James Poulos (founding editor of First Things’ Postmodern Conservative blog) recently interviewed our own Matthew Anderson about his new book Earthen Vessels. They discuss how evangelical Christians relate to their bodies and whether the Evangelical tradition is failing to give young people a sense of purpose.
Thursday, February 24, 2011, 1:51 AM
February 24th, 2011 | 10:29 am | #1
Having lived a lifetime in evangelical churches, I can say with confidence that, whatever their failures, they absolutely have not failed to give young people a sense of purpose. I’m thinking of Rick Warren’s Purpose Drive Life, Joel Osteen’s Your Best Life NOW, the emotional calls to my generation to preach the gospel, to plant churches, to feed the poor, to dominate politics and the arts, and the billion times I’ve been told God loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life.
If there is a problem, it may rather be that Christians feel entitled to some super-heroic purpose and mega-successful ministry, when the truth is that God needs us for neither.
February 24th, 2011 | 1:47 pm | #2
Anthony, so… what’d you think of the interview?
February 24th, 2011 | 2:30 pm | #3
Overall, I thought it was a pretty good interview. There were many good insights, including the connection of tattoo culture with the instability of experience and the description of the secular understanding of the body as a mere instrument controlled as a puppet-master might.
Substantively, I found myself a bit at odds with the language used by Matt Anderson in denying the centrality of sexuality to Christian identity in contrast with a Christian’s relationship to God. I believe he was, rightly, trying to say that one’s sexuality can receive idolatrous attention with attendant consequences, but I felt that the language wasn’t robust enough to communicate that sexuality is a pervasive part of human identity and experience redeemed and not abrogated by grace; indeed, our relationship to God is a relation between creatures created with a sexual aspect to the God who created them. When Paul writes that in Christ there is no male or female, the context indicates that he is saying the promise of sonship is not limited to one sex or to the slave or free, etc. not that we cease to have sexuality.
If I have to pick between “sexuality” or “relationship with God” as that which is central to Christian identity, I would pick “relationship with God,” but I’d prefer (and believe necessary) a more robust and fuller set of options.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact