Pro Life and the Superbowl

From Trevin Wax:

Controversy over Tim Tebow’s pro-life ad at the SuperBowl. Where’s the tolerance?

Odd isn’t it? Freedom, they cry! Liberty and equality for all and don’t you attempt to force your view of morality on others. And yet it is that very same group that is now demanding that CBS not allow this perfectly legal and approved spot to air. Their desire for freedom is so specifically and narrowly defined as their own right to destroy inconvenient human life that the hypocrisy of this stance remains hidden from them. It is not freedom but fiat that they seek, and this fact is embarrassingly clear every time they seek to bully and quash the basic right to express contrary opinions.

Understanding the Times

Postmodernity Blues by Dr. Derek Thomas

For something like two hundred years (intellectuals like to debate this fact at considerable length), ever since the Enlightenment first darkened Western minds through the influence of thinkers like Kant and Rousseau (some blame the French collectively!), and we should not forget Jefferson, the cultural and educational establishment took for granted the 'received wisdom' that man's mind was the measure of all things and 'truth' and 'value' were discernible through reasonable interaction with what could be observed and empirically proven through experiment.

A hundred years ago, it was widely believed that our reason-and especially science-would be the making of us: thus, optimistic pronouncements were made with regard to improving society through technological advancements, social engineering, urbanization, and better education.

Well, that was yesterday and today we know better! Modernity did not bring us health, wealth and happiness. Science gave us nuclear weapons capable of destroying the entire planet. The thinking of the past produced two world wars and a great deal of other nastiness which need not detain us here. Needless to say, modernism died a quiet death having failed to produce what it promised.

In its wake came postmodernity-a worldview that is essentially relativist on every issue of substance, particularly ethics and religion. It is inherently suspicious of the collective, giving precedence to the individual, insisting that everybody's shaping of reality is equally valid.

The end-result? A way of life, to quote J. I. Packer, that "is the egghead equivalent of Mr. Bean." It has spawned views of spirituality without any concept of truth, raised individuality without imposing any limits, and elevated tolerance which is intolerant of any idea of wrong!

What are the implications of this for historic Christianity? There are many-but the most important, and most often heard, distills into the view that plurality in religious expression is something to be welcomed (rather than forms of idolatry as, say John Calvin might have said). It is part of the complex tapestry of humanity's subculture to be preserved and valued as indicative of what makes us human.

All religious expressions thus enable us to get in touch with the transcendent. All dogmatic pronouncements which insist that Christianity-the offering of Christ as unique, the only Savior of men and women to be received by faith alone and outside of which there is no possibility of salvation-such views are deemed offensive, intolerant and exclusivist. All religious expressions have value except this form-a paradox that always haunts postmodernity's 'tolerance.'

To all of this Jesus speaks in cool and calculated terms: '"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."'

(John 14:6). Which seems to answer postmodernity very easily.

Except that postmodern deconstructionists interpret these words to say that whilst it is true that Christians come to a 'god' whom they call 'Father'

through Jesus Christ, others come to know 'god' through other and equally valid ways!

O brother! Enough already!

(via the First Epistle, the newsletter of the First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, MS)

O brother! Enough already!

A lá Carte

Denny Burk investigates the folklore behind Pat Robertson’s silly comments about Haiti, and finds that once heputs Robertson’s words in context, the offense is amplified.

(HT: Trevin Wax)

The Future of the Newspaper

This article shows what the future of newspapers probably will not be. "The figures are almost impossible to question: The vast majority, that's 77%, of those surveyed said their price limit for paying for online newspapers was zero (East coasters were more definite about this with an 81% figure.) That's terrible news for those in the industry who think that future revenues lie in bricking up their news content behind a pay wall. And it gets worse..."

(HT: Tim Challies)

A lá Carte

Justin Taylor digs up a pithy quote on the nature of gossip vs. flattery.

Kevin DeYoung reminds that we are not gods, therefore our knowledge is not exhaustive, and therefore, it is often wise to make up our minds, make a decision, and do something!

The Social Gospel vs. The Gospel

From 9Marks Ministries; by Russell D. Moore:

'Any "gospel" that evacuates the cross of judgment against sin, that alienates the gospel from personal reconciliation with God and with others, is something other than the gospel of Jesus Christ. And any Christianity that turns us away from the truths handed down about Jesus—his deity, his humanity, virgin birth, his suffering at Golgotha, his bodily resurrection, his future return, his authority in Scripture, his building of the church—is pointing us to some different Messiah.'

Read the whole thing.

"Preach the gospel; if necessary, use words."

From Nathan W. Bingham:

Popping up all over Twitter has been the following:

"'Preach the Gospel; when necessary use words' is like saying 'Tell me your phone number; if necessary, use digits.'"

I thought it helped show the fallacious nature of the title of this post (often attributed to Francis of Assisi) but I didn't bother posting it here as it had made the rounds and it appeared everyone was "re-tweeting" it. I also thought it was a clear "open and shut" case. It appears for many Christians it isn't.

Brian Thornton got himself in some hot water over on Facebook for posting it:

"My tweets automatically post to my FB page (thereby killing two birds with one post), and that comment has sparked a controversy over the nature of the gospel."

In one comment on Thornton's blog Scott Autry offered another analogy that may be closer to home for all those that want social-justice but aren't keen on verbally speaking the gospel:

"Feed starving children, when necessary use food."

My thoughts - preach the gospel and by God's grace don't live a life that's contrary to the gospel you proclaim. When you do miss the mark, don't justify your actions, but use it as another opportunity to proclaim the amazing grace of God. He saved even a wretch like you.

Oh, I'd ask you to comment but I'd rather you just look at my life and "know" that I'd like you to. ;-)

Evangelicalism's Current Disaster of Definition

Carl Trueman writes the following pithy and humourous remarks on evangelicalism, highlighting especially that the movement's current trend is extensive inclusiveness: not wanting to draw up biblical boundaries or definitions as to who or what is truly "evangelical" and what is not.

"Combine the problems of defining evangelical identity with the current cultural penchant for not excluding anybody and you have a heady recipe for total disaster. Say nice things about Jesus, have a warm feeling in your heart when somebody lights a candle, and be kind to your grandmother and—hey presto!—you belong; you too can be an evangelical. Thus we have deniers of penal substitution, of any meaningful notion of biblical authority, of the uniqueness of Christ for salvation, of justification by grace through faith, of the particularity of salvation. No matter: just stress that Jesus was a jolly good bloke, mouth a few orthodox sounding phrases, speak with a bit of engaging passion, and you too can get a membership pass and a speaking gig. And, if the conferences I mentioned above are anything to go by, we fall for such ruses every time."

via: 9Marks Ministries

Are You Easily Offended?

From Justin Taylor:

Kevin DeYoung’s post today is worth reading in its entirety. Here’s a snippet:

As Christians, we worship a victimized Lord. We should expect to suffer and should have particular compassion on those who hurt emotionally and physically. But we do not resemble the Suffering Servant when we take pains to show off our suffering. I’m not thinking of the Brit Hume ordeal now. I’m just thinking in general how we are tempted to gain the culture’s approval by playing the culture’s offense-taking game. If a law is broken or a legitimate right taken away, let us protest with passion. But if we are misunderstood or even reviled let’s not go after short-lived and half-hearted affirmation by announcing our offendedness for the world to hear. Every time we try to make hay out of misplaced calumnies, we hasten the demise of Christianity in the public square. As offendedness becomes the barometer of acceptable discourse, we can expect further marginalization of Christian beliefs.

(My emphasis.)

Read the whole thing.

Evangelical Academics Need a New Kind of Ambition

In April, the Grove City Evangelical Scholarship Conference will be most pleased to welcome Dr. Carl R. Trueman, professor of church history and academic dean at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) and council member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Below are excerpts of a recent writing by Trueman, in which he offers some very timely and pithy musings on evangelicals in academia, namely their pitfalls.

I, for one, will be very grateful to welcome Dr. Trueman here in a few months and hope that he sheds some light (if not some godly conviction) on us self-appointed academics (and the pomp and arrogance thereof) and cause us to re-think how our efforts are aiding the cause of the gospel or whether they are simply feeding our egos.

From Justin Taylor:

Carl Trueman, writing for 9Marks on The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, writes about the kind of ambition that evangelicals should have:

[T]oo few evangelical academics seem to have much ambition. Perhaps this sounds strange: the desire to hold a tenured university position, to publish with certain presses, to speak at certain scholarly conferences, to be in conversation with the movers and shakers of the guild—these seem like ambitions that are all too common. Yet true ambition, true Christian ambition, is surely based in and directed towards the upbuilding of the church, towards serving the people of God, and this is where evangelical academics often fail so signally. The impact evangelical scholars have had on the academy is, by and large, paltry, and often (as noted) confined to those areas where their contributions have been negligibly evangelical. Had the same time and energy been devoted to the building up of the saints, imagine how the church might have been transformed.

He explains what he is and isn’t saying:

This is not to say that high-powered scholarship should be off-limits, nor that the immediate needs of the man or woman in the pew should provide the criteria by which relevance is judged; but it is to say that all theological scholarship should be done with the ultimate goal of building up the saints, confounding the opponents of the gospel, and encouraging the brethren. The highest achievement any evangelical theological scholar can attain is not membership of some elite guild but the knowledge that he or she has done work that strengthened the church and extended the kingdom of God through the local church.

Then he offers a prediction for the future of evangelical elites:

The day is coming when the cultural intellectual elites of evangelicalism—the institutions and the individuals—will face a tough decision. I see the crisis coming on two separate but intimately connected fronts. The day is coming, and perhaps has already come, when, first, to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired, authoritative, and utterly truthful, will be seen as a sign at best of intellectual suicide, at worst of mental illness; and, second, to articulate any form of opposition to homosexual practice will be seen as the moral equivalent of advocating white supremacy or child abuse. In such times, the choice will be clear, those who hold the Christian line will be obvious, and those who have spent their lives trying to serve both orthodoxy and the academy will find that no amount of intellectual contortionism will save them.

Conclusion:

Years ago, Mark Noll wrote a book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, in which he argued that the scandal was that there was no such thing. When it comes to evangelical scholars and scholarship, I disagree: the scandal is not that there is no mind; it is that these days there is precious little evangel.

Read the whole thing.

In Defense of Proselytism: Talking Points for Brit Hume

The furor surrounding Brit Hume’s encouragement to Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity shows us that the prevailing sentiments of our culture is adamantly opposed to the idea of evangelism.

As Christians, we must recognize that before we can make a robust defense for the Christian faith, we may have to clear the air by making a case for evangelism in general. After having listened to some of the remarks made about Brit Hume, I have compiled a list of common objections to “proselytism” and why each of them are unpersuasive.

Objection #1: “Brit Hume’s remarks indicate that he thinks Christianity is superior to Buddhism.”

Response: Of course, he thinks Christianity is superior. Otherwise why would he remain an adherent to the Christian faith?

In the same way, I would expect a Buddhist man to think that his religion to be superior to Christianity. If the Buddhist doesn’t consider Buddhism to be superior, then why not convert to whatever religion he thinks issuperior?

It is not arrogant to believe that your religion is superior to others. We should assume that religious people believe their faith to be superior.

Furthermore, if you believe no religion is superior to another, you are putting forth a viewpoint that you believe to be superior than the “religious superiority argument” you condemn. Thus, you fail to live up to your own demand.

Objection #2: “Christianity looks bad when Christians talk this way. Christians should not publicly and actively proselytize people of other faiths.”

Response: If Jesus calls us to make disciples of all nations and to preach the gospel, then Jesus is calling us to evangelism / proselytism. The issue is not about the way Christianity looks before the world. The question is whether or not someone can be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ and not evangelize.

To the person who says, “It’s arrogant to proselytize”, I say, “I consider it more arrogant that you think I should follow you in this area rather than Jesus Christ, who I claim as Savior and Lord.” It is the height of arrogance (and prejudice) to tell a Christian, “You should not follow Jesus Christ in this area.”

Objection #3: “Brit Hume implied that Buddhism is deficient in some way.”

Response: The assumption behind this objection is that all religions are equally valid. But that assumption is not so easily proven.

Do we really want to argue that no religion has any deficiency? That every religion is equally good (albeit in its own way)? Such a view is very disrespectful to the adherents of other religions. Buddhists know that they are not Christians. Christians know that they are not Muslims. By assuming that every religion is equally valid and good, you are downplaying the significant differences between these faiths.

Don’t patronize people and act like their differing views don’t matter. They do. They know they do. We know they do. Let’s agree on the fact that there are substantial disagreements and leave aside this nonsense that we all believe the same thing.

Objection #4: It is arrogant for Brit Hume to assume he believes in the only true religion and to try to lead people to the Christian faith.

Response: Is it? Most people in the world today do not believe that all religions are equally valid. In fact, most people believe that their religion is the correct one.

So by saying that it’s arrogant to insist your religion is right… well, that’s an arrogant statement too. You’re telling me that the majority of the world is wrong and you are right. Sounds oppressive. It’s also ethnocentric and prejudiced to believe that we in the enlightened West have figured out that all religions are the same and the poor, mindless Christians, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists across the world are still in the dark, thinking they have the only light.

Objection #5: Brit Hume’s attempt to evangelize Tiger Woods shows how exclusive and narrow-minded fundamentalist Christians are.

Response: Actually, no. True evangelism takes place because the call of salvation is radically inclusive. We are to call all people everywhere to repentance and faith: people from every tongue, tribe, and nation; people of every color, ethnicity, and background; yes, even people who claim other religious identities.

The truly narrow-minded, prejudiced Christian looks at a Buddhist like Tiger Woods and stays quiet about Jesus. Their silence says this: Jesus isn’t for you.

On the other hand, the evangelistic Christian recognizes the radically inclusive call to salvation. It is because of the exclusive nature of Christianity that the offer of the gospel is so radically inclusive. Christ calls all peopleeverywhere to repentance. Forgiveness in Jesus Christ is available for all… even Buddhists like Tiger Woods.

(via Trevin Wax)

Twenty Six Golden Rules for writing well

Iain D. Campbell posted 26 "Golden Rules" for writing well over at the Reformation21 Blog. For your convenience I've reproduced them below:

1. Don't abbrev.
2. Check to see if you any words out.
3. Be carefully to use adjectives and adverbs correct.
4. About sentence fragments.
5. When dangling, don't use participles.
6. Don't use no double negatives.
7. Each pronoun agrees with their antecedent.
8. Just between you and I, case is important.
9. Join clauses good, like a conjunction should.
10. Don't use commas, that aren't necessary.
11. Its important to use apostrophe's right.
12. It's better not to unnecessarily split an infinitive.
13. Never leave a transitive verb just lay there without an object.
14. Only Proper Nouns should be capitalized. also a sentence should begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop
15. Use hyphens in compound-words, not just in any two-word phrase.
16. In letters compositions reports and things like that we use commas to keep a string of items apart.
17. Watch out for irregular verbs that have creeped into our language.
18. Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
19. Avoid unnecessary redundancy.
20. A writer mustn't shift your point of view.
21. Don't write a run-on sentence you've got to punctuate it.
22. A preposition isn't a good thing to end a sentence with.
23. Avoid cliches like the plague.
24. 1 final thing is to never start a sentence with a number.
25. Always check your work for accuracy and completeness.

A lá Carte

1) The conservatism of Pixar movies. (HT: Trevin Wax)

2)What hath Bach to do with Japan? Much, for the sake of the gospel. (HT: JT)

3) A note for critics (not of me per se, just critics in general):

It’s not the critic who counts, not the one who points out where the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood, and who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spend himself in a worthy cause, who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.

His place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat!

- Theodore Roosevelt

4) Another peril of social networking

5) 2010: Should we be optimistic?

6) For all you feminists ("biblical" or otherwise) out there

7) A new study shows that children who were spanked are more likely to grow up happy and successful. Perhaps parental instinct and biblical command aren’t so bad after all.

According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.