Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 148
February 28, 2012
Don't Assume
It may be the best known Bible verse in our culture: "Judge not, that you be not judged" (Matt. 7:1).
As one of our society's most popular verses, it is also one of the most misunderstood. Too many people, non-Christian and Christian, take Jesus' words to be a blanket rejection of all moral evaluation. But given that Jesus alludes to his opponents as dogs and pigs five verses later, it's safe to think Jesus wasn't condemning every kind of judgment. We see from the rest of the Gospel that Matthew 7:1 is not inconsistent with strong criticisms, negative statements, church discipline, and warnings about hell. Judgmentalism is not the same as making ethical and doctrinal demands or believing others to be wrong.
And yet, after all the necessary qualifications, we must not mute this important command. As sinners, we are apt to assume the worst about people. We are eager to find favorable comparisons that make ourselves look good at the expense of others. We are quick to size people up and think we have them figured them out. But I have learned over the years–both as the giver and receiver of judgmental assumptions–that it's best not to assume.
Don't assume you know all the facts after hearing one side of the story.
Don't assume the person is guilty just because strong charges are made against him.
Don't assume you understand a blogger's heart after reading one post.
Don't assume that famous author, preacher, athlete, politician, or local celebrity won't read what you write and don't assume they won't care what you say.
Don't assume the divorced person is to blame for the divorce.
Don't assume the single mom isn't following Jesus.
Don't assume the guy from the Mission is less of a man or less of a Christian.
Don't assume the pastor looking for work is a bad pastor.
Don't assume the church that struggles or fails is a bad church.
Don't assume you'd be a better mom.
Don't assume bad kids are the result of bad parents.
Don't assume your parents are clueless.
Don't assume everyone should drop everything to attend to your needs, and don't assume no one will.
Don't assume the rich are ungenerous.
Don't assume the poor are lazy.
Don't assume you know what they are all like after meeting one or two of their kind.
Don't assume you should read between the lines.
Don't assume you have interpreted the emotions of the email correctly.
Don't assume everyone has forgotten about you.
Don't assume they meant to leave you off the list.
Don't assume everyone else has a charmed life.
Don't assume a bad day makes her a bad friend.
Don't assume the repentance isn't genuine.
Don't assume the forgiveness isn't sincere.
Don't assume God can't change you.
Don't assume God can't love you.
Don't assume God can't love them.
February 27, 2012
Preaching Christ Conference in the Detroit area
If you live in the Detroit area, there is an upcoming conference on May 8 that may be of interest.
Five Points Community Church is hosting Preaching Christ: The Pastor as Herald of the Gospel. I will be speaking along with Stephen Um. Shane and Shane will doing a concert in the evening. Below is a description of the conference from Five Points (not to be confused with Five Guys).
*******
We love preaching. Not just human oration, but the God-appointed means for faith. "How are they to hear without someone preaching?" The greatest thing in all the world is to be saved. And faith for salvation comes by the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10:14-15). That's why the feet of those who herald the good news of God's sovereign grace are always beautiful to God's people.
Pastor Stephen Um of CityLife Church in Boston and Pastor Kevin DeYoung of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, will come and speak to us about preaching the Word of God in all seasons (2 Timothy 4:2). If you are a pastor, you may be ready for some rich refreshment in your calling to preach. We would be thrilled to have you join us at this year's Preaching Christ conference on May 8th at Five Points Community Church in Auburn Hills, MI. Come have your calling to preach reignited and your soul stirred with other brothers in the Greatest Cause: to proclaim the glory of God in His Son Jesus Christ through the power of the Spirit.
Conference Information:
May 8, 2012 $40
Conference: 10am-5pm
Concert with Shane & Shane @ 7:30pm (free admission with purchase of conference pass)
Conference page link
Conference registration link
February 25, 2012
February 24, 2012
Help for the Poor that Really Helps
The latest issue of Christianity Today is on effective ways to fight poverty. It's an important topic and I'm glad CT is talking about it. I was especially intrigued by the article "Cost-Effective Compassion: The 10 Most Popular Strategies for Helping the Poor" by Bruce Wydick.
Christians can too easily settle for good intentions. We usually support programs that make us feel good without considering whether they actually do good. We need to be smarter about actually thinking through which poverty strategies are most effective. "To answer this question" Wydick writes, "I polled top development economists who specialize in analyzing development programs. I asked them to rate, from 0 to 10, some of the most common poverty interventions to which ordinary people donate their money, in terms of impact and cost-effectiveness per donated dollar."
These were the results:
1. Get clean water to rural villages (Rating: 8.3)
2. Fund de-worming treatments for children (Rating: 7.8)
3. Provide mosquito nets (Rating: 7.3)
4. Sponsor a child (Rating: 6.9)
5. Give wood-burning stoves (Rating: 6.0)
6. Give a micro-finance loan (Rating 4.2)
7. Fund reparative surgeries (Rating: 3.9)
8. Donate a farm animal (Rating 3.8)
9. Drink fair-trade coffee (Rating. 1.9)
10. Give a kid a laptop (1.8)
No doubt, some experts and donors will disagree with these rankings, but at least this gives a starting place for discussion and should encourage careful evaluation. Read the whole article and think through these issues for yourself. Sometimes helpinng the poor is not as simple as drinking a different coffee.
For more information onn effective mercy minstry check out When Helping Hurts by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert and Toxic Charity by Robert Lupton. Remember, more important than feeling good–as an individual, a church, or a government–is that we give in such a way as to do good.
February 23, 2012
Un-churching of a Church
You should read John Piper's new article "Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Wolfhart Pannenberg on Schism." It is short, wise, biblical, and sobering.
The article also contains this powerful paragraph from Pannenberg on schism and the approval of homosexuality:
Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. ("Should We Support Gay Marriage? No")
Read the whole thing, especially if you belong, like me, to the RCA. These are trying times which call for courage.
Your Theological System Should Tell You How to Exegete
Systematic theology looks at the whole Bible and tries to understand all that God says on a given subject (e.g., sin, heaven, angels, justification).
Exegesis is what you do when you look at a single text of Scripture and try to understand what the author–speaking in a specific culture, addressing to a specific audience, writing for a specific purpose–intended to communicate.
Good systematic theology will be anchored in good exegesis. The sum of the whole is only as true as the individual parts. No Christian should be interested in constructing a big theological system that grows out of a shallow and misinformed understanding of the smaller individual passages. I don't know of any evangelical pastor or scholar who disagrees with these sentiments.
But what about the reverse? We all know exegesis should inform systematic theology, but should our theological systems also inform our exegesis? Some Christians, especially biblical scholars, have argued that the best exegesis is completely theologically unprejudiced. We can't bring our theological concerns to the Bible, lest we gerrymander the Scriptures and impose anachronistic categories on the text. The unspoken (or spoken) assumption is that the traffic between exegesis and theology is one way. Biblical scholars do their work, and as long as theologians pay attention to professional exegesis they can go on and do their own work. But the task of exegesis, it is often implied and sometimes explicitly said, has little to gain from listening to the theologians.
This insistence on making the path between exegesis and theology a one way street is untenable and unwise. Pastors, scholars, and lay interpreters would do well to heed the counsel of Moises Silva:
In contrast [to this one way street], I want to argue not only that the exegete may address theological issues and suggest what bearing the text may have on theological reflection–I go a daring step further: my systematic theology should actually inform my exegesis. To put it in the most shocking way possible, my theological system should tell me how to exegete. (Interpreting Galatians, 207)
Silva goes on to mention three considerations in defense of this "outrageous position."
1. "In the first place, we should remind ourselves that systematic theology is, to a large extent, the attempt to reformulate the teaching of Scripture in ways that are meaningful and understandable to us in our present context" (208). There are many learned commentaries that fail the preacher, let alone the parishoner, because they refuse to ask any of the questions real people are asking. They dive into history, philology, and redaction criticism, but won't talk about what this or that passage means for our view of marriage or our understanding of the devil or our belief in providence. The categories of systematic theology are not static. Some loci wax and wane with the times. But in general, systematic theology deals with the questions Christians have been most interested in discussing over the years or centuries. To set aside theology in the task of exegesis is an invitation to make exegesis irrelevant.
2. "In the second place, our evangelical view of the unity of Scripture demands that we see the whole Bible as the context of any one part" (208). The current debate about Adam, to cite just one example, demonstrates how critical the unity of Scripture is in shaping our exegetical method. If we believe–in the midst of genuine biblical diversity–there is behind each unique human author one Divine author, then we will be concerned to see how the different voices in Scripture make one harmonious sound. So if Romans teaches the doctrine of original sin rooted in a historical Adam we will not be embarrassed to bring this consideration to bear on our understanding of Genesis, not in a way that ignores everything else going in ancient Mesopotamia but in a way that informs our understanding of God's inspired, unified Word. Of course, eisegesis is a danger which is why some scholars want to set aside "the analogy of faith" in the exegetical process. But to do so, Silva reminds us, "is to neglect the most important hermeneutical resource we have, namely, the unity and wholeness of God's own revelation" (209).
3. "Third, and finally, my proposal will sound a lot less shocking once we remember that, as a matter of fact, everyone does it anyway" (209). If postmodernism has taught us anything it is that none of us comes to a text with a completely unbiased, blank slate. We come to the exegetical task for a framework, with a way of looking at the world, with a system. This is how the mind works and one of God's gifts which make learning possible. It also makes the preacher's herculean task more feasible. Without a systematic theology how can you begin to know what to do with the eschatology of Ezekiel or the sacramental language in John 6 or the psalmist's insistence that he is righteous and blameless? As a Christian I hope that my theology is open to correction, but as a minister I have to start somewhere. We all do. For me that means starting with Reformed theology and my confessional tradition and sticking with that unless I have really good reason not to.
So rather than pretend to be theologically unprejudiced, why not acknowledge our own preconceptions and use them in the exegetical process? If we are honest about our theological systems we will be better equipped to reformulate our grid when it doesn't work and better equipped to deal openly with the hard spots in the text. Without a system we will approach a passage like James 2:24 and get it wrong; or just as likely, we will ignore the difficult questions exploding in everyone's brains. Theology does not have to distort exegesis. Done well, it can help provide guardrails for the interpretive process, honor the unity of Scripture, and throw a spotlight on the most important and most difficult issues arising from the Word of God.
February 22, 2012
Magnify Conference Audio and Video
The audio and video from the Magnify Conference is now available (though the video could use a little more immanence, if you know what I mean).
Session 1: Why Do We Sing
Session 2: Gathering Around the Gospel
Session 3: Worship with Your Mind, Soul, and Body
Session 4: Healthy Tensions
Sunday Morning: The Fight for Joy (Psalm 42-42)
Children and Marriage
Charles Murray:
No matter what the outcome being examined–the quality of the mother-infant relationship, externalizing behavior in childhood (aggression, delinquency, and hyperactivity), delinquency in adolescence, criminality as adults, illness and injury in childhood, early mortality, sexual decision making in adolescence, school problems and dropping out, emotional health, or any other measure of how well or poorly children do in life–the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married.
Divorced parents produce the next-best outcomes. Whether the parents remarry or remain single while the children are growing up makes little difference. Never-married women produce the worst outcomes. All of these statements apply after controlling for the family's socioeconomic status. I know of no other set of important findings that are as broadly accepted by social scientists who follow the technical literature, liberal as well as conservative, and yet are so resolutely ignored by network news programs, editorial writers for the major newspapers, and politicians of both major political parties. (Coming Apart, 158)
It's worth noting that Murray provides ten footnotes for these claims, referencing 17 different books or articles. Any efforts to address problems of crime, truancy, misbehavior, or most other social ills in this country, which do not address the crisis of marriage, are ignoring an inconvenient truth of elephantine proportions.
February 21, 2012
Why I Hope Real Books Never Die (and They Won't)
I have tried to get into ereaders. Really I have. First, someone was kind enough to give me a Kindle. It seemed pretty cool at first. I could download books instantly. I didn't have to weigh down my carry on bag when traveling. What a treat.
I read two books on my Kindle and got tired of it.
Then I tried reading books on my iPad, definitely a better reading experience in my opinion. I prefer the white page and back lit screen over the electronic ink. It was exciting to think (again) that from now on I could purchase most books whenever and wherever I wanted to. I could buy something new while on vacation. I could finish something in the airport and get a new book right from my seat, without having to lug around any extra pounds. The iPad even allows you to flip the page with your finger just like the real deal. What a gift.
I read two books on my iPad and got tired of it.
Perhaps I am a wishful thinking bibliophile, but I just don't think the physical book is going the way of the dodo bird. No doubt, many scholars and students will house parts of their reference libraries on an electronic device. Some frequent flyers will stick books on their tablets instead of in their brief cases. And some techno-geeks will conclude that everything is better on an Apple product. I'm sure ereaders will make inroads. They serve a useful purpose. But only to a point.
Old books are like old friends. They love to be revisited. They stick around to give advice. They remind you of days gone by. Books, like friends, hang around.
And they prefer not to be invisible.
I can't tell you how many often I sit at my desk, push back my seat, and allow my eyes to drift around the room full of bookshelves. I'm not procrastinating, not exactly. I'm scanning the room to see my friends. Their covers jog my memories. They remind me of what I learned once. More than that, they remind me of my life–where I was when I first read Lloyd-Jones on the couch, how I knelt by the bed with tears when I read Brothers, We Are Not Professionals, how my life was so different 15 years ago when I read my dad's copy of the Institutes as a college student. If all my books disappeared on to a microchip I might have less to lug around and I might be able to search my notes more easily, but I'd lose memory; I'd lose history; I'd lose a little bit of myself.
The other problem with ebooks is their bland sameness. This is why I can't make it much farther than two books on any electronic device. The books don't feel like anything. The font is the same and the white space is the same. There is no variance in paper or size or weight. Each book, when read on an ereader, loses its personality. I can't quite explain it, but I simply couldn't read the new Jeeves and Wooster book I downloaded for my iPad. On my computer screen–looking and feeling like the last book I read–there was no joy in Wodehouse, no novelty, no new experience to be had. It was just another PDF or Word document sent my to inbox.
Books have not been around forever. There are other ways to put words together on paper, papyrus, or cow's hide. So it's possible something else will come along to take the book down from the shelf. But it won't be the iPad I'm using right now. It won't be the laptop on which I've written books and blogs and sermons. In a virtual world, with all its ethereal convenience, there will be many–an increasing number I predict–who long for what is real. Something solid. Something you can hold. Something that hangs around even when you are finished with it. Something like a book.
And kind of like an old friend.
