sure part of this is just his personality and part of it is a deliberate effort to reach out to the young urban crowd he’s trying to impact.

Sometimes in the effort to make a point dramatically or get a laugh, he says things that I think are inappropriate. It could be, as the anti-Driscoll bloggers suggest, that this is because he has no concept of the holiness of God and the importance of the preacher’s task. But seriously, read his books or listen to a few sermons and I think you’ll see that’s not the case. If Rush is 50/50, Driscoll is at least 80/20 on the side of solid biblical content. So even if you do roll your eyes or cringe occasionally, it’s worth it for the good stuff, and for the impact he’s having in places where nice preachers with ties don’t even typically go.

So as if anyone cares, I’m happy to take sides with the Driscoll defenders. Sometimes I do think he’s over the top– so does he; he’s made public apologies. But almost all the time, he’s simply a great communicator of the truth of the Gospel, someone God is using mightily to raise up worshipers of Jesus.

And maybe, since I’m a sinner too, I just delight in the torment he brings to some people who take themselves way too seriously.