SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • Randy McDonald: Tom Gilson: “There is instructive value in having laws like anti-sodomy: they say that we as a...
  • Randy McDonald: De Las Casas: “Many supporters of SSM don’t realize that using the word “marriage” for gay...
  • Truth Unites... and Divides: Q: “Nikolai Volk, Do you affirm Scripture’s teachings that same-sex behavior is...
  • Truth Unites... and Divides: “Thanks for this conversation… it’s been quite helpful in drawing out the key...
  • Nikolai Volk: Understood, Tom. I definitely agree with you here, and I’m glad that you recognize the importance...
  • Jake Belder: Conflict within churches and between Christians is an unfortunate reality owing to our sinfulness. But...
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 11:40 AM

    Since we’re on the topic of the Gospel and the culture War over here, I’m going to recycle a post from my old-school blog about this subject. I love this post.

    It starts, as is common in my world, with a cartoon:

    The comment was made that this is the conservative view of orthodoxy—it’s a prison or a fortress meant to keep all kinds of people out. And, I guess, there’s something to that—but it gives the impression that the objective of the Gospel is to make the church into a bunker, and that somehow the church’s primary task is to keep itself clearly separated from the world and that’s it.

    Listen: there’s no question that James 1:27 says that Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to keep oneself unstained from the world. But it doesn’t only say that. It says, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” That is, we have to be in the world but not of the world — we have to be doing things which present the Gospel to the world. We are suppose to be a Light to the world (Mt 5:12; Phil 2:15).

    So whatever orthodoxy —and it is something specific—it cannot be something which causes us to be a bunker. And if I may propose this without being seen as condescending or disrespectful, I think this is what orthodoxy ought to turn us into:

    Now, before you go insane and fill the meta with denunciations, hear me out. In the first place, Sonic is pretty limited, right? You can’t get a steak at Sonic, and you can’t get a pizza, and you can’t get lobster tail or any of that stuff — so someone who is looking for that can’t pull up to the talking sign and demand a seafood platter and then be in a huff when the voice tells them, “I’m sorry, you can’t get that here — how about a Slush?” In fact, we would think that someone who did that to the talking sign would be somewhat of an egomaniac — because everyone knows what Sonic is about.

    In that, Sonic doesn’t care what seafood lovers want. Sonic knows what’s good for Sonic, and doesn’t much listen to critics who think Sonic should also be Red Lobster or the Outback Steak House. Sonic’s not going to add all kinds of bad ideas to its inventory because someone thinks their menu is too limited.

    But on the other hand, Sonic is able to leverage its menu to be somewhat wildly popular — and that, maybe based on one item: the Slush. Just a few flavors, but the slush is by a long shot Sonic’s claim to fame — especially since they did away with the Frito Chili Pie (a violation of orthodoxy which they will pay the price for in the long run, I am certain).

    But my point is this: Sonic maintains a kind of regimented plan and creates itself not to be a defender of its plan so much as a promoter of its plan. That is, the plan is what it is, and people should know that this plan is full of good things. They don’t have to change the plan. The Slush will always be Sonic’s foundational matter — because the Slush is good.

    Think about it: Lemon Berry Slush. Just the words make you want to go get one. It makes the back of my throat dry to think about it. What Sonic has — I want that. And it’s not because Sonic has pandered to me: it is because I have tasted of what Sonic has, and it is good. And remember: Sonic doesn’t have any shame in asking you, once you’re hooked on the Slush, “You want fries with that?” They don’t have any shame in asking you every time you come for the sweet, savory stuff if you will also take the up sell — if you would be willing to go in for more while you are here.

    I’d be willing to take for granted today that your church has an orthodox statement of faith — that it has the Christian menu someplace in there. Here’s my question: does your church treat the menu like it’s something to be protected and defended, or does it treat the menu as the only reasonable thing which we must share? Is it serving up the Gospel, or is it hiding the Gospel? Is it a result of the Gospel, and an outlet for the Gospel or is it trying to hide the Gospel from harm and keep it safe from anyone who might touch it?

    I realize this analogy has some pretty serious limits, but look: Christ wants to be lifted up. You can’t lift Christ up very far if you live in a bunker — the ceiling is too low.

    Let’s think about how we can leverage orthodoxy as something which is spiritually delicious today, something that if people taste and see, they will want it more and more.

    Come and get it.

    8 Comments

      Paul D.
      October 21st, 2009 | 12:37 pm | #1

      Frank – not sure slushes were in the original Sonic creed…
      Terrific post though. And to answer your rhetorical question.
      the church should freely promote the true Gospel. [sarcasm] But only after hungry pattrons have gotten comfortable in the pew – words like “sin” and “blood”, though essential menu items, are not light meals and can scare people away from the less offensive choices[end sarcasm].

      JSullivan
      October 21st, 2009 | 1:04 pm | #2

      Excellent post. This reminds me of a choice soundbite from Pope Benedict:

      “Christianity… isn’t a collection of prohibitions: it’s a positive option. It’s very important that we look at it again because this idea has almost completely disappeared today. We’ve heard so much about what is not allowed that now it’s time to say: we have a positive idea to offer.”

      Source: http://ncronline.org/node/11513

      Tweets that mention Sweet, Frosty Orthodoxy » Evangel | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com
      October 21st, 2009 | 1:21 pm | #3

      [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jonathan Sullivan, Tim Margheim. Tim Margheim said: Try a glass of sweet, frosty orthodoxy. http://bit.ly/ocaOR (from @Frank_Turk) [...]

      dac
      October 21st, 2009 | 2:45 pm | #4

      Yes, but while the slush is great, the rest of the food their sucks – I mean really really bad.

      Sonic has one good thing – the rest does not even make second rate fast food.

      not sure what that does to your metaphor, but make of it what you will

      Frank Turk
      October 21st, 2009 | 3:39 pm | #5

      You’re obviously an atheist, dac. Let me tell you about this fellow Jesus, who was plain burger with onion rings man from way back …

      dac
      October 21st, 2009 | 5:30 pm | #6

      ouch

      Brian Auten
      October 21st, 2009 | 10:37 pm | #7

      Frank — Glad that you’re here. To stick with your analogy: Yet, many of the recent evangelical statements (I’m thinking primarily T4G here) are precisely cast in terms of “protecting” and “defending” the menu. And with such statements, it’s often not the foundational Slush itself that is the subject of critique, but rather the acceptable “few flavors” of Slush on offer.

      Frank Turk
      October 22nd, 2009 | 5:44 pm | #8

      Brian –

      I’d be careful with thayt nway of thinking about confessional statements. I haven’t looked at the T4G statement in a while, but as I remember it’s affirmations and denials — which is a wholly-credible way to clearly exposit what one means to say in a formal and didactic way.

      My post here isn’t about what our formal statements say. I think the WCF and LBCF are brilliant summaries of the faith. You just can’t start reciting it someplace when you’re supposed to be mourning with those who mourn and rejoicing with those who rejoice and then say you’ve done your Christian part.

      FWIW, I reject “mere” Christianity as an option. It’s not nearly robust enough to live by. Even if it does offer the essential Slush.

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact