Reason for the Hope: February 2007

Friday, February 23, 2007

Revival of the Mind

American evangelicals need a revival. By revival, I don’t mean what Webster’s defines as “an often highly emotional evangelistic meeting or series of meetings.” I do mean what Webster’s defines as “renewed attention to or interest in something.” That “something” for evangelicals should be the life of the mind.

In centuries past, Christians pursued the life of the mind with vigor. A quick glance back in Christian history reveals intellectual giants who not only loved God with all of their hearts and souls, but with their minds as well (Matthew 22:37). These great men of God were scientists, scholars, educators, artists, writers, musicians, founders of universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, etc.), college presidents, and pastors who were not just informed about theology, but a wide variety of subjects. Jonathan Edwards, who many still consider the greatest intellect America has ever produced, readily comes to mind. A Congregationalist pastor, Edwards spent twelve to thirteen hours a day in study, not just in theology, but in areas such as science and philosophy. He died shortly after becoming the president of what is now Princeton University. One might suspect that Edwards was so engaged in the life of the mind that his religion was cold and lifeless, but we shouldn’t forget that his preaching was the impetus for the First Great Awakening—Edwards loved God with his heart and his head.

In contrast to Evangelicalism’s rich intellectual history, a dangerous anti-intellectualism has taken hold today. As proof, the average Christian does not know who Jonathan Edwards is, nor do they have any significant understanding of important events in Christian history. The study of biblical theology is considered by many to be boring, irrelevant, and overly divisive, whereas the sale of Christian fiction continues to increase. In some Christian circles—thankfully not all—those who pursue advanced degrees are held suspect. What’s worse, many Christians have no idea how to communicate the Christian worldview and to integrate it into every area of life. A recent Barna poll (Dec. 2006) states that Christians are more attuned to matters of culture and entertainment than matters of faith. If the mind dwells on what the heart deems most important, Christianity is in deep trouble. It’s not that issues of culture and entertainment are bad; it’s just that if matters of faith are not informing these areas, the culture will influence Christianity far more than Christianity will influence the culture. This is clearly what’s happening in America; the salt of Christian thought has lost its savor. As a result, our culture is becoming putrid.

Writing to the church in Rome, the Apostle Paul says, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…” (Romans 12:2) This is exactly what we need today: a renewal or a revival of our minds. Some may think that intellectual pursuits will lessen a person’s devotion to God, but as the Puritan minister Cotton Mather once quipped, “Ignorance is not the mother of Devotion but of HERESY.”

In the next few weeks we’ll explore the root of this anti-intellectualism. We’ll also offer some possible solutions, and examine what a Christian revival of the mind might look like.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Labels: anti-intellectualism, christian mind

Friday, February 16, 2007

Pragmatic Therapeutic Deistic Consumerism

When people ask “Does it work?” rather than “Is it true?” it’s a sure indicator that a cultural shift has occurred. This shift, brought to us by the pragmatism of William James, is not only evident in the broader culture, it’s now seen within the Christian community.

In a free-market economy, profitability is the leading indicator of success; for many churches today the leading indicator is growth. However, if church growth is the ultimate goal then truth will inevitably be sacrificed on the altar of success. The sacrifice of truth for the sake of cultural palatability is nothing new for liberal theologians, but it is new among conservative evangelicals. This compromise seems to have two components: the culture viewing the church primarily as a humanitarian organization designed to help solve problems and meet felt needs, and church leaders viewing church growth and evangelism primarily as a marketing problem.

Take for example how most Christians look for a church today. Steeped in consumerism, the typical Christian no longer looks for a church where the Bible is rightly preached and the ordinances (sacraments to my non-Baptist friends) rightly administered; they look for a church with a great children’s ministry, youth ministry, or a good music program (none of which is mandated by Scripture). They will look for a church that will meet their perceived needs, rather than look for a church that will tell them the truth about sin and the cross of Christ.

Churches that view church growth and evangelism as a marketing problem are reinforcing consumerism, and the desires of the consumer will untimely drive church practice. If the consumer wants short therapeutic sermons without all the business of sin and hell, then that’s what they’ll get. The Christian community needs to be reminded again and again that church is not about us; it’s about God, His truth, and His glory.

A couple of years ago, sociologist Christian Smith studied the religious beliefs of American teenagers. At the conclusion of the study, he and his fellow researchers coined the title “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” to describe the average teenager’s view of God and religion. They discovered that most teens believe in a God who wants us to be good, nice, and fair to each other. They also discovered the average teen believes that the central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself, that God does not need to be involved in one’s life except when there’s a problem, and that good people go to heaven when they die. When pressed to answer crucial questions of faith and belief, many teens responded with a shrug and an apathetic, “whatever.”

Where did they get such ideas? Most likely these ideas came from their parents, from their peers, from the media, and, quite possibly, from their church. When we understand that the average church attendee is beginning to grey, we should be concerned about the future of the church in America. What our youth and adults need is not more entertainment, therapy, or catering to felt needs; what they need is the truth. I just hope there will still be churches around who will give it to them.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Labels: consumerism, pragmatism

Friday, February 09, 2007

What Is theTheology of the Cross?

During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther contrasted what he called the “theology of the cross” with the “theology of glory.” To Luther, the cross of Christ was the focal point of salvation and of the Christian life. The work of Christ on the Cross is the only basis by which sinful humanity can approach God. Luther said, “The cross alone is our theology,” which sounds much like the Apostle Paul when he wrote, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” 1 Corinthians 2:2 (ESV)

The theology of the cross is a corrective of the theology of glory, which represents mankind’s attempt, through self-effort, to climb his way into God’s favor. Those who adhere to the theology of glory are marked by a constant striving to climb onward and upward, to be in on the newest thing, whether a new teaching or a so-called new movement of the Spirit. They are constantly looking for a “new level” of spirituality from which they can look down on the poor sinners, the unspiritual, the ignorant people who just don’t get it. The theologian of glory reasons that since Jesus suffered and died on the cross, we don’t have to suffer. We should expect only spiritual blessings of health, wealth, and happiness; in essence, our best life now.

Is this really what the Christian should expect in this life? Are we not confusing the already and the not yet? Aren’t we still looking for the city whose builder and maker is God, and still hoping for heaven where the present sufferings are not worthy to be compared to the glory that awaits us (Rom. 8:18)? The disciples on several occasions argued who would be the greatest in the kingdom of God (theology of glory), but Jesus reminded his disciples that to follow him meant denying themselves and taking up their crosses. The disciples wanted glory; Jesus offered a cross.

Like the disciples, we to want to climb the ladder of glory. We want instant success, instant healing, and instant spirituality; the last thing we expect is suffering. In some circles, to suffer is a sign of insufficient faith, but suffering for the sake of Christ is the mark of a true follower. Philippians 1:29 says “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” In Philippians 3:10-11, Paul says that his goal in life is, “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” Romans 7:17 says that we are, “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”

The theology of the cross reminds us that the way up is down; the way to exaltation is through humiliation; the way to glory is through suffering. This is the path Jesus took, and it is the path on which he calls us to follow Him (Phil. 2:5-11).

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Labels: cross, Luther, suffering

Friday, February 02, 2007

Can I Really Make Free Choices? pt. 4

For the last several weeks we’ve discussed the sovereignty of God versus the free will of man. Specifically, we’ve examined the differences between incompatibilism and compatibilism, and have hopefully shown that compatibilism is the more reasonable solution. To conclude this series we will show that compatibilism is supported by Scripture.

Another term often used by theologians when discussing the compatibility of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will is concurrence. The doctrine of concurrence affirms both that God is sovereign and that mankind makes choices for which they are held responsible. This is precisely the testimony of Scripture. Proverbs 16:9 says, “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.” And in Proverbs 16:33, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” These two verses tell us that God is directly involved in events considered to be matters of human freedom or events seemingly produced by random chance.

Concurrence is also found in Acts 2:22-23: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” In his sermon, Peter acknowledges Jesus died according to God’s divine plan and foreknowledge, yet Peter also lays the guilt of Jesus’ crucifixion on the crowd. God, in His sovereignty, uses the evil intents of men’s hearts to accomplish His eternal purposes.

Another example is found in the book of Genesis. Out of jealousy, Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, telling their father that he had been killed by a wild animal. Through a series of divinely orchestrated events, Joseph went from being a slave in Egypt to being a ruler second only to Pharaoh. This providential turn of events saved Jacob and his sons from certain starvation. Years later, Joseph said to his brothers concerning their selling him into slavery, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” Genesis 50:20 (ESV) Again, God used the evil intents of Joseph’s brothers to bring about his sovereign will. Many more verses could be used (such as the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart before the Exodus), but these verses should be sufficient to show the Scriptural support for the doctrine of concurrence.

The doctrine of concurrence should bring Christians comfort and hope knowing that God is actively involved in our lives, and that evil can never ultimately overcome the good (Rom. 8:28). This is why Paul could write in Philippians 2:12-13, “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
Our choices do matter, but our choices never take God by surprise, nor are they outside His sovereign control (Is. 46:9-10, Eph. 1:11).

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Labels: free will, sovereignty