Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 123

Monday Morning Humor

Disunity, Liberals, & Roman Catholicism

Guest Blogger: Jason Helopoulos

Unity. Anyone who is against unity in our day and age is suspect. Our culture loves the idea of unity. In fact, we all like the idea of unity.

However, we must be careful when we talk and think about unity in the church. I have had multiple conversations over the past few months about ecclesial unity. Unfortunately, some of these discussions have been in the context of ministry peers and dear friends leaving Reformed Christianity for Roman Catholicism. One of the points that consistently emerges in these conversations is that Protestants are divisive. We are a people who began with the banner of disunity and we continue to perpetuate it as we  divide among ourselves. This is one of the reasons given for joining the Roman Church. Other discussions have centered around denominations that have wandered theologically and the remaining conservative churches are charged with being divisive if they even hint at the idea of separating from what has become a wayward denomination.

This is an important conversation and is to be taken seriously. Unity is not just something we like. It is something our Lord desires and loves. It was the central theme of His high priestly prayer in John 17, so it is no small thing when we begin talking about disunity in the church.

As I think about ecclesial unity, there are two different types of unity we must acknowledge. And this is often missed. The first type is institutional unity. When converts to Roman Catholicism critique their former Protestant heritage for beginning with disunity and continuing to evidence it by the spawning of new denominations–they are speaking of institutional disunity. When theological liberals argue that conservative churches choosing to leave the denomination are disrupting unity–it is institutional unity they have in mind.

And yet, institutional unity can only be maintained if there is the second and more foundational kind of unity–theological. Theological unity is the ground for all institutional unity. No Theological unity, no institutional unity.

The individuals and churches that eventually became the Protestant churches of the Reformation were not sowing disunity. Conservative churches leaving denominations which have become theologically liberal are not sowing disunity. Is there division? Yes. Has institutional unity been disrupted? Yes. But the house could not stand, because the foundation had disappeared.

The disunity was caused by the abandonment of the historical-theological-biblical unity of these entities. The Medieval Roman Catholic Church went “off the reservation” theologically and by so doing it sowed disunity with those who preceded it, some within it, and those who dared to follow and hold to historical-theological-biblical Christianity. This is Calvin’s very point in the Institutes. In his prefatory letter to King Francis he rightfully asserts that Protestant theology is nothing new. Rather, it is what the church fathers taught. He says in the prefatory address, “If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of the victory–to put it modestly–would turn to our side.” And so it is Protestant theology that is maintaining unity. It is maintaining the unity of the Church, because it is continuing the teaching of the Scriptures as understood historically by the Church. The institutional disunity that Protestants were being accused of emerged in the Reformation not by their fault. Rather, the lack of theological unity the Medieval Roman Catholic church maintained with the early church and historical Christian teaching according to the Scriptures was the cause of institutional disunity.

In the same way, conservative churches that choose to depart from a denomination that has wandered away from its confessions or historical theological tenants are not causing disunity. The hen house has been disrupted, but the hens leaving the house are not the cause. It is the foreign fox that was let in, has been entertained, and has taken up residence in a place it did not belong. Disunity is not caused by leaving. Rather, it was precipitated by those who accepted an aberrant theology within its bounds.

Martin Luther was not the wild boar who disrupted the vineyard. Machen was not the culprit who caused the conflict that divided the northern Presbyterian church. The founding fathers of my own denomination, the PCA, did not sow the seeds of disunity that caused the division of the southern Presbyterian church. Did they each follow and choose a course that resulted in institutional disunity? Yes. But their course was not set by them, but by those who chose to change the teaching and theology of the Church. The seeds of disunity were sowed years before. Institutional unity is to be sought in the church, but always upon the foundation of truth. And it cannot be maintained any other way. Our theological unity must be preserved so that there is institutional unity. And unity is something to be desired and loved.

Sex as a Commitment Apparatus

Tim Keller reflects on why sex before marriage is wrong and unwise:

The modern sexual revolution find the idea of abstinence till marriage to be so unrealistic as to be ludicrous. In fact, many people believe it is psychologically unhealthy and harmful. Yet despite the contemporary incredulity, this has been the unquestioned uniform teaching of not only one but all of the Christian churches—Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant.

The Bible does not counsel sexual abstinence before marriage because it has such a low view of sex but because it has such a lofty one. The Biblical view implies that sex outside of marriage is not just morally wrong but also personally harmful. If sex is designed to be part of making a covenant and experiencing that covenant’s renewal, then we should think of sex as an emotional “commitment apparatus.”

If sex is a method that God invented to do “whole life entrustment” and self-giving, it should not surprise us that sex makes us feel deeply connected to the other person, even when used wrongly. Unless you deliberately disable it, or through practice you numb the original impulse, sex makes you feel personally interwoven and joined to another human being, as you are literally physically joined. In the midst of sexual passion, you naturally want to say extravagant things such as, “I’ll always love you.”

Even if you are not legally married, you may find yourself quickly feeling marriage-like ties, feeling that the other person has obligations to you. But that other person has no legal, social, or moral responsibility to even call you back in the morning. This incongruity leads to jealousy and hurt feelings and obsessiveness if two people are having sex but are not married. It makes breaking up vastly harder than it should be. It leads many people to stay trapped in relationships that are not good because of a feeling of having (somehow) connected themselves.

Therefore, if you have sex outside marriage, you will have to steel yourself against sex’s power to soften your hear toward another person and make you more trusting. The problem is that, eventually, sex will lose its covenant-making power for you, even if you one day do get married. Ironically, then, sex outside of marriage eventually works backwards, making you less able to commit and trust another person. (The Meaning of Marriage, 225-27)

Busy Right Now, Be Back Soon

I’m attempting something I haven’t been able to accomplish in years.

I’m taking a break from the blog. And twitter. And email (as much as possible). For two weeks.

My reasons are twofold: First, because I will be on study leave for the next two weeks working on a book about busyness. And second, because my life is too busy.

A couple months ago I wrote about “blogging for a sustainable future.” This two week break is a big part of that sustainable future. I have one more post lined up for tomorrow and a couple MMH’s in the queue. Jason Helopoulos, my friend and now one of the pastors at University Reformed Church, will be filling in the rest of the gaps. Lord willing I’ll be back with a new post two weeks from today.

We need rhythms in life. We need to press and push, but also rest and retreat. I’ve done some reading and thinking already, but there is more I need to learn about God’s wisdom, my weaknesses, and why everyone reading this blog feels overwhelmed. I’m not sure of everything I’ll discover about the Bible and busyness, but I know it will be good for me, even if it hurts a little.

Do Pro-Life Policies Even Matter?

One of the persistent myths in the abortion debate is that the pro-life movement doesn’t actually do much to help save lives. You’ll sometimes hear this complaint from pro-lifers themselves who have cynically concluded that pro-life legislation and pro-life legislators don’t accomplish anything that matters to unborn babies. On the other side, pro-choice advocates will claim that the pro-life cause is all about controlling women and regulating sex and don’t do anything to reduce the number of abortions anyway. If there is one thing cynics on both sides can agree on it’s that pro-life policies don’t work.

Except, that’s not true.

In her widely read piece How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement, atheist blogger Libby Anne tells of her deconversion from an evangelical student leader intent on “saving unborn babies  from being murdered” to a devout pro-choice feminist passionate about abortion rights. As an evangelical pro-life Christian there is much I find unpersuasive and inaccurate about the post (okay, pretty much all of it). But I want to take a closer look at one claim in particular, the suggestion that pro-life legislation just doesn’t work.

Libby Anne says her beliefs were rocked when she read in the New York Times that “A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.” Libby Anne goes on to cite this summary statement from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute:

Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

The inference to be drawn from such a summary is clear: if you put restrictions on abortion you don’t save any babies, you only put the lives of women at risk who will continue to get abortions, but now in unsafe conditions. The problem with this inference is threefold.

1) The image of “back alley butchers” with coat hangers providing crude abortions to needy woman is a myth. According to the Bureau of Vital Statistics 39 women died from illegal abortion in the United States in 1972 (one year before Roe made abortion a constitutional right). The reason for the small number is that 90% of illegal abortion were performed by licensed physicians. It’s simply not true that women in this country were facing primitive conditions for their illegal abortions or that they likely would pursue risky abortions were the practice to be made illegal again.

2) The Guttmacher summary falls flat because it compares apples to oranges. To see how Africa compares to Europe tells us very little because the medical conditions, legal systems, and economic prosperity are so different. There are too many variables in play to conclude anything about Africa’s abortion rate compared to the West.

Russ Douthat explains:

Instead of looking at otherwise-similar countries that have variations in abortion law, the study compares rich regions (like Western Europe and North America) to poorer regions (like Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa). This makes it extremely difficult to tell whether the trend toward lower abortion rates in Western democracies really reflects the success of “safe, legal and rare,” as Saletan would have it, or whether it’s mainly a consequence of the enormous gap in wealth and development that still separates the West from the rest. (Many social ills tend to diminish with economic growth, and many pro-lifers would agree that a general increase in prosperity and human flourishing can do as much to reduce the abortion rate as any law or custom.) America is not analogous to Chad or Vietnam, to put it mildly, and if what we care about is reducing the American abortion rate, surely it makes more sense to look at the consequences of abortion restrictions in developed countries that already have widespread contraceptive access, rather than just comparing the developed world to developing countries and leaving it at that.

3) If we want to see what pro-life policies do or don’t do, the best case study is to compare individual states within our own country. Even a cursory look at state-by-state abortion rates casts doubt on a number of dubious assertions. For starters, if the best access to contraception and the most lenient abortion laws made abortion less frequent, you’d expect to see the “bluest” states with the lowest abortion rates and the “redest” states with the highest rates. But of the ten states with the highest abortion rate (RI, CT, NV, FL, CA, MD, D.C., NJ, NY, DE) all went blue in 2008 and 2012. Of the ten states with the lowest abortion rates (WY, MS, KY, ID, MO, WV, UT, WI, SD, NE), only one went blue in 2008 and 2012 (WI). Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it does call into question the “rare” part of the “safe, legal, and rare” slogan.

If pro-life policies were largely ineffective, the Guttmacher Institute would not write about the “troubling trend” that more states are becoming “hostile to abortion rights.” Indeed, the map included in the article shows that the states with more restrictive abortion laws tend to be those with lower abortion rates. Again, when dealing with statistics we must be careful not to assume causation just because we find correlation. If abortion rates are going down in the United States (which they are), it could be for many reasons. It’s hard to say “A happened, therefore B” when C, D, E, and F also come into play. But a recent study suggests anti-abortion laws have resulted in decreasing abortion rates.

Here is Michael J. New writing in the States Politics & Policies Quarterly:

The number of abortions that were performed consistently increased throughout the 1970s and the 1980s (Brener et al. 2002). However, between 1990 and 2005, the number of legal abortions declined by 22.22 percent (Gamble et al. 2008; Koonin, Smith, and Ramick 1993). A number of different reasons for this decline are possible. However, one factor that played a role was the increased amount of anti-abortion legislation that was passed at the state level.

Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decisions in both Webster and Casey and the electoral success of anti-abortion candidates at the state level resulted in a substantial increase in the number of restrictions on abortion. By 2005, more states had adopted parental involvement laws and informed consent requirements (NARAL 1992, 2005). A comprehensive series of regressions provides evidence that these laws are correlated with declines in in-state abortion rates and ratios.

Furthermore, a series of natural experiments provides even more evidence about the effects of these restrictions on abortion. States where judges nullified anti-abortion legislation were compared to states where anti-abortion legislation went into effect. The results indicate that enforced laws result in significantly larger in-state abortion declines than nullified laws. Other regression results indicated that various types of legislation had disparate and predictable effects on different subsets of the population. For instance, parental involvement laws have a large effect on the abortion rate for minors and virtually no effect on the abortion rate for adults. These results provide further evidence that anti-abortion legislation results in declines in the number of abortions that take place within the boundaries of a given state.

The pro-life movement isn’t perfect, pro-life politicians even less so. But good can be done and has been done. Pro-life legislation reduces the number of abortions and saves lives. Cynics on both sides should take note.

Monday Morning Humor

How to Grow in Courage

The following is an excerpt from a recent sermon I preached on Acts 4:13-22. The prose has been slightly edited for ease of reading, but I’ve tried to retain the sermonic, spoken feel as much as possible.

**********

If you want to grow in courage you must spend time with Jesus.

You see verse 13? The council recognized that Peter and John had been with Jesus. Now part of it may be a simple earthly recognition, “Ah! We remember that accent. You’re from Galilee. I thought I saw you before. You’re one of his disciples. I get it now.” But given the placement in this verse talking about their boldness, I think there’s more to the recognition than just that. I think Luke means for us to understand that the council knew that they had been taught by Jesus.

Jesus claimed to be the only way, and now they say he’s the only way.

Jesus used Psalm 118 to rebuke his opponents, and now they use Psalm 118.

And do you remember what the people found most amazing about Jesus teaching? It was that unlike the scribes and the Pharisees, he spoke as one who had authority. And now they marveled to see the same boldness in Peter and John. “Make no mistake about it,” they thought, “these are Jesus’ men.”

Did anyone mistake you for being with Jesus this past week?

Unless we spend time with Jesus we will not speak of him clearly. We will not speak of him loudly. We will not let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also. We will not have the truth abiding in us and exploding out of us.

The more time you spend immersed in sports, the more time you spend immersed in politics, the more time you spend immersed in whatever your hobby, the more clearly you speak on that issue. You get bolder about those things. You see more. You understand more. So you speak more. That’s good. But what about your courage with the gospel? What about your clarity with the things that matter most

You will not be bold to speak of Jesus unless you spend much time with Jesus. Courage comes out of communion.

To listen to the entire sermon, go here.

Book Briefs: October 2012

[image error]Carl Lafterton, Christmas Uncut: What Really Happened and Why It Really Matters (The Good Book Company 2012). This is a short book that would be a great giveaway or stocking stuffer this Christmas. Here’s my blurb on the back: “Think you know the Christmas story? Or know that you don’t? Either way, this book is for you. It is creative and historical, simple and insightful, fresh and faithful.” Take a look.

 

 

William Boekstein, The Glory of Grace: The Story of the Canons of Dort (Reformation Heritage Books 2012). I bet you didn’t know there was a children’s book on the Canons of Dort?! Well there is now, and it is very good. After collaborating on books about the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, Boekstein and illustrator Evan Hughes finish off their trilogy with this fine little volume on the history and theology of Dort. The illustrations are full and vibrant, and the content is intelligent and accessible. Kids will be able to handle the books and the parents will learn a lot too.

Douglas Wilson, Easy Chairs, Hard Words: Conversations on the Liberty of God (Canon Press 1991). This is not an ordinary book on the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace. Wilson structures these twenty chapters around a series of conversations between an older Reformed pastor and a young man wondering if Christians can lose their salvation. Whether you love this book or not will depend on whether you prefer straightforward didactic prose or a 150 page dialogue. Wilson’s theology is solidly Calvinistic, though he doesn’t deal much with reprobation and his postmillennialism shows through in his discussion of definite atonement.

Greg Forster, The Contested Public Square: The Crisis of Christianity and Politics (IVP Academic 2008). If I were teaching a course on Christianity and politics, this would be the first book I’d assign. It’s not the last word, but it is a terrific introduction to the history of Christian political thought. Even if you took a half hour to read the Introduction, Chapter 1, the Conclusion, and the cutouts throughout the book, you would learn a lot. Christians sympathetic with natural law, religious liberty, the Augustinian tradition, and the classic liberalism seen in John Locke and the Founding Fathers will find the most to cheer about. Those with Anabaptist or Reconstructionist leanings will say “yeah, but…” more often, but will still be helped. It would be great to see small groups, church classes, and book studies dive into this book, love it or hate it, and get started on a great conversation.

Clark D. Forsythe, Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square (IVP Books 2009). In this well researched and thoughtful book, Clark Forsythe, a pro-life activist and policy strategist in bioethical issues, explores “whether it’s moral or effective to achieve a partial good in politics and public policy when the ideal is not possible” (11). Forsythe uses the wisdom of the Bible and the Founding Fathers, along with the examples of William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln, to argue that a realistic prudence is not only morally justified but also politically more effective. Forsythe’s central themes-perseverance, prudence, and a realism about human nature and the political process-are spot on. The hard work Christian citizens put forth for the common good must make room for compromises in strategy, even as it does not allow for compromise in principle.

A Prayer for Our President

I was able to write this before the results of the election came in because my prayers for the two men are largely the same. Let’s be in frequent prayer for all those in high positions, as God commands us (1 Tim. 2:2).

******

Our good, gracious, and sovereign God, we pray for the the President of the United States.

Grant him wisdom, courage, and integrity as a man and as a leader.

Keep him faithful, kind, and loving as a husband and father.

Give him a heart for the poor, concern for the powerless, and compassion for the weak.

Put before him the best information and the most intelligent counselors so he can make good decisions about economic policy and judicial appointments.

May he be guided by both courage and restraint as he commands our armed forces.

Make him a defender of the unborn, a protector of marriage, and a champion for religious liberty.

Make him a man of prayer and a daily student of the Scriptures.

Give him humility to admit his faults, forgive his enemies, and change his mind.

Lead him to a firm understanding of the truth of the gospel, a resolute commitment to obey the Word of God, and a passion to promote what accords with your truth.

By your grace, heavenly Father, may our President be a better man than so many expect and a better man than we deserve.

In the name of Jesus our Lord, let it be.

Five Things Worth Celebrating on Election Day (Plus One More)

Well, here we are: Election Day. Some of you have followed the ins and outs of the campaign for months, if not years. Today is more exciting than the Super Bowl and March Madness and college rivalry week all rolled into one. For others, the excitement of the Summer Olympics every four years is only matched by the tedium of the presidential race in those same years. At this point you’d rather get habanero eye drops, sit next to a starving baby on the plane, and go the dentist every day for a month than be subject to any more campaign ads. Whether we’ve been engaged in the process since Ames or disconnected until today, we are all ready for this thing to be over.

So perhaps a little thanksgiving is in order. Even if you feel like the system is broken, the debates are worthless, the political process is a joke, and the candidates are profoundly flawed, God still tells us to give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thess. 5:18).

Here are five things I’m thankful for on Election Day. Plus one more thing I’m thankful for every day.

1. I’m thankful I can get vote. Sure, it’s a relatively small role in the process of self-government, but I’m glad for what little part I can play. Aren’t you glad the election isn’t decided by averaging all the polls together or by asking Ivy League professors what they think or by consulting the landed gentry? And as annoying as the pandering and obfuscation can be in debates and rallies and advertisements, isn’t it better to have a system where politicians desperately want your vote rather than a system where the politicians don’t have to make anyone happy except for a class of warlords and plutocrats?

2. I’m thankful that the nastiness of our politics could be much nastier. We all get tired of negative ads and fear mongering and name calling, but firing deceitful missives is a whole lot better than firing destructive missiles. I’m glad the war between the Democrats and Republicans is fought on blogs and in op-ed columns and on cable news shows instead of in literal trenches with actual bombs. We should all be grateful than no matter what happens today there is a very, very good chance that Obama will begin another four years or Romney will take office without the nation descending into civil war. The peaceful continuation or transfer of power is a remarkable gift.

3. I’m thankful for the Electoral College. You may not agree, especially if you live in Texas or California or Alabama or Vermont. There’s no “Christian position” on the Electoral College. But I’m grateful that our presidents have to go to every little hamlet in Ohio and Iowa. I’m glad that the election does not come down to voter turnout in the same megacities every four years. I’m glad that because of our confusing process, the most powerful man in the world has to make inroads with people from all over the country. He can’t simply be a regional candidate who promises the Northeast lots of goodies at the expense of the South. He can’t win the White House by racking up 80% of the vote in a handful of states. The President has to be attuned to the needs and desires of the most politically diverse places, not the most politically homogenous. This seems like a good thing to me.

4. I’m thankful for our two-party system. Yes, I am often extremely disappointed with both parties. Like many of you, I sometimes wish a third-party candidate could break through. But most Americans are too quick to dismiss the two-party system, with all its obvious faults, without ever appreciating its benefits. The reason most people are sick of both parties is that they seem so prone to compromise, so tolerant of positions we don’t like, so wrong on a few important issues. I share these frustrations. But the flip side is that the parties must also learn to incorporate some of the positions we do like, even if they are the positions someone else in the party can barely stomach. In a two party system, the parties have to be big tents. The present political climate may seem polarizing, but the parties themselves cannot be prone to extremes. This may be disappointing when we feel like the “extreme” position is actually the right one, but on the whole it’s better for the peace and stability of the country that our parties must gravitate toward moderation and must find a way to form a broad coalition of supporters rather than only courting a narrow slice of the electorate.

5. I’m thankful for checks and balances. The President can make a big difference. He appoints judges and bureaucrats; he signs legislation; he can speak from his bully pulpit; he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Elections have consequences. But I’m glad we are not electing an emperor. I’m glad that Romney and Obama can’t, by themselves, do many of the things they’ve promised. I’m glad we get gridlock and that it’s hard to change the country in four years. This is as it should be. Given the realities of human depravity and the corrupting influence of power, I’m grateful no one, not even the President, has the authority or the power in this country to make all his dreams come true.

And of course, on this Election Day (and on every day), I’m thankful beyond words that my eternal future and the future of God’s eternal plan do not depend on this presidential election. Christ is risen. Christ is King. Christ is coming again. The Lord Jesus will build his church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The Son of God is not running for re-election. The Spirit is not pandering for our approval. The Father of glory does not consult any poll. Our Triune God reigns now and forevermore, world without end, amen and amen.