Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 91

Monday Morning Humor

I’m also a big fan of the Sparty commercial and the one with Arnold Palmer.

The Other Man Who Died This Day

The whole country knows that fifty years ago today John F. Kennedy died from an assassin’s bullet in Dallas. Most Christians know that on the same day C.S. Lewis died. But most in believing circles have forgotten—though not Peter Kreeft—that on this date five decades ago Aldous Huxley also died.

Huxley was famous, brilliant, learned, and—how shall we put it?—not one to let traditional morality get in the way of having a good time. Here’s the start to his Wikipedia entry:

Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963) was an English writer and a prominent member of the famous Huxley family. Best known for his novels including Brave New World and a wide-ranging output of essays, Huxley also edited the magazine Oxford Poetry, and published short stories, poetry, travel writing, film stories and scripts. He spent the later part of his life in the United States, living in Los Angeles from 1937 until his death.

Huxley was a humanist, pacifist, and satirist. He later became interested in spiritual subjects such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism, in particular Vivekananda’s Neo-Vedanta and Universalism. He is also well known for his use of psychedelic drugs.

By the end of his life Huxley was widely acknowledged as one of the pre-eminent intellectuals of his time.

So what can Christians learn from an agnostic, tripped-out, Hindu-intrigued, universalist, philosopher with an interest in communicating with the dead? At least this: sometimes smart people invent new ideas so they don’t have to listen to God’s ideas. Huxley once remarked, in a burst of transparency that can shine a light on a lot of the world’s darkness:

For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.[1]

No doubt, some people reject the gospel and the Bible because of genuine intellectual concerns, but just as often, pride and personal prejudice is to blame. We don’t like what the Bible says so we find someone else who will make it say something else. Or we make up a new system to get out from under the Bible altogether. As Christians we often assume some form of Rational Actor Theory to be true, that people live out their ethics and make their decisions based on their higher order beliefs and worldview. But more often—and this is the point Huxley admitted to—humans do what they like to do and then find a system to justify their unfettered desires.

It’s no way to live for God. But it is the way most of us live.

[1] Robert S. Baker and James Sexton (eds.), Aldous Huxley Complete Essays, Volume 4 (Lanham, MD: Ivan R. Dee, 2001), 369.

God Makes Us a New Person With a New Purpose

When God saves sinners he makes them a new person and he gives them a new purpose.

Never underestimate the gift of new life in Christ. We are new creations. The old has passed away, and the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17). “I have been crucified with Christ and it is no long I who lives but Christ who lives in me and the life I know live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).

When you become a Christian you may wake up the next morning with the same family, the same job, the same house, the same money, the same looks, but make no mistake: you are a new person and you have a new purpose. You no longer live for the glory of your name, but for the glory of the Name.

And let’s be honest, this is why many people do not come to Christ.

Maybe it’s why you have not come to Christ.

Because you know what it entails. Or at least, what coming to Christ should entail. You know that if you want Jesus as Savior, you’re going to get him as Lord. And if he is Lord, then he calls the shots. His word is inviolable. His law is your obedience. His truth is Truth.

But you like your old life. You like your old person and your old purposes. You are happy to live for yourself. You’re going to be somebody. You’re going have something to show for yourself. You’re going to stick it to the man (or the woman, or whatever). You’re on your way. And you’re doing it your way.

Now, if you happen to get a little Jesus on the side–a few better habits, a nice church even–that’s cool. Whatever helps. But you aren’t looking for conversion. You aren’t interested in new birth. You’ll be fine without it. You don’t need another Lord in your life. You’re managing in that role just fine.

At least that what’s you’ve always believed.

And come to think of it, it is a belief. Faith in self-reliance, self-direction, self-autonomy, and the inevitability of progress.

The good news for messed-up, brokenhearted sinners is that God can make you a new person and give you a new purpose. The bad news is that lots of contented, self-sufficient, too-proud-to-beg, too-big-t0-follow types will miss out on the new life God offers in Christ.

My Favorite Line from John Calvin

John Calvin defends the doctrine of election in A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God and counters a detractor with the unfortunate name of Pighius:

Some of our adversaries have preposterously asked, How can men be certain of their salvation if it lies in the secret counsel of God? I have replied in these statements, which are the truth. Since the certainty of salvation is “set forth” unto us in Christ, it is useless, and not without dishonour to Christ Himself, to pass over this fountain of life, which is thrown open that men may draw out of it, and to labour and toil in vain to draw the water of eternal life out of the hidden abysses of the mind and counsel of God! Paul testifies, indeed, that we were “chosen before the foundation of the world,” but it was “in Christ.”

Let no one, then, seek confidence in his own election of God anywhere else than “in Christ,” unless, indeed, he would blot out, and do away with, the “book of life” in which his name is written. God’s adoption of us “in Christ” is for no other end than that we should be considered His children…

Hence Christ, when dwelling on the eternal election of His own in the counsel of the Father, points out, at the same time, the ground on which their confidence may safely rest; where He says, “I have manifested Thy name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world: Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me; and they have kept Thy word” (John xvii. 6). We see here that God begins with Himself, when He condescends to choose us and give us to Christ. But He will have us begin with Christ, if we would know that we are numbered among His “peculiar people”…

If your doctrine and argument be true, says Pighius, that all the elect are thus secure in the hand of Christ “unto the end,” the condition of salvation on which Christ Himself lays down is proposed in vain, where He says, “He that endureth to the end shall be saved” (Matt. x. 22). Here, everyone must confess, that my opponent prevaricates. He had undertaken to prove that our confidence of our salvation could not consistently stand with our election of God. But now, his reasoning draws us away from that point, and leads us to prove that the former necessarily stands on the latter.

I thus find myself so perpetually tossed to and fro by the billows of this man’s violent attacks, that scarcely a moment passes in which I am not in danger of being drowned. But, as God ever upholds His elect to prevent them from sinking, I feel quite confident that I shall stand against all my adversary’s incessant storms. When Pighius asks me how I know that I am elected, my answer is, “Christ is, to me, more than a thousand witnesses.” For when I find myself engrafted into His body, my salvation rests in a place so safe, secure and tranquil, that it is as if I already realised it in heaven. (Calvin’s Calvinism, 132-133, 137)

Beautiful truth that. We do not find security in the inner recesses of the divine decree, but in Christ to whom we are joined by the Spirit through faith. “Christ is, to me, more than a thousand witnesses.” That’ll preach.

And be good for your soul too.

Christian Christmas Grinches

Tis the season to be jolly.

And tis the season for Christians to be mad in the midst of so much mirth.

I get the critiques. I understand that Christmas is about Christ and not about Santa. I resonate with the call to simplify the holidays. I appreciate the warning against needless gift giving. I see how burdensome it all can be, especially for moms. So I have no problem with anyone who chooses to jump off the super-sized, industrial-strength Christmas bandwagon.

Just don’t be censorious about it.

It seems like every time Christmas rolls around, a couple rage-against-the-Christmas-machine blog posts go viral. The kind that blast Christians for ruining everything with commercialism, toys made in sweatshops, and too many reindeer games. For a season that’s supposed to be full of joy and peace, we can be awfully angry and confrontational this time of year. Downright grinchy at times.

Do you or your kids like Santa? Get rid of him. Pronto. He’s fake. He’s not the point. He’s obese and his name is an anagram for Satan.

Do you buy toys for your kids? Stop it. They don’t need them.

Are you into Christmas trees? So were the pagans. Fuhgeddaboudit.

Happy Holidays? Not in my face you don’t. Merry flippin’ Christmas, Walmart Greeter.

Do your parents spend too much money on the grandchildren? Shame them for not buying a cow in your name.

Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of helpful ways we can make Christmas less crazy and lots of practical tips for putting Christ back in Christmas. But glaring at the happy Whos down in Whoville is not one of them. As Christians, we have more to celebrate than anyone. We don’t need to lock up Donner and Blitzen to show that Christ is preeminent. Just like Lewis didn’t have to shut out Father Christmas from Narnia to make Aslan great. If you can’t stand one more minute on Amazon, or one more Barbie, or one more mention of Zuzu’s petals, feel free to keep out all the noise, Noise, NOISE! But don’t furrow your ardent brow at your brothers and sisters with all the lights, all the sweets, all the nostalgia, all the campy cartoons, and all the presents under the tree. They will probably be at the Christmas Eve service too. They will probably give to the Christmas offering. They will probably sing hymns and carols around the tree. They probably haven’t forgotten Jesus.

There is a time for fasting in the Christian life and a time for feasting. The Old Testament teaches us that. And so does Jesus. If Western Christianity is selfish and bloated, let us be the first to say so and the first to show a more excellent way. But let us be the last to use the occasion of the incarnation for moral preening. If the disciples were to rejoice when the Bridegroom was with them, surely we can do better than to be outraged sourpusses every year when we commemorate his coming.

Monday Morning Humor

When your time comes and the world is watching, will you be ready?

Book Review: Thy Word Is Still Truth

[image error]P&R Publishing and Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) are to be congratulated on this massive new volume which is, as the subtitle suggests, a compendium of the “essential writings on the doctrine of Scripture from the Reformation to today.” The title, Thy Word Is Still Truth, is an echo of Edward J. Young’s 1957 manifesto Thy Word Is Truth, which, in turn, was taken from Jesus’ identical declaration in John 17:17. Although with more than 64 chapters and 1300 pages, this book is better suited for the reference shelf than for beach reading, the editors (Peter Lillback and Richard Gaffin Jr.) have put together an impressive collection of chapters, articles, and excerpts, from Martin Luther to Dick Gaffin. Most everyone will find something familiar in this volume, and almost no one will have read all that is assembled here.

It’s important to realize what this book is and what it is not. This is not a new series of articles. It’s not a topical encyclopedia. And it’s not a storehouse for every important contribution to the doctrine of Scripture since the Reformation. Thy Word is Still Truth is a largely chronological collection of the most important statements on Scripture from those in those in the Reformed confessional tradition, especially in the line of Old Princeton. Because of this focus, there is nothing from D.A. Carson or J.I. Packer. In fact, besides an occasional piece from Luther or Spurgeon or Edwards, almost everyone included in the volume is either Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed, with the heavy emphasis on the former. This is not a knock on the book, just a description of what you’ll find.

There is a lot to like in this volume.

First, Lillback and Gaffin have compiled the pertinent sections from the all significant Reformed systematicians. What a treat to have Calvin on Scripture, along with Turretin, Cunningham, Bavinck, Berkhof, and Hodge all in the same place.

Second, Part Two on the Reformed Confessions is outstanding. Not only can you find lesser known confessions like the Ten Conclusions of Berne (1528), the Scots Confession of Faith (1560), and the Irish Articles of Religion (1615), but the English text is side by side with the original language text (where the confession or catechism was first written in a language other than English).

Third, there are a number of almost forgotten pieces that have been happily reprinted in this volume (see, for example, Louis Gaussen’s Theopneustia or the section from John Witherspoon’s Lectures on Divinity).

If you come up with a little extra cash, this would be a great book for your reference library. Presbyterian and Reformed pastors will find it especially useful. If nothing else, by the time you get to the very end of the book and enter into the Peter Enns controversy, it should be pretty clear which side best represents the Reformation-Confessional-Old Princeton-Westminster tradition.

Book Review: Systematic Theology by John Frame

When a longtime theologian finally publishes his systematic theology, it is bound to be a significant occasion. When a professor as widely read and engaging as John Frame does so, it deserves even more attention. This is a serious, yet accessible, theological textbook that can be used profitably by the young seminarian and the old pastor alike. It is rich, honest, careful, and faithful to Scripture.

Like all of Frame’s works, the strength of this one is that it is biblical and readable. From the outset, Frame makes no apology about writing a systematic theology that is based on what the Bible says. Frame is a biblicist in the best sense of the word. He is not first of all trying to survey the historical landscape, let alone to produce an “up to date” theology that interacts with all the latest philosophy and criticism. Consequently, there are many more Bible verses and fewer historical rabbit trails than in many systematic texts. Frame wants to understand what the Bible teaches, always with an aim to worship and application.

And always with an aim himself to be understood, Frame never writes with turgid prose. His style his conversational, almost to a fault at times (so many paragraphs begin with “Now” that I assume the chapters started out as transcribed lectures). Still, in a work this size, it’s no small feat not to come across as workmanlike. The secret to the success of Grudem was his organizational clarity and eminent readability. Frame has the latter.

As for the former—organizational clarity—this book is not quite as good as Grudem’s Systematic Theology, but it’s in the ball park. Each chapter includes study questions, terms, Bible verses to memorize, and a short bibliography for further study. For my taste, I would have used more subheadings, but Frame still uses plenty. The Table of Contents is clear and intuitive; the comprehensive Analytical Outline very useful. A book like this desperately needs a lengthy Scripture Index and a robust Subject/Name Index. Thankfully P&R included both. The font is attractive and easy to read, though the text goes too close to the edge of the page.

The content of the book is reliably evangelical, orthodox, and Reformed. When it comes to recent controversies like inerrancy, New Perspective, feminist language for God, or open theism, Frame consistently turns to the Scriptures and makes a convincing case for the “old paths.” His section on sanctification, in particular, could cut through a lot of current confusion (cf. 994, “Certainly it is a good spiritual exercise to remind ourselves of our justification, or of the cross; certainly it is good to ‘preach the gospel to ourselves’ and to repent of our idolatries. . . .But none of these exercises replaces the act of obedience itself”). I also appreciated Frame’s humility on certain issues (e.g., science and Genesis) and unwillingness to speculate on others (e.g., infralapsarian v. supralapsarian). Frame is not beholden to any party line and has no problem admitting what he does not know or what cannot be known.

There are also a couple weaknesses and a few oddities that can creep in with Frame. I find his thinking deeper and stronger on the doctrine of God, knowledge of God, and word of God (topics on which he’s already written at length), then on, say, soteriology or ecclesiology. Frame takes around 400 pages to cover the doctrine of God, with close to another 100 on the knowledge of God, and almost 200 on the word of God, while his sections on the person and work of Christ are only 20 pages respectively, the ordo salutis around 75 pages, ecclesiology about 60, and eschatology 25 pages. The 20 pages on the person of Christ are very good–clear and to the point–but they just aren’t as developed as some material earlier in the book.

And I confess to having the occasional head scratching moment while reading Frame. From time to time, I wondered if Frame needed to let go of old debates with Kline and the “Escondido Theology.” I also wish he could see more merit in classic impassibility (412-419), and I wondered if he tried too hard to defend Norman Shepherd’s views on justification (974-975). I was surprised that the only two books mentioned as “Resources” at the end of his chapter on “The Task of the Church” were by Tim Keller and Jim Belcher (1046). And finally, while I love the idea of including a chapter on “How Then Shall We Live,” it seemed anticlimactic for the last part of this magnum opus to be a summary of God’s commands to us and for the last word to be “tenth” in parentheses (referencing the tenth commandment).

One final note: whether you think this is a really good systematic theology or one of the most important in the last generation or two, probably depends on how much you get into tri-perspectivalism. I have friends who find Frame’s triads of Normative-Situational-Existential to be extremely enlightening. Try as I might, I find them extremely tenuous. Maybe it’s me. We aren’t all helped by the same pedagogical devices. I admit I’ve always considered discourse analysis a waste of time and I hope to never arc a sentence. I didn’t consider it revolutionary, or all that helpful, when one of my seminary professors summarized almost everything about ministry as a series of threes (head-heart-hands, prophet-priest-king, Father-Son-Spirit, faith-hope-love, speak-feel-do, etc.). I thought, “Okay. That’s kind of cool—everything fits in that chart. Now what?” I confess to having the same reaction with Frame’s triads. Why, for example, is a “good argument” defined as valid (normative), sound (situational), and persuasive (existential)? It’s not immediately clear that the categories have to line up the way they do. And why not four characteristics of a good argument, or two, or five, or ten? Why are the ministries of the church “Word,” “rule,” and “mercy”? Why not add fellowship? Why not simply Word and Sacrament? Or evangelism, edification, exultation, and equipping? I’m not just convinced that everything comes down to the normative, situational, and the existential perspective, nor am I personally helped by the 104 triads sprinkled throughout the book.

But these oddities notwithstanding—and you may not even think them odd—this is a tremendous book. It is careful, heartfelt, wise, accessible, and manifestly steeped in Scripture—the harvest of a lifetime of critical, curious, and submissive reflection on the Bible.

It remains to be seen where Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, will prove to be another Hodge, Berkhof, or Bavinck, but what is clear is that John Frame has written a faithful, doxological theology that will be read by many pastors, many students, and many Christians for many years to come.

Middle Schoolers Can Make A Difference

Here’s a story about some very thoughtful middle school boys. It’s fun to see a local story go national, especially a nice one like this.

5 Reasons Not to Give Up on the Marriage Debate

I admit six days out of seven I feel mighty pessimistic about the prospects for traditional marriage in America and in the West.

It seems likely that “marriage” will become an increasingly flexible institution, both by its legal definition and by our cultural assumptions. The major voices in education, in the media, and in the entertainment industry are so deeply invested in the success of the sexual revolution that it is hard to think the rapid acceptance of gay marriage which we have seen in the last half decade does anything but accelerate in the years ahead. Conservatives and Christians will have all they can handle simply to maintain legal protection and minority rights.

That’s how I feel most days.

But every once in awhile—maybe one day a week, probably on Sundays—I can’t help but hold out hope for traditional marriage. What if “being on the wrong side of history” is more of a progressive ideology than a foregone conclusion? What if our cultural development is not inexorably locked into either a pattern of secularization and sexual liberation? What if the building block of every successful civilization cannot be redefined as easily as some imagine? Are there any reasons to think traditional marriage can make a comeback?

Let me suggest five.

1. Religious fecundity. If demography is destiny, we ought to pay attention to the falling birth rate in this country and in the entire industrialized world. Who is having enough children to replace themselves? It’s not secular people. By definition, it’s not gays and lesbians. It’s religious people—Muslims, Mormons, traditional Catholics, conservative evangelicals. No serious students of these trends can disagree that the more religious and the more traditional couple, the more likely they are to have a large family. Walk into a church like ours and you’ll find that four kids is normal, five or six isn’t strange, and seven or ten is not unheard of. If, by the grace of God and against all cultural pressures, we pass on the faith and keep our kids in the fold, there is reason to hope that Christian convictions will not go the way of the dodo bird in the next generation.

2. The fickle factor. When you think about how quickly public opinion has swung in favor of gay marriage, it’s clear that the new conclusion has not been reached because of deep, ethical reflection. There was a tipping point—it likely coincided with President Obama’s “evolution”—where opposing gay marriage became a public liability.  Large swaths of the American people are now for gay marriage because it seems too costly—culturally, socially, politically—not to. But what happens when posting that equal sign on Facebook feels so 2013? What happens if the cool crowd gets bored with the new status quo? I suppose many of them will push into darker sexual waters, but what if some push back? What if five years from now we have a Juno-style movie that humorous, and yet provocatively, questions whether our sexual orthodoxies are all they’re cracked up to be? If supporters of marriage don’t cave in, those who swung one way may swing back when it no longer looks like they are “on the wrong side of history.”

3. The results are not in. I remember hearing Os Guinness once remark that sometimes the best cultural argument we can make is simply, “Wait and see.” If God ordered the world to be populated by a husband and wife living in covenant fidelity for the purpose of raising and nurturing their own children, we will see things fall apart when this design is undermined. Every piece of social science research we have already shows that children fare best when raised by a mother and father who are also their biological parents. For the time being, gay marriage doesn’t seem to hurt anyone. And certainly, we should recognize that many kind, loving homosexual partners will raise children in a warm, safe environment. But no one has seen what this looks like on a bigger scale. Very few people dare to talk about the negative health realities of gay sex. Few want to see what even many gay activists admit (and often celebrate), that gay “marriage” is not going to look like June and Ward Cleaver except with two Junes or two Wards. We haven’t had to live with the consequences of gay marriage. If there are no unhappy consequences, then the traditionalists will lose. If the picture doesn’t turn out so rosy, we may see people rethinking their knee-jerk reaction in favor of something never before tested in society at large.

4. Overreach. If the most ardent supporters of gay marriage and the most serious opponents agree on one thing it is that gay marriage is just the beginning of a total transformation of marriage and family as we know it. Does that mean open marriages and multiple marriages and incestuous marriages will eventually be accepted by popular opinion and protected by law? Perhaps. Or perhaps, we will be awakened to the reality that much more is afoot than hospital visitation rights. What will happen when a son marries his elderly father so as to avoid inheritance taxes? Will a majority of the American people say “this isn’t what we signed up for” when there are countless personal stories to share of Christians and other religious persons losing their jobs, their children, and their dignity all because they dare to believe what almost everyone in this country has always believed about marriage? Will the champions of multiculturalism  have the integrity to listen to the Africans and Asians who don’t share our enthusiasm for sexual revolution? Will a generation of twerking daughters convince folks that sexuality without boundaries is morally bankrupt and repulsive? Maybe the frog in the kettle will get too hot too fast and jump for safety.

5. Christian witness. As a Christian, this final point is the most important to me. It’s the one that will most reflect our faithfulness (or unfaithfulness) and likely the point readers of this blog can do the most about. There are more than 300,000 churches in this country. By conservative estimates, there are more than 50 million people that go to church every Sunday. Christians in this country are blessed with a formidable network of Christian schools, colleges, seminaries, parachurch ministries, non-profits, social agencies, publishing houses, magazines, journals, blogs, conferences, and thousands of deep-pocketed donors. As important as the political process is, and the court battles, and the trends in higher education, and the pop culture streaming from New York and L.A., none of it as important as what happens in our churches and in our church supported institutions.

Not just on this issue, of course. There are more important issues than gay marriage. But this issue should matter to us as well. Will we stand fast? We will find a way to be welcoming without affirming? Can we love with unconditional affirmation? Will we have the wisdom to grow in compassion and in courage? Will our evangelical schools and publishing houses compromise? Will our denominations crumble beneath the cultural pressure? Will our academics and pastors lead the way in biblical fidelity and winsome cultural confrontation, or will they let the world press them into its mold? Will we trade the favor of God for the favor of men? If there is no strong voice for traditional marriage, no faithful witness in the world for the beauty of husband and wife as a reflection of Christ and the church, no intelligent defense of all that used to be obvious–if none of this exists in 25 years it will be chiefly our own fault.