The Hope of Resurrection

Mark Driscoll explains how the resurrection of Jesus is the great and only hope of the world.

Prophecies of the Resurrection

Mark Driscoll shows how the resurrection of Jesus was predicted from Old Testament passages.

What is Resurrection?

Mark Driscoll explains well what resurrection means. It is not, contrary to a near-majority's understanding of the subject, merely life after death where we "go to heaven" as widespread evangelicalism would have us believe, but it is rising back into a bodily existence, as modeled by the prototype of Jesus' resurrection back into his body (be it a newly glorified body).

Objections to the Resurrection

Mark Driscoll answers some of the primary objections to the resurrection as historical fact, discussing some material from N.T. Wright.

 

 

Patriotism Same as Racism?

I don't believe this is necessarily true, but taken to the degree many Americans do (as well as other nations as well), I believe it can certainly be considered coming close to racism.  Matt Chandler makes a strong point for this in this strong (and hilarious: he talks about Star Wars at the beginning in classic Chandler, Brian Regan-like, humor) sermon:

If my nation [America] is ultimate [in importance], does that not then force me to look down upon other nations, nationalities, and cultures?  It absolutely does.  If we're the best, if we're ultimate, then that means everyone else is secondary, and that's not too far away from racism.  You put anything else as ultimate [other than God] and things start to break down.

His point is that sin is the root of all of our problems.  The reason we have war is sin, and problems in the economy in America were caused by sin, greed especially.  We Americans don't want to hear that though.  It's never really spoken of that way in the media or by the president.  Instead of being honest and assigning blame where it's due, it's always, "man, we are just having some rough times so we need some more bailouts and stimulus checks."  I think the underlying root of all this is the sinful pride of extreme patriotism.  I'm not against being proud to be an American, but I think it is idolatrous to put up any place as the promised land above another that God has created.


This is especially interesting since most Americans value things like "tolerance", where presumably the attitude above would be far from close.  But a little hypocrisy never hurt anybody...

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).