Toby J. Sumpter's Blog, page 85

The Reason for God & a 6ft Patch of Mt. Everest

Nearly done with Tim Keller’s book The Reason for God, having started it several times over the last several years and finally plowed through. The thing I find really helpful about the book is its street level, conversational style. It is clear that God has blessed Keller with the ability to listen to people, to understand what their concerns are, and give thoughtful, respectful, and faithful answers in defense of the Christian faith. And on the whole I find Keller’s answers to be both helpful in their accessibility and true/faithful to Scripture.

Keller’s approach really is, dare I say it, wonderfully presuppositional, but it’s presuppositional with lots of incarnational/relational skin and bones. Some presuppositional apologetics at least *seem* to be all about brain juices in full ferment (ideas), but Keller is really good at showing people how presuppositions function in everyday life in the wild. Related, sometimes presuppositional approaches can come off like sucker punches, and even if they are technically true, they don’t typically win people over. Most folks don’t burst into tears and ask how to get saved when they hear that their ethical relativism makes them the moral equivalent of the Nazis. Might be true and is important to point out at times, but it isn’t always the most persuasive. In one place Keller does his winsome thing by turning the table the other way around. He points out that the fact that people frequently care about justice and defending the poor, or at least know that those things are virtuous demonstrates that they actually believe in God, despite their claims. This is presuppositionalism driving the other way. It’s true that without an ultimate standard, relativism does reduce to raw power, majorities, etc., and no amount of optimism separates that from another Hitler or Stalin or Roe v. Wade, but the opposite is also true: the fact that the human race does not just descend into absolute evil at every minute, the fact that humans of various religions and faiths (and “no faith” at all) carry on helping one another, telling the truth, and so on demonstrates that there is a God in Heaven. For why else do any of those things matter? While it may still be a sucker punch to the Dawkins of the world, most folks will hardly be that offended at being told they secretly believe in God. And that may be more helpful (at times) than telling them they are secretly a sadistic Hitler (though Jesus does this too at times).

The overarching takeaway for me is Keller’s ability to demonstrate that things most people take for granted may not be quite as reasonable as they may seem, and things that people often value significantly cannot be accounted for apart from some sort of belief in God. He deftly questions presuppositions, carefully erodes confidence in common secular assumptions through historical examples and experiential anecdotes, and then offers the theistic or Christian alternative, explaining how it accounts for what we experience in everyday life more consistently. He particularly appeals to modern concerns about respect for other cultures to his advantage, pointing out that if we really take other cultures seriously, we must hold our own views with a certain humility. In other words, Keller very helpfully relativizes the relativists.

In fact, my biggest beef with the book is in his chapter on science and evolution/creationism in particular. Keller notes very briefly that his personal conviction is that God used some form of evolution to create the world, and even with that stated (and I disagree with him), my primary complaint is that this is the one (massive in my view) lapse in his otherwise helpful way of disarming the mainstream narratives, subtly suggesting that there may be other ways of looking at the facts, questioning assumptions, offering alternatives. Instead, Keller presents various ways of understanding science and Scripture on a spectrum running from complete antagonism (on either end of the spectrum: atheistic evolution vs. literal six day fundy-creationism) with several variations of compromise in the middle where the scientists and Christians respect one another, learn from one another, and seek to account for all the data faithfully. And Keller argues for one of those middle ways, while noting that one’s precise understanding of Genesis 1 ought not be misconstrued as essential to the gospel.

Again, my beef isn’t in the first instance with Keller’s own personal view on the matter. I think he could hold his view and still have written a much better chapter. And my point is that instead of pointing out all the ways in which modern science has conditioned western culture to trust them, instead of pointing out all the ways in which modern science has nevertheless needed to radically revise their findings every few years — in other words, instead of doing what he does so well in every other chapter, graciously urging humility in the face of atheistic claims and suggesting reasons why the biblical account may be more trustworthy than it might initially seem to the unbeliever, he merely assumes that science is trustworthy, truthful, and that we are largely unaffected by any other cultural forces in this realm. For someone of Keller’s stature and intelligence, I find that oversight quite unfortunate.

It’s unfortunate for several reasons: First, he doesn’t acknowledge any of the scientific or theological challenges that underpin any of the views. While in many other areas, Keller’s main gift is to ask questions and point things out that get people to think, in this one area, he doesn’t really do that. His primary aim seems to be just to get people to think their assumptions might be compatible with the Bible. Again, the striking thing is that he does that almost nowhere else in the book. But what about death before the Fall? Is Keller suggesting that God used “survival of the fittest” in speciation? Does that mean that God used self-centeredness to bring about life for billions of years and then at some point decided to make selflessness the way of life? Is it important that Adam was a true, historical man? Why or why not? Second, why not raise the most prominent criticisms of evolution? Michael Denton said there were many unanswered questions about Darwin’s theory back in the mid 1980s. Likewise, Michael Behe has done ground breaking work on what he calls irreducible complexity. These guys are not fundamentalist creationists. Or what about all the other work being done in the Intelligent Design movement? Those folks represent a very broad spectrum of convictions which can hardly be considered “anti-science.” And what about all the really messed up Darwinian fundamentalism out there? You know, the professors getting denied tenure for asking questions about some evidence or claim that might, sort of, kind of, if you squint and stand on one foot, sound like it *might* give creationism the time of day? Can you smell the cultural elitism, the cultural snobbery, the modern secular culturalism at play out there? The whole climate-change circus would be another example of this kind of thing where honesty about the actual data and about the cultural, political, and fiscal factors at work — is very illuminating. Finally, there are good, hard questions that current scientific evidence does pose to the six day, young earth position. These questions can and should be posed for thoughtful interaction. Has the Church ever wrestled with difficult scientific matters and slowly come to a better understanding of the Scriptural text and/or the scientific data (or both?). Yes, it has.

But the record is pretty stunning. The record demonstrates that we are ants marching around on a six foot patch of Mt. Everest holding forth on what we hardly know what. What? We used to think the solar system spun around the earth? We used to bleed people to heal their sickness? What else? A bit more humility please. Just cause you got billions of dollars doesn’t mean you’re right. Of course, we should not pass this moment up without pointing out that this scientific industrial complex is one of the great pantheons of our day. And so it does take gutsy people to walk up to that Dagon in the middle of the shrines and blow raspberries in his face. But it must be done, my friends, it must be done.

There’s a famous quotation, often (apparently erroneously) attributed to Luther:

If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.

The point is a true one, and at least reminiscent of the sorts of things Luther said, and regardless, it applies here. Given the way secular science has been one of the most central battering rams (however misapplied) against the faith of Christians in the last century, this is “that little point” where the battle rages and where we need full throated, winsome, and deft dismantling of all the false assumptions that go into appeals to “science.” And thus, despite all the ways The Reason for God really is helpful for defending the faith, this particular swing and a miss, should register as significant and concerning. To rephrase the quotation, if we fight humanism at every point but allow it through the door where it has done the greatest harm, all the rest of the apologetic jujitsu appears to be shadowboxing and that breeds some of the worst varieties of pharisaism.

Identity Politics & Christ

One of the phrases we’ve heard more and more in recent years is the phrase “identity politics.” This is shorthand for the kind of public dialogue and policy positions that emerge based on the interests or perspectives of various social groups that people identify with, whether by class or race or gender or ethnicity or any other number of concerns. At best, the idea is that those with similar concerns can band together to form coalitions that are able to speak together with more authority and influence the public square. But the radical claim of the Christian faith is that none of those identities are sufficient to care for needs of the human race. All of those identities will ultimately fail you. At worst, those identities will always ultimately come into conflict with one another. Not one of those identities is deep enough or broad enough to look out for them all. The radical claim of the Christian faith however is that in Jesus Christ there is room for every human care or concern. Every hurt, every pain, every loss, in every way that any member of the human race has felt lost, disenfranchised, sidelined, discriminated against, mistreated – in every way Christ has come to be the advocate of all. But He does not merely rubber stamp all our special interests and preferred identities, that would be the horror of absolutizing all our animosities. Perhaps that’s why God refused to let Adam and Eve back into the garden lest they eat of the Tree of Life and live forever in their sin. No, Christ welcomes all and promises to change all. Christ welcomes all, but He insists that all must die in Him. You must die to all of your other identities. You must die to your identity as a man, as a woman, as a heterosexual, as a conservative, as a minority, as a member of race or ethnicity. All of those identities must die, and you must live to Christ. That is what this table means week after week. This is Christ the Lord, Christ our Master, offering you His life, His identity, but comes through embracing His death, eating His death, sharing His death with one another, and this is so we all can die to ourselves, so that we might live together with all men in Him.

New York vs. Mount Zion

The Book of Revelation is a behind the scenes look at what happens in worship. The Bible teaches that all true worship happens in heaven. We have been raised into the heavenly places in Christ Jesus by the Spirit, and when we gather together, when we say Lift up your hearts/we lift them up to the Lord, we are being called up into heaven by the power of the Spirit. Hebrews says: “you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the Living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant…” (Heb. 12:22-24) The Book of Revelation is basically a record of Jesus opening the curtain for John to see what’s happening when Christian Churches gather for worship on the Lord’s Day. What he sees is that when God’s people sing and pray and proclaim His word and feast, it has a direct impact on the world. Cups of wrath are poured out, signs appear in heaven, trumpets are blown, and the nations are gathered and scattered. In other words, Christian Worship is the most important way Christians engage culture. This is because heaven is the place that more powerfully engages the world than any other place on the planet. LA, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo may be powerful and influential places, but none of them compare to Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. In the heavenly Jerusalem, we have direct access to the Living God who rules over every nation, who turns the hearts of kings like rivers of water, and who stoops to care for the smallest sparrows.

So what are we doing here this morning? We are gathered here to change the world. We are gathered here expecting God to receive our worship and judge the world. We are gathered here in the headquarters of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This is His palace, His courtroom, His situation room where He takes counsel with His people. There are many concerns on our hearts, many challenges we face, and many things that need addressing in our world. We come as members of Christ’s cabinet. We come to lay these before Him, and ask Him to pour out His Spirit on us and the whole world. And you need to know and believe with all your heart that you’ve come to the right place.

Dressed for Action

Luke XLVI: Lk. 12:35-59

Introduction

Over the last few weeks, the world has witnessed a particularly spectacular American presidential election and aftermath – spectacular for its multiple layers of surprise. But perhaps the greatest surprise has been the sheer distance revealed between the various factions in America, the revelation of just how deep and wide the divisions are in America. While Jesus is speaking to first century Jews in Luke 12, His words are still for us and for our world: His people are called to be on high alert.

Lights On

Given the context, the command to gird up your loins (“stay dressed for action”) and to keep your “lights burning” (Lk. 12:35) is a way of summarizing all the previous exhortations, which have largely had to do with valuing God and His Kingdom over the opinions of man and material possessions or wealth. Being ready for the Lord is living day by day in light of the fact that God is real, that He sees all things, knows all things, and cares for you and has come and will come again for you (Lk. 12:36). Those servants who “watch” and “wait” for the lord keep their “lights burning” – that is, they continually cling to the light of God’s word on their lives and trust it to see the world around them (Ps. 119:105). They prize the Word of God and His Wisdom as silver and gold (Ps. 119:127), and nothing they desire compares with it (Prov. 3:13-18). This relates back to “ask, seek, knock” (Lk. 11:9-10), the gift of the Spirit (Lk. 11:13), and the gift of the Kingdom (Lk. 12:32). What do you need above all else?

Surprise Party

Jesus says that the lord in the parable will gird himself and invite the servants to a meal and serve them – even if it’s in the middle of the night (Lk. 12:37-38). This is exactly what Jesus is preparing to do in Jerusalem: He will gird Himself and wash the disciples feet (Jn. 13:4ff) and serve the Last Supper, and finally give His body and blood for the life of the world, for our feast. But that will take wisdom to see and understand. It will look to many like just another petty failed Jewish-resistance movement. It will look scandalous and foolish (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23), which is why the disciples must be vigilant, keeping watch, seeking the Kingdom, finding their meaning, their treasure, their hope in the Kingdom of God. This is still the task of Christian disciples today.

Faithful & Unfaithful

Jesus shifts the image to a master protecting his home from a thief, and He says that the Son of Man will come at an unexpected hour (Lk. 12:39-40). Peter asks who the parable is aimed at, and Jesus says that those the master leaves in charge of the household, (which would seem to be the apostles, Lk. 12:41-42) who are faithful and wise are the ones who faithfully feed the servants (Lk. 12:42-43). Again, this seems to be parallel to what He will tell the disciples during the Passover: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet…” (Jn. 13:14) He will make those stewards rulers like Pharaoh set Joseph over all of his house (Lk. 12:44, cf. Gen. 41:40). This is the second time in this chapter Jesus has told a story about someone talking to himself (cf. Lk. 12:19), which underlines the self-centeredness of his treatment of the other servants (Lk. 12:45). Self-centeredness is always unprepared for others (Lk. 12:46). The master will do unto that unfaithful servant what he did to others, according to their knowledge (Lk. 12:46-48).

Deep Divisions

This “coming” of Jesus should be understood broadly as the Kingdom of God coming (Lk. 11:2), beginning with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, continuing with the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost, the entire history of the Church, and the final physical return of Jesus. This is the “fire” that Jesus came to cast on the earth (Lk. 12:49). Jesus says that He has a baptism to be baptized with and that He is in great distress until it is accomplished (Lk. 12:50). And then Jesus immediately explains that this fire/baptism is directly connected to the “division” He has come to bring on earth (Lk. 12:51-52). This ultimately goes back to when Adam and Eve were driven out the garden after their sin and God placed the cherubim at the entrance with a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). The sacrifices, especially the ascension offering/”burnt offering”, pictured this reality: only by passing through the flaming sword of God’s judgment against sin could people re-enter the presence of God. This is why the wisdom of the Spirit and His Word is needed. Once again, the way of Jesus seems counterintuitive.

A Time for Reconciliation

But Jesus says that this counterintuitive path is not impossible to perceive. He says that the fact that the Jews can perceive the weather and cannot perceive the time is a deep hypocrisy – remember the leaven of the Pharisees (Lk. 12:54-56, cf. 12:1). It’s striking that it is in this context that Jesus urges His disciples to settle with their accuser before the judgment, lest they land in prison to pay the very last penny (Lk. 12:57-59). Taking this all together, it seems likely that the immediate application goes back to His command to be ready for action, to keep their lights burning. In other words, in Jesus, the Kingdom of God has arrived and is arriving, and if they discern the time rightly, they should recognize that God has come and is coming, and nothing that is covered up will not be revealed, nothing hidden will not be known (cf. Lk. 12:2). Those who understand the time rightly ought to be keeping their master’s house diligently, caring for their fellow servants and settling all debts as quickly as possible. If Jesus opens the way of the Kingdom through His death and resurrection and the Jews reject it, they will be the ones who owe a great debt that they will never be able to pay (Rom. 6:23).

Conclusion & Applications

Perhaps the most pressing question is: how can we tell the difference between god-honoring divisions and hypocritical antagonism? How can we be faithful managers and servants, ready for our Master at all times? The fundamental division is over whether there even is a Master. We must not apologize for that, but we proclaim our Master as the only way of peace for our nation and the world.

Children of the Light

NSA Morning Prayer

Jer. 16:14-21, 1 Thess. 5:1-11

One of the most important lessons from Genesis to Revelation is that you can’t hide from God. He sees all things and knows all things: “Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks. For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes” (Jer. 16:17). This is why people hide or try to hide: they know they have sinned, failed, and they haven’t lived up to the glory they were created for. All have fallen short of the glory of God. But this is what it means to live as children of the light and children of the day. We live with the knowledge that everything is open and known to the Lord. But what we also know is that God has not appointed us to wrath but to salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us. He is our light. In Him, everything is light to us, everything is day. It’s no accident that cultures that turn away from God are filled with drunkenness and drug abuse. That’s just another way of hiding from reality and hiding from God. But we are sober and alert because we are children of the day, children committed to embracing the day of the Lord, God with us. This is not only a comfort in our sorrows and failures, but it is also motivation for working hard every day, building one another up in the Lord. Light is not only a great comfort; light is what enables us to work, build, creative, explore, serve. The Lord is coming, and we want to do everything we can to get the world ready for Him.

Monday Twitter Sermon: Hate & Love

Yesterday I let myself go on a short tweeting spree. The follow is my Monday Twitter Sermon, or an essay in tweets. There were a few questions following on the first tweet (which was the only to post on FB), and perhaps the following thoughts fill out or answer any questions you might have had:

 

Abortion & sodomy are the two biggest hate crimes in America. If we do not stand against hatred there, our other stands are hypocrisy.

“Biggest” because they are so adamantly legislated, sanctioned, and blessed by American law & because they are so clear.

It’s easy to stand against racism/bigotry when all the educated classes *know* that’s evil/wicked, but everything hinges on why?

If it isn’t rooted in the Fear of the Lord, submission to God’s Word, then we’re at the mercy/tyranny of man and his/her feelings

These 2 forms of hatred, directly assault the image of God. One destroys it instantaneously, the other insidiously beats it down.

Any stand against racism/bigotry without resisting abortion/sodomy is like defending Mahler/Debussy while trashing Bach/Mozart.

I don’t think most evangelicals see the play being run on them re: racism. Progressives don’t care that you have *other* views…

They’ll happily co-opt your *feelings* and when your *feelings* don’t fit their agenda, you’ll get tossed like yesterday’s salad

But the Fear of the Lord isn’t about our feelings, it’s about God’s Word, His holiness & what He says makes for human flourishing

But we have a bad habit of trying to help God, of trying to improve on His Word, but this is high-handed arrogance & insolence

Repentance can never be halfway. All human hatred is rooted in hatred of God. Halfway repentance still despises God & His Word.

Therefore halfway repentance, e.g. fighting racism while giving sodomy/abortion a pass, is still full of hatred & therefore fails

But let it be clear: we desperately need a generation of Christians who will stand against all hate as defined by the Word of God

The heart of *that* repentance will be found in the admission that we have all hated the God of Heaven & therefore one another.

In *this* is love, not that we loved Him (we were enemies), but that He loved us and gave Himself as a propitiation for our sins

To stand against this modern hypocrisy, God’s people will endure similar rejection. But gracious firm resistance is true love

Kids gotta go to school. Monday morning sermon // off. Lord, have mercy on us and save us.

Beautiful Kingdom

Luke XLV: Lk. 12:13-34

Introduction

Sin is not merely immoral. Sin is always a choice to embrace futility. But Jesus has come to interrupt this futility, and restore true, full, beautiful life in His Kingdom.

Beware of Covetousness

A man asks Jesus to decide a dispute over an inheritance, but He asks, “who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” In other words, what does Jesus have to do with us? What does Jesus have to do with history or politics or economics or art? What does Jesus have to do with my life? Which is why Jesus immediately warns the man against covetousness. “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness” (Lk. 12:15). What is covetousness? Covetousness is fundamentally a fear of not succeeding in life, not living life to the fullest. Covetousness is the belief that if we just have X, then our life will be full, complete, safe, happy. Maybe it’s the respect or the acceptance or friendship of other people. Maybe it’s money, cars, houses, possessions, a particular job, a particular salary, a spouse, sexual fulfillment, children. Covetousness says, If I could just have ____ , then I would be safe, complete, happy, fulfilled. But what Jesus says here parallels what he just finished saying about the leaven of the Pharisees: Beware (Lk. 12:15). The reason Jesus gives is that life doesn’t consist in the abundance of things (Lk. 12:15). Covetousness says that life would be complete with some thing, person, status, etc. but Jesus: you don’t understand what life is. You don’t have a correct understanding of what life consists of. And Jesus tells a story to illustrate His point: A rich man finds himself embracing a very successful year (Lk. 12:16). The problem is: where will he store all the harvest? He says to himself: I will build bigger barns (Lk. 12:17-18). And the key moment in the story is the next line: The man imagines speaking to himself at that point with the newly rebuilt barns full: “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry” (Lk. 12:19). That is covetousness in action. It is imagining that your life will be safe and full and complete with the arrival of some thing.

Rich Toward God

God calls the man a “fool” – the same as Jesus called the Pharisees (Lk. 11:40, cf. 11:49). Jesus has just warned His disciples not to fear those who can only kill the body (people); fear rather the One who can also cast into Hell (Lk. 12:5). In this story, the man’s ultimate fate is left open ended, but the point is that fearing only material or physical dangers is foolish. All that stuff in the barn can’t prevent the guy from dying, and then whose will those things be (Lk. 12:20)? The antidote to this kind of folly is not asceticism, it’s not the renunciation of everything, but rather the answer is to be rich toward God instead of storing up treasure for yourself (Lk. 12:21). How do you do that? How can you be rich toward God?

The Fullness of Life

Jesus says in order to live well there are certain things in life you shouldn’t give much thought to, like what you will eat, or what you will wear (Lk. 12:22). Why? Because life is more than food and clothing (Lk. 12:23). Notice, that He doesn’t say it is less than food and clothing. He says it’s more. Think back to the way Jesus denounced the Pharisees for their “bad eyes” – remember, they can’t see clearly so they make bad judgments (Lk. 11:34-36). In the Bible, bad eyes are frequently connected to greed and covetousness (e.g. Mt. 6:22-24). Bad eyes make you think that food and clothing are the most important elements of your life. But Jesus says that food and clothing actually come rather naturally. Take the ravens for example: they don’t have fancy farming methods; they don’t build big barns; and God provides for them (Lk. 12:24). Notice that ravens do go out looking for food. God’s provision doesn’t come magically, but God’s provision does come through fairly simple, natural means. The same thing goes for growing taller (Lk. 12:25). You can’t force it, but it happens as you eat healthy and sleep at night. Jesus reasons that if you can’t make yourself grow taller, why would you think that food and clothing is all up to you (Lk. 12:26)? Jesus gives another analogy: consider the lilies (Lk. 12:27). They’re a lot more glorious than Solomon ever was, not because they take extra care for themselves but because God clothes them. God loves beauty, and Jesus says that He loves to beautify His people, even those of very little faith (Lk. 12:28).

Conclusions & Applications

The whole point of this passage is that human beings have a tendency to aim terribly low. To think that if we just had that one other thing then our life would be complete is a ridiculous folly because it sells life so short. Compared to the glory of God, the Kingdom of God coming in this world in history, everything else is pocket change. Covetousness is lowballing God, the universe, the gospel, and yourself. Covetousness is obsessing over pennies and nickels and maybe some really shiny quarters, when your Father in Heaven is the author and possessor of all the wealth in the universe.

This is why Jesus says not to worry about what you will eat or drink (Lk. 12:29). The nations of the world have to stress about those things because they don’t know your Father. But your Father knows that you need all these things, and He’s already made arrangements for all of them (Lk. 12:30). Rather than bothering with those little, petty details, He wants you to be concerned with the Kingdom of God (Lk. 12:31). Are you focused on the mission of God, the Kingdom of God? Are you seeking His Kingdom first? Or are you preoccupied with these other things?

What does that mean? It means that your goal is to see every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Your goal is to see every human being, every man, woman, and child made in the image of God living up to their full potential in Christ. Covetousness always collapses into a materialistic worldview because it says that life consists of things. But Jesus says this is foolish. And He says that this folly is rooted in fear. Jesus says, “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom” (Lk. 12:32). That’s good news. And the good news of that Kingdom is found in Jesus. It’s the Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom because Jesus is His Son in whom He is well pleased. Jesus is the treasure of the Kingdom. And he who has the Son has the Life. This translates into radical generosity, “moneybags that do not grow old,” (Lk. 12:33) and the kind resources to build cultures of beauty.

Dealing that Hoe Money: Thoughts on the Election & its Aftermath

A few of my own thoughts on the results of the election:

1. I remember when men I trusted and respected said Obama would never win. I was confused by their confidence. I remember watching Obama’s speech right after the news had broken about his former pastor’s inflammatory sermons. I remember because I watched him deliver that eloquent, soaring address from a hospital room in South Carolina. I told my wife then that I didn’t think there was any way he could lose. Then he won, twice. I still trust and respect those men, but it was one of the first times I noticed how sometimes it’s hard for even really good, well-meaning people to see what other people see or hear what other people hear. Michael Moore and about a dozen other people in the universe saw what most folks couldn’t see or fathom leading up to this election: Trump will win. But that blindness and deafness doesn’t just vanish the day after the polls close. No, it is still plaguing our nation.

2. At some point over the last couple of days, Peter Thiel made the sharp observation that “Media took Trump literally, but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously, not literally.” And the point could easily be applied more broadly than just the media: most everyone who hates, fears, and opposes Trump takes Trump literally but not seriously. Or, given the riots, the tears, the outrage at the result of the election, perhaps we ought to say that they are now beginning to take their literal interpretation of Trump very seriously. There’s a thin line separating the hilarity of a joke and the horror of a nightmare. But there’s something important to catch in the second half of Thiel’s point: Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not literally. I believe this is massively important. The hysterical claims that Trump stands for racism, hatred, xenophobia and so on (despite the occasional supporter who really would claim one of those titles proudly), quite simply misses the entire point of Trump. The best example I can think of is my own grandpa, whom I love, admire, and deeply respect. But he never finished junior high, served in the Marines as a teenager, and worked on oil rigs for most of his life. He’s what you’d call rough around the edges on many counts, but he has a heart of gold. Now if you wrote everything down he said and published it on the internet, he’d easily garner many of the same accusations as Trump and his supporters. And not that my grandpa doesn’t need any polishing or refining, but I would adamantly oppose anyone who said he was full of hate or bigotry. A bit crass? Sure. Overly blunt? Yep. Give a damn what people think of him? Not so much. But full of hate? Absolutely not. But the only way you’d know that is if you took him seriously and not literally. And let me be clear, I’m not arguing that Trump has a heart of gold. My point is about interpretation and communication.

3. But if we’re honest, every one of us hopes to be interpreted in the most charitable light. No one wants to be taken literally at every moment and evaluated in a wooden, sterile sense. We want to be interpreted in context. As others pointed out when that revolting recording of Trump surfaced, it’s hard to take all the shock and alarm seriously when the Left cozies up to artists like Jay-Z, of whom I’m only vaguely familiar, but within five minutes of googling found this gem of a song called “Cashmere Thoughts” featuring the following lyrics:

Hah man, you know man, I’m just dealing that hoe money

You know hoe money is slow money but it’s sho’ money

Check this out man, when you run up on your bitch

this this is what you tell her

Stick they hands in they panties, grab that knot

Stick they arm in the car window, drop it like it’s hot

Uhh, I talk jewels and spit diamonds, all cherry

like a hymen, when I’m rhymin with remarkable timin’

Caviar and silk dreams, my voice is linen

Spitten venom up in the minds of young women…

And it goes on if you really want to read the rest… So anybody want to talk about Jay-Z? Should we take Jay-Z literally? Should we take Jay-Z seriously? Why is there no scandal in the media about this song? Why was there no scandal when he performed a benefit concert for Hillary? Because we manifestly do not take Jay-Z seriously or literally. And then we are shocked and dismayed when many of his fans actually do. What? He’s an artist? Ok, so why don’t the graffiti artists tagging cars and buildings with racist and Nazi symbols (allegedly in celebration of Trump’s victory) get a pass? Where is the parallel fear and terror over Jay-Z and the many others who make countless millions off of their misogynist, sexist, abusive language every year? Where are the Facebook posts hyperventilating about Jay-Z’s new album? It’s different? How so? How exactly so? Is it a race thing? I don’t think anyone wants to go there. Then that leaves some kind of cultural thing. And we come back to my point: people want the right to put a context around what they say and do. They don’t want to be taken literally, but they do want to be taken seriously. They want to be interpreted in the best light of their cultural context. That doesn’t exonerate Jay-Z or Trump in the slightest, but one of those men has apologized for what he said one time. While the other continues ‘dealing that hoe money’ unabashed.

4. Despite the fact that the polls have made it absolutely, crystal clear that the reason Trump won is because Hillary didn’t get the votes that previous Democrats got, many liberals are blaming “white America” or “racist America” for Trump’s victory. But truth be told, in those key rust-belt swing states where Trump won, the data shows that those same counties voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Racist? Hardly. In fact, Trump received less of the white vote than Romney and more Black and Hispanic votes. Overall, Trump received a million or so less votes than Romney, and Hillary received 6 some odd million votes less than Obama. That’s the facts, ma’am. But there is an important lesson here: there is a lower, working class segment of the population that wants to be taken seriously not literally. Just like everyone else. The Christian Church needs to come to grips with that and stop shuddering in horror at their neighbors in rural, middle America, as does anyone else who cares about civility and community at any level. Knee-jerk, hyperventilating horror at the fact that someone could possibly cast a vote for Trump is just as xenophobic and racist (or classist) as anything Trump or his supporters have said. Pot meet kettle. And I’m pretty sure that is the precise object of the Trump movement hatred. They hate the hypocrisy, the elitism, the fact that Jay-Z gets a pass, Hillary gets a pass, while the establishment patronizes and sneers at their brokenness, blaming them and their guns and Nascar and trailer parks for societal ills. They hate that inconsistency, that blindness. And now with protestors in major city streets holding signs that say “Assassinate Trump” and “F— Trump,” exactly who are the ones full of hatred and bigotry? It turns out that it’s a lot more respectable for Jay-Z or Lil’ Kim to brag about grabbing people and violating them than it is for a hillbilly or a redneck to say the same thing. Why the double standard?

5. All of that stands, and yet we can be under no illusions that a civil conversation will solve these problems. There is a growing spider web of fissures in America. As Charles Murray put it: America is Coming Apart. There are cultural, socio-economic, ethnic, racial, religious, and deep moral divides tearing families, communities, states, and the entire nation apart. It’s deeply terrifying and maddening. And the way division works is it plays off of our fears and pain and disappointment. Like a marriage disintegrating, everything becomes loaded and flammable. Everything is escalated. Everything is scrutinized, judged, damned, and weaponized. That look. That word. That tone of voice. That facial expression. Real hurts, real sins, real betrayals turn normal human beings into panicked, suspicious conspiracists. Because they are afraid of being hurt more. But the deep irony of course is that these instinctive defense mechanisms often serve only to escalate and compound the damage. Now in addition to real hurts, real offenses, comparatively minuscule offenses are turned into monstrous acts and often even imaginary offenses multiply exponentially. And follows bitterness, resentment, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, hysterias, manias, depression, self-harm, substance abuse, and a general dissolution of life. America is on this bender, careening between outrages, hysterias, protests, mobs, shootings, and it’s escalating every minute. And my entire point is that you cannot step into the middle of a melt down like this and explain calmly to someone on Facebook or Twitter that they really need to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. That seems insanely insensitive. It seems like you’re siding with their oppressor, their abusers. Everyone’s pointing fingers, blaming others. Talk about triggers. You might as well be walking out into the middle of the Colleseum trying to broker a peace treaty with hungry lions. In other words, there is no human solution to this problem. There is no roundtable discussion to be had when trust has broken down to this point. We’ve been reduced to obscenities and vitriol. All we see is red.

6. I’m a pretty optimistic person for the most part. I think well of people in general, and I’m a natural peacemaker. But to be honest, the current cultural moment is chilling. Not because Trump got elected. Not because a bunch of people are disappointed that Hillary lost. No, it’s chilling because the dissension and distrust seem so entrenched. The fear and the fury seem so visceral, so reactionary and binary, so mad and beastial. Maybe all the newly legalized marijuana will lull the masses into the stupor their overlords hope for them, but I’m honestly not sure the stereotypes are as pleasantly passive as they are advertised. More than one shooter in the last few years had pot in their system while on their rampage. There’s no telling what we’re actually unleashing on our populace. We already have hatred, malice, mistrust, fear, and growing hysteria, what could go wrong if we blunted our inhibitions?

But there is good news. It’s the good news that really only makes sense after the bad news, the horrific, maddening news. This chaos and breakdown of trust and community is a direct result of sin. Sin creates this fear, resentment, hatred, racism, injustice. Ultimately, our only options for dealing with this sin are justice or mercy. Justice is the way of judgment the way of unraveling chaos, the way of civil war, a blood bath, death and suffering for our hypocrisy and mutual hatred. Vengeance and retaliation always feels good but never actually works. The wrath of man never accomplishes real justice. It always ends in terrorism and more abuse. But the way of mercy is the way of the cross. Which means it isn’t the easy way, and that’s because it isn’t the way of pretending away our sin and evil. The way of the cross looks evil in the face without flinching. The way of the cross centers on a good man beaten to a bloody pulp. The way of the cross is justice through the injustice of one mob two thousand years ago. The good news of the gospel is that when Jesus was nailed to that Roman cross all of our evil, all of our injustice, all of the divisions of humanity, all of our hurts, pains, betrayals, and disappointments were taken by Jesus, the Lamb of God. Out of His great love for the world, God allowed the depths of our depravity, our sins, our filth to crush the only innocent man to ever live, the perfect Son of God.

The fact is that people accuse Christians of believing in a Genie, a Fairy Godmother, a Santa Claus in the sky that renders this world meaningless and worthless. And to be fair, many modern Christians live in a way that seems to confirm that suspicion. But in actual fact, the gospel that Paul and Peter and the other apostles proclaimed and sealed with their own blood was a gospel for the world. It was and remains a gospel for nations, for divided nations, for war torn nations. It is good news for broken treaties, for broken marriages, for broken trust, for broken hearts. Sure, you can keep trying to convince yourself that the human spirit will pull through, that some goodness will break out of our dark hearts. But who’s the one who believes in genies now? Christians believe that evil must be dealt with, and that is why the center of our hope is a bloody cross where God dealt out an absolutely perfect justice for every damn thing, so that we might actually receive mercy.

This is why when Jesus was raised from the dead, He could say with all confidence: Behold, I make all things new. This is the only basis for reconciliation of any sort. You can cry, you can march, you can sign petitions, you can run for office, and keep running in that humanistic hamster wheel you’ve been sweating in or you can actually face evil head on without flinching in the cross of Jesus. The cross is the only way to actually not be partisan while not checking out of the culture. And that’s because the cross starts by confronting everyone of us with our own evil, our own sin, our own guilt, our own hatred, our own bigotry, our own lies. And precisely because it deals with us honestly, we can deal honestly, evenhandedly, justly with others. The cross frees us to love fearlessly, to forgive generously, to truly hope for something better.

A Note on the Election

I wrote the following to my congregation today, and I share it here with the hope and prayer that it is an encouragement to all the saints to think, pray, and act faithfully in these days.

Dear Trinity Saints,

I’ve been enjoying a vacation at home this week with my family, and it’s been particularly rewarding to get to witness the end of a very exciting World Series in baseball as well as to celebrate my 36th birthday. What a treat! Thanks to every one of you for your words of encouragement, prayers, and for all that you do to make Trinity Reformed Church such a vibrant place of God’s love.

I wanted to write you a brief note on the election coming up this next Tuesday. With all the media buzz and television ads and general noise, it’s pretty tempting to just plug your ears and become apathetic or else completely despair. And there really is so much that might tempt us to despair. We are a wicked nation and our leaders are wicked and foolish and full of greed and lies and bloodshed. The Bible clearly teaches that when this happens a nation is under judgment. America is under the judgment of God, and this is why it feels so confusing, so out of control. That’s because it is, and a central part of being under the judgment of God is being given over to the chaos and confusion that sin is. When people turn away from the living God and against His Christ, they are always turning toward chaos and confusion. And so here we are. It can certainly feel like we are a tiny candle standing on the coast of Florida with a hurricane coming up out of the Caribbean.

But there are at least two points of hope for us in this moment: First, in actual fact, we always stand on the brink at the mercy of God. Every moment of our lives, every single moment of human history is all upheld by the word of God’s power. Every heart beat, every breath is a gift from Him. It’s all held together by Jesus Christ. It’s at moments like these that God gives anyone with eyes to see a glimpse of that reality. Even when the sun is shining and everything seems right in the world, it’s Christ holding all of it together. We are always completely at His mercy. So while this historical moment is a gut-wrenching moment, Christ holds this moment in His sovereignty and not one hair, not one sparrow, not one vote is outside of His perfect loving care.

Second, the judgment of God is always an invitation to turn to Him. When Jonah announced the coming judgment on Nineveh, the entire city turned to God in repentance. God may spare our nation or He may not, but let this moment drive you to repentance. Confess your sins, forgive one another, harbor no bitterness, no secret sins, be right with God and everyone around you. The courage you need to walk through these times faithfully is only found in hiding yourself in Christ. And hiding yourself in Christ begins with clinging to His cross. If we want to be salt and light, we must lead the way by confessing our sins so that we can confess Christ. If we want our nation to repent, we need to show them how.

And lastly, I want to urge you to actually make a point to vote. I’m not saying that you must vote for the president. I leave that to your conscience before God. Seems to me that on that score you have the option of abstaining, voting for a third party, or humbly asking God for one of the judgments instead of the other (i.e. one of the leading candidates). As it stands, Trump will no doubt win the electoral votes from Idaho, so I would suggest that you consider one of the first two options as more strategic. But far more importantly, I want to urge you to do some research and make a point to vote for the state and local elections. One of the plays being run on Christians in this nation is getting us so wound up and distracted by national politics that we don’t give any thought or consideration to what is happening in our home state and county. But that is precisely where we can have a much greater voice and impact. And it’s where we can love our neighbors far more concretely. So get out and love your neighbors and vote for the local and state elections.

For those of you who are tempted to not vote because of the lines and general mayhem of next Tuesday, you can actually vote early today at the courthouse until 5pm.

And lastly, let me just urge you to be in prayer for our nation. I know we often say that we need to pray for our nation, but let’s make the next few days a moment where we really do ask God to have mercy on us, to forgive us, and give us true repentance.

Much Love and Blessings to you all,

Toby

Against Anatomical Soup or a Few Thoughts on the End of Protestantism

Peter Leithart, my friend and mentor, has a new book out currently making a splash in the theological world: The End of Protestantism. As the author of other titles like Against Christianity, it comes as no surprise that Peter would aim to provoke discussion with another provocative title. If I’m ever a bit rambunctious in my rhetoric, I hope you’ll blame Peter just a bit for it. At the same time, my favorite all time book of Peter’s is A House for My Name. If you haven’t read it, I urge you to get it and start reading it immediately. It’s such a deceptively simple book, but it’s actually the sort of bracing gallop through the Old Testament that will leave you winded and happy. In fact, if you don’t have a copy stop reading this blog post and get thee hence to Amazon forthwith. Along those lines, I would commend to you any of his other biblical commentaries in particular: A Son To Me, Kings, The Four, From Silence to Song, and I wait eagerly for his forthcoming commentary on Revelation which he started when he was still here in Moscow. I’ve said a number of times over the last few years as Peter moved on to Theopolis Institute and folks have asked about the transition that the way I read the Bible has been so dramatically effected by Peter, I can’t do otherwise. My exegetical instincts have been thoroughly programed by sitting for hours upon hours with Peter teasing out various biblical texts. I’m forever ruined (in the best possible way).

Anyway, it’s been a little while since I’ve read a full book by Peter, and I’m just a little ways into EOP, but I figured I’d throw a few thoughts out now and maybe as I finish it up, I’ll have followup thoughts and additional musings.

First, while Peter has only hinted at this reality thus far in this book, one of the themes that I know is coming which he taught me over the years is the simple realization that apart from some kind of objective, historical severing — Jesus removing the lamp stand from a particular church, our assumption ought to be that the problems in any of the Christian Churches are problems in our church. In other words, if there are churches contemplating (or practicing) the ordination of women, that is happening in our church. If there are churches bowing down and praying to idols, that is happening in our church. This is because there is only One Church, One Body. If one part of the body is full of cancer, we all suffer with that malady. If one part of the body is bleeding, we all suffer. This is perhaps the greatest, strongest point for me in Peter’s ecumenical project. I have questions and concerns about how he states things and what he means at various points, but I think this is actually near the center of Peter’s heart on these matters and on this point I see no way around Paul’s words. And that hard work of loving the brothers should be carried out on the streets and in the neighborhoods of our hometowns. This is worth praying for, fighting for, working for because the Spirit really does use other believers to sharpen us, refine us, etc. It is not good for man to be alone. I might have wished Peter’s title had been Against Denominations or The End of Denominationalism but it doesn’t roll off the tongue quite so nicely nor is it quite so broad in scope nor so provocative. Nevertheless, to the extent that denominations are a cover for not caring about the true state of the catholic church, of ignoring those Christians in their needs and errors (or even in their successes and joys) who worship and believe differently than us down our street or across the seas, certainly that element in us needs to die and rise again as some kind of far more sanctified and glorified loyalty to our tribes.
One initial thought I’ve had while reading isn’t necessarily a response to anything in particular in EOP but just a thought that occurred to me and that is that one way of describing Protestantism actually is precisely as a search for unity, true unity in the one Christ. This is perhaps alluded to in Peter’s fascinating overview of Yaego’s work on Luther — who argues that Luther’s early crisis was actually far more ecclesiological than soteriological — or at least those two things ought not be understood as separated in Luther’s quest. And thus, the “war against the idols” was actually far more of a catholic and ecumenical move than it is often given credit for. Idolatry was the root cause of the splintering and fracturing in the medieval catholic church, and what the Protestant Reformers were after was true catholicity and unity through a restoration of worship according to Scripture. Even in the last century, this can be seen in evangelicalism’s emphasis on true conversion. Despite all the caricatures, abuses, and ditches, that focus, aim, desire is arguably an ecclesiastical aim as much as a soteriological aim. If the Holy Spirit is the point of Christian unity then we must have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of us. How does one receive the Holy Spirit? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be born again. And to the credit of millions of evangelicals, this has been the central mantra: unless a man is born again he will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no unity in the Kingdom apart from true conversion.
Following on that thought and given that thought-provoking description of Luther’s ecclesiastical dilemma, I was particularly puzzled by identifying “confessionalism” as a boogyman of the Reformation. In the end, it seems that nationalism and perhaps some form of intellectualism are the actual targets of Peter’s criticism. But even these targets need quite a bit more developing. To be sure, an enormous shift clearly does take place from 1500-1700 politically and ecclesiastically — no one can deny that, but the causes, effects, and corollaries seem to require far more elucidation. As the old fallacy warning goes: correlation does not imply causation. And particularly given some of the really helpful connecting of dots between the soteriological, liturgical, and ecclesiastical concerns of the Protestants, I needed a lot more help connecting the dots that Peter wants to connect to the (apparently) ill-conceived confessional project. It would seem on the face of it that confessions of faith and catechisms would be thoroughly catholic activities, reminiscent of such catholic heroes as Athanasius and Gregory the Great and so on, and would be a direct implication of those soteriological, liturgical, and ecclesiastical concerns. In other words, if the foundation of Protestantism was so apparently ecclesiastically solid and ecumenically aimed, why would writing it down ruin it? I wonder too about the connection Peter briefly alludes to between confessionalism and the rise of nationalism. One question I have for him would have to do with how that read squares with some of his work on Constantine. Not a gotcha question at all, just an honest curiosity: as I squint across the centuries (and scan Peter’s work), one of the things I’ve learned from him is to embrace the messiness of the prophetic word to the political heads. Mightn’t confessionalism be seen as nothing short of the Church speaking to the public square? I certainly grant that one possible narrative worth exploring could trace the exorcism of medieval catholicism (via confessions) to the enthronement of the secular state (seven more demons in a house swept clean?) — but I don’t see how even that could get pinned on confessionalism per se. It seems rather that we ought to be looking at some other defect, misunderstanding, or fatal flaw in the 16th and 17th century air. And none of this precludes subsequent misuse of confessions, but that doesn’t seem to be what Peter actually says or means.
Perhaps this is what Doug Wilson was getting at in his recent blog post, but I need help distinguishing between Protestantism and Reformational Catholicism. Is this just a different name for what I already believe and practice? But then haven’t we just created a new name/denomination? When Peter describes Reformational Catholicism, most of what he describes is what I think of as Protestantism. Why would we want to end that? Maybe this is because Peter already ruined me! But having inherited the church that Peter planted, it will come as no surprise that we already practice many of the things Peter imagines Reformational Catholics would do. But in my (admittedly brief) experience I haven’t run into massive roadblocks in talking about these kinds of things to other pastors from other traditions. I guess what I mean is that I’m somewhat doubtful that Peter’s definition of Protestantism is as pervasive as he says it is. Is it really true that most Protestants define themselves largely in negative terms as what they are not? I supposed I could be convinced of this, and I certainly admit that it probably exists in some quarters of the Protestant world, but is the burgeoning Pentecostal south really all that concerned about not being Presbyterian or Lutheran or Catholic? I strongly doubt it. I think they are likely quite preoccupied with preaching the gospel and being filled with the Holy Spirit and fulfilling the Great Commission. Are gospel-minded non-denominational churches in the States really that concerned with their denomination? If you go to some big evangelical conference like ETS or Together for the Gospel, is there really that much denominational flag waving? In my interaction with local non-denominational pastors, I haven’t sensed that hardly at all. I sense good men who love Jesus who want to see the nations evangelized and are happy to work alongside other believers. Related, is it possible that some of what Peter is against was actually more of a particular American moment in the mid-20th century that has actually crumbled and largely faded as mainline denominations have lost their hold in America? Can’t remember where, but I distinctly remember reading about early 19th century American churches (Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians) frequently sharing pulpits, sponsoring evangelistic and missionary ventures jointly. Quite a bit more historical work needs to be done to convince me that sectarianism is that essential to the Protestant DNA.
When Peter describes the future Reformational Catholic Church, and specifically some of the ways the leaders of various traditions will be renewed/transformed by this resurrection into a new way of being Church, it struck me that many of those (happy) developments (who could complain about happy presbyterian pastors?!) would naturally depend upon those other parts of the Church being what they are. In other words, one of the big ways God challenges me to think and rethink the role of the Spirit in my life and the life of the Church is the presence of Pentecostals. And one of the ways God challenges me to think about and rethink the role of sacraments in my life and the life of the Church is through Lutherans and Orthodox, etc. In other words, I don’t see how that transformation can occur throughout the church without denominationalism persisting in some form — where pockets of the church emphasize the spiritual gifts, and others emphasize sacraments, and still others emphasize polity, and still others emphasize eschatology, etc. Granted, perhaps what Peter envisions makes those emphases more permeable, but that hardly rises in my mind to the end of Protestantism but is rather one of the glorious fruits of Protestantism that surely needs constant attention, pruning, and care. Related, and perhaps Peter will get to it later, but the Body of Christ passages in the NT describe very different parts of the body which need one another but which also don’t spend a lot of time rubbing shoulders directly. The eye and the hand need one another, and they should acknowledge that, but they don’t exactly sit around holding hands (they don’t have hands! — or is this taking the analogy too far?). But what I mean is that they help one another best and live out true unity by doing what they are called to do and therefore by being very different from one another while supplying what the other needs. In other words, there’s a certain specialization and division of labor in the Body of Christ. Even if denominationalism needs to die in some sense, I don’t see how it doesn’t persist in some of these other senses. There is a fleshly, prideful way of loving yourself and loving what you do. That’s bad and sinful, and to the extent that churches and groups of churches swagger around with that kind of pride, kill ’em dead. But there is another kind of grateful, Christian confidence that knows that God has given you particular gifts and invests them gladly. Presbyterians and Baptists and Lutherans surely all need sanctifying in that direction, and surely some of the old man still needs crucifying in that way, but if we are to avoid the uselessness and horror of uniformity and monotony, where all the parts of the body are blended into an anatomical soup (which I know Peter is not arguing for!) — then a glorious and biblical diversity of families and tribes and tongues surely must persist within the ecclesia and not merely out there in the world. And this, it seems to me is not at all the end of Protestantism but rather the glorification of Protestantism, the fulfillment of Protestantism. I want many of the same things that Peter wants, but as I look back over the last 500 years of Protestantism, I see a great beginning to that project of true, evangelical union in Christ. Why pull the plug now? We’re just getting started.

Much thanks to Peter for the thought-provoking book. Despite my questions and differences, I hope God uses it to stir up the church to think long and hard about what it means to be the Church, to break down sinful barriers and raise up and heal the Body of Christ in every part, till we all come to that complete man in Christ.