Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 200

A Discerning Child

In Case You're Interested…

I always feel funny advertising conferences that have my (outdated!) picture on the promo material. But the organizers asked if I'd mention the conference on my blog and I thought some people in the Grand Rapids area might want to check this out.

My Missional Misfire?

On Tuesday I read Zach Nielsen's comments on the Ryan Kelly-Greg Gilbert-Kevin DeYoung TGC roundtable on the mission of the church. Zach offered several gracious critiques. The same morning I got a long email from an Acts 29 church planter concerned about the same panel discussion. In both cases these brothers were trying to politely and thoughtfully disagree with me. And in both cases, after reading both Zach's blog and this unsolicited email, I thought "I don't disagree with you!" I may have wanted to ask one or two questions but overwhelmingly my internal response was: "I really think we are on the same page."

Whenever this happens I figure one of three things is going on: 1) I'm not being understood correctly. 2) I'm not communicating clearly. 3) Some combination of 1 and 2. In this case, I'm sure there is some of 2 so let me try to clarify.

Here's what I said about "missional" at last week's Desiring God National Conference.

Let me say something at this point about the relatively new term "missional." I do not have a problem with people putting "al" at the end of "mission." More and more the word simply means "being involved in mission." Or it is shorthand for "get out of your holy huddle and go engage your community with the gospel." And I'm all for that. Every Christian should be. So I am not on a crusade to make people stop using the word missional, nor do I want you to be suspicious of everyone who does.

Nevertheless, I have a few concerns with what I sometimes see in the missional mood. And let me just make clear: these are concerns I see in some of the missional advocates, certainly not all. In fact, I would guess, though I don't want to speak for anyone else, that Mark Driscoll, Darrin Patrick, Tim Keller and their networks would share many of these same concerns [note: in my talk I think I said "most or all" but "many" is probably safer]. And I know for a fact that these men give priority to discipleship and evangelism.

(1) I am concerned that good behaviors are sometimes commended using the wrong categories. For example, many good deeds are promoted under the term "social justice" when I think "love your neighbor" is often a better category. Or, folks will talk about transforming the world, when I think being "a faithful presence in the world" is a better way to describe what we are trying to do and actually can do. Or, sometimes well meaning Christians talk about "building the kingdom" when actually the verbs associated with the kingdom are almost always passive (enter, receive, inherit). We'd do better to speak of living as citizens of the kingdom, rather than telling our people they build the kingdom.

(2) I am concerned that in our new found missional zeal we sometimes put hard "oughts" on Christians where there should be inviting "cans." You ought to do something about human trafficking. You ought to do something about AIDS. You ought to do something about lack of good public education. When you say "ought" you imply that if the church does not tackle these problems we are being disobedient. It would be better to invite individual Christians in keeping with their gifts and calling to try to solve these problems rather than indicting the church for "not caring."

(3) I am concerned that in all our passion for renewing the city or tackling social problems we run the risk of marginalizing the one thing that makes Christian mission Christian: namely, making disciples of Jesus Christ.

Now, having raised those concerns, I need to make sure you know what I am not saying. I do not want:

Christians to be indifferent toward the suffering around them and around the world.
Christians to think evangelism is the only thing in life that really counts or that helping the poor really only matters if it results in conversions.
Christians to stop dreaming of creative, courageous ways to love their neighbors and impact their cities.

But here's some of what I do want:

I want the gospel—the good news of Christ's death for sin and subsequent resurrection—to be of first importance in our churches.
I want Christians freed from false guilt, freed from thinking the church is either responsible for most of problems in the world or responsible to fix all of these problems.
I want the utterly unique task of the church—making disciples of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit to the glory of God the Father—put front and center, not lost in a flurry of humanitarian good deeds or environmental concerns.

Let me add a few other clarifying comments.

I affirm that faith without works is dead. I agree that the gospel should be adorned with good works. I agree that those saved by the gospel will live lives of compassion, justice, and love. I applaud and pray for more churches that do orphan care, address hunger issues, and tackle community problems with the aim of meeting human need and "putting in a good word for Jesus."

I should also add that the book Greg Gilbert and I are writing is not really about "missional." It's about the mission of the church, a broader discussion that is not aimed at the missional movement per se, even less with the expressions of it in the Reformed community.

So what then is my point in arguing, as I did last Friday, that the mission of the church is the Great Commission? This is what I said in conclusion to my talk.

So what is the mission of the church? The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship and obey Jesus Christ now and in eternity to the glory of God the Father. In other words, the mission of the church is not equal to everything God is doing in the world, nor is it everything we do in obedience to Christ. The mission of the church is the Great Commission. As Kostenberger says, "the church ought to be focused in the understanding of its mission. Its activities should be constrained by what helps others to come to believe that the Messiah, the Son of God, is Jesus."

But to say disciple-making is the "central" aim or our "priority," or our "focus" is not to say that everything else is suspect. Galatians 6:10 says, "Do good to all people, especially to the household of faith." I should also add that the language of "priority" does not mean evangelism or discipleship must happen temporally prior to any other kind of ministry. "Priority" doesn't mean you do items 1-10 on your list and then you can tackle 11-15.

It does mean, however, that priorities ought to take, well, priority. We live in a world of finite time, finite people, and finite resources. Therefore, the church cannot do everything noble there is to do. If our mission is discipleship this will mean something for the church's allocation of time, talents, and treasure. What that something looks like depends on the wisdom of the leadership of the local church. I don't have a formula for what keeps disciple-making properly in the focus. Except to say this: if the church as a body tackles few community problems, but it is making disciples, and those disciples are individually living as disciples, the church is being faithful. Conversely, if we do everything else—serve, bless, renew the city, create culture, transform our schools—but do not make disciples, we are failing in our mission.

Are we on the same page? I hope so.

The Spirituality of Taste

J.C. Ryle:

The man whose soul is "growing" takes more interest in spiritual things every year. He does not neglect his duty in the world. He discharges faithfully, diligently, and conscientiously every relation of life, whether at home or abroad. But the things he loves best are spiritual things. The ways, and fashions, and amusements, and recreations of the world have a continually decreasing place in his heart. He does not condemn them as downright sinful, nor say that those who have anything to do with them are going to hell. He only feels that they have a constantly diminishing hold on his own affections, and gradually seem smaller and more trifling in his eyes. Spiritual companions, spiritual occupations, spiritual conversation, appear of ever-increasing value to him. Would any one know if he is growing in grace? Then let him look within for increasing spirituality of taste. (Holiness, 107)

So I ask myself: Do I love Jesus a little more this year and football a little bit less? Do I love the word more and the world less? Do I love to long for spiritual things more and entertainment, politics, and hobbies less? Are the things that truly taste best tasting better to me?

Christianity Today and Al Mohler: A Long Profile in the Wrong Direction

[image error]Albert Mohler certainly doesn't need me to defend him, and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, certainly doesn't have to like everyone or everything I like. But the recent cover story by Molly Worthen on Southern Seminary's president deserves comment for other reasons.

I could talk about the condescending attitude that permeates the piece, where presuppositionalism is defined as "a system of thought that boils down to the slogans" offered by Francis Schaeffer, Al Mohler is described as "not so much an intellectual or theologian as he is an articulate controversialist," and Southern Seminary is cast as a group self-conscious fundies buying blazers and Redken hair products "to counter outsiders' stereotypes of fundamentalism."

I could talk about the way Worthen continually injects her beliefs into the story, calling old Princeton "hyper-rationalist" and inserting a parenthesis at one point to clear up that "Calvin's own theology is distinct from that of his followers."

I could talk about how the two sides that jockeyed for power in the SBC get termed "conservatives" and "moderates." Mohler's take on things is "pugnacious;" he's an "inerrantist," "doggedly fundamentalist," and a "culture warrior." Those opposite Mohler come across more reasoned, more balanced. The only time "liberal" appears is to describe the old Southern faculty that ran afoul of "fire-breathing trustees."

I could mention the eye-rolling line that the current "diversity" at Southern means there are some four-point Calvinists or the sneer about Mohler being an elitist because he is certain he has the truth, "and those Baptists who protest simply are not initiated into the systematic splendor of Reformed thought."

This long piece has a lot to say about Mohler, much of it helpful, much of it not. The bigger issue, however, is not what the piece says about Al Mohler, but what it says about Christianity Today. This is a magazine begun under the editorial leadership of Carl Henry, an inerrantist, a Calvinist, even one might say, a rationalist. Anyone familiar with Henry's massive God, Revelation, and Authority would easily conclude, and rightly so, that it is Mohler who stands in the tradition of Carl Henry, and CT, at least as represented by this piece, stands, well, somewhere else.

Mohler is certainly controversial and it is right for journalists to explore controversies and get both sides to a story. But to paint Mohler—a champion of inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, and the historic Christian positions on abortion and homosexuality—as nothing but a controversialist and an heir of Prostestant scholasticism and dreaded Old Princeton is hardly fair, and hardly in keeping with CT's general editorial philosophy. I have several years worth of CT's in my office. There are dozens of profiles and virtually every one of them is warm and flattering, some almost puff pieces. I've read stories on Bill Gaither, Jack Hayford, Shane Claiborne, Donald Miller, Beth Moore, even Ted Haggard (before his "fall), and they are overwhelmingly positive. If CT is known for one thing it's their penchant for writing favorable reviews of most everyone under the broad label "evangelical."

So why such a condescending piece on one of evangelicalism's most well-known leaders? Why go on the subtle offensive against one who is a defender of so much that Christianity Today was launched fifty years ago to defend? It would have been nice to see the magazine of "evangelical conviction" look at the man who, under God, led the largest denomination's largest seminary back to historic orthodoxy, and portray him not as a "culture warrior" wrapped in pseudo-elitist garb or as the intellectual heir of slogans and scholasticism, but first and foremost—and I know this sounds crazy—as an evangelical.

How Can I Glorify God?

I imagine most readers of this blog want to glorify God. The chief end of man, after all, is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. But have you ever thought about how to glorify God—I mean practically in every day life?

Here are twenty biblical ways you can.

1. Give God verbal declarations of praise (Rev. 4:8-9).

2. Live a life of noticeable piety (Matt. 5:16; James 1:27; 1 Peter 2:12).

3. Ask God for things in Jesus' name (John 14:13).

4. Bear fruit and show yourself to be a disciple of Jesus (John 15:8).

5. Declare the truth about Jesus (John 16:14).

6. Love your life less than God (John 21:19; 1 Peter 1:7; 4:16).

7. Worship God as God (Rom. 1:21).

8. Live a life of sexual purity (1 Cor. 6:20).

9. Live a life of generosity (2 Cor. 9:13).

10. Rejoice in God's glory displayed in creation (Psalm 19:1).

11. Do the works of faith (2 Thess. 1:12).

12. Use your gifts in God's strength (1 Peter 4:11).

13. Make sure everyone knows you're not God (Acts 12:23).

14. Live a life of gratitude (Psalm 50:23; 2 Cor. 4:15).

15. In matters of liberty, seek the good of others (1 Cor 10:31).

16. Extend grace to sinners (2 Cor. 8:19).

17. Be a part of a local church (2 Cor. 8:23; Eph. 3:20-21).

18. Tell God you are wrong and he is right (Josh. 7:19; Jer. 13:16; Rev. 16:9).

19. Obey God (Lev. 10:3; Mal. 2:2).

20. Go from a Christ-despiser to a Christ-worshiper (Gal. 1:24).

Monday Morning Humor

Scott Klusendorf, Pro-Life Apologist, at MSU October 6

Michigan State University Students for Life is bringing Scott Klusendorf to campus on Wednesday, October 6 at 7:15pm at Wonders Hall Kiva (corner of Birch and Shaw).

Scott Klusendorf is the founder and president of Life Training Institute (LTI). He travels throughout the country training pro-life advocates to defend their views and challenging abortion advocates to rethink theirs. Scott's book The Case for Life (Crossway 2009) should be required reading for every pastor and college student (go here for a brief review of his book and Francis Beckwith's).

If you are in the Mid-Michigan area consider taking a couple hours on Wednesday to help yourself help the unborn.

What Inerrancy is Not

With all these posts on inerrancy, it may be helpful to explain what inerrancy is not. A friend of mine passed along J.I. Packer's article from the New Dictionary of Theology (IVP 1988) where Packer gives a succinct one paragraph summary of all that inerrancy can mistakenly entail.

Some evangelicals who affirm that Scripture is infallible, never misinforming or misleading us, will not call it inerrant because they think that word tainted by association. They see it as committing its users to: 1. rationalistic apologetics that seek to base trust in the Bible on proof of its truth rather than on divine testimony to it; 2. a docetic view of Scripture that obscures its humanity; 3. unscholarly  exegesis that lacks semantic soundness and historical  precision; 4. unplausible harmonizing, and unscientific guesswork about textual corruption where inconsistencies seem to appear; 5. a theology preoccupied with peripheral details and thus distracted from Christ, who is the Bible's focal centre. (338)

A few years later, Packer reaffirmed the importance of the word inerrancy, but he understood that in order to be heard correctly when we use the term and to be fair with the biblical text, inerrantists he need to "disclaim all these pitfalls." The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is similarly nuanced.

September Book Briefs

1. Frederick Crews, The Pooh Perplex: In Which It is Discovered that the True Meaning of the Pooh Stories is Not as Simple as is Usually Believed, But for Proper Elucidation Requires the Combined Efforts of Several Academicians of Varying Critical Persuasions (University of Chicago Press, 1963). The subtitle says it all. If the book sounds ridiculously pretentious, it's because the author is making fun of the ridiculous pretensions of too many literary scholars. An exercise in the noble use of satire if ever there was one. And where else can you read "the so-called Expotition of the North Pole" archly dismissed as "a picaresque expression of 'Wanderlust der Kindheit'"?

2. Roger Parrott, The Longview: Lasting Strategies for Rising Leaders (David C. Cook, 2009). Another book on leadership? I know, sounds silly. But this book by the president of Belhaven has a few gems, like chapter 1 on "Lead As if You'll be There Forever." I also liked the chapter "Deflate Your Ego to Expand Your Influence" and Parrott's line that "vulnerability is a cheap imitation of humility." Naturally, certain aspects of the book are more geared for those who work with boards and do lots of fundraising, but there is still good practical advice on conducting evaluations, encouraging your team, and planning for renewal.

3. Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (Crossway, 2006). Intelligent, readable, and [image error]gracious interaction with a large swath of ideas relating to science. At more than 350 pages it bordered on too much of a good thing for me, but you don't have to read every chapter to benefit from Poythress' encyclopedic knowledge. Some will be interested to note that Poythress considers mature creation and analogical day theory that best approaches to Genesis 1-2, and he, like C. John Collins, sides more with the latter.

4. D.A. Carson, Collected Writings on Scripture (Crossway 2010). Worth getting just for the book reviews. Carson is a master at synthesis and rebuttal. He's also adept at administering the necessary academic wedgie. To wit: "In other words, this book abounds in assertions about how unimportant assertions are" (313). And: "This book, a fascinating mix of dogmatic left-wing self-righteousness combined with rich and scathing condescension toward all who are even a tad less left than the author, is rich in unintended irony" (318). And: "the American title, I'm afraid, has opted for a full dose of pompous nonsense, attributable, I hope, to the publisher" (284). This books contains Carson's best writings on Scripture and presents a robust defense of evangelical views on epistemology, inspiration, and just about every other issue that touches the doctrine of Scripture.

5. William Powers, Hamlet's Blackberry: A Practical Philosophy for Building a Good Life in the Digital Age (Harper 2010). A sane and important book. A tad redundant and hampered by a secular perspective that doesn't deal with the biblical categories of idolatry, sin, and the work of the Spirit, but still a helpful book. Powers is not opposed to technology, but he is concerned with how distracted it's making us (or, he would say, we are letting it make us). The first few chapters on busyness and the last chapter on taking an internet sabbath really hit home. This a book I'll come back to because our (my?) addiction to screens is not going to get better on its own.