Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 76
June 19, 2014
Satan’s Simple Plan
What does the devil want to do with you?
Does he want to haunt your house? Not likely. You’d write a bestselling book or become a reality television star. Make your head spin around? You could make a lot of money showing off that trick. Get you to carve a pentagram into your leg? Nah, not the sort of behavior that draws a big following.
So what does the devil really want from you?
He really only wants one thing: he wants to keep you from Christ.
He wants to make you selfish. He wants you to live for your ambition. He wants you to live for your addiction. He wants you live for your ego. He wants you to live for anyone or anything that’s not Jesus. As long as he keeps you from Christ–from the true and living God–he doesn’t care how it happens. Make you sick like Job or rich like Uzzah, just so long as you forget your Creator in the days of your youth. He will be the accuser of the brethren in one breath and the lying spirit who says “peace, peace” in the next.
What does the devil want?
He wants you to believe the lie that you are okay without a savior. He wants you to think that the form of godliness counts for something even if it does not have the power. He wants you to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and exchange the truth about God for a lie. He wants you to love the world and ignore the Word. He wants you to be happy or sad or scared or complacent or hungry or full, anything that gets you focused on something other than union and communion with Christ.
When you become a Christian you turn from the power of Satan to God (Acts 26:18). And when you live as a Christian, the devil will do all that he can to get you to turn back to the way things were.
June 17, 2014
Five Questions for Christians Who Believe the Bible Supports Gay Marriage
So you’ve become convinced that the Bible supports gay marriage. You’ve studied the issue, read some books, looked at the relevant Bible passages and concluded that Scripture does not prohibit same-sex intercourse so long as it takes place in the context of a loving, monogamous, lifelong covenanted relationship. You still love Jesus. You still believe the Bible. In fact, you would argue that it’s because you love Jesus and because you believe the Bible that you now embrace gay marriage as a God-sanctioned good.
As far as you are concerned, you haven’t rejected your evangelical faith. You haven’t turned your back on God. You haven’t become a moral relativist. You’ve never suggested anything goes when it comes to sexual behavior. In most things, you tend to be quite conservative. You affirm the family, and you believe in the permanence of marriage. But now you’ve simply come to the conclusion that two men or two women should be able to enter into the institution of marriage–both as a legal right and as a biblically faithful expression of one’s sexuality.
Setting aside the issue of biblical interpretation for the moment, let me ask five questions.
1. On what basis do you still insist that marriage must be monogamous?
Presumably, you do not see any normative significance in God creating the first human pair male and female (Gen. 2:23-25; Matt. 19:4-6). Paul’s language about each man having his own wife and each woman her own husband cannot be taken too literally without falling back into the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage (1 Cor. 7:2). The two coming together as one so they might produce godly offspring doesn’t work with gay marriage either (Mal. 2:15). So why monogamy? Jesus never spoke explicitly against polygamy. The New Testament writers only knew of exploitative polygamy, the kind tied to conquest, greed, and subjugation. If they had known of voluntary, committed, loving polyamorous relationships, who’s to think they wouldn’t have approved?
These aren’t merely rhetorical questions. The issue is legitimate: if 3 or 13 or 30 people really love each other, why shouldn’t they have a right to be married? And for that matter, why not a brother and a sister, or two sisters, or a mother and son, or father and son, or any other combination of two or more persons who love each other. Once we’ve accepted the logic that for love to be validated it must be expressed sexually and that those engaged in consensual sexual activity cannot be denied the “right” of marriage, we have opened a Pandora’s box of marital permutations that cannot be shut.
2. Will you maintain the same biblical sexual ethic in the church now that you think the church should solemnize gay marriages?
After assailing the conservative church for ignoring the issue of divorce, will you exercise church discipline when gay marriages fall apart? Will you preach abstinence before marriage for all single persons, no matter their orientation? If nothing has really changed except that you now understand the Bible to be approving of same-sex intercourse in committed lifelong relationships,we should expect loud voices in the near future denouncing the infidelity rampant in homosexual relationships. Surely, those who support gay marriage out of “evangelical” principles, will be quick to find fault with the notion that the male-male marriages most likely to survive are those with a flexible understanding that other partners may come and go. According to one study researched and written by two homosexual authors, of 156 homosexual couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity, and of the hundred that had been together for more than five years, none had remained faithful (cited by Satinover, 55). In the rush to support committed, lifelong, monogamous same-sex relationships, it’s worth asking whether those supporters–especially the Christians among them–will, in fact, insist on a lifelong, monogamous commitment.
3. Are you prepared to say moms and dads are interchangeable?
It is a safe assumption that those in favor of gay marriage are likely to support gay and lesbian couples adopting children or giving birth to children through artificial insemination. What is sanctioned, therefore, is a family unit where children grow up de facto without one birth parent. This means not simply that some children, through the unfortunate circumstances of life, may grow up with a mom and dad, but that the church will positively bless and encourage the family type that will deprive children of either a mother or a father. So are mothers indispensable? Is another dad the same as a mom? No matter how many decent, capable homosexual couples we may know, are we confident that as a general rule there is nothing significant to be gained by growing up with a mother and a father?
4. What will you say about anal intercourse?
The answer is probably “nothing.” But if you feel strongly about the dangers of tobacco or fuss over the negative affects of carbs, cholesterol, gmo’s, sugar, gluten, trans fats, and hydrogenated soybean oil may have on your health, how can you not speak out about the serious risks associated with male-male intercourse. How is it loving to celebrate what we know to be a singularly unhealthy lifestyle? According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the risk of anal cancer increases 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse. Anal sex increases the risk of a long list of health problems, including “rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, chlamydia, cyrptosporidosis, giardiasis, genital herpes, genital warts, isosporiasis, microsporidiosis, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C, and syphilis” (quoted in Reilly, 55). And this is to say nothing of the higher rates of HIV and other health concerns with disproportionate affects on the homosexual community.
5. How have all Christians at all times and in all places interpreted the Bible so wrongly for so long?
Christians misread their Bibles all the time. The church must always be reformed according to the word of God. Sometimes biblical truth rests with a small minority. Sometimes the truth is buried in relative obscurity for generations. But when we must believe that the Bible has been misunderstood by virtually every Christian in every part of the world for the last two thousand years, it ought to give us pause. From the Jewish world in the Old and New Testaments to the early church to the Middle Ages to the Reformation and into the 20th century, the church has understood the Bible to teach that engaging in homosexuality activity was among the worst sins a person could commit. As the late Louis Crompton, a gay man and pioneer in queer studies, explained:
Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage [in Romans 1] as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality. According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew or early Christian. (Homosexuality and Civilization, 114).
The church has been of one mind on this issue for nearly two millennia. Are you prepared to jeopardize the catholicity of the church and convince yourself that everyone misunderstood the Bible until the 1960s? On such a critical matter, it’s important we think through the implications of our position, especially if it means consigning to the bin of bigotry almost every Christian who has ever lived.
June 16, 2014
June 13, 2014
Bio, Books, and Such: Mack Stiles
During the summer I’ll be posting micro interviews on Fridays (mostly). I’ve asked some of my friends in ministry–friends you probably already know–to answer questions about “bio, books, and such.” My hope is that you’ll enjoy getting a few more facts about these folks and getting a few good book recommendations.
Today’s interview is with Mack Stiles, CEO of Gulf Digital Solutions and general secretary for the Fellowship of Christian UAE Students (FOCUS) in the United Arab Emirates.
1. Where were you born? Louisville, Kentucky
2. When did you become a Christian? July, 1972 at a skiing race camp in Zermatt, Switzerland.
3. Who is one well known pastor/author/leader who has shaped you as a Christian and teacher? Mark Dever
4. Who is one lesser known pastor/friend/mentor who has shaped you? Mike Spencer, the internet monk
5. What’s one hymn you want sung at your funeral? “We Rest on Thee” by E.G. Cherry
6. What kind of nonfiction do you enjoy reading when you aren’t reading about theology, the Bible, or church history? I love Biographies.
7. Other than Calvin’s Institutes, what systematic theology have you found most helpful? We have used Wayne Grudem for years in training our young staff in Dubai.
8. What are one or two of your favorite fiction authors or fiction books? I’ve enjoyed the Patrick O’Brian work on Captain Jack Aubery-a series of nautical historical novels set during the Napoleonic wars.
9. What is one of your favorite non-Christian biographies? Usually the one I’m reading, (which is currently the biography of Woodrow Wilson called Wilson by A. Scott Berg) but my all time favorite would be a toss up between William Manchester’s The Last Lion volumes 1 and 2, or Taylor Branch’s first two books in his trilogy called Parting the Waters, America in the King Years 1954-63 and Pillar of Fire, America in the King Years 1963-1965.
10. What is one of your favorite books on evangelism? I like J.I. Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God
11. What is one of your favorite books on apologetics? Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (with lots of asterisks, and there are better books that I would recommend, but it meant much to me in 1994.)
12. What is one of your favorite books on prayer? I’m reading (my ancestor) Edward Taylor’s book called Edward Taylor’s Gods Determinations and Preparatory Mediations.
13. What is one of your favorite books on marriage? When Sinners Say I Do
14. What is one of your favorite books on parenting? We benefited personally from John Rosemond’s books on parenting when our children were young-back in the early 90′s (interestingly, I hear that he has become a Christian since writing them).
15. What music do you keep coming back to on your iPhone (or CD player, or tape deck, or gramophone)? I love Love and War and the Sea In between by Josh Garrels, and I like Acoustic Alchemy’s work, and most all Jazz.
16. Favorite food? Pizza, all ethnic food.
17. After the Bible, a hymnal, and a shipbuilding guide, what book would you want with you on a desert island? Recently South Shore Baptist Church, (Pastor Jeramie Rinne) purchased the top bible commentary for each book of the Bible for me. I can’t imagine anything better than being on an Island with those books. If I had to pick one of those… well, I love Dale Ralph Davies OT commentaries or maybe D.A. Carson’s commentary on John…or William Lane’s commentary on Mark… I don’t know.
June 12, 2014
10 Personalities that Have No Place in Christian Marriage
Guest Blogger: Jason Helopoulos
My dear bride and I have been married for sixteen years. We have learned a great deal over those years together. What was a rocky beginning has become a sweet and glorious union. There is seldom a day that goes by that I don’t thank the Lord for my wife. Our marriage isn’t perfect, because neither of us within this marriage is perfect (though she is surely closer to perfection than me). However, I can say by the grace and mercy of God that we have a good marriage. There are different lessons that we have learned over the past sixteen years. Some were more painful to learn than others and some are lessons that we will need to continually grow in. There are many who read this blog and have been married longer than us. No doubt, you have more wisdom to offer on this subject then me. I would welcome your thoughts in the comments below. As a pastor, who has counseled many couples, and as a veteran of sixteen years of marriage, I have found that these ten personalities have no place in Christian marriage:
Secret Agent: We can’t have secret expectations. Our spouse needs to know and we need to give voice to our expectations within the marriage relationship. It isn’t fair or even wise to keep these thoughts from our spouses. They need to know. If we aren’t willing to give expression to an expectation, than it shouldn’t be one. In truth, we are often reluctant to share these silent expectations, because once we hear them uttered from our mouths we realize how petty and unnecessary they are.
Debater: Debates are good in politics, the classroom, and at the water cooler. They aren’t helpful in marriage. Never argue for the sake of arguing in your marriage. Don’t debate to win a point, a round, or a plan. It is a lose-lose proposition. Be willing to discuss and disagree, but never debate.
Warrior: Our conflict is not with our spouse. Our battle is not “against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). Our spouse is never to be viewed as our adversary and neither are we to be viewed their adversary. We are united together in Christ to wage this good fight alongside each other, not against one another. I am not her enemy and she is not mine. We are compatriots and fellow soldiers linked arm and arm waging battle with evil as our Lord Jesus leads us in this good and holy fight. Let us “stir up one another to love and good works” (Heb. 10:24) and not against one another.
Mommy/Daddy Me: Most of us love being parents, but this cannot supersede our first calling as a husband or wife. It is a grievous mistake to place our children over our marriage relationship. If our marriage is suffering, our kids are suffering. If our marriage is thriving, the blessings cascade down upon our children like the oil poured out upon Aaron’s head and running down his beard (Psalm 133). It is like the dew of Hermon which falls on the mountains of Zion–it gives life.
Finger-Pointer: Our wife’s sin is not just her issue “to get over.” Neither are our husband’s sins purely his struggles “to get past.” We are united together. We are one flesh (Gen.2:24). God has given us one another to walk the path of righteousness hand-in-hand. Let us “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2).
Holy Spirit Impostor: One of the great traps of Christian marriage is being more concerned about my spouse’s spiritual state than my own. It is a kind of super-spirituality that comes in the guise of love and righteousness, when it is anything but. Rather, it smacks of hypocrisy. We are not the Holy Spirit and we are not our spouse’s conscience. It is far too easy to be distracted from our own responsibilities when we have our target fixed on another.
Milk Toast: Loving and appreciating grace does not mean avoiding all hard things in marriage. Some Christian husbands and wives are confined by the false belief that being grace-centered means avoiding all conflict, disagreement, and confrontation. We are “grace people,” and sometimes the greatest manifestation of that grace is the willingness to breech hard subjects and wade through difficult issues. A gracious spouse will speak the truth, always in love, but will speak the truth (Eph. 4:12) for the betterment of their spouse and their marriage to the glory of God.
Accuser: Things forgiven in the past are not weapons to be wielded in the present. It doesn’t matter whether they were sins or errors committed before the marriage or after the wedding vows were taken. It doesn’t matter whether they were particular sins committed against us or someone else. Forgiven matters are forgiven. Are there consequences? Sure. May we need to discuss these things in counseling or pray about them together? Yes. But they are not a sledge-hammer to be used in times of disagreement, an example to use for the sake of argumentation, nor a thought to hold our spouse captive to our wishes. They have been buried in a deep chasm and sealed with our forgiveness by the grace of God. There they are to remain, unless they need to be brought forth and never as something to hold over the head of the other.
Me Monster: “Love does not insist on its own way” (1 Cor. 13:5). We must not seek our own interests first. If we are both pursuing the other’s interests than both of our needs are met, not begrudgingly, but willingly.
Dictator: Christian marriage is not to be domineered by one spouse or the other. The husband is the head of the marriage union (Eph. 5), but he is not its king. Both the husband and the wife serve one single King. He dictates the rules, character, and purpose for this relationship. Whether our inclination is to seek control of the marriage by force or passive aggressive silence, it is wrong. We are not try and dominate where we have no right. Ultimately, this marriage is not “ours” to do with it what we will. It is His. It falls within His dominion and we both serve His Kingdom, not our own. Our marriage is to be a living breathing earthly sign pointing to the reality of Christ’s union with the Church (Eph. 5). This is what is to dominate, dictate, and rule our marriages: the glory of Christ our exalted Head, King, and Bride-Groom. Not us. What a glorious thing Christian marriage is!
June 11, 2014
Sixteen Sermons on the Same Text
It was Christmas Day 1784 when John Witherspoon first received the news that his youngest daughter, only recently married and very recently a mother, had died.
The letter from Witherspoon to his bereaved son-in-law, David Ramsay, is extraordinary. The return letter from Ramsay to his bereaved father-in-law is just as touching. But perhaps most remarkable of all is what Witherspoon preached on after his daughter died.
Ashbel Green tells the story, starting with that sad Christmas Day:
The Doctor called at the office, took the letter, came immediately to the house of his son-in-law, the Rev. Dr. Smith, and opened and read it, in the midst of an agitated circle. He read it to himself–As he read, the tears rolled down his manly cheeks, but he uttered not a word, till he had read it through. He then wiped away his tears, made a few remarks with composure, mounted his horse, and returned immediately to [his home] Tusculum.
The day which followed, in place of being one of festivity, became one of deep gloom and mourning, both in the college and the town. Mrs. Ramsay was a most accomplished and amiable woman, the delight of her associates, and the pride of the village. She possessed, in no inconsiderable degree, the wit and sagacity of her father. But like him, too, she possessed prudence, good nature and piety; and her mental endowments were always employed to give pleasure, and not pain to her acquaintance.
She died on the fifth day after she became a mother, and within a year after marriage. A funeral sermon was preached by the Rev. Dr. Smith, on the occasion of her death, in the church at Princeton, on the first or second Sabbath after the afflictive intelligence of her dissolution reached that place.
Dr. Witherspoon shortly after commenced a series of discourses, on “the doctrine and duty of submission to the will of God.” The discourses were sixteen in number, delivered on as many successive sabbaths; and all founded on Luke xxii.42–”Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.” The nature of genuine Christian submission was accurately discriminated and clearly illustrated in these discourses; the various bearings of the duty were pointed out, and the whole was accompanied with much practical application. It is not recollected that the speak alluded to his own particular interest in the subject, more than once.
Sixteen sermons on one verse: not my will, but yours be done. With no more than a single personal reference to his own grief. That’s not the only way to preach in the midst of great sadness. But it is certainly one remarkable way to extol and take comfort in the mysterious providence of of our good God.
June 10, 2014
Think Before You Post
I have been blogging—almost every day, normally 5 or 6 days a week—for five and a half years. I never imagined this would be a significant part of my ministry. I never thought many people would read what I wrote. I never thought I would write as much as I do. When I starting blogging at the beginning of 2009, I never, ever, ever thought I would still be doing this in the summer of 2014. Others have been going at this longer than I have, but still, five years is a long time in blogger years.
And in these five years I’ve had plenty of occasions to reflect on the nature of blogging, the possibilities of social media, and the pitfalls of everyone being connected to everyone else all the time. I made fun of bloggers until I started a blog. I made fun of Facebook and Twitter, and now I’m on both. I fit the demographic of Gen Xers and Millennials who spend too much time online and exert too much emotional energy in keeping up to date on the latest internet scuffles and kerfuffles.
I’m thankful for blogs and tweets and posts and embeds and links and all the rest. God is no Luddite when it comes to defending his name and proclaiming the gospel. And yet, on many days I would be thrilled if all digital sound and fury disappeared and we went back to the slow churn of books, phone calls, journal articles, newsletters, and (gasp!) face to face conversation.
But we won’t and we aren’t. So we need to think about how to post, what to post, and when to post. As Christians, we need to be more prayerful, careful, and biblical about our online presence. After more than five years of blogging—less than that with Twitter and Facebook—and having gleaned lots of wisdom from others and having made lots of mistakes myself, here are ten things to think about before you hit “publish” on your next blog post, status update, comment, or tweet.
1. Is this idea, question, or rant only half baked? One of the posts I’ve always regretted was the one several years ago on where are all the Lutherans. I didn’t expect the post to get much attention. I was trying to ask a question I had asked in my head many times. I should have kept the question in my head, or posed it in a more private setting. The question wasn’t bad, and through the post I came in contact with some good Lutheran brothers. But as a blog post, it was half-baked. I was asking that question for myself without considering that some people might give me an answer!
The internet is public space. As such, it is not the place for every crazy thought or personal revelation you’ve ever had. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with putting out certain ideas tentatively, in hopes that your thinking can be sharpened and refined. But don’t pull things out of your mental or emotional or experiential box that you may want to put back later. If you want to spill your guts and be completely raw and try out far flung new theories, keep a journal.
2. Have I considered that anyone anywhere at anytime could see this? When I started blogging I knew people might read it, but I never seriously considered how public a post could be. After my second day of blogging a friend emailed me, “Wow, people are actually reading your blog. Very cool. But just remember this is going out there to everyone and people are going to see it.” At that time my friend was only talking about dozens or maybe hundreds of views. But his admonition was apt no matter the scale. No matter how many followers or friends you have, no matter how many subscribers, no matter how micro or macro your normal traffic, you have to consider that anything you put online can be seen by almost anyone on the planet. Are you sure you want to post that picture, slam that person, share that secret, make that accusation, go on that hilariously caustic riff?
Years ago, while speaking on the emergent church, I got a question during Q/A that I never should have touched: “What do you think about so and so?” Unless you are prepared to tell the world that so and so is your best friend and his ministry has meant the world to you, almost nothing good can come from answering questions like that. After trying to qualify the critique that I knew was about to come out, I strung together a sentence that was uncharitable and over the top. I wasn’t wrong to disagree with the person in question, but I wasn’t careful in how I voiced my disagreements. A few days later my slipshod statement was being broadcast far and wide on the internet. Eventually, I talked on the phone with the person I had pontificated about. We had a nice conversation and I was able to apologize for being careless. I learned the hard way—but at least I learned it early on—that anything said in public can be heard by anyone else.
3. Do I really know what I’m talking about? One of the great things about working on my PhD is that I can see more clearly how hard it is to really, truly be an expert in something. The internet is full of amateurs who think they are experts. That doesn’t mean you can’t voice an opinion about the Hobby Lobby case without being a lawyer or that you can’t explain the Bible without a seminary degree. It does mean that we should at least pause before posting to consider whether our brilliant manifesto is anything more than opinion rooted in speculation, based on hearsay, buttressed by a 45 second Google search.
4. What if I run into this person later today? Let me share another lesson I learned from an early blogging mistake. One of my first posts was a snarky jab at another author I disagreed with. A few days later I was speaking at an event and saw that this person’s colleague and friend was at a table across the room. As soon as he saw me he made a straight line for my table and proceeded to dress me down for my snarky post. It was not a pleasant experience, in part because few people like this sort of confrontation, and because this man’s friend had a point. For me as a no-name blogger it never registered that this big-name author I was tweaking was actually a real person. I never considered that he might get wind of my post, or that he might have friends, or that he might have a wife and kids, or that he might be having a bad day, or that he may be in the midst of profound grief, or that he might have had a much harder life than I’ve have, or that this famous pastor or author or leader or athlete was just like me in most ways, or that he could get in contact with me, or that I could meet him or someone close to him at anytime.
Again, there is nothing wrong with disagreement, even sharp disagreement. Even satire has its place. But you shouldn’t be a bigger man behind the keyboard than you would be across the table from someone. Ever since this painful experience in the early days of blogging, I’ve tried to think with every polemical piece “Would I say this same thing if he or she were in the room with me right now?” Although I’m sure I’ve still made mistakes, and some people still think I’m too polemical, that simple question has helped me think much more carefully about how I say what I say and whether I should say anything at all.
5. Will I feel good about this post later? Boy is it tempting to send off that witty retort in the midst of the battle. Dropping the bomb can feel so good. But it is often unwise. Why do we think that the biblical injunction to be quick to listen and slow to speak (James 1:19) applies to everything else except the internet? I know there is the rush to get the scoop. I know that we expect instant denunciations from everyone anytime something doesn’t look right. I know that in the heat of the moment it cools you off to fight fire with fire. But at the end of the day you need to be able put your head on your pillow and sleep with a clear conscience.
Too much of our online commentary is of the “post first, ask questions later” variety. When we rush to voice our opinion on everything under the sun it makes changing our mind that much harder when we learn five minutes or five days or five years later we didn’t know what we were talking about. It makes repentance harder as a 30 year-old when we start to be embarrassed for the insouciance and ignorance we specialized in as a 20 year-old. Why not put off posting today what you could regret tomorrow?
6. Have I sought the counsel of others? Almost every blog I write is read by someone else before I post it. First by my assistant, sometimes by other staff members, often by other friends in ministry, and occasionally by my wife. If I’m writing something controversial or polemical I always send it to one or more friends before posting the piece. I can’t tell you how many headaches I’ve been spared, how many silly lines I’ve deleted, or how many posts I’ve scrapped altogether. I’d rather go to sleep regretting the time I put in to an article I never posted or a comment I never made, instead of repenting of a stupid thought that had no business being made public. If you don’t have a multitude of good counselors for your online life, get them (Prov. 15:22).
7. Do I have this person’s phone number? It’s been explained many times that the process of confrontation laid out in Matthew 18 is not meant to eliminate public discourse. You don’t have to send me an email before you write a critical review of one of my books or before disagreeing with a blog post. Public material can be dealt with publically. But at the same time, we should not do personal work in public space. That’s why the phone number question is a good rule of thumb (a rule I’ve followed at times and should have followed at other times). The closer someone is to you the more incumbent it is upon you to try to settle your disagreements personally before going public, especially if those disagreements have gotten personal. If Jonathan Leeman, for example, wrote a post arguing against my defense of infant baptism, I wouldn’t be offended or surprised. Jonathan and I are friends, and we know we disagree on the issue. But if he took apart the last five sermons I preached, I’d be bothered. I’d wonder why I had never heard about these concerns before. I’d wonder why he didn’t talk to me first. Sure, he has a right to talk about public material in public, but he has my number. Why not just give me a call?
This point should be commonsense, but it is easily forgotten. And you end up with one part of the family blasting another part of the family online, church members going after other church members, parishioners critiquing their pastor, and pastors going after congregants. Pick up the phone! Don’t settle for public spats over private conversation.
8. What is my motivation? I know, this is difficult to gauge. It’s almost impossible to be sure we have entirely pure motives in anything we do, let alone when it comes to social media. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine our hearts before exhausting our readers: “What is going on in my soul as I write this? Why am I so agitated? Have I worked all day on this post because of the fear of man? Am I about to shoot off this comment because I love the praise of man? Am I trying to drive up my traffic? Am I entering the fray because controversy means hits and hits mean money? Am I just piling on because it seems like an easy way to win friends and impress people? Am I too scared to disagree with the influential? Am I too eager to stick it to the man (or woman)? Is my main concern to go with the flow? Is my driving ambition to be unique and stand apart from the Institution? Do I hope to serve or be served with this post? Am I looking to love or be loved for this tweet? As far as I know my own heart, what’s motivating this madness? Have I even taken time to ask any hard questions of my heart?”
9. Have I tried to love my neighbor as I love myself? You aren’t a Christian blogger (or tweeter or commenter or updater) if you don’t do what you do in love. I’m not talking about how often you write about love. That’s fairly easy to do. The loudest love-ites can be the most unloving. The greatest champions of grace can still be graceless. I’m talking about whether in your writing you use the measure with others that you would like used with you? (Matt. 7:2). Don’t assume the worse. Don’t jump to conclusions. Try to understand. Withhold judgment. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Christian charity cannot be reduced to unconditional affirmation and agreeableness, but neither can it be made less than basic humility and forbearance.
10. Have I lost all sense of proportion? Every blog, every Twitter account, every Facebook page will have its own feel, its own emphases, passions, and peculiarities. No problem. No one person or one platform can give equal play to everything that is important. But even with these caveats, we must be careful. We can easily get off kilter. We can quickly lose the plot. We can let our rhetoric get the best of us. We can ride our hobby horses into the ground. We can believe the hype about our own importance or the lasting significance of the latest ecclesiastical meltdown.
Beware lest your online presence reflects a truncated list of biblical concerns. Be wary of yourself when you start believing your enemies can do no right and your friends can do no wrong. Think twice before posting your second screed of the week. Something is wrong if your blog seems to be caught up in the perpetual celebration of Festivus. Do people get more from your posting and tweeting than the daily airing of grievances? Doesn’t James say we are supposed to be slooowwww to get angry? (James 1:19). Then why are you so ticked off all the time? Have I become obsessed with defending my territory in my little corner of my little internet fiefdom? Am I still hanging on to bygone battles?
If people took their cues for Christian doctrine and Christian discipleship from reading my posts, tweets, and updates day after day, for years and years, what sort of Christians would they become? What is the dominant mood in my neck of the virtual woods—outrage, belligerence, cynicism? What is constantly being lifted up—the Bible, the glory of God, the cross? Or perhaps this is the best question: Is the real heartbeat of my online presence to promote my Savior or myself?
June 9, 2014
June 6, 2014
Bio, Books, and Such: Carl Trueman
During the summer I’ll be posting micro interviews on Fridays (mostly). I’ve asked some of my friends in ministry–friends you probably already know–to answer questions about “bio, books, and such.” My hope is that you’ll enjoy getting a few more facts about these folks and getting a few good book recommendations.
Today’s interview is with Carl Trueman, the Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary and Pastor at Cornerstone Presbyterian Church.
1. Where were you born? Dudley, United Kingdom
2. When did you become a Christian? Aged 17
3. Who is one well known pastor/author/leader who has shaped you as a Christian and teacher? J.I. Packer
4. Who is one lesser known pastor/friend/mentor who has shaped you? Iver Martin, now Minister of the Free Church of Scotland in Stornoway, with whom I served on session when he was minister of Bon Accord Free Church of Scotland, Aberdeen.
5. What’s one hymn you want sung at your funeral? A Debtor to Mercy Alone
6. What kind of nonfiction do you enjoy reading when you aren’t reading about theology, the Bible, or church history? Essays (Hazlitt, Orwell and Epstein are particular favourites)
7. Other than Calvin’s Institutes, what systematic theology have you found most helpful? Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics
8. What are one or two of your favorite fiction authors or fiction books? Ian Rankin, the Rebus series of novels. Thomas Hardy.
9. What is one of your favorite non-Christian biographies? Simon Sebag Montefiore, two volumes on Stalin (The Young Stalin; Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar)
10. What is one of your favorite books on preaching? P T Forsyth, Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind
11. What is one of your favorite books on evangelism? J I Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God
12. What is one of your favorite books on apologetics? Blaise Pascal, Pensees
13. What is one of your favorite books on prayer? The Valley of Vision
14. What is one of your favorite books on marriage? Christopher Ash, Marriage: Sex in the Service of God
15. What is one of your favorite books on parenting? Never read one but seem to have done OK, all things considered! Probably because of my wife’s wisdom on such matters.
16. What music do you keep coming back to on your iPhone (or CD player, or tape deck, or gramophone)? Classic rock: Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Rush, The Rolling Stones, Mark Knopfler, The Kinks. Etc etc.
17. Favorite food? Indian, the hotter the better.
18. After the Bible, a hymnal, and a shipbuilding guide, what book would you want with you on a desert island? Thomas Hardy, Jude the Obscure.
