Interview with Matt Chandler

John Piper interviewed Matt Chandler following a recent conference (via Desiring God):

• Part 1 - Chandler tells his story up to about 20 years old.
• Part 2 - More on Chandler's story, through becoming a pastor.
• Part 3 - Chandler's thoughts on being a pastor, a Calvinist, and a Complementarian.
• Part 4 - Chandler and Piper finish up with some advice for pastors.

“We just haven’t loved adulterers enough”

Voddie Baucham weighs in on homosexual marriage with some good points:

I have quoted from Kirk and Madsen’s book, After the Ball on a number of occasions. Their comments are no less relevant to this topic. With sarcasm dripping from their pens, they write:

“Some of the more forgiving churches have taken a lenient stand: they will permit the [homosexual] to remain in their congregation so long as these unfortunates renounce vile, [homosexual] practices. Love the sinner, hate the sin! After all, it is plainly the godforsaken [homosexual] lifestyle that makes these creatures so suicidally miserable. (p. ix-xx)"

Kirk and Madsen are mocking what all homosexual activists despise. Unfortunately, many Christian “leaders” haven’t gotten the memo. The gospel is offensive! It always has been, and it always will be. Homosexuals don’t hate us because we have loved them insufficiently; they hate us because “this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.” (John 3:19 ESV) Does this mean I hate homosexuals? Of course not! I don’t hate homosexuals any more than I hate fornicators, or adulterers. However, when the Bible calls any one of those things sin, I agree. (funny how no one goes around saying, “We just haven’t loved adulterers enough”)

Myths of Columbine

USA Today has an article on myths of the attack at Columbine High School in 1999. A lot of the things that have characterized this event are actually distortions of the truth or complete fabrications, according to the article's research. This is very interesting.

A decade after Harris and Klebold made Columbine a synonym for rage, new information — including several books that analyze the tragedy through diaries, e-mails, appointment books, videotape, police affidavits and interviews with witnesses, friends and survivors — indicate that much of what the public has been told about the shootings is wrong.

Atheist Finds Faith Again

This is a cool story about a man named A.N. Wilson who became an atheist after long being a Christian, and who recently came back to Christianity upon observing nature and things music and love. Here is a good quote:

My departure from the Faith was like a conversion on the road to Damascus. My return was slow, hesitant, doubting. So it will always be; but I know I shall never make the same mistake again. Gilbert Ryle, with donnish absurdity, called God “a category mistake”. Yet the real category mistake made by atheists is not about God, but about human beings. Turn to the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge – “Read the first chapter of Genesis without prejudice and you will be convinced at once . . . ‘The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’.” And then Coleridge adds: “‘And man became a living soul.’ Materialism will never explain those last words.”

Catch also the Q&A link.

The Implications of Resurrection for Real Life

Matt Chandler explains what the implications of the resurrection of Jesus and of ourselves means for everyday life, that it demands that we "get on mission".

His "rant" at the end was really convicting to me. The real resurrection life is not just about talking about and studying the Gospel and the Bible. It is about actually living it and engaging with people about it (in the office, neighborhood, on a plane) so that Jesus is what's made much of, and not our status in society or who likes us and thinks well of us. It's easy to forget that the Gospel is not just a written account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. The words in the commission are written to us today.

Man, this is a challenge, and I believe it's the challenge of Jesus from his own mouth in the Gospel accounts.

General Thoughts on the Resurrection

I feel like the resurrection of Christ and of people in general tends to get shoved to the back of the line in a lot of Christianity, at least in my experience in churches. It doesn't always seem to be mentioned in such a way as to carry the criticality the Apostle Paul put on it in 1 Corinthians 15. With Paul, it appears to be the very hope of our existence. Jesus' resurrection (along with his crucifixion, death, and burial, since they are all are parts of the same story) is where life of humanity is reborn and what accomplishes for Christians the same promise of life after "life after death", as N.T. Wright has put it so clearly. It is not just life after death, in some disembodied angelic cloud world that so much of evangelicalism has mistakenly preached, that the resurrection accomplishes. The resurrection means that our bodies and the whole of creation will be remade and redeemed by the work of Jesus into that of which it was all intended to become by God's initial act of creation. The way I understand it is that through Christ, we who love and trust in him will have the same: all of man, including Adam onward, will be redeemed back into what God created us to be, to be glorifiers of him in all we do. And not only this, but we will continue on into eternity continually becoming that which he created us to become. This was initially disrupted by the Fall in which the whole of humanity collectively participated in rebellion against God and his creation, and in turn this created all acts of death and decay by God's curse on creation. But Christ's resurrection restores all that was lost and puts man back on the intended path of bringing glory to God and of enjoying him in everything forever.

The weight of this hope I don't feel is always stressed in evangelicalism. It's more of a hope of heaven and a vague "being with God" which to me conjures up images of floating on clouds and wearing diapers and playing harps (which sounds more like hell to me), than it is the New Heavens and New Earth, and our Resurrected Bodies, as it were, where our lives carry on in many ways as they do right now, but without sin, without suffering, only with pure joy in being with Jesus who has saved us and with people we love who do also.

I wish the resurrection of Jesus were more explicitly understood as being the core of the hope of the world. Sometimes this hope is only spoken of as being evident in the bloody death of Jesus, and mention is not always made of his resurrection (often only as a period to the sentence). While Jesus' crucifixion and death are the object of hope for the atonement of sin, forgiveness, and reconciliation with God (they are!), the resurrection is also our promise that God is not only forgiving us, but allowing us to actually live life in holiness and glory (instead of sin, pain, and suffering) with him forever! This includes not only being with Jesus forever, but participating in the community of saints, singing, dancing, loving, working, and rejoicing always in the lives that have been given to us, indeed redeemed, by Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection on our behalf.

The Resurrection of Jesus

Happy Easter! This is the day Christians everywhere celebrate the fact that Jesus has risen from death and that it is for those who love and trust Jesus as the Messiah of God and King the impetus of our own resurrection, that we will also rise one day to live forever with him, reigning with him in a new and glorified body over a new creation. What could be better than that?

Also, Mark Driscoll provides a helpful summary of N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God, which echoes some of the things I have been writing about it here:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Gay Marriage in Iowa and Vermont

The recent ruling in Iowa and Vermont to allow gay marriage because it is now deemed to be a constitutional right sparked a couple of thoughts and questions in me. First, it may not be an obvious one, but one thought is: (1) regardless of whether or not gay marriage really is “constitutional” (I personally cannot see the connection), why is the American constitution elevated above the constitutions of other world governments? (2) Another question is: Why does it seem so suspicious that “constitutional” is being substituted for the idea of “worldliness”?

As for question 1, doesn’t it go against Western/American values to elevate one culture (or religion for that matter) above another? Isn’t this seen as “intolerant” by the majority of enlightened American values? Wouldn’t it be seen as “close-minded” to say that the American constitution is better than, say, a French constitution and that we shouldn’t even entertain legal notions embraced by the French (I have nothing in mind here, it is simply a random example)? I will give a different illustration. If a country were founded by homosexuals, and they created a constitution distinctly favoring the homosexual lifestyle, would this be seen as especially “enlightened”, or especially “intolerant”? My confident guess is that, in light of current American values, it would be seen as especially enlightened and highly-evolved. Isn’t it intolerant to view the values of other cultures as less-evolved or even as primitive?

I will allow the issues emerging from question 1 to be addressed by question 2 also since they are closely related. I hope the connection is made.

To attempt to restate question 2, why does it feel like using the word constitutional is simply the reason given to justify the changing of laws based on the degree that the new law actually does fit the constitution, when it feels oddly (perhaps more) like the law is being changed based on the particular whims of the current culture? What prevented the Founders and the few hundred years of courts, judges, adjudication, and legislation to realize that gay marriage is actually a value allowed and perhaps upheld by the constitution? Why now? Why not 200 years ago, or fifty years ago, or one year ago? I anticipate the answer to this question is that the majority values of the population have shifted, or even perhaps something along the lines of: our legal system has evolved from the “primitive” to the “enlightened.”

While this observation could easily expand into a host of other ethical questions (e.g. Isn’t it arrogant to assume people living in another century are primitive simply because they held different values?), I want to for now simply keep the question on the level of the spirit of question 2, that pertaining to cultural influence. Is it permissible that our laws seem to only reflect the current values of our culture, which could change in 50 or 100 years? Maybe it is not enough that I ask this. Perhaps I am forced to dig deeper here upon realizing that the entire concept of democracy is based on the answer to this last question being in the hearty affirmative. I am not so much suggesting that the ideals of democracy be changed to substitute them for something else, but I would go so far as to challenge what it is about American culture that allows the laws regarding what is right and wrong to be changed based solely on what the values of our culture are. What are these values and why do we have them? If it is enough for our culture to simply go with the majority rule and decide ethical standards based solely on what most people think is permissible, then it begs the question of the foundation of these standards? If they can change tomorrow, what good are they? Why should people in fifty years follow the standards of today? Or should they? If not, why not? If this cannot be answered sufficiently, I would submit that the “Republic in Which We Stand” is made of not rock but sand, and we are in the end no better off than nations in bondage to dictators since tomorrow we could find ourselves in chains also, if it be found best to do so in the majority opinion.

Who’s to say this is out of the question for “enlightened” citizens? This same so-called enlightenment type thinking, specifically the ideals of Darwin played out to their logical conclusions (e.g. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life), produced the horrors of Hitler and Stalin in the 20^th Century. Who’s to say if we can keep our footing in the shifting sands of cultural values and avoid the same sort of “enlightened” atrocities? Is Western culture really above these horrors?

I don’t think much is accomplished by any of what I just said, but I think bottom-line it’s pretentious to put too much stock in the opinions of the masses.

Who's the Hero?

ABC Debate: Does Satan Exist?

This debate was aired in March 2009 at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, featuring a panel of Mark Driscoll and Annie Lobert answering "yes", and Deepak Chopra and Carlton Pearson answering "no" (sort of). As I pretty much expected from mainstream media like ABC hosting something like this, this was not much of a debate, as far as debates go. The "debate" quickly evolved from opening statements and rebuttals into a disorganized scuffle with plenty of non-sequiturs to go around. However, it is something very interesting to watch and hear the different arguments, though not much is accomplished in what appears to be an intensely edited version of the event. It is interesting to take a look at, if you can stand the slightly terrible interface with this website (beware of ad overload).

How can you explain the resurrection? 4

I finished the book, fittingly on Palm Sunday in the morning. It has been tremendous to read this wonderful scholarly work on the resurrection of Jesus. There is an enormous amount of information in it, and I struggle to see how anyone could be so dedicated to a topic to devote so much energy into developing an argument such as this one. I am immensely impressed with N.T. Wright as a scholar on this topic and I hope to read some more of his books at some point.

Regarding the content, I am obliged to agree with Tim Keller’s exclamation when he put it down at the end, and say “Wow, it did happen!”

This is Wright’s argument throughout the book, that something did in fact happen on the first Easter, and that something was that Jesus really was bodily raised from death after three days. The explanations modern scholars have come up with simply fall flat when examined, two of which include: what is called “cognitive dissonance”, basically meaning that the “supposed eye-witnesses” simply wanted to believe that Jesus came back; and what is best described as a “spiritualization” of the supposed events, meaning that Jesus didn’t actually rise from death, but the resurrection language used in the Gospel accounts is there because it represents something metaphorical about Christian faith, that Jesus is alive in some spiritual way in the faith of believers, and was not physically brought back from death.

But Wright shows in his next to last chapter how improbable these explanations are in light of the accounts of (1) the discovery of the empty tomb and (2) the appearances of Jesus to his followers, including women as the primary witnesses. Wright shows how (1) and (2) are sufficient and necessary historical conditions for the subsequent belief that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

By sufficient, it is meant that the empty tomb and the meetings with Jesus sufficiently explain the subsequent Christian faith and belief that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.

By necessary, it is meant that the empty tomb and meetings with Jesus are necessary to explain the subsequent belief in his resurrection from death.

The necessary condition is essentially the attempt at proving that the resurrection is true, though I believe Wright intended it to carry a little less force logically (as he stated in The Resurrection of Jesus, Fortress Press January 2006, pg. 22). I would think though that this is what he truly thinks, that it does in fact serve as near proof of the historical reality of Jesus’ resurrection.

It’s fascinating stuff. I recommend reading this book. It appears to be an almost comprehensive survey of all scholarly work on the resurrection from the perspective of history.

Tim Keller speaking at Stanford

Tim Keller did a speaking tour a little while back, in which he discussed his book The Reason for God (which is superb). Below is a video of one such session at Stanford University. Also below is the Q&A session, which is especially good. For all the other sessions, you can go to the Veritas Forum website and click to Tim Keller's page. For other Tim Keller related media, there is this page devoted to providing all the links.



Q&A:

Em

Sometimes I like to brag on my wife Emily. There are many things about her that have blessed me incredibly. This is a small list of some of my observations about her. They include:

Her loveliness. I've said it before but it bears repeating. She is distinctly stunning outwardly. But I mean more than just physically, everything that she stands for exudes a certain mysterious beauty that is unmistakable yet I can't grasp it. It's just who she is.

Her gentle spirit. It's that quality of meekness, like that of Jesus. She's not a loud mouth, but always conducts herself with appropriate behavior. It's a leadership quality, but it's a sort of subversive version compared to the world's definition of leadership. She does not shout it, she quietly goes about her business but with a strong dignified air that demands respect.

Her wisdom. I've heard wisdom described as knowing who to talk to, how to talk to them, what to say, and doing so with appropriate respect and prudent speech.

Her good counsel. She is one of those people you envy as your friend, and someone who has deep friendships. People can't help but notice what a good friend she is and it's obvious she is surrounded by a great group of people in her life that know her and speak into her life. I wish everyone would have and be a friend like her.

Her strong family. They are good people with good theology, not only in what they believe but also what they practice and what their characters point to. It shows where she is rooted.

Her mom. Her hospitality and her loving nature shows who Emily is patterned to be like, although one could make a good case that Emily is nothing at all like her mom.

Her knowledge of scripture and of who Jesus is. She knows her Bible and understands grace.

Her faithfulness and trust in God. It is obvious. She is who I think of when I think of Eugene Peterson's definition of discipleship as: "long obedience in the same direction." She doesn't stray much, and before I knew her, she was being faithful to her Lord for a long time.

Her purity of character. She is always consistent to who she is and what she stands for.

Her cuteness and playfulness. I laugh a lot when I'm around her and it's always enjoyable to be with her.

Her laugh. It's one of the best things I can think of.

Her singing. It's one of the sweetest things I've heard.

Her frugality and practicalness. She is tremendously practical and a good steward.

Her intelligence. I mean she went to Duke and has a master's degree. Her ability to multi-task amazes me.

Her responsibleness. She is absolutely dependable and does not slack a bit with her duties. She's a great employee.

Her good credit. It sounds silly but it's a tremendous blessing considering how big a problem this is in America. I found out how good it was when we bought a home together.

How she is always cold and likes me to warm her up. This is just fun.

I wish every unworthy dude like me the same things.

New Texas tax favors strip clubs

Bad news for the state. I didn't know nude dancing was protected by the First Amendment. Is this really what the Founders has in mind? What the...

How is going to Hell fair?

Tim Keller gives a great answer:

We run from the presence of God and therefore God actively gives us up to our desire (Romans 1:24, 26.) Hell is therefore a prison in which the doors are first locked from the inside by us and therefore are locked from the outside by God (Luke 16:26.) Every indication is that those doors continue to stay forever barred from the inside. Though every knee and tongue in hell knows that Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11,) no one can seek or want that Lordship without the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3.This is why we can say that no one goes to hell who does not choose both to go and to stay there. What could be more fair than that?