Group blogs that have numerous contributors tend to have a short lifespan. Within a few years they either morph into full-blown web magazines, downsize until only a few dedicated bloggers remain, or fade away due to inattention. Evangel has been losing readers and contributors over the last year—in October 2009 we had 152 posts; in October 2012 we had 8—so it appears to be time to move on. While the archives will remain open indefinitely, this will be the last post.

Almost all of our contributors continue to write for other blogs (a few have even agreed to join FT’s main blog, First Thoughts), so I hope you’ll seek out and follow your favorites. I believe I speak for all of our contributors when I say that we’ve appreciated those who have read and commented over the past few years.

Thank you and God Bless,

Joe Carter
Online Editor
First Things

Before enrolling in divinity school, I was a cage fighter—not a full-time cage fighter, not a world-famous cage fighter, not even a person for whom cage fighting paid the bills, but a cage fighter nonetheless. Now, before I go any further, I need to be more careful with my vocabulary or else I’ll risk losing credibility. You see, real cage fighters don’t like to be referred to as such; we prefer the term mixed martial artist. And we prefer that our sport go by the name mixed martial arts or MMA instead of “cage fighting.” There is a long, sordid history behind the sport’s various name changes, and it has everything to do with public perception, influential politicians, and corporate cash (Amy Silverman, Phoenix New Times, February 12, 1998). (But then again, what doesn’t?) Given my history of participation in and love for the sport, my ears perked up last year when MMA arose as a topic of conversation in my theological ethics class.

During the course of our class discussion, one of my divinity school colleagues referred to a recent New York Times article that describes the way a number of churches throughout the United States are turning to mixed martial arts as a way to draw men into their buildings (R. M. Schneiderman, February 1, 2010). Some churches train fighters to compete, while an even greater number of churches host gatherings for men at live fights. On top of this, clothing companies such as Jesus Didn’t Tap and websites like AnointedFighter.com market themselves to a crowd of Christian fight fans—a crowd that might be called a niche if it weren’t already so big.

To some Christians, this new MMA movement represents an expression of real, natural, God-given masculinity. One captain for this team is Seattle megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll, who in the film Fighting Politics says, “I don’t think there is anything purer than two guys in a cage. [. . .] As a pastor and as a Bible teacher, I think that God made men masculine. [. . .] Men are made for combat, men are made for conflict, men are made for dominion. [. . .] That’s just the way men are made.”

Read more . . .

(Via: Daniel Sinclair)

That peculiar question arose last week in the comment thread on David B. Hart’s OTS article where I defended the historicity of Noah. Several readers expressed shock that any purportedly educated Christian could believe that the ark-builder had actually existed. They were truly incredulous that anyone could truly believe such Sunday School nonsense.

One reader that took issue with my “silly childish fundamentalist column” and expressed shock that a “fundamentalist” like me would be allowed to work at First Things. Another commenter joined in the mockery and was certain that the Church Fathers would have disagreed we me about the literal existence of the Antediluvian patriarch. (When I asked them to provide support for that contention, my critics fell silent.)

Foolishly, I thought I could settle the issue with an appeal to authority. I pointed out that Jesus himself had referred to Noah as an actual person who existed in history:

For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

They responded that as a Jew living in first century Palestine, Jesus was surely ignorant of history and wasn’t aware that Noah was simply a mythical figure.

I was stunned. While I chuckled at the personal insults, the implication of their claim is nothing to laugh about. If my interlocutors are correct, then we have reason not only to question the credibility of Jesus but also to believe that God is complicit in deception.

The origin of their faulty thinking appears to be their assumption that “kenotic theology” is not only true but that it is a doctrine that no serious Christian should question. Kenosis is the concept that when Jesus took on human nature he set aside some of his deity, divine nature, or divine attributes. The idea is that when Paul says in Philippians 2:7 that Jesus “emptied himself,” it means he “emptied himself of divine attributes.” This is a rather novel and relatively modern interpretation of the text. As Wayne Grudem notes, we have no reason to believe this is correct:

But does Phillipians 2:7 teach that Christ emptied himself of some of his divine attributes, and does the rest of the New Testament confirm this? The evidence of Scripture points to a negative answer to both questions. We must first realize that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that “emptied himself” in Philippians 2:7 meant that the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes.

Indeed, the doctrine only came into vogue in the mid-to-late 1800s. As S.M. Smith (who endorses the doctrine) admits, “All forms of classical orthodoxy either explicitly reject or reject in principle kenotic theology.”

Nevertheless, while I believe that kenotic theology should be rejected because it has no basis in scripture, even those who embrace the doctrine should support my claim that Jesus is not ignorant about the historicity of Noah.

To my knowledge, there are no advocates of kenotic theology that believe that Jesus emptied himself of all divine attributes. Had he done so he would be merely “fully human” and not divine at all. The question then is what divine attributes he would have kept in order to fulfill his mission.

While it would be presumptuous to attempt a complete list, I believe there is one class of attributes that must be included: Jesus would have kept whatever aspects of his divinity are necessary to prevent him from intentionally deceiving his followers.

For instance, there are only a few possibilities for how we can interpret Jesus’ claims about Noah and the days of Noah:

1. He knew that Noah was a real person and was speaking the truth when he claimed the patriarch existed.

2. He knew that Noah was not a real person and intentionally lied when he claimed the patriarch existed.

3. He knew that Noah was not a real person and was merely making a metaphorical or literary reference (e.g., he was referring to Noah like we would refer to Achilles).

4. He did not know that Noah was a mythical figure and in making the claim he was unintentionally misleading his hearers.

All Christians will reject the second option. If we believe (a) lying is a sin and (b) Jesus never sinned, then it follows that he could not have been intentionally lying in this instance. We can also reject the third option since there is no indication that the hearers at Jesus’ time believed Noah was a mythical person.

That leaves the first and fourth options. My contention is that four should also be dismissed for reasons similar to the second. If God the Father is omniscient, then he knew about and approved of every word that would be uttered by the Son during his earthly ministry. If the Father knew that Noah was not a real human and allowed his son to imply that he was, then the Father is culpable in the deception since he not only allowed it to happen but foreordained the spread of this false information.

Even if we believe the Son was “emptied” of some divine knowledge, why would we assume it was necessary to empty himself of the one aspect of human knowledge (presumably at least some humans sometime in history could have know the truth about Noah’s existence) that would prevented him from making a claim that was false? What possible reason would we have for adopting this viewpoint? (One of my critics claimed that even had Jesus known that Noah wasn’t a real person, he would have have gone along with it to accommodate the beliefs of his hearers. This is too silly to even consider. Not only does it imply that Jesus was a deceiver, but it also goes against Jesus nature. How often in his teaching did he upend the beliefs and customs of the age?)

That leaves the “ignorance” position. Could it not be possible that Jesus ignorance was based on the knowledge of first-century Palestine? The first thing that is wrong with this view is that is assumes we have more knowledge about the existence of Noah than could be had during Jesus’ day. Such chronological snobbery is quite unwarranted.

However, if we assume the position is valid, it raises troubling questions: If God allowed Jesus to make false claims under the guise of “human ignorance,” what else did he say that is not true? Are we really to believe that this is the only time that Jesus was mistaken? If not, then what criteria do we use to tell when he was telling the truth based on knowledge that he possessed and when he was making claims based on his ignorance?

Adopting such a perspective seems to be even more presumptive than when the Jesus Seminar decided what Christ “really said” and what could be excluded as apocryphal.

I refuse to believe that the Father would allow the Son to deceive mankind about anything. Because of this belief, I trust that whenever Jesus made a claim about history that he is making an assertion that is trustworthy and factually accurate. I believe that Noah existed because Jesus tells me so. Unless I’m presented with evidence that is more convincing than the words of the Creator of the Universe, I’ll continue to trust that this belief is warranted.

Some Christians may claim they know more than Jesus about Antediluvian history. Others may even claim that the Father would allow his Son to deceive his followers. They certainly have the freedom to express those beliefs. But since I refuse to believe that God tells lies, I won’t be joining them in their self-deception.

:10 — The Gist: Outlines the changes in preconceptions, worldviews, and paradigms that have affected the ways in which people have thought about religion in general and Christianity in particular in the Western world.

:20 — The Quote: “The history of science reveals a progress of knowledge which later thought supersedes earlier thought. But theology and philosophy—in common with other liberal arts—is not like science. It is not a case that the discoveries of the present make obsolete the views of the previous generation. The latest play on Broadway or the West End of London does not make the plays of Shakespeare obsolete. Modern verse does not supplant the poetry of Wordsworth or Milton. The music of Bach, Mozart and Brahms is not surpassed by twentieth century compositions. We cannot successfully imitate the past. The present should have its own integrity. But that integrity requires us to listen to what the past has to offer.” (p, 333-334.)

:30 — The Good: Covers topics that are rarely included in single volume surveys of the history of philosophy.

:40 — The Meh: Brown occasionally elides over controversial opinions (e.g., Jonathan Edwards scheme of thought makes God the author of evil) that deserve more clarification.

:50 — The Verdict: Brown provides a readable—though not exactly gripping—account of the interaction of philosophy and Christian thought up to the Enlightenment. While the sections on the ancient world (from the pre-Socratics to the time of Christ) are standard textbook fare, Brown includes some valuable insights on how Christian thought built upon the intellectual history that came before. The book’s coverage of Deism, Pyrrhonism, and Common Sense realism will be of interest even to those who are generally familiar with the subject matter.

(Note: Anyone who was underwhelmed by Brown’s Philosophy and the Christian Faith (1968) will find this volume to be a refreshing improvement over that text. As Brown admits in the introduction, he was, at that time, a “child of the age of linguistic analysis” and his previous effort on this topic was a “product of the 1960s.” )

:60 — The Recommendation: A worthy primer for students and other Christians who want to better understand how the “handmaiden of faith” has historically related to Christian thought.

Why you’ve heard of him: Colson was Richard Nixon’s “hatchet man” and spent seven months in prison for Watergate-related charges. Entered Alabama’s Maxwell Prison in 1974 as a new Christian and became a staunch advocate for prisoners. After telling his story in the bestselling book Born Again, Colson used the royalties to found Prison Fellowship, the world’s largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners, crime victims, and their families.

Position: Founder and Chairman of the Board for Prison Fellowship and Prison Fellowship International (1976 to present); Commentator for Breakpoint

Previous career:
Captain, U.S. Marine Corps (1953-55)
Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1955-56)
Admin. Asst. to U.S. Sen. Leverett Saltonstall (R-Mass.) (1956-61)
Partner, Gadsby and Hannah Law Firm (1961-69)
Special Counsel to President Richard M. Nixon (1969-73)
Partner, Colson and Shapiro Law Firm (1973-74)

Education:
B.A., Brown University (1953)
J.D. with honors, George Washington University (1959)

Area of expertise/interest: Restorative justice; worldview analysis and cultural criticism

Honors: Won the $1 million dollar Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion (the prize money was donated to Prison Fellowship); Born Again was made into a movie in 1978

Books: Colson has written over 20 books, including Born Again (1976), Kingdoms in Conflict (later reissued as God and Government) (1987), The Body (1994), Loving God (1997), and How Now Shall We Live (w/ Nancy Pearcey) (2000)

Assessment: Other than St. Paul, there are few ex-prisoners who have done more to fulfill the duties of a Christian like Charles Colson. Along with Prison Fellowship, he has overseen the founding of Justice Fellowship (the nation’s largest faith-based criminal justice reform group) and Angel Tree (a program that provides Christmas presents to more than 500,000 children of inmates annually on behalf of their incarcerated parents). The ministries now reach over 40,000 prisoners in 100 countries around the world.

As an author, Colson has written some of the most influential books in the evangelical community, including The Body and How Now Shall We Live? (both co-written with Nancy Pearcey). His Kingdoms in Conflict (1987), a centrist view of the relationship between church and state, is one of my personal favorites. He is also the co-author, along with Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together“, a seminal document that highlights how the two groups can work together while still respecting their profound theological differences.

While others have used the infamy of Watergate to line their own pockets, Colson donated all of his speaking honoraria and book royalties to Prison Fellowship and accepts only the salary of a mid-range ministry executive as compensation. The man who was once considered “Nixon’s evil genius” has become a model of Christian charity and service. Colson is truly a prime example of how God can transform a person’s life and use them for His purposes.

The Book:

:10 — The Gist: Many churches—particularly evangelical churches—tend to be extroverted places where introverts are marginalized, causing some Christians to feel they are not being faithful. McHugh shows how introverts can live and minister in ways consistent with their personalities.

:20 — The Quote: “If human perfection, epitomized in the person of Jesus, includes extroversion then a large number of the population will always and irredeemably fall short. This adds a theological component to the already-prevailing cultural prejudice that extroversion is the superior temperament.” (p. 16)

:30 — The Good: Although the book is relatively brief (222 pages) it provides a comprehensive introduction to the role of introverts in the community of believers.

:40 — The Blah: Because the book covers the subject from so many angles and attempts to explain the subject to various groups—from introverted
parishioners to extroverted pastors—not every section will be valuable to all readers.

:50 — The Verdict: As an introvert who has always attended non-liturgical “sociable” churches, I’ve always felt my lack of sociability was a sign of spiritual malaise. McHugh provides a valuable corrective to this self-defeating mentality. Few books published this year will likely have as valuable an impact as this slim volume.

:60 — The Recommendation: While the book is most valuable to discouraged introverts, everyone involved in church ministry needs to hear McHugh’s message and implement his recommendations.

Why you’ve heard of him: Dr. Piper is one of the most influential and popular preacher/authors in American evangelicalism.

Position: Senior Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN; Host of the daily radio program Desiring God; Founder of Desiring God ministries.

Previous: Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN

Education:
B.A., Wheaton College
B.D., Fuller Theological Seminary
Dr.theol., University of Munich

Denomination: Baptist (Baptist General Conference)

Books: Piper is the author of over twenty books, including Love Your Enemies: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis (1991); Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (1986); Donít Waste Your Life (2003); A God Entranced Vision of All Things (2004); and The Passion of Jesus Christ (2004)

Sample Resources: “How Much is Jesus Worth?” (podcast, 1982); What made it OK for God to kill women and children in the Old Testament? (podcast, 2010)

Assessment: Piper’s life goal and ministry have been focused on spreading ìa passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples.” His writing and preaching have had a significant impact on many young Christian leaders, including pastors, seminarians, and members of the bands Third Day and Switchfoot. Espousing a concept he calls “Christian Hedonism,” Piper carries on the tradition of a complete God-centered worldview that he picked up from the Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards, one of his most significant influences. As noted by Al Mohler, who called Let the Nations Be Glad “the most important book on missions for this generation,” Piper has also had a major impact on the state of modern world missions.

[Special thanks to Justin Taylor for his input on this entry.]

(This post is part of the Know Your Evangelicals series.)

At the instigation of Justin Taylor, I’ve decided to bring that series to Evangel. I’m hoping that my fellow contributors will adopt the format and produce entries of their own.

If you have a recommendation for a profile, please leave it in the comments section.

It was obvious to me that [Glenn Beck] was a new creation in Christ. I know he’s Mormon and all that. I also remember reading a book by Professor Harvey Conn decades ago that said that you have to be very careful when judging a person’s salvation—some people with lousy theology have their hearts right with God, and some people with impeccable theology are cold toward God.

Glenn Beck isn’t cold toward God. He is red hot. He is “a brand plucked from the fire” (Zechariah 3:2). He knows what pit he was in—and he knows exactly who took him out of it. If I were his station manager I would be biting my fingernails every day, because the man just doesn’t hold back about Jesus, and I can say without hesitation that I have not heard the essentials of the gospel more clearly and boldly in any church than on his program.

I have heard all the criticisms, and I can find sympathy for them—about the Mormonism, about the dangers of religious syncretism, etc. But regarding the Mormon thing, I think we should regard Beck as an Apollos and pray for a Priscilla and Aquila in his life, to steer him better (Acts 18). I just don’t see how anyone can listen to the man for a solid week and not be as blessed as I am by his courage, his utter lack of fear of man, and his sharp and personal testimony of Christ’s transforming power.

A recent poll reveals that only two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants recognize that Mormons have religious beliefs somewhat (26%) or very (42%) different from our own. It’s distressing that so many believers can be so confused. But Seu should know better. And I know that the editors of WORLD know better. (Note: See update at the end of this post.)

But what I find even more appalling than the claim that a devout Mormon (who believes in tritheism) can be a “new creation in Christ” is her slur against the church.

Seu says, “I have not heard the essentials of the gospel more clearly and boldly in any church than on his program.” Really? What church does she attend? If it’s true that a Mormon has proclaimed the gospel of Christ more clearly on a radio show than her Christian pastor has done in her church, then why does she stay? (Assuming, of course, that she regularly attends a church.)

To be honest, I don’t believe she believes that; I think she made that up for effect. Unfortunately, she’s not alone in making such a despicable charge. It’s all too common nowadays for evangelicals to make the scurrilous claim that our churches are not preaching the Gospel. While there are certainly churches where this is the case, it is simply not true of the majority of our congregations. To claim otherwise, without sufficient evidence to the contrary, is a libel against the Bride of Christ.

Note: Justin Taylor has some wise thoughts on the matter and, not surprisingly, he is much more winsome about this outrage that I can be.

Update: My friend Mickey McLean, the web executive editor for WORLD, says the fault lies with him: “WORLD’s position: All of us need editing. Our website editing system failed in regard to Andrée’s post about Glenn Beck. The breadth of response points out confusion concerning Beck and where he stands.” And in a comment to that post he adds, “I take full responsibility for not taking a closer look at Andrée’s column before posting it to the site.”

As a web editor I can certainly empathize. At FT we allow our non-staff blogs to post freely and with few restrictions since we don’t claim to agree with them on all issues. (I sometimes cringe at seeing what makes it onto our website.) WORLD takes a stricter approach, which forces them to take a bit more responsibility. Also, as a columnist Seu is a direct representative of the magazine.

Nevertheless, Mickey’s response goes a long way in restoring my trust in that great publication. I appreciate his taking responsibility, though Seu is the one that should be held accountable.

I admit that it was a bit naive and foolish to assume that readers of Evangel would even know why I was critical of those movement, much less agree with me. Because I think it’s important for the critiques and defenses to be given a fair hearing, I’ve decided to open a thread for the discussion of the question, “What exactly is wrong (or right) with the Prosperity Gospel?”

The comment section is now open to anyone who wants to argue one side or the other. Please keep it civil and respect the views of others (something, I admit, that I often fail to do).

For instance, one of my favorite pastors spent an entire year preaching about sin. Each week he’d rail against backbiters, slanderers, hypocrites, perverts. And each week I went home feeling the message had been meant just for me. The sermons never failed to stir me, probably because he used the effective rhetorical tool of ending each example of wickedness with “. . . like Joe Carter.”

I even considered becoming a pastor myself since the vocation combines my love of communication with three of my other passions: telling people how they should live, avoiding manual labor, and getting paid a full salary for doing part-time work. But while I may have missed my calling, the experience (i.e., incessant church-hopping) has helped me to develop a keen eye for judging the merits of a minister.

As a way of sharing my my hard-won wisdom I offer eleven surefire ways to know that something isn’t right with your pastor:

1. He’s a founding member of the ecumenical project, “Evangelicals and Scientologists Together.

2. He claims his favorite work of systematic theology is John Calvin’s Institutes of Vishnu.

3. He supplements his income by serving as the chaplain/DJ for the topless bar out by the airport.

4. He proposes moving the Sunday morning service to Tuesday evening because he just got a “sweet NFL package on DirecTV.”

5. His primary reference work is the Dan Brown Study Bible.

6. His favorite hymn is Madonna’s “Like a Prayer.”

7. He tells his congregants they are wicked degenerate sinners who are bound for hell if they don’t change their ways—while coaching the church sponsored Little League team.

8. He plans to spend the next month preaching through the Gospel of Judas.

9. His nickname in seminary was Pelagius.

10. He illustrated his sermon series on Song of Songs with a graphic 150-slide PowerPoint presentation.

11. His name is Joel Osteen.

But first, a word from the late British evangelical preacher Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

One of the advantages of being old is that you have experience, so when something new comes up, and you see people getting very excited about it, you happen to be in the position of being able to remember a similar excitement perhaps 40 years ago. And so one has seen fashions and vogues and stunts coming one after another in the Church. Each one creates excitement and enthusiasm and is loudly advertised as the thing that is going to fill the churches, the thing that is going to solve the problem. They have said it about every single one of them. But in a few years they have forgotten all about it, and another stunt comes along, or another new idea; somebody has hit upon the one thing needful or has a psychological understanding of modern man. Here is the thing, and everybody rushes after it; but soon it wanes and disappears and something else takes it place.

That is surely, a very sad and regrettable state for the Christian Church to be in, that like the world she should exhibit these constant changes of fashion. In that state she lacks the stability and the solidity and the continuing message that has ever been the glory of the Christian Church.

And now, our favorite examples:

Priest on a Skateboard

Motocross in Church

Post the link to your favorite in the comments section and I’ll add them to this post.