SUBSCRIBER LOGIN




Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • Truth Unites... and Divides: “For those of us who are devotees of both history and literature, we recognize,...
  • Raymond Takashi Swenson: One of the most quoted verses in the NT us John 3:16, but it is part of an argument Jesus...
  • Hodge: Volk, I wanted to point out that I ignored your arguments because they weren’t arguments. They were...
  • Constantine: This was hardly an innovation of Augustine. After all, the resurrected Christ made this plain on the...
  • jason taylor: The Federal government is not a village. Nor is pointing that out merely being pedantic. A real village...
  • Michael Snow: Kittel, TDNT: s.v. “kephale” The LXX adopts the Greek usage for “head”R...
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly



    Kevin DeYoung

    Website:

    About:

     RSS feed for this author

    Posts:

    Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 9:13 AM

    Ok, so I rarely post over here. Sorry. But I figure the least I can do is cross-post once in awhile from my “real” blog. So here goes.

    *****

    Let me start with the caveats. Many people suffer at the hands of others. The world can be unfair, at times mercilessly so. Millions of people in the world are genuine victims, right now. All of us will be at some point, whether it’s for small matters or large, for a long duration or short.

    But we aren’t all victims, not all the time anyway, not for everything.

    Offendedness is just about the last shared moral currency in our country. And, I’m sorry, but it’s really annoying. We don’t discuss ideas or debate arguments, we try to figure out who is most offended. Buddhists are offended by Brit Hume. Christians are offended that critics disparage Brit Hume. Republicans are offended by Harry Reid’s comments about President Obama. If the shoe were on the other partisan foot, you can bet Democrats would be offended for President Obama (who can legitimately be offended by Reid’s remarks). Whenever someone makes a public gaffe, whether real or perceived, critics storm the microphones to let the world know how offended they are. Why is everyone in such a hurry to be hurt?

    For starters, being hurt is easier than being right. To prove you’re offended you just have to rustle up moral indignation and tell the world about it. To prove you’re right you actually have to make arguments and use logic and marshal evidence. Why debate theology or politics or economics if you can win your audience by making the other guys look like meanies?

    There’s nothing like being offended to nail your opponent. No one wants to look like a jerk (ok, maybe Donald Trump does). No one wants to come off as a free-wheeling dealer of pain. As a result, we end up held hostage by the possible taking of offense. It’s rarely asked whether such offense is warranted or whether it even matters. No, if there is offense, there must be an offender. And offenders are always wrong.

    So we demand apologies. Sometimes, no doubt, because a genuine sin has been committed. But often we demand apologies just because we can. It’s a way to shame those with whom we disagree. It forces them to admit failure or keep looking like a weasel. The weakest offense-taker can now bully multitudes of intelligent men and women through the emotional manipulation that goes with chronic offendedness.

    We live in an emotionally fragile culture. We are in touch with every hurt past, present, and perceived. We are the walking wounded and we want everyone to know. Which is too bad, because when people are genuine victims–profoundly, egregiously wronged–they deserve not to be lumped in the same category with those who got picked last for kickball or turned down for their church’s “special music.”

    As Christians, we worship a victimized Lord. We should expect to suffer and should have particular compassion on those who hurt emotionally and physically. But we do not resemble the Suffering Servant when we take pains to show off our suffering. I’m not thinking of the Brit Hume ordeal now. I’m just thinking in general how we are tempted to gain the culture’s approval by playing the culture’s offense-taking game. If a law is broken or a legitimate right taken away, let us protest with passion. But if we are misunderstood or even reviled let’s not go after short-lived and half-hearted affirmation by announcing our offendedness for the world to hear. Every time we try to make hay out of misplaced calumnies, we hasten the demise of Christianity in the public square. As offendedness becomes the barometer of acceptable discourse, we can expect further marginalization of Christian beliefs.

    So buck up brothers and sisters. Most often in this country, we are not victims because of our faith. There are just as many people, it seems to me, standing to Brit Hume’s defense as they are pillorying him. Let every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the world be crushed to (phony) emotional pieces when their ideas are scrutinized. We can chart a different course and trust that our beliefs can handle Keith Olberman’s disapproval. We have no reason to be anxious, every reason to be joyful, and fewer reasons than we think to be offended.


    Monday, November 30, 2009, 9:43 PM

    A few weeks ago an editor from the Christian Science Monitor emailed to ask if I would consider writing an opinion piece on the doctrine of justification. This sounded unusual to say the least.   First of all, why was he asking me? (Because a friend of mine passed along my name I found out). Second, why do they want an article on justification? I’m not sure exactly where they were coming from, but the editor I worked with was very knowledgeable about the Piper-Wright debate and very interested in helping CSM readers understand why the doctrine matters (he was also very kind and professional).

    With the broohaha over the Manhattan Declaration it bears repeating what I hope is obvious from this article: I believe the doctrine of justification crucial for the church and, actually, for the world too. It is also worth pointing out that it is possible to write for a mainstream publication from an explicitly evangelical perspective. I imagine some magazines and papers might balk at an opinion piece that is too Christian, but in my experience when someone wants your opinion they want your opinion, no matter what it is, as long as you aren’t completely rude about it.

    The piece is titled: “The Protestant debate over justification: Here I stand.” The subtitle pretty much sums up the gist: “Ignorance about how we get right with God has weakened the church. We must reassert that we’re saved by faith alone.”

    Here’s my conclusion:

    Much of the impotence of American churches is tied to a profound ignorance and apathy about justification. Our people live in a fog of guilt. Or just as bad, they think being a better person is all God requires. Even a cursory look at church history in the past few hundred years shows that the church is at its best and most vibrant when justification through faith alone is heard from her pulpits and clearly articulated by her most prominent spokesmen.

    After so much time and so many controversies, there are still plenty of Protestants – be they Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, or Pentecostal – who still believe justification is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. I guess I’m one of them.

    You can read the whole thing here.


    Monday, October 26, 2009, 12:26 AM

    If you’ve ever struggled to explain what went wrong with evangelicalism, or if you’ve ever been embarrassed to be around conservative, doctrinal Christians, here’s several popular villains to make sense of your angst.  Once you find a way to include all of them into your narrative, you’ll have a cool book in the making.

    5. Rene Descartes – He introduced linear thinking into the church for the first time ever.   Before he came along Christians didn’t try to be logical or talk about propositions.  Thanks to Descartes, we waste our time on information instead of formation.

    4. Charles Hodge – He pretty much invented inerrancy.  Before he came along people knew that the Bible is full of mistakes.  He also talked about the Scriptures like it had facts and truths in it.  Boy does that sound silly.

    3. Plato – Besides coming up with the dubious idea of platonic guy-girl relationships, he also taught that the body is the prison house for the soul.  Dualist!  Now everyone thinks heaven is a place for disembodied spirits and sex and sexy movies are bad.

    2. Anselm – No one thought of Christ’s death as a substionary sacrifice before him.  The cross had nothing to do with justice and wrath until Cur Deus Homo? duped us all.

    1. Constantine – Where do we begin with this guy?  He single-handedly invented Christendom, fake conversions, military conquest, political-religious entanglements, and church buildings.  Plus he started the confusion: “it’s Istanabul, it’s Constantinople, it’s Istanbul, it’s Constantinople…”


    Monday, October 19, 2009, 4:02 PM

    “Evangelical” is a theological term shaped by historical events. Since Joe asked us to define the word, I’ll define evangelicalism at its best, rather than at its worst.

    An evangelical is someone who embraces the solas of the Reformation (salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, according to Scripture alone), responates with the emphasis on the new birth and the reviving work of the Spirit found in the Great Awakening, believes in the complete trustworthiness of the Bible contra the liberals and modernists, accepts the responsibility of world evangelization and social engagement as modeled by countless missionaries and reformers, rejects the obscurantism that marked parts of fundamentalism, and, in distinction to the pragmatists and postmoderns, affirms the importance of doctrinal propistions and the knowability of truth.

    I know, a dense statement like this begs to be unpacked, but it’s a start. It may not be better than all the other definitions on this blog. But, hey, it’s only a sentence.