Justin Taylor's Blog, page 358

When Is an Issue Important Enough to Correct Someone?

In the appendix to Sam Crabtree's Practicing Affirmation he reproduces a helpful grid:

(Beevers' Grid copyright 1986 by Ernest Beevers. Used by permission.)

Crabtree explains (pp. 161-162) how this can be used to help determine when to correct someone and when to let it go.

The vertical axis indicates the importance of the issue being considered. The bottom reflects issues of low importance such as trying to resolve whether President George Washington ever wore socks that didn't match. It is an issue of virtually no consequence. Moving up the axis, toward the top we reach issues that are important, issues that have life-and-death significance, perhaps for a great many people. Between the top and the bottom is an array of issues and their relative importance or unimportance.

The horizontal axis indicates my certainty that I am right. Toward the left are issues about which I don't have the foggiest clue (what is the name of the dog owned by the bit player in that 1938 movie that no one saw?). Toward the right are issues about which I am sure that I'm sure before God, the angels, and all the witnesses that could be summoned that I am right. Most people find that there are surprisingly few of these issues.

Any issue of controversy can be plotted on this matrix.

The lower-left quadrant contains issues that meet two simultaneous criteria: (1) they are of low importance, and (2) I do not know much about them. For example: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Who knows? And who cares? Here's the point: it wouldn't be worth consuming relational energy to argue about this issue or to correct someone else's viewpoint.

The upper-left quadrant contains issues that meet two simultaneous criteria: (1) they are of high importance, but (2) I still don't know with certainty what the truth is. For example: When is Jesus returning? That is of crucial and everlasting importance to every person who lives or ever has lived! And yet I don't know when he's coming back. One of the things about which I'm certain is that I am not certain about exactly when he's returning. The point is: arguing about it or correcting others is not worth the relational energy it would consume.

The lower-right quadrant contains issues about which (1) I'm certain I'm right, but (2) they are of low importance. For example: how many knots are in the log I am now looking at? I know the answer, but why make an issue of it?

And now we arrive at the main observation to be derived from Beever's Grid. The upper-right quadrant simultaneously contains the issues (1) that are important, and (2) for which there is virtually no possibility that I will be shown to be mistaken.

And here's the point: reserve your conflict, your arguments, and your persistent corrections to that quadrant.

Here's its corollary: keep that region small. The fruitfulness of correction tends to come from a smaller region than we assume. We default to making that region larger than is fruitful. We wear people out by putting more issues in the upper-right quadrant than belong there.

(Emphasis mine.)

An Interview with Nancy Guthrie on Facing Death with Courageous Confidence in God

I really appreciate the excellent work Nancy Guthrie has done in collecting the works of classic and contemporary writers on the themes of incarnation (for Christmas), the cross and resurrection (for Easter), and suffering (for all times before Christ's return).

Her latest compilation is on what we work so hard to ignore but all will face: O Love That Will Not Let Me Go: Facing Death with Courageous Confidence in God.

In the following video we talk about the project, why she compiled it, how it affected her, and how she thinks it can be used:

The chapters and contributors are listed below:

Part One: A Reality That Will Not Be Denied

1 Only When You Know How to Die Can You Know How to Live

J. I. Packer

2 Death's Sting Is Removed but Its Bite Remains

Michael S. Horton

3 He Called Death Sweet Names

John Piper

4 Not of the World

Martyn Lloyd-Jones

5 Is Christ Our Sickness-Bearer?

B. B. Warfield

6 Our Faith Is in God, Not in Healing

Joseph Bayly

Part Two: An Aim That Keeps Me Pressing On

7 Finishing with Few Regrets

Randy Alcorn

8 My Father Taught Me How to Die

R. C. Sproul

9 Spiritual Light Shining from Your Deathbed

Abraham Kuyper

10 A Witness in the Way We Die

John Eaves

11 Sickness: The Soul's Undressing

Jeremy Taylor

Part Three: A Hope That Saves Me From Despair

12 Rubbing Hope into the Reality of Death

Timothy Keller

13 Hope Is a Glorious Grace

John Owen

14 Directions for a Peaceful Departure

Richard Baxter

15 What More Should God Do to Persuade You to Accept Death Willingly?

Martin Luther

16 Comfort against Fears of the Dying Hour

Thomas Boston

Part Four: A Future That Will Not Disappoint

17 Suffering Hurries the Heart toward Heaven

Joni Eareckson Tada

18 To Despise This Present Life

John Calvin

19 The Day of a Godly Man's Death

Jonathan Edwards

20 Let Us Say in Dying, "Lord Jesus, Receive My Spirit"

R. L. Dabney

21 Those Who Die Daily Die Easily

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

22 God Reserves the Best for the Last

Richard Sibbes

Christianity in Egypt

Michael Horton provides some notes from a recent conference call with evangelical leaders in Egypt.

See also Christianity Today's article "Egypt's Christians After Mubarak."

Lady Gaga's "Born This Way"

Denny Burk on Lady Gaga's new song which has already been played over 9 million times, in its first four days, on her YouTube page:

"Born This Way" is making a theological point. It contends that sexual orientation is an innate and immutable quality of the human condition—a trait that we are "born" with. Whether you are gay, straight, or whatever, God made you this way, and for that reason you should embrace it. Or as Gaga herself puts it, "I'm beautiful in my way 'cause God makes no mistakes. I'm on the right track baby. I was born this way."

The message of the song drinks deeply of the "is-ought" fallacy—the idea that we can determine what ought to be by observing what is. The song's message also flies in the face of the Bible's depiction of a fallen creation. It is true that God created human beings in His own image and that as a result every single human has intrinsic value and worth (Genesis 1:26-27). It is not true, however, that God endorses every thought and intention of the human heart. We live in a Genesis 3 world in which humanity and the cosmos are fallen and compromised by sin. That means that some of our desires are misdirected—even some of the ones that we are born with. That we desire sin from birth is not a cause for celebratory anthems but an indication of just how desperate the human condition really is (Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Jeremiah 17:9).

O Death, Where Is Your Victory?

Zac Smith went to be with Jesus in May of 2010.

Below is a video made before he died, followed by a video from his widow one year later.

May it fuel in each of us a longing to fight and finish well.

HT: Challies

Livestream of Richard Bauckham Lectures at Southern Seminary

Starting today and continuing tomorrow Professor Richard Bauckham will deliver four lectures at Southern Seminary on "The Gospels as Histories: What Sort of History Are They?"

Bauckham is Professor Emeritus at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, and a brilliant New Testament scholar.

Tim Keller has written that Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels As Eyewitness Testimony is "the most conclusive argument that the Gospels are not long-evolving oral traditions but rather oral histories, written down from the accounts of the eyewitnesses themselves who were still alive and active in their communities.

The lectures will be livestreamed at Southern's site (eastern times):

Tuesday, February 15

1:00 PM., Lecture 1: "The Gospels as Historical Biography"

2:30 PM., Lecture 2: "The Gospels as History "From Below" (part 1)"

Wednesday, February 16

10:00 AM, Lecture 3: "The Gospels as History "From Below" (part 2)"

1:00 PM, Lecture 4: "The Gospels as Micro-History and Perspectival History"

Should Christians Support Lying to Expose Planned Parenthood?

Not if we love truth, says Professor Robert P. George.

An excerpt:

We must not forfeit our standing in the debate as the tellers of truth.

Does this place us at a disadvantage in the struggle?  Someone will say:  the entire edifice of abortion is built on a foundation of lies—lies about the the biological status of the human being developing in the womb ("a mere clump of undifferentiated tissue, no different than a mole or a fingernail"); lies about the number of maternal deaths from illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade; lies about the so-called "medical necessity" of partial-birth abortions; and on and on.  Why should we deny ourselves the use of weapons that many on the other side wield freely?  Do we not deeply disadvantage our cause and, in that way, sin against its unborn victims by refusing to lie?  Are we "keeping our hands clean" at the price of putting off the day when outfits like Planned Parenthood will be dumped onto the ash heap of history?

I understand the impatience; indeed, I share it.  The edifice of abortion is indeed built on a foundation of lies.  And in working to protect the victims of abortion, it is frustrating to hold ourselves to standards that so many on the other side freely disregard.  But there are no moral shortcuts to victory in this struggle.  A culture of life can only be built on a foundation of truth.  Lying may produce short term victories, but it will, in the end, frustrate our long term objective.  Respect for life—like respect for every other great human good and every other high moral principle—depends on love of truth.  Our efforts in the cause of life and every other worthy goal will, in the end, prove to be self-defeating if they undermine love of truth.

You can read the whole thing here, as well as a debate on the issue between pro-life philosophers Christopher Tollefsen and Christopher Kaczor here, here, and here.

What Can Literature Show Us About the Doctrine of Justification?

A thoughtful article—as usual—from Leland Ryken, looking at five fictional stories.

The first two are from the Bible; the last three are from Shakespeare, Hawthorne, and Milton.

An excerpt:

The Bible is the definitive word on justification, but it is not the only word. If we benefit from sermons and theological articles on justification, we can benefit from literary portrayals of it. Theological exposition enables us to know the truth about justification intellectually. We experience that same truth when the doctrine of justification is embodied and incarnated in fictional images of justification. After all, the biblical images of the reclothed high priest and the tax collector who goes home justified are literary and fictional images of justification, belonging to the same genre as the stories of Shakespeare, Milton, and Hawthorne that I have surveyed.

Within the Bible itself justification is presented in the complementary modes of theological exposition and literary images. I tell my students that it is possible to set up a profitable two-way street between the Bible and literature, with the Bible enabling me to see a lot in literature that I would otherwise miss, and literature enabling me to see and feel biblical truth better.

You can read the whole thing here.

How Did the Church Interpret the Days of Creation before Darwin?

It is sometimes claimed that the church has historically interpreted Genesis 1 as taking place in six twenty-four hour days, such that this is the "traditional" interpretation, with the rise of other interpretations as being solely due to scientific theories with naturalistic assumptions, especially those of Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century.

In light of this claim, it's instructive to read the historical survey conducted by Robert Letham in his article, "'In the Space of Six Days': The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly," Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999): 147-74 [not available online].

Professor Letham writes, "This article focuses on how the six days of creation in Genesis 1 have been understood in exegetical history until the time of the Westminster Assembly [1640s]. . . . We will simply ask how the matter has been viewed in the past, for if it is as obvious as some make out we might expect a broad measure of agreement to exist."

What follows are his summary points at the end of the article:

(1) Before the Westminster Assembly there were a variety of interpretations of Genesis 1 and its days. If the text of Genesis is so clear-cut why did the church down the centuries not see it that way? Does that not say something not only about the interpreters but also the text? Claims that a literal reading of the days of Genesis 1 is obvious fall down when the history of interpretation is taken into consideration.

(2) We will be wise to heed the warnings Augustine and Calvin give on the difficulty of interpreting this chapter, and so beware of dogmatic claims they themselves did not advance. Jerome pointed to the Jewish rabbis' refusal to let anyone under thirty interpret it. Creation transcends our knowledge and experience. A heavy dose of medicine from Job 38:1ff is in order. As with any other passage, Genesis 1 must not be interpreted in isolation but in the context of the whole of Scripture.

(3) Until the mid-sixteenth century the interpreters we cited were all abreast of the philosophy and science of their day, and often made use of it in biblical interpretation. That we reject many of their scientific beliefs is because of our own scientific knowledge. That we place implicit faith in the laws of gravity is due to what we know scientifically, rather than from the Bible. So far I, for one, have found this reliable! Calvin allows and supports scientific work. He indicates Genesis is of a different literary genre than a science text book.

(4) The Reformed tradition of the sixteenth century interpreted creation theologically. The classic Reformed creeds consider it in the context of the doctrine of God, as an ex nihilo work of the Trinity. In so doing, they affirm their continuity with the historic teaching of the church. The question of the days of creation was not even a matter of discussion. It does not appear in theses for debate by students. Its absence is striking. It was never a matter of confessional significance.

(5) The Puritans until the time of the Westminster Assembly are significantly different from the historic church in their conspicuous lack of interest in creation in general and Genesis in particular. They never even attempted a serious theological interpretation of creation. Nor were they interested in interacting with contemporary science. At a time of such scientific and philosophical ferment this is astounding. Their interests had switched to the narrowly soteriological and ecclesiastical. Evidently, the focus of this article was not a matter of controversy for them.

You'll have to track down the full article to see the historical homework behind these conclusions.

To be sure, none of this settles the issue—which ultimately must be settled by careful exegesis. But it is a helpful reminder for us not to assert or assume that the history of interpretation before Darwin was uniform.

God Yearns After You with Jealous Envy

James 4:5 in the ESV says "[God] yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us." B. B. Warfield preferred the marginal reading of the Revised Version: "That Spirit which He made to dwell in us yearneth for us even unto jealous envy." Both translations have God yearning jealously over his people.

Warfield preached a sermon on this passage entitled "The Love of the Holy Ghost" (HT: Fred Zaspel).

Here is a moving section from that sermon:

See us steeped in the sin of the world; loving evil for evil's sake, hating God and all that God stands for, ever seeking to drain deeper and deeper the cup of our sinful indulgence.

The Spirit follows us unwaveringly through all.

He is not driven away because we are sinners. He comes to us because, being sinners, we need Him.

He is not cast off because we reject His loving offices. He abides with us because our rejection of Him would leave us helpless.

He does not condition His further help upon our recognizing and returning His love. His continuance with us is conditioned only on His own love for us. And that love for us is so strong, so mighty, and so constant that it can never fail.

When He sees us immersed in sin and rushing headlong to destruction, He does not turn from us, He yearns for us with jealous envy.

It is in the hands of such love that we have fallen.

And it is because we have fallen into the hands of such love that we have before us a future of eternal hope.

When we lose hope in ourselves, when the present becomes dark and the future black before us, when effort after effort has issued only in disheartening failure, and our sin looms big before our despairing eyes; when our hearts hate and despise themselves, and we remember that God is greater than our hearts and cannot abide the least iniquity; the Spirit whom He has sent to bring us to Him still labors with us, not in indifference or hatred, but in pitying love.

Yea, His love burns all the stronger because we so deeply need His help: He is yearning after us with jealous envy.