Justin Taylor's Blog, page 195

Can We Grow in Holiness apart from the Local Church? An Obvious and a Not-So-Obvious Answer

CCEF’s David Powlison responds to a question from DG:

A couple of books to explore these issues further:

Kevin DeYoung, The Hole in Our Holiness: Filling the Gap Between Gospel Passion and the Pursuit of Godliness (Crossway, 2012)

Thabiti Anyabwile, The Life of God in the Soul of the Church: The Root and Fruit of Spiritual Fellowship (Christian Focus, 2012).

Note that Desiring God’s national conference this fall is on the theme of pursuing holiness and being pursed by a holy God.

See also Tullian Tchividjian’s thoughtful post on gospel and law theology in the context of a recent moral failing in their church.

Jim Elliot’s Unknown Brother Bert

Randy Alcorn, speaking at the 2007 Desiring God National Conference (later published in Stand: A Call for the Endurance of the Saints), provides a moving story of Jim Elliot’s unknown missionary brother:

On his blog, Randy writes:

In 1949, when Bert and Colleen were students at Multnomah Bible College, they were invited to Peru by a missionary. They became missionaries to Peru years before Jim went to Ecuador.

When we discussed their ministry, Bert smiled and said, “I can’t wait to get back from furlough.” At that time, they were in their eighties and in their sixtieth year as missionaries, still joyfully reaching people for Christ. Until that weekend I didn’t know anything about them. They may have served Christ faithfully under the radar of the church at large, but not under God’s.

Bert said something to me that day I met him that I’ll never forget: “Jim and I both served Christ, but differently. Jim was a great meteor, streaking through the sky.”

Bert didn’t go on to describe himself, but I will. Unlike his brother Jim, the shooting star, Bert was a faint star that rose night after night, faithfully crossing the same path in the sky, to God’s glory.

In missions work, suffering sometimes results in a short life culminating in martyrdom, sometimes in a long life of daily dying to self and living for Christ. I believe Jim Elliot’s reward is considerable, but it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that Bert and Colleen’s will be greater still.

You can read the whole thing here.

What Did Augustine Mean by “Earthly City?”

A helpful primer from James K. A. Smith, who reminds us that Augustine’s “earthly city” begins with the Fall, not creation:

The phrase comes down to us from Augustine’s magisterial work of cultural criticism, The City of God (civitas Dei, completed around 427 A.D.). In this work, Augustine distinguishes the “City of God” from what he variously describes as “the city of this world,” the “earthly city,” and the City of Man. These two cities or societies or “peoples” are marked by the standards by which they live: the earthly city lives by the standard of the flesh, whereas the City of God lives by the Spirit (14.1-4). What ultimately distinguishes the two are their loves: “We see then that the two cities were created by two kinds of love: the earthly city was created by self-love reaching the point of contempt for God, the Heavenly City by the love of God carried as far as contempt of self” (14.28).

For Augustine, then, the earthly city begins with the Fall, not with creation. The earthly city is not coincident with creation; it originates with sin. This is why Augustine sets the City of God in opposition to the earthly city: they are defined and animated by fundamentally different loves. So the earthly city should not be confused with the merely “temporal” city or the material world. It is not identical to the territory of creation; rather, for Augustine, the earthly city is a systemic—and disordered—configuration of creaturely life. However, this does not mean that Augustine cedes material, cultural, creaturely life entirely to the evil one. The City of God is not just otherworldly: the City of God is that “society” of people—that civitas—who are called to embody a foretaste of the social and cultural life that God desires for this world.

Augustine doesn’t invoke the earthly city in order to motivate Christians to care about this-worldly cultural life. His theology of creation already does that. The analysis of the earthly city is instead cautionary, pressing Christians to recognize that cultural systems are often fundamentally dis-ordered, in need of both resistance and reordering by Christian labor in all streams of culture. And as we can see from his letters, Augustine involved himself in such work. There you’ll find the bishop invested in the concrete realities of politics and civic life.

Augustine doesn’t use the term “earthly city” to carve up reality into a “heavenly” second story and an “earthly” first floor. No, both the earthly city and the City of God are rival visions of heaven and earth. So the “earthly city” is more like Babylon than the Garden. But even this fundamental antithesis doesn’t give us permission to retreat into holy huddles or simply castigate the earthly city.

You can read the whole post here.

Christianity and Islam

Following on his Modern Reformation article on “Christ and Islam,” here are three video clips where Michael Horton explains some of the differences between Islam’s system and the gospel, the Koran and the Bible, and how we should relate to and love our Muslim neighbors:

The Influence of TV Shows on Cultures

Liberal commentator Jonathan Chait has an article in New York Magazine about the history of conservative complaints against Hollywood, how the right has essentially given up the fight, and how they were actually right in identifying the effect that this pop-culture medium has upon the attitudes and behaviors of a society. It’s a long and interesting article and is well worth the full read. Here’s one section in particular that caught my eye.

First, a summary of the issue:

The funny thing is that, in the years since Hollywood lost its place of prominence in right-wing demonology, we now have a far more precise sense of its power. The fear that popular culture could exert some invisible pull upon the minds of its audience may have haunted its critics, but the industry’s defenders could just as plausibly deny that moving pictures exerted social influence at all. At the height of the nineties Kulturkampf, film lobbyist Jack Valenti breezily waved off Hollywood’s critics by insisting, “I haven’t found anybody who has said that movies cause anybody to do anything.” But new research—research that conservatives have failed to pay much attention to—badly undermines that line of defense.

Chait turns to Brazil for an example:

Several years ago, a trio of researchers working for the Inter-American Development Bank set out to help solve a sociological mystery. Brazil had, over the course of four decades, experienced one of the largest drops in average family size in the world, from 6.3 children per woman in 1960 to 2.3 children in 2000. What made the drop so curious is that, unlike the Draconian one-child policy in China, the Brazilian government had in place no policy to limit family size. (It was actually illegal at some point to advertise contraceptives in the overwhelmingly Catholic country.) What could explain such a steep drop? The researchers zeroed in on one factor: television.

Television spread through Brazil in the mid-sixties. But it didn’t arrive everywhere at once in the sprawling country. Brazil’s main station, Globo, expanded slowly and unevenly. The researchers found that areas that gained access to Globo saw larger drops in fertility than those that didn’t (controlling, of course, for other factors that could affect fertility). It was not any kind of news or educational programming that caused this fertility drop but exposure to the massively popular soap operas, or novelas, that most Brazilians watch every night. The paper also found that areas with exposure to television were dramatically more likely to give their children names shared by novela characters.

Novelas almost always center around four or five families, each of which is usually small, so as to limit the number of characters the audience must track. Nearly three quarters of the main female characters of childbearing age in the prime-time novelas had no children, and a fifth had one child. Exposure to this glamorized and unusual (especially by Brazilian standards) family arrangement “led to significantly lower fertility”—an effect equal in impact to adding two years of schooling.

Something similar can be seen in India:

 In a 2009 study, economists Robert Jensen and Emily Oster detected a similar pattern in India. A decade ago, cable television started to expand rapidly into the Indian countryside, where deeply patriarchal views had long prevailed. But not all villages got cable television at once, and its random spread created another natural experiment. This one yielded extraordinary results. Not only did women in villages with cable television begin bearing fewer children, as in Brazil, but they were also more able to leave their home without their husbands’ permission and more likely to disapprove of husbands abusing their wives, and the traditional preference for male children declined. The changes happened rapidly, and the magnitude was “quite large”—the gap in gender attitudes separating villages introduced to cable television from urban areas shrunk by between 45 and 70 percent. Television, with its more progressive social model, had changed everything.

Then Chait brings it back to the U.S.:

 Television and movies in the United States could never have the same kind of revolutionary impact they wield in cloistered Third World villages. But the human brain is the human brain. In the United States, with our already expansive cultural frontiers, we can’t as easily measure the effect of popular culture. (We all got access to Glee at the same time.) Yet we can at least glimpse tiny corners of popular culture’s impact. A 2011 paper found that when An Inconvenient Truth appeared in a town—here, again, an uneven pattern allowed for experimentation—purchases of carbon offsets rose by half. The effect disappeared over time, as you’d expect from a single film that wasn’t followed up.

 A trio of communications professors found that watching Will & Grace made audiences more receptive to gay rights, and especially viewers who had little contact in real life with gays and lesbians. And that one show was merely a component of a concerted effort by Hollywood—dating back to Soap in the late seventies, which featured Billy Crystal’s groundbreaking portrayal of a sympathetic gay character, through Modern Family—to prod audiences to accept homosexuality. Likewise, the political persona of Barack Obama attained such rapid acceptance and popularity in part because he represented the real-world version of an archetype that, after a long early period of servile black stereotypes, has appeared in film and television for years: a sober, intelligent African-American as president, or in some other position of power.

You can read the whole thing here.

A Message from a Bachelor Pastor to His Congregation before His Wedding

Steve DeWitt has been Senior Pastor at Bethel Church in Crown Point, Indiana for 14 years and is the author of Eyes Wide Open: Enjoying God in Everything—a book Leland Ryken calls “the gold standard” for how Christians should value beauty in the world.”

At the age of 44, Steve just preached his last sermon as a single man. You can watch the sermon at the end of this post.

 

I want to speak frankly to the matter of sexual purity. I have fought the fight for purity since my first real girlfriend in 10th grade. That is 28 years. It’s hard to believe. As an adult single in the Christian dating scene, it is frightening to see how little concern there generally is about sexual purity. Yet God’s Word makes it clear, God’s will is for our sanctification – that we control our bodies with holiness and honor. If you would have told the 18-year-old me I would still be dating in my 40s, I would have thought, “Well, at least the temptations aren’t as strong. You’re old. You probably don’t even think about it.” I actually think in some ways it’s harder as an adult than as a college student.

In spite of all the struggles and challenges, purity is worth it. After 28 years of battling this, let me share a few lessons I have learned.

Nothing is more helpful than only dating highly committed Christians

Over the many years, I have been blessed to spend time with some very godly Christian women. This has been so helpful because committed Christian women are very interested in purity. If you date marginal Christians or Christians in name only, the power of sexual temptation is so strong that it is extremely difficult to remain pure. Young people, singles, the caliber of Christian character that you date will largely determine your purity. This is especially true these days when expectations in the dating world for what is physically acceptable are so very low. I would urge you to only be interested in dating highly committed Christians.

Set wise boundaries, communicate them right away, and stick to them

Our sexualized society requires me to speak with some frankness here. God made certain parts of the body for sexual expression. Go there and it’s the point of no return. So at the very least, wisdom would say that you should never go there outside of marriage. Don’t touch the sexual places. I call them the “no fly zones.” Jennifer and I had that talk very early so there were no questions about our intentions. The conscience is very helpful too. I’ve learned that when the yellow light of my conscience is blinking, I need to heed the warning.

Stoke the greater passion

You can put all the parameters in place, have accountability partners, and date high quality Christians, but sexual desire will overwhelm all the boundaries unless in my heart I have one thing – a greater desire for God’s pleasure than sexual pleasure. That doesn’t just happen. I have to stoke my desires for God while starving my desire for sexual fulfillment. You don’t starve it by undressing in your mind every pretty woman that walks by. You don’t starve it by viewing pornography. You don’t starve it by making entertainment choices that allow you to watch actors doing things with women what you wish you could do with one. Those things fuel illicit desire. Then you get a girlfriend and you put on the godly Christian man smile, but inside there’s an inferno. Purity doesn’t last long like that.

As a Christian, I am not helpless in this. If I will do the things that stoke my spiritual desires and not do the things that kill them, I have a powerful ally in overcoming temptation. “But Pastor Steve, I can’t do it! I’m 19 years old and it’s too much!” Do it for 26 years and then come talk to me. With God’s help, you can do it.

I am so blessed to be marrying a woman who has fought that fight successfully. That reality means we can’t wait to be married. We can’t wait for our honeymoon. We have waited a long time in our lives to experience the full joy of sexual expression in the sacred confines of the marriage covenant. It has been hard. I have had moments of embarrassment and immaturity, but to come to our wedding day knowing she has never been with another man and I’ve never been with another woman, is a precious, precious gift.

I put that out there as a motivation to purity. Virginity is mocked in our culture, but treasured by God. Purity before marriage and in marriage is worth every effort. It is God’s will for us. Yes, there is true forgiveness for sexual sin and praise God for his grace to us in this area. That doesn’t in any way diminish the call of God for his people to strive for purity of mind and soul and body.

So fight the fight brothers and sisters. It’s worth it. . . .

For those who want a biblical and practical case for the vision Pastor DeWitt is commending, you may want to check out Sex, Dating, and Relationships, by Gerald Hiestand and Jay Thomas (Crossway, 2012).

Gathering to Multiply: Free Webcast Events and Discipleship Material with Francis Chan and David Platt

David Platt and Francis Chan have been teaming up on a new venture that could be strategic in helping us fulfill the Great Commission—to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:18-20).

You can see the first stages of their new Multiply Website, a central hub designed with resources to help us make disciples.

The free and downloadable Multiply Material will be contain a 24-session discipleship experience where one person helps another understand what it means to follow Jesus, study Scripture, and be the church.

And the Multiply Gathering will be a free, once-a-year webcast with Chan and Platt, where other followers of Christ can gather in their local churches and homes and encourage one another in the disciple-making process.

You can register for it here. The first two online events in 2012 will be on Friday, November 9 (7-10 PM, CST), and Saturday, November 10 (6-9 PM, PST).

You can watch some videos below to learn more:

Wisdom on Steroids: Conversations with J. I. Packer

Almost everything about J. I. Packer is counter-cultural. When asked a question, his answers tend to be 7-8 minutes long, and come out in full paragraphs. One of my favorite quotes from Packer is where he warns against the spirit of this age, which holds that “the newer is the truer, only what is recent is decent, every shift of ground is a step forward, and every latest word must be hailed as the last word on its subject.” Packer represents the opposite. He is “old school.” Listening to him talk is sometimes akin to hearing someone speak in your second language. You might understand what is being said, but you have to lean in and listen because the cadence and vocabulary are not your mother tongue. But I am convinced that we ignore the biblical, historical, theological, practical wisdom of this octogenarian to our peril.

I’m thankful Desiring God recently posted some clips of a conversation with Dr. Packer. I thought it might be helpful to collect them here.

The Puritan Vision of Sanctification

Killing Sin Through Personal Prayer

Advice To Aspiring Writers

Union With Christ: One of the Secrets of Sanctification

Evangelical Preaching Is Too Light on the Holiness of God

Kingdom through Covenant, Baptism and Circumcision, and Other Discussions Worth Having

The Gospel Coalition mentions today that they have commissioned three reviews of Gentry and Wellum’s Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Crossway, 2012): Michael Horton, Doug Moo, and Darrell Bock. Horton is a covenant theologian, Bock is a progressive dispensatioalist, and Moo (it seems to me) would be closer to the progressive-covenantal view.  I think this should help to advance the discussion.

Not everyone wants to see such a discussion take place. In a recent interview at TGC, Matt Smethurst asked Gentry and Wellum about this:

How would you respond to one recent accusation that Kingdom through Covenant “is not a Reformed Baptist work or Reformed at all. . . . So-called New Covenant Theology is actually a reaction against confessional Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, and Covenant Theologians in general”?

First, we have called our position “progressive covenantalism” in order to avoid various labels, since labels often are a way of dismissing entire viewpoints. And theological positions are not monolithic.

Second, we stand on the shoulders of giants and in no way dismiss historical theology, yet we take seriously Ad Fontes, Sola Scriptura, and Semper Reformanda. We’ve sought to describe how our position differs from the two dominant viewpoints in evangelical thought, yet it isn’t that our differences lead to completely novel conclusions. In fact, it’s our conviction that our book provides a better basis for the great solas of the Reformation, and that we do so in such a way that makes better sense of the “whole counsel of God.”

It’s our hope and prayer that people who come from either DT or CT will not dismiss our work without giving it a fair reading and showing where our exegesis, biblical theology, and systematic conclusions have gone wrong. We will consider it a success if our book leads all of us to return to Scripture, wrestle once again with the text, and actually discuss our differences in charity, grace, and in a renewed commitment to have our theological views ever conformed to God’s Word.

Here’s an interesting dynamic I’ve noticed in our neck of the theological woods. Because we rightly desire to be together for the gospel, we are content to hold strong convictions about theological and denominational particulars that don’t necessarily divide us from gospel partnership. Many of them relate to how we “put the Bible together” (baptism and Sabbath being two issues that come to mind). And for those who are academically inclined, there’s always an impulse to say something new rather than to rehash old debates. The result, it seems to me, is that we are seeing less truth-in-love, iron-sharpening-iron, intramural debates and discussions on these important issues.

Themelios has proved a happy exception to this. For example, consider this recent exchange of articles on the relationship between circumcision and baptism:

Martin Salter, “Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11-12“
David Gibson, “Sacramental Supersessionism Revisited: A Response to Martin Salter on the Relationship Between Circumcision and Baptism“
Martin Salter, “Response to David Gibson“

Gibson (a covenant theologian who incidentally happened to endorse Kingdom through Covenant as an important part of the conversation) summarizes Salter’s view:

Martin Salter has recently argued that Reformed paedobaptists are mistaken in citing Col 2:11-12 ‘as evidence that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign signifying the same realities.’ His essay is a model of exegetical care, and he approaches the contentious issue of the application of covenant signs with graciousness. His position is that for Paul there is a disjunction between physical and spiritual circumcision, such that in Col 2:11-12 he is referring to the latter, and Salter seeks to demonstrate that ‘circumcision’ and baptism do not signify precisely the same realities.

Gibson responds:

In this response, I argue that Salter’s article has the potential to advance the debate which surrounds credo- vs covenant baptism precisely because his essay is largely an exercise in missing the point. I do not intend to engage in a detailed response to his exegesis of Col 2:11-12 for the simple reason that, as a Reformed paedobaptist, I can agree with most of it and still find myself happily at home in a theological world which regards baptism of infants as ‘the jewel displayed upon the engagement ring of God’s covenant promise.’ My claim is that Salter explains a biblical text but not its place in biblical theology, and he does not see how the text he understands fails to undermine a theology he does not. To put it another way, Salter makes a theological mountain out of an exegetical molehill.

In Salter’s response he writes:

[Gibson's essay] displayed great grace and charity in a discussion which can sometimes generate more heat than light. I have genuinely enjoyed reading his essay, and it has prompted me to think again and work harder at what the Bible actually says, which is always edifying.

You can read the essays and exchanges in full at the links above. I point to these as an example of the important of discussing (rather than simply dismissing) such views, and doing these with truth and charity.

Religion and the Newspapers of Record

Terry Mattingly:

Folks, we are living in a sad age in which it is, at times, easier to find out what actually happened in major news events by watching YouTube than it is by reading the world’s major newspapers.

You can read his analysis here of how the newspapers covered a feminist punk band’s protest at a Russian Orthodox Church.

No blog does a better job of media criticism (especially on the subject of religion) than “Get Religion.”