Justin Taylor's Blog, page 184

A Year of Ridiculous Biblical Interpretation

Rachel Held Evans’s new book, published today by Thomas Nelson, is entitled A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master.”

It has received a warm welcome from the mainstream media (including an appearance on “The Today Show” last week).

It has received predictable enthusiasm from usual suspects like Peter Enns and Roger Olson.

Evangelicals, like Trillia Newbell, have been less than impressed. “In this book Evans is trying to build a bridge, but I wonder if it is not rather a comfortable bridge for shaky evangelicals to find their way into theological liberalism.” Even one secular-postmodern-feminist writer saw through the gimmicky nature of the project and judged that the whole thing ended up making a “mockery” of the Bible.

Today at the Gospel Coalition, Kathy Keller, wife of Tim Keller and a contributor to his book The Meaning of Marriage, offers a serious review, which also serves as something of an open letter to Rachel. (She explains the reason for the personal address when she writes, “Rachel, I tried twice to get in touch with you when you were in New York City on the talk shows but wasn’t able to connect. So here’s what I would have said if we could have gotten the chance to open that dialogue.”)

Some will conclude that Kathy is being too harsh with Rachel. But in reality, Kathy is being Rachel’s faithful friend (“Faithful are the wounds of a friend,” Prov. 27:6a). I hope she will receive it as such.

I encourage you to read the whole thing. Here are some quotes:

“you began your project by ignoring (actually, by pretending you did not know about) the most basic rules of hermeneutics and biblical interpretation that have been agreed upon for centuries.”


“To insist that it would be ‘picking and choosing’ to preclude the Levitical code from your practice of biblical womanhood is disingenuous, if not outright deceptive.”


“In making the decision to ignore the tectonic shift that occurred when Jesus came, you have led your readers not into a better understanding of biblical interpretation, but into a worse one.”


“Throughout your book, you have ignored or even hidden from readers the fundamental principles of scriptural interpretation—including the difference between narrative and didactic, as well as the importance of placing commands in their context within redemptive history.”


“So ‘love’ is the reason you will reject some parts of the Bible and embrace others? But where do you get your definition of love if not from the Bible itself? And if you say, ‘Parts of the Bible express love, and other parts express power interests,’ you’ve clearly gotten your standard and definition of love from outside the Bible—specifically, from contemporary sensibilities—and these are your ultimate authority and norm.”


“You have become what you claim to despise; you have imposed your own agenda on Scripture in order to advance your own goals. In doing so, you have further muddied the waters of biblical interpretation instead of bringing any clarity to the task.”

9.5 Theses on Martin Luther Against the Self-Indulgences of the Modern Church

Carl Trueman, writing against our tendency to romanticize Luther, remaking him in our own image, offers 9.5 theses about the man and why he might have a hard time fitting into the typical evangelical church:

Luther saw church leadership as primarily marked by servanthood.
Luther understood worship as rooted in repentance.
Luther did not care for the myth of cultural influence nor for the prerequisite cultural swagger necessary to catch the attention of the great and good.
Luther saw suffering as a mark of the true church.
Luther was pastorally sensitive to the cherished practices of older Christians.
Luther did not agree to differ on matters of importance and thus to make them into practical trivia.
 Luther saw the existence of the ordained ministry as a mark of the church.
 Luther saw the problem of a leadership accountable only to itself
 Luther thought very little of his own literary contribution to Christianity.

Here’s the 9th thesis in full:

Shortly before he died, Luther declared that only his 1525 response to Erasmus, On Bound Choice, and his catechisms were worthy of preservation. If he were alive today, it is very doubtful that he would be running a website devoted primarily to promoting his own books and pamphlets. He would thus be unlikely to make the grade in the modern American evangelical world. Nor would he indulge in such shameless self-promotion by calling it explicitly ‘shameless self-promotion’, as if the labored attempt at postmodern irony somehow makes the self-serving nature of such venal vanity acceptable. I suspect he would think that it actually makes it worse, adding the sin of ‘insulting the reader’s intelligence’ to the obvious one of ‘shameless self-promotion.’   (That last point is probably only worth half a thesis though.  Hence the 9.5.)

You can read the whole thing here.

7 Practical Steps to Cultivate a Heart for the Lost

The Apostle Paul famously said that his “heart’s desire” and his “prayer to God” is that his fellow Jews “may be saved” (Rom. 10:1). The problem was that these “kinsmen according to the flesh” were lost—bound for an eternity without God—which filled Paul’s heart with “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” (Rom. 9:2-3).

Because we are sinners, we can take a true doctrine (God’s absolute sovereignty) and make it incompatible with an appropriate emotion (unceasing anguish for the lost). In a sermon from several years ago, John Piper explained three ways we can experience a disconnect between the biblical doctrine and the appropriate emotional state:

First, the doctrine of God’s sovereignty might lead us to feel no sorrow for those who are perishing.
Second, the doctrine of God’s sovereignty might lead us to feel no desire that they would be converted.
And third, the doctrine of God’s sovereignty might lead us to give up praying that they would be saved.

But what do we do if we believe Paul’s doctrine but don’t share his anguish? Are there steps to cultivate a heart for the lost—a heart like Paul’s?

Piper offers seven steps:

1. Never Forget the Plight

Never forget that people who do not obey Christ forfeit eternal life and go out into eternity under the wrath of God. John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

Ask yourself questions like, “If I knew that a plague was coming and I knew that my colleague had not received the vaccination to protect himself, would I not inquire why she refused? Would I not seek to persuade her that she should choose life?” Ask yourself what you would say at the judgment day if your unbelieving friend turns to you and asks you why you didn’t speak to him with more seriousness about this matter of eternal life.

In other words, keep before your mind the terrible reality of entering eternity without Christ.

2. Meditate on Christ’s Sufficiency

Meditate often on the complete sufficiency of death of Christ to cover the sins of absolutely anyone who repents and believes in him. Constantly be exalting Christ in your own heart for the super-abundant grace that comes to us in his cross. Remind yourself again and again for the sake of your relatives and associates that the obedience of Christ has accomplished justification and life for all who believe, no matter how many sins they had committed before. Glory in the work of the cross for yourself, and you will begin to glory in it for others.

Think often on Paul’s own testimony in 1 Timothy 1:15-16,

The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners; but I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience for an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

God saved the worst first to show us that there is hope for the rest, even if we think they are too evil.

3. Meditate on the Spirit’s Convicting and Drawing Power

As you ponder the sufficiency and efficiency of the cross to cover the sins of all who believe, think also on the power of the Holy Spirit to convict sinners and draw them to the Savior (John 16:8; 6:44). Don’t let yourself sink into a pessimistic frame of mind that says, “Sure, God can forgive all who believe, but they are so hard and indifferent that they will never believe.”

Preach to yourself that these are the days of the New Covenant. The blood of the eternal covenant has been shed. The Holy Spirit is being poured out on all flesh. And the New Covenant promise of God is this:

I will . . . put a new spirit within them; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes.

Don’t say fatalistically, “Well conversion is in the hands of God. If he wants to save, let him save.” Rather say, “My heart’s desire is that they might be saved! And O there is hope for the hardest and coldest sinner, for conversion is in the hands of God! “O Lord grant that they would repent and come to know the truth!” (2 Timothy 2:25-26).

Don’t be pessimistic about the power of God to change sinners. When John Wesley arrived in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in May, 1742, he wrote these memorable words: “I was surprised; so much drunkenness, cursing and swearing (even from the mouths of little children) do I never remember to have seen and heard before in so small a compass of time. Surely this place is ripe for Him who ‘came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’” And God honored this kind of bold expectancy. So preach to yourself the power of God to convict sinners.

4. Think of Your Joy at the Conversion of One Lost Soul

Think of the joy you would have over one sinner who repents and turns to Christ through your prayer and witness. Paul called his converts his “hope and joy and crown of boasting before the Lord at his coming” (1 Thessalonians 2:19). And John said, “No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 John 4). Let your imagination grasp the joy of being used by God to bring a person from death to eternal life.

5. Think of God’s Amazing Grace to You in Christ

Think often of how free and undeserved was the grace of God that brought you to Christ. It may have been in a parent, or a friend, or a pastor, or an evangelist, or a book. But whatever it was, you didn’t deserve it. Your spiritual awakening and conviction for sin and grasp of the gospel and submission to Christ were the free gifts of God’s grace.

The more you see how free and undeserving God’s work in your own life has been, the more you will feel that your own grace and compassion must be free to others, without respect to their worthiness. “Walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself for us” (Ephesians 5:2). When your basket is full of food that you didn’t earn, and others are starving all around you, the heart says, “Freely you received, freely give” (Matthew 10:8; cf. 2 Kings 7:9).

6. Act on Your Loving Desires

Act on whatever loving desire you already have. I know from experience how difficult it is to know if you really love someone. Do I really care about the lost? Is my prayer a sham? Do I really desire that they be saved? These are good and honest questions that we have all asked. But how can they be answered? Our hearts and motives are so deceptive.

1 John 3:18-19 gives an answer.

Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth. By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure out hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us.

In other words, if we don’t just talk about caring for others but actually take steps to show that care, our confidence in God that we are genuine and authentic when we speak of compassion will grow. Acting on the desire that you do have will cause the genuineness of your desires to increase.

7. Pray for God to Increase Your Love for the Lost

Finally, pray that God would cause your love for the lost to abound. Listen to the apostle’s prayer for us in 1 Thessalonians 3:12, “May the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men.” Love to all men is a work of God in our hearts. It is not natural to us. It is a gift of grace. Could it be that we have not because we ask not?

Is the Oral Transmission of the Gospels Like the Telephone Game?

New Testament scholar Darrell Bock speaking to Simon Smart of the Centre for Public Christianity:

4 Lessons from God’s Interrogation of Job

Andy Naselli on Job 38:1—42:6, from his book From Typology to Doxology: Paul’s Use of Isaiah and Job in Romans 11:34-35:

1. God is too small in Job’s eyes.

Prior to God’s interrogation of Job, Job’s perception of God is too soft, too tame, too domesticated. But God’s questions underscore his unshakable trustworthiness as uniquely and infinitely wise, sovereign, just, and good. God is not someone whom Job can drag into court so that he and God can argue their case before an impartial judge. The Almighty God is without peer. He himself is the judge, jury, executioner, and standard of justice.

2. Correspondingly, Job is too large in his own eyes.

God gives Job a theocentric view of the universe because Job cannot help viewing God’s world with himself at its center. Job actually discredits God’s justice at the expense of his own innocence. So an effect of God’s piercing questions is that Job repents by humbling himself before God as insignificant,

ceasing to question God’s ways with him, and submitting to God’s unthwartable sovereignty (40:4-5; 42:1-6). Job does not claim to understand why he is suffering, nor does he insist on his right to know why. Instead, he repents. But he does not repent of sins that he committed prior to his innocent suffering. Rather, he repents of his conceited perspective about God’s justice that he expressed in the midst of his suffering. Job’s maturity grows as he himself becomes smaller.

3. God is not obligated to give Job anything, not even answers to his questions.

So he changes the subject. He does not answer the main question that Job repeatedly asks: “Why am I suffering?” The closest God comes to answering it is rebuking Job for defending his own righteousness at

the expense of God’s righteousness (40:8). God does not answer Job’s “Why?” question because Job’s question, though sincere, is misguided. The narrator and reader know that God challenges Satan about Job’s integrity and gives Satan permission to make Job suffer, but Job never learns this. The point for Job—and the point that the narrator is making for the reader—is that God is not obligated to answer Job’s question. The reason is simple: God is infinite, and Job is finite. God himself is the answer. God as the Creator of the universe owns everything and owes nothing to anyone; a finite person cannot understand the inscrutable ways of the infinite God. . . .

4. Only God is all-wise.

By asking two series of imposing questions, God answers the question “Who is wise?” The answer is that God alone is wise. So rather than accusing God and doubting his integrity, the right response for Job is to trust God, who is supremely wise, sovereign, just, and good. God demonstrates that he sovereignly controls his universe and that he is not unjust and capriciously cruel. To the contrary, τὸ τέλος

κυριόυ [the purpose/goal/end of the Lord] with Job is to show “how the Lord is compassionate and merciful” (Jas 5:11).

Exceptions for Abortion?

I assume by now that most readers are aware of the controversy regarding comments by candidate Richard Mourdock, who is running for Senate, regarding rape not being an exception for abortion. In a recent debate, when asked about the issue, he responded:

This is that issue that every candidate for federal, or even state, office faces, and I too stand for life. I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view and I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have [for abortion] is in that case [where] the life of the mother [is threatened]. I struggled with it for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.

President Obama, through a spokesperson, “felt those comments were outrageous and demeaning to women.”

There are many angles to this story, including media ignorance, media malfeasance, political clumsiness, bioethics, and Christian witness.

Many members of the media pounced on the story, reporting that Mr. Murdock said that rapes were intended by God. Al Mohler has an important commentary on this today. He writes:

The controversy over his statements reveals the irresponsibility of so many in the media and the political arena. The characterizations and willful distortions of Mourdock’s words amount to nothing less than lies.

A couple of liberal writers have recognized the same. See, for example, Kevin Drum’s “Richard Mourdock Gets in Trouble for His Extremely Conventional Religious Beliefs” and Amy Sullivan’s “Why Liberals Are Misreading Mourdock.”

But most seemed to be twisting the candidate’s words and also baffled by the worldview. Get Religion‘s Mollie Hemingway offered some advice to fellow journalists:

If you do these two things — bone up on just the very lowest level basics of Christian teaching on theodicy and meet a pro-lifer and find out what they really think — you might not lead your newscasts with a mangling of the news that some pro-lifers really believe (gasp!) that the circumstances of your conception and birth do not determine your worth and that every single child in the world is created and loved by God. You might learn about this newfangled ancient teaching that God causes good to result from evil.

But Mohler does not think the media, while certainly culpable, is entirely to blame:

At the same time, Mr. Mourdock is responsible for giving the media and his political enemies the very ammunition for their distortions. . . . The debate question did not force Mourdock to garble his argument. The cause of defending the unborn is harmed when the argument for that defense is expressed badly and recklessly, and Mourdock’s answer was both reckless and catastrophically incomplete.

Mohler is right: we must speak with precision, clarity, and compassion on this issue. We must put the question in perspective:

Any reference to rape must start with a clear affirmation of the horrifying evil of rape and an equal affirmation of concern for any woman or girl victimized by a rapist. At this point, the defender of the unborn should point to the fact that every single human life is sacred at every point of its development and without regard to the context of that life’s conception. No one would deny that this is true of a six-year-old child conceived in the horror of a rape. Those who defend the unborn know that it was equally true when that child was in the womb.

Mohler also looks at the broader issue of exceptions:

One truth must be transparently clear — a consistent defense of all human life means that there is no acceptable exception that would allow an intentional abortion. If every life is sacred, there is no exception.

The three exceptions most often proposed call for abortion to be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. These are the exceptions currently affirmed by Mitt Romney in his presidential campaign. What should we think of these?

Mohler gives his answer:

First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare.

Next, when speaking of cases involving rape and incest, we must affirm the sinful tragedy of such acts and sympathize without reservation with the victims. We must then make the argument that the unborn child that has resulted from such a heinous act should not be added to the list of victims. That child possesses no less dignity than a child conceived in any other context.

What does this look like practically, in everyday conversations?

Scott Klusendorf points out that there are two types of people who ask about rape and abortion: the learner and the crusader. It’s helpful to know who you are dealing with. ” The learner is genuinely trying to work through the issue and resolve it rationally. The crusader just wants to make you, the pro-lifer, look bad.” In both cases, Klusendorf points out, “it’s our job to demonstrate wisdom and sensitivity.”

So when someone says that a child conceived by rape will remind the woman of this heinous crime forever, Klusendorf responds:

That’s an important question and you are absolutely right: She may indeed suffer painful memories when she looks at the child and it’s foolish to think she never will. I don’t understand people who say that if she’ll just give birth, everything will be okay.  That’s easy for them to say. They should try looking at it from her perspective before saying that.  Even if her attacker is punished to the fullest extent of the law—which he should be—her road to recovery will be tough.

He then delicately and gently asks one primary follow-up question:

Given we both agree the child may provoke unpleasant memories, how do you think a civil society should treat innocent human beings that remind us of a painful event? . . .  Is it okay to kill them so we can feel better?

In the course of the conversation, he is trying to get them to see the following:

If the unborn are human, killing them so others can feel better is wrong. Hardship doesn’t justify homicide.

Admittedly, I don’t like the way my answer feels because I know the mother may suffer consequences for doing the right thing. But sometimes the right thing to do isn’t the easy thing to do.

Here are two thought experiments that might help:

Suppose I have a two-year-old up here with me.  His father is a rapist and his mother is on anti-depressant drugs. At least once a day, the sight of the child sends her back into depression. Would it be okay to kill the toddler if doing so makes the mother feel better?

And:

Suppose I’m an American commander in Iraq and terrorists capture my unit.  My captors inform me that in 10 minutes, they’ll begin torturing me and my men to get intelligence information out of us. However, they are willing to make me an offer.  If I will help them torture and interrogate my own men, they won’t torture and interrogate me.  I’ll get by with no pain. Can I take that deal? There’s no way. I’ll suffer evil rather than inflict it.

Again, I don’t like how the answer feels, but it’s the right one. Thankfully, the woman who is raped does not need to suffer alone. Pro-life crisis pregnancy centers are standing by to help get her through this. We should help, too.

Back to how politicians should answer this. Here is Doug Wilson’s suggestion to pro-life candidates:

When a rape results in a pregnancy, this means that we are now dealing with three people instead of two. Two of those three are innocent, and one of them is guilty. Take a case of violent rape. The pro-choice ghouls want to do two things—first, they want to go easy on the guilty one, refusing to execute him, while executing one of the innocent parties for something his father did, and secondly, they want to make out anyone who objects to this arrangement as the callused one.

In the future (as if any of these guys are taking my counsel), pro-life candidates for office need to answer the question in this way: “That is an excellent question, but we have to settle certain things first before we answer it. When a rape results in a pregnancy, are we dealing with three people or two?” And then he should refuse to answer the question until the reporter tells him “three or two,” along with the reasons why. This is how the Lord handled this sort of question.

See also Trevin Wax’s post on what pro-life politicians should say about abortion and rape (as well as his post on the 10 questions you never hear a pro-abortion-rights candidate asked).

But the foregoing doesn’t answer the question about legislation and how to think about these issues in light of our current cultural and political context. It’s here where Mohler’s perspective could get more controversial, especially for those who do not recognize the role of prudence in cultural change and the reality of governance:

We must contend for the full dignity and humanity of every single human life at every point of development and life from conception until natural death, and we cannot rest from this cause so long as the threat to the dignity and sanctity of any life remains.

In the meantime, we are informed by the fact that, as the Gallup organization affirmed just months ago, the vast majority of Americans are willing to support increased restrictions on abortion so long as those exceptions are allowed. We should gladly accept and eagerly support such laws and the candidates who support them, knowing that such a law would save the life of over a million unborn children in the nation each year.

Can we be satisfied with such a law? Of course not, and we cannot be disingenuous in our public statements. But we can eagerly support a law that would save the vast majority of unborn children now threatened by abortion, even as we seek to convince our fellow Americans that this is not enough.

We must argue for the dignity, humanity, and right to life of every unborn child, regardless of the context of its conception, but we must argue well and make our arguments carefully. The use and deliberate abuse of Richard Mourdock’s comments should underline the risk of falling short in that task.

Amazon’s Kindle Strategy

Peter Osnos:

During a BBC interview the other day, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, in an uncharacteristic moment of revelation, disclosed that the company makes no profit on its various Kindle devices. “We sell the hardware at our cost, so it is break even on the hardware.” Why then is Amazon is so aggressive in its development of ever-more refined e-readers and tablets? “What we find,” Bezos explained, “is that when people buy a Kindle they read four times as much as they did before they bought the Kindle. But they don’t stop buying paper books. Kindle owners read four times as much, but they continue to buy both types of books.” The Bezos strategy is clearly aimed at driving profit margins through hard bargaining with publishers, whose dependence on Amazon as a principal retailer has been growing significantly each year.

The Pastor and Politics

Andrew Walker of the Heritage Foundation interviews Russell Moore of Southern Seminary:

Leading Spiritually with a Broken Body

Dave Furman:

Ten years ago I was white-knuckling the handles of a raft in the rapids of Costa Rica while my wife and I were on our honeymoon.

Ten years later on our anniversary, a kind stranger offered his help to my wife who was trying her best to lift my disabled body into an inner tube at a hotel pool. I can only imagine what was going through that gentleman’s mind when he saw me struggling to float down a lazy river.

Ten years ago I never would have dreamed that I would have a physical disability. But God knew the beautiful design he had for me and for the spread of his gospel would involve taking away the strength of my hands.

There have been times when I couldn’t lift a cup of water to my lips to take a drink or open the fridge to feed myself. Most mornings my preschool-aged daughters help me button my shirt. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been able to pick up any one of my three babies. Sometimes I can’t even shake hands.

Later in the article he writes:

My disability instead highlights God’s superior ability. God is our Provider and Father. I may not be able to physically tend to my children’s needs or defend them against physical threats. But God can and he does.

In many ways my physical disability has prepared me to spiritually lead my family. As the head of my family I lead my wife and children, shepherd them, and invest eternally in their lives. God does this work of primary import in and through me — a broken vessel. God gets the glory as I rely on him for the strength I need to do these things.

Read the whole thing here.

Shepherding God’s Flock

Bruce Ware sent me a note today about a chapel sermon from Tom Schreiner at Southern Seminary. Dr. Ware wrote, “Oh my, it was jam packed with pastoral wisdom . . . I wish every pastor or pastoral candidate could hear this.”

Dr. Schreiner’s text was Acts 20:17-38, and he examined two truths and three exhortation-applications:

The office described is eldership.
Pastors are called to life a live of consistent godliness.
Ask God to give you godly passions and emotions.
Ask God to give you the grace to be ready for anything.
Be faithful in teaching the whole counsel of God.

 

You can listen to the audio or watch the video below: