iTurk dot com

The Nines 2011: the full text

2011-09-28T03:57:00.000-07:00

Thanks for joining me at the Nines today -- my name is Frank Turk, and I'm a blogger, and you can read more about me in the author bios if you find any of today's talk especially compelling.

Before I have a go at this, I was tempted to tell you about my “last week” and my “this week” as I prepared this talk. But as far as that goes, you probably don’t want to know “how I do it.” I work in the supply chain for global renewable energy, and my job is like being Batman but without the unlimited Wayne Industries resources and without the awesome bat-cave office space but with all the same assortment of crazy people who need to be corralled, contained or incarcerated.

I mean: I’m a guy who works in a wholly-secular industry with its own theology and end-times strategy, and I get it that it seems good to be a professional person with a word of wisdom because I do such a great job.

But here’s the thing: I know for a fact that my way of doing anything is prone to one thing only, and that’s making much of me – making sure I stay important and I stay needed. That’s why I see myself as Batman, right? Dark, cool, and utterly necessary -- even if people have to fear me.

But look: I believe in the Real Jesus. And the first thing that has to mean is this: I am not Him - I can’t be him. I can’t lead like Jesus because I am not Lord of All: I have to lead like someone Jesus has saved. If I can start my engagement with other people by knowing there is a Real Jesus, and I am not him but a subject of his ridiculously-generous sacrifice, I can probably knock off about two-thirds of my natural tendency to pounce on the wicked from the shadows -- because I have to realize that I am the wicked, and I could have been rightly struck down by God, and instead he saved me.

The guys who followed Jesus around had this same problem. You can imagine when James’ and John’s mother asked Jesus if her boys could be his left-hand and right-hand men, the other apostles were a little worked up. But he said to them, “Look: the kings and leaders of the people without God are in the authority business, worried about who is the one guy in charge – but it isn’t supposed to be like that with you fellows. With you, whoever would be great among you must be a servant.” The Greek there is the word for “waiter”. And Jesus made sure to say this so we understand his point: “You must be a servant even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Another time Jesus said it plainly: “I am the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. A hired hand is not a shepherd, who doesn’t own the sheep, and he runs away when a wolf comes because he doesn’t care anything for the sheep."

Jesus says that the way you get great in his order of things is by laying down your life for other people, not by becoming like the best in class among the those who have a different economy than God does.

Let me be honest: I find myself caught in this trap all the time. So when I sit down to do my work, or something like ministry, I know I need to check myself to make sure that the means and motives of the ungodly are not pushing out my fundamental love for Jesus, and also for his people – some of whom are not yet saved.

Think about it: are you seeking how to lead God’s people until Jesus returns? if that’s true, what are Jesus’ means and methods for achieving his ends?

I only have about another minute, so here’s a short list of Jesus’ means & methods:

saying the things God has said rather than the things the world says
confessing our sins not just in general, but specifically when we blow it
loving our wives the way christ loves the church
suffering for those who cannot pay us back
giving up glory the way christ gave up glory to show people real love rather than just good manners

I can’t lead the right way – that is, the way Jesus calls me to – if I do it my way. I have to do it his way, which is the way that saved me in the first place. And if instead I want to be a leader who sits at his left hand or his right hand, Jesus tells me plainly: I am doing it wrong. I need to be a servant for the sake of others, and to die for them.

And listen carefully: if that’s true for a guy who works at a secular job, how much more true is that for those of you who are working inside God’s house with God’s People? Does your model of leadership look like a servant who dies for the sake of other people – or does it look like you’re getting all the right people on the bus so that you can get into the fly wheel effect and out of the doom loop?

Think about that today because Jesus wants you to think about that. That is explicitly how he said to do it, and this is your chance to listen to him.

My name is Frank. Enjoy the rest of the day.

A few facts for Yahoo! & Daniel Gross

2011-08-06T05:11:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, 6 Aug 2011, Yahoo! linked on its from page to an opinion piece by Daniel Gross on the action of the S&P to downgrade US National Debt. First, shame on Yahoo for linking this on the front page as news rather than commentary. That's irresponsible at best.

Second, the "facts" in paragraphs 5 and 6 are, at best, broad-brush and imprecise. At worst they are partisan fabrications. For example, if you look at this chart:

You'll find that person income taxes are about average when compared to every year since 1950 when compared to GDP. Corpoarte taxes may be at an all-time low, but that trend was started under Reagan and continued by every president since him, including St. Bill Clinton.

However, what that graph also shows is that the last time the overall tax percentage was this low was at the end of the Clinton administration. That seems irrelevant until you look at this graph:

While taxes as a percent of GDP were at the lowest point of the previous 5 decades, tax -revenue- was at its highest point ever, which caused the Clinton surplus.

Read that again, and check the statistics. It is an utter falsehood to say that the only way to produce more revenue is to raise taxes, and to say that it's the majority opinion in this case is also a massive falsehood. S&P did not change the US rating because Republicans wanted what they wanted. This is what their report says:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.

It is unconscienably-partisan of Daniel Gross to read that statement (if he did) and interpret it to say that this is a Republican failure: plainly, -short-term- agreement on cutting entitlements and on raising -revenue- (not raising tax rates) is what S&P used to determine its action.

This is a horrible case not merely of bias in reporting but of actual misrepresentation of the facts, and Yahoo! and Daniel Gross ought to issue a retraction.

A brief aside -- looking you straight in the icon

2011-04-28T07:36:00.000-07:00

This morning I tweeted the following:

I just wanted to say 2 things about that:

[1] I know a LOT of people have more followers than me. A LOT. But in the end, I'm just a guy with a blog, and there are 1600+ people who think that my tweets are worth a look. When you realize that this is more people than the average pastor gets to preach to weekly, it's a little terrifying.

[2] When I was in college, I was a very active part of the radio station -- I had a well-received morning show, and I was ultimately Program Director my last semester. One of the things that is true about radio is that it's easy to be somewhat-causal about talking into a mic -- because it's easy to say things when you don't have to look anyone in the eye to say what you're saying. Having looked all of you straight in the icon, though, I feel the seriousness of what is happening here -- and I hope that it serves me as a reminder of the impact of what happens when I tweet and blog every day.

Both Sides of the Story (2 of 2)

2011-01-21T20:19:00.000-08:00

I was going to transcribe Dr. MacArthur's statement in the interview, but here's what he posted yesterday at his blog:

On the surface, it may sound noble to hold to a unique theology that has been independently forged, but such thinking (too common among today’s young-and-restless reformers) is dangerous to the health of the church. Allow me to publicly state that if this is not what Darrin Patrick meant to communicate, I would certainly love to embrace any clarification.

Meanwhile, let me clarify my remark: I was not questioning Darrin’s personal orthodoxy – his theology is clear in the book. The issue is rather the danger of developing a unique theology and a radically individualistic philosophy of church leadership. When one’s “own theological beliefs” are self-styled and unique, those beliefs need to be questioned. Protecting the soundness of our theological convictions is a commitment that we all must make. It is increasingly clear that the vanguard of evangelical Christianity is intent upon actively promoting change at every level within the church, and young men in particular should not be encouraged to think radical individualism is a positive mindset for church leadership and ministry style.

Good ecclesiology demands that there exist an awareness of, appreciation for, and deliberate connection to the flow of redemptive history. Patrick’s statement, it seems to me, is quite out of harmony with Paul’s charge to Timothy: “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). The goal certainly should not be to encourage young pastors to distrust or remodel what they have learned from faithful men.

I don’t know Darrin, and I’m not attacking him or challenging his statement of faith; I’m cautioning that this championing of “uniqueness to the way [young pastors want] to do ministry” is a dangerous trend, not a healthy one.

Thoughts?

Both sides of the story (1 of 2)

2011-01-21T10:29:00.000-08:00

Darrin Patrick's The Church Planter has gotten some play this week, and there's one passage in particular that some people are wondering about. I'll bet most of them don't have the book (on both sides of the discussion), but Google Books does have the book because nothing is sacred anymore. HT: Jared Wilson.

Here's the passage causing unrest:

If you read that passage, what would you say Darrin was talking about? Discuss freely, but avoid uncivil rioting. Keep your torches and pitchforks at home.

The Nines - Welcome!

2010-09-09T09:01:00.000-07:00

If you're stopping by today, it's probably because of my video today at the Nines -- so thanks for that!

For those of you who missed it, I'm publishing the text of my talk right here, and I'll be in and out all day chatting with you about that video or maybe some of the other videos as they come up.

Enjoy!

OK -- Thanks for streaming the Nines this year. Tell your boss we're sorry for impacting national productivity today. My name's Frank Turk, and you have probably never heard of me. I'm a blogger, which is like saying, "I own a Star Wars costume," or "I play World of Warcraft," -- it's a hobby that generally makes people think you're a weirdo who lives in your mom's basement. As you watch today, keep in mind that at least I own my own home. I don't have a mega-church or a book I'm selling. I work a day job in renewable energy, I have a wife whom I love, and two kids I'm trying to be a good father to.

Now, in spite of being a blogger, with the reputation of being a little rabid, you'll be relieved to know that I suspect that most of you who are watching are Christians -- that is, like the people in Antioch who were first called by that name, you have heard the Gospel even if it's only the Gospel a guy like Barnabas would preach as opposed to an apostle like Paul, and you believed it, and you have been trained up in some way. And you're probably in ministry, right? Maybe it's not full time, but you're at least committed to your church and your elders or pastors to try to do what's right for people. And let me say that if you're not one of the people I just described, you should be.

But why? Why should you be anything in particular rather than someone who is doing what is right in his own eyes, and then calling that "Christian" or "Christian Ministry"? My opinion here is that it's not because I have a really clever argument, or that 100,000 Westminster seminarians and professors can't be wrong. It's because Jesus of Nazareth is a real person.

But hold on -- I know that sounds obvious, OK? I know it sounds like something too stupid to mention when I have only 6 minutes and this is my best shot at speaking to any of you ever again. But here's what I'm thinking: at some point, everything that we do which is clever or professional has to get put in the same box as the man Jesus, who was crucified.

My brother-in-law David tells a story about the first time he visited Boston. David's ex-military, and He says that he can remember all through school people told him about American history -- about the events that happened that caused us to be a country, the list of facts. But in Boston, he found himself out in the harbor looking down into the water, and when he looked into the water and out at the harbor he realized: "Wow. This is were they dropped the tea into the harbor." And at that moment, all those men and all the stories about them weren't just facts or true statements anymore: the real people became obvious to him, and it changed the way he thought about our country and his part in it.

It reminds me of the end of the story of Job, after all the boils and marauders and donkeys and friends telling Job how it's all his fault, Job tells God, "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you, and I repent." For My brother-in-law David, American history became real when the facts weren't just facts; for Job, God stopped being a story when he finally saw YHVH with his own eyes.

That's why we have to see Jesus as a real person. I mean, Jesus is God, but he didn't try to remain equal with God. Instead he gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. Jesus was humble the way only God can be humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross. And when we say this, we should say this, when we tell people this, they should get it -- as if we said something like, "this is where they dropped the tea into the harbor."

Jesus is not just some icon of spiritual truth; his story is not just a story about truth: he's the one guy who understands our weaknesses because he has suffered through them, and then he died for them.

And here we are -- making and watching videos about how to change the game at church. I think the game was changed when the angels sang, "Glory to God in the Highest! And on Earth, peace to men on whom his favor rests," and now it's our problem to catch up with that -- to live as if that really happened, so we can make much of this Jesus, and enjoy him forever.

If we forget that, the rest of this stuff is just a hobby that makes us look pathetic -- or worse, a way we make ourselves look good and feel good in spite of who we really are. But the people in Antioch, when they heard about the real Jesus according to Barnabas, they stuck with it. They wanted to know more, and Barnabas had to send for Paul -- a guy who knew the Scripture, and knew the real Jesus -- to teach about this real guy, and to live as if he really did walk out of the grave and now sits at the right hand of the father -- because the simple proclamation was not enough. They needed someone to teach them well, so that in Antioch the disciples could be first called Christian.

Those aren't just big words: that's the way God changed the game for the whole world, and now you and me have to do something about it -- because it's real. We should act like the people we minister to are Jesus' people -- and he's going to come back for them. And the churches we serve in is Jesus' house -- which we will either make something into something precious to him, or something he'll burn unlike a pile of leaves in the yard. And when we gather together it's because of His reputation -- not ours.

If your game will change that way, you'll have had a pretty big day. So be with Jesus' people in Jesus' household on His day this Sunday, and treat him like a real person.

Does Orthodoxy Matter?

2010-08-29T19:47:00.000-07:00

Back in the day, I actually started blogging because of the Letter of Diognetus. This post from 2005 talks about the letter in depth, and why it tells us that orthodoxy matters.

Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

”Yes, yes, “ I can hear the rabble in NJ moaning, “I’ve read it. More ‘good works’ hoo-ha which doesn’t actually make your point, cent. What’s this got to do with orthodoxy?"

In fact, it has everything to do with orthodoxy – because it is not all the author has to say about these “Christians”. A little background on the origin of this letter and its apparent writer and/or intended reader: It was clearly composed during a severe persecution. The manuscript attributed it with other writings to Justin Martyr; but that earnest philosopher and hasty writer was quite incapable of the restrained eloquence, the smooth flow of thought, the limpid clearness of expression, which mark this epistle as one of the most perfect compositions of antiquity. The last two chapters (xi, xii) are florid and obscure, and bear no relation to the rest of the letter. They seem to be a fragment of a homily of later date. The writer of this addition describes himself as a "disciple of the Apostles", and through a misunderstanding of these words the epistle has, since the eighteenth century, been classed with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. (source: Catholic Encyclopedia, so excuse some of the flower stuff)

So in extolling the Christians, this work is certainly an apologetic work. But when it ascribes these amazing works to these Christians, what does it say the basis of this work is and must be? Well, let’s look.

First, it says this about the Jews:

I imagine that you are most desirous of hearing something on this point, that the Christians do not observe the same forms of divine worship as do the Jews. The Jews, then, if they abstain from the kind of service above described, and deem it proper to worship one God as being Lord of all, {are right}; but if they offer Him worship in the way which we have described, they greatly err. For while the Gentiles, by offering such things to those that are destitute of sense and hearing, furnish an example of madness; they, on the other hand by thinking to offer these things to God as if He needed them, might justly reckon it rather an act of folly than of divine worship. For He that made heaven and earth, and all that is therein, and gives to us all the things of which we stand in need, certainly requires none of those things which He Himself bestows on such as think of furnishing them to Him. But those who imagine that, by means of blood, and the smoke of sacrifices and burnt-offerings, they offer sacrifices {acceptable} to Him, and that by such honours they show Him respect,-these, by supposing that they can give anything to Him who stands in need of nothing, appear to me in no respect to differ from those who studiously confer the same honour on things destitute of sense, and which therefore are unable to enjoy such honours. (III)

This says in fairly clear terms that trying to appease God with sacrifices – as the Jews have done – is not really any better than offering sacrifices to idols. Why? Because God has no need of anything man can offer: there is nothing man has which God does not already possess, and which man somehow “gives back” to God in a meaningful way that God needs. So whatever the Christians are doing, it is not as a sacrificial offering.

Next we should read this:

I suppose, then, you are sufficiently convinced that the Christians properly abstain from the vanity and error common {to both Jews and Gentiles}, and from the busy-body spirit and vain boasting of the Jews; but you must not hope to learn the mystery of their peculiar mode of worshipping God from any mortal.(IV)

Think on that: the Christian abstain from error, and the reader is warned not to try to learn how to worship God from any mortal.

From whom then should he learn?

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, {Him who is} the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts.(VII)

So Christians did not learn to act a certain way from each other, or from the Jews, or from the Greeks – they learned it from God Himself who “sent from heaven … the holy and incomprehensible Word”. That’s pretty high talk, I think, coming from a pre-Nicene apologist.

But there’s more:

{God} did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things … As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God37 He sent Him; as to men He sent Him (VII)

So Him who was sent was actually the creator of all things! WOW! Doctrine! And that’s not all:

This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?(VII)

We might debate whether this writer is a 5-pointer or not, but the reality is that he says that Christ was sent, as very God, to save men prior to the coming righteous wrath of God. That’s 100% doctrine – all critical, essential doctrine. But, as we are asking in this monologue, who cares? Does it matter? This writer seems to think so – because he says:

Do you not see them exposed to wild beasts, that they may be persuaded to deny the Lord, and yet not overcome? Do you not see that the more of them are punished, the greater becomes the number of the rest? This does not seem to be the work of man: this is the power of God; these are the evidences of His manifestation.(VII)

That is to say, what these people are doing is the evidence of God’s power in them. Certainly, this is directly applied to the fact that their numbers grow in spite of persecution, but it is also applied indirectly to their “manners” when it is said that they have learned their way of life directly from God.

But what kind of doctrine is this? Is it a kind of “mere Christianity” that only covers the barest essentials? I think if we stop right here and don’t read another word of the Epistle, we might have to say so. But see what comes next:

For, who of men at all understood before His coming what God is? Do you accept of the vain and silly doctrines of those who are deemed trustworthy philosophers? of whom some said that fire was God, calling that God to which they themselves were by and by to come; and some water; and others some other of the elements formed by God. But if any one of these theories be worthy of approbation, every one of the rest of created things might also be declared to be God. But such declarations are simply the startling and erroneous utterances of deceivers; and no man has either seen Him, or made Him known, but He has revealed Himself. And He has manifested Himself through faith, to which alone it is given to behold God. For God, the Lord and Fashioner of all things, who made all things, and assigned them their several positions, proved Himself not merely a friend of mankind, but also long-suffering [in His dealings with them.] Yea, He was always of such a character, and still is, and will ever be, kind and good, and free from wrath, and true, and the only one who is [absolutely] good; and He formed in His mind a great and unspeakable conception, which He communicated to His Son alone. As long, then, as He held and preserved His own wise counsel in concealment, He appeared to neglect us, and to have no care over us. But after He revealed and laid open, through His beloved Son, the things which had been prepared from the beginning, He conferred every blessing all at once upon us, so that we should both share in His benefits, and see and be active [in His service]. Who of us would ever have expected these things? He was aware, then, of all things in His own mind, along with His Son, according to the relation subsisting between them.

Man! PREACH IT! No man knew anything about God, apparently, until God revealed Christ to men – and that thereafter “we should both share in His benefits, and see and be active”. So whatever we know about God is what causes us to act in worship of God – and among those things is the counsel of God’s will to save us. HUH!

But there is more still:

If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you likewise shall receive first of all the knowledge of the Father. For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are in it, to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him.

Faith is the means of receiving God’s blessings; God made man in His image; God sent the Son and has promised a kingdom to those who have loved Him.

That’s not a “mere” definition of the faith: it’s a thorough definition of the faith – especially when considered in the context of the refutation of the non-Christian entities already denounced by the writer.

And it all comes back to the description of orthodoxy – of the right relationship of man to God. The Christians are described in this letter as having been taught rightly by God through the Son for the sake of acting right in all the things they do – and the content of that teaching is plainly spelled out.

So when we come across a person who says that orthodoxy does not mean we are exclusive about the kinds of people we bring into the house with many mansions, and that it doesn’t matter if we venerate the dead, or that it doesn’t matter through what source we claim to receive the right teaching, you can point back to the right-acting Christians in the letter to Diognetus and ask the question, “how were these Christians defined, and what made them act the way they did?” The answer is a very strong argument in favor of orthodoxy as a standard and not a sliding scale.

What has Happened?

2010-08-23T00:01:00.000-07:00

This is a modified version of a post from back in 2006, where I dive up to my knees in a critical point about the Gospel, and about this Jesus.

in accordance with the Scriptures

All that preaching about dying for sin is swell, isn't it? For the believer, gosh it's like having a Coke and a pack of skittles -- it can get you fired up in a minute and keep you going all day. For the non-believer or the "seeker" (which is the nice way some people say "unbeliever"), it may be somewhat old-hat from the perspective that here's another fundie doing his Billy Graham impression. And if that non-believer doesn't feel guilty or somehow impuned, who can blame him, really? It's a lecture from a somewhat-annoying maven who is telling this person not only is he so stupid that he doesn't know he's bad but that he is also too stupid to understand how good he can really have it.

There's also the case of the nominal Christian who is reading this stuff and is getting offended because there's all this judging going on (we get letters …) -- and who is Frank Turk, really, to judge anybody? First of all, this is between God and the individual (they say) so to wag a finger at someone about whether they think Christ died for their sin -- or whether they have any sins -- is intrusive and hateful. Second of all, Frank is just a jerk with a guilty conscience because he admits he's sinful and he just wants to think that everyone is just as bad (or worse, since they don't recognize their sins) as he is. And last, Frank said "a bad word" (in a previous post), so he was sinning in trying to accuse other people of sinning because of his foul mouth.

Now how and why would I bring these things up in trying to underscore the value and meaning of Paul's proclamation that an intrinsic part of the Gospel is the phrase "in accordance with the Scriptures"? It is because these objections are exactly the same kinds of objections that Paul himself faced while preaching the Gospel. Paul is just a zealous Jew who is preaching a new philosophy (Acts 17:18); Paul is no longer a Jew because he has abandoned the Jewish law (Rom 3:5-8); Paul is exalting himself by trodding on others, and making himself feel better by running others down (2Cor 10); Paul's got an ill temper (Acts 15:38-39), he's a lawbreaker (Acts 16:19-24) and has a foul mouth (OK – I can’t find where they said that about Paul, so I’ll take that one under advisement; chalk that one up to a university education as an atheist).

But the answer that Paul says which quiets all these objections is this: Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the Scriptures. Today this rebuttal has been watered down by some of the more loud voices in "evangelidom" to "that's not my opinion: this is what the Bible teaches!" This summary version seems always to miss two important facts about what Paul was teaching:

(1) Paul never preached sin without preaching the clear redemption of sinners -- that is, Paul never presented sin as unanswered and hopeless except for those who would never repent. Even in the most bleak moments in Paul's letters where he says some men are handed over to sin, it is only to underscore that they are rightly condemned as we all would be if not for the work of Christ. Even in describing the unrepentant, Paul points back to the work of Christ as the only hope in this world.

(2) Paul did not hide behind Scripture but stood on its high ground to bring people to God; when Paul says something is "in accordance with the Scripture", he is talking about the supremacy of God in these things which is revealed by God's ability to tell us ahead of time what His plan was through promises and prophecies and then in seeing them come to pass.

This second point calls out for some unpacking, I think, because there are some things there we might overlook. If what Christ has done is "in accordance with the Scripture", there is some definition of Scripture which must be a necessary part of the Gospel – in the same way that the definition of “Christ” is a necessary part of the Gospel. I think a very vivid place where this is demonstrated is here:

17He asked, "What's this you're discussing so intently as you walk along?"

They just stood there, long-faced, like they had lost their best friend. 18Then one of them, his name was Cleopas, said, "Are you the only one in Jerusalem who hasn't heard what's happened during the last few days?"

19He said, "What has happened?"

They said, "The things that happened to Jesus the Nazarene. He was a man of God, a prophet, dynamic in work and word, blessed by both God and all the people. 20Then our high priests and leaders betrayed him, got him sentenced to death, and crucified him. 21And we had our hopes up that he was the One, the One about to deliver Israel. And it is now the third day since it happened. 22But now some of our women have completely confused us. Early this morning they were at the tomb 23and couldn't find his body. They came back with the story that they had seen a vision of angels who said he was alive. 24Some of our friends went off to the tomb to check and found it empty just as the women said, but they didn't see Jesus."

25Then he said to them, "So thick-headed! So slow-hearted! Why can't you simply believe all that the prophets said? 26Don't you see that these things had to happen, that the Messiah had to suffer and only then enter into his glory?" 27Then he started at the beginning, with the Books of Moses, and went on through all the Prophets, pointing out everything in the Scriptures that referred to him.

(MSG, Lk 24:13-27, note added)

Now before anyone takes me apart for using the Message for my example, we don't need any hair-splitting exegetical nuance to see what happened on the road to Emmaus -- and this passage reads good. What happens here is that Jesus tells these fellows that the Gospel is laid out by Moses and the prophets already. The KJV renders v. 26-27 "'Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?' And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

What is significant here is that Jesus, on the day of the resurrection, is saying that the Good News was there in the Jewish Scriptures, waiting for Him to come and fulfill it. God laid out the plan ahead of time -- not just as a plan, but as a revelation of His plan. God was talking about this for thousands of years in human time to actual humans in order to prepare the way for this event.

For those of you with a skeptical bent, this speaks to the heart of skepticism. What happens on the day of the resurrection is this: not only does a man who has been dead for 3 days walk out of the tomb healthy enough to walk out of the tomb and 7 miles down the road to Emmaus, but He appears as a completely healthy person. And in that fact -- that is, that the resurrection was a real act of miraculous scope -- is also the matter that this completely healthy person understands and can demonstrate from ancient writings that this is what was supposed to happen beginning with what God said as told to Moses.

There is simply no other religion on Earth which makes this claim. Sure: there are plenty of religious writings that boast an ancient heritage -- no question about that. But there is no set of religious writings which took thousands of years to compile that tell a single story hung on the hope of a future event in which the future event in question comes to pass, thus demonstrating the reliability of the text.

And when Paul says that Jesus died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, Paul is saying exactly this. Scripture was written to reveal this truth, to spell it out propositionally; Christ is Himself the Word, the true revelation which Scripture was pointing to.

Christ died for our sins in accordance with Scripture. Think about that a little while you're enjoying your week.

Handles even a Child can Grasp

2010-08-19T00:01:00.000-07:00

Here's a little passage from Mark 4 (ESV), with the verse numbers left in to keep us all on the same sheet of music:

30 And he said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? 31It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, 32yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade." 33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it. 34He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything. 35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, "Let us go across to the other side." 36And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. 37And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. 38But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" 39And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Peace! Be still!" And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40He said to them, "Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?" 41And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, "Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?"And any person you meet except the really militantly self-absorbed would agree with the following statement:

The Gospel of Mark is a historical account of jesus' life, and as such, this passage of Mark reports historical events in the life and ministry of Jesus.

Now, here's where many people will bail out of the discussion: How much time elapses between v. 32 and v. 35 in Mark 4?

I mean, this is a historical account, right? So it doesn’t seem very problematic to say, without being very cheeky, "The rest of the day, cent. Pay attention."

That's fine, I guess – no reason to argue about that. But what did Jesus say during the rest of the day? We know in general what Jesus said – Mark says, "With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it. He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything" – but we don't have any kind of a record of what Jesus said in the rest of the day.

Now, that's pretty much undeniable – we don't have any way to tell what Jesus said specifically the rest of that day. And worse still, when v. 35 begins, "on that day, when evening had come," Mark may also be saying "on that day when this next stuff happened", so it's another day entirely.

And I bring this up not to impugn the clarity of Scripture, but to instead ask what it means to have a class of literature which conveys historical facts. In the first place, we can see that not every minute detail has been included in Scripture – how often Jesus drank water, for example, is not included in the holy writ. In the second place, there are massive omissions of dates and time – so much so that there's no way to say that the "synoptic" Gospels actually list the events of Christ's life as if they were a travelogue.

But if this is so, how does the good Christian say that the Bible says things which are true, let alone that the Bible is truth? How do we trust them, for example, as history when these texts are practically date-free?

Well: we have to be better readers than my first-grader. We have to be somewhat literate readers who understand things like genre and type and authorial intent. Because it turns out that Scripture is clear, and is truth, but not in some wooden sense where words don’t do what they do in every other place we use them.

So on the one hand, to stick with my example of Mark, we can say that Mark wrote a historical account of the life of Christ. But on the other hand, he wasn't transcribing Jesus' diary of his 3-year ministry: Mark was ordering the events, or grouping them, or relating them, to underscore specific truths about the life of Christ – building contrasts and comparisons in the events in order to make what we can call expositional points.

That's going to rub a lot of people the wrong way, but who asked them? Here's what you can't do with the Bible: you can't demand that it be "narrative" and not define what kind of "narrative" it is, especially in its diversity of text types. But once you define its genre – its type by book and author – you then have the broad opportunity to read and receive what's written as it was intended to be received.

And I say all that to say this: we can't get all broken up when somebody comes to us and wants to tell us that the Bible is a shaky foundation for faith. For centuries – millennia almost – the Bible has been recognized as one of the great sets of literature man has available to read. And in that, we can’t read it like it's simple hack writing; we can't receive it as great literature but expect it to be easier to read than Milton or Shakespeare or Spencer. The Bible is a beautiful thing, and in that it has all the attributes of beauty: simplicity and complexity, accessibility and incomprehensibility, small handles that even a kid can grasp but massive weight that grown men will strain at to carry.

We have a beautiful thing in the Bible and we can't let someone scare us off that just because they don’t really understand how beauty works. There's more to be said about this, but I have run out of daylight today, so think about that and we'll come back to it eventually.

Just Like Me

2010-08-17T00:01:00.000-07:00

This post is actually from 2007, and speaks to the problem of evil from current events -- at least, from events current at that time.

I wasn't sure I wanted to blog about this subject at all, but it came up at our men's study group this morning and I wanted to put something together here which, I think, many Christians today are going to miss.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.Think about this: every Christian will affirm these verses at least intellectually, or philosophically. We're all sinners, we say, and we are all sinful.

Then we see someone like Cho Seung-Hui, and we think, "my God: what makes a person do something like that?" And we have people of all kinds and all sorts of confessions or beliefs asking the very obvious question, "How can God let something like that happen?"

I mean, isn't this God's fault? That's what some people think Calvinists ought to say: God did it, and that's enough -- no more questions. Somehow some people will say that Calvinists take refuge in a God who is completely without interest in human life. And some who are really questioning the foundation of the faith at a more rudimentary level will ask whether God can be either good or powerful if something like this happens.

And their point, of course, is that this kind of thing happens all the time. There is always some kind of murder or rape or oppression going on -- always someone who is treating someone else like a disposable plastic icon meant for his own satisfaction. So the question of why God lets this go on seems pretty significant and in many ways demands an answer.

On the one hand, the consequences of that question are important. If God is not good enough or powerful enough (let alone all-powerful and all-good) to stop this kind of thing, what kind of God is that? Is he even God -- can't we say God doesn't exist if we can prove He's not what we, the Christians, say He is?

In that consequence lies the first part of the answer. Because look: if God doesn't exist, the only solution for these things -- the murders, the rapes, the kidnapping of daughters and sons, the long list of man's inhumanity against man -- is that man has to do better. We can all agree, I think, that murder and violence of this sort is on some kind of "thou shalt not" list, or at least a "you ought not to" list. But that means that if man has to stop this, man ought to have done so by now.

If it's that obvious to everyone that gunning down strangers is wrong, why does it still happen? Do we need more government to make it happen? Do we need more education to make it happen? How about more religion or maybe more freedom from religion -- is it religion that causes us to do these things?

Let me suggest something here that is not simply theology, proven by a first-grade Sunday school lesson in the book of Romans: let me suggest that man cannot stop doing this because these acts of violence are part of who we are.

"Frank, this isn't a very uplifting post," says one person, "because now you're reading your theology into this situation and into all people rather than trying to get the facts together and then draw the conclusion."

No, I think not. When a disturbed kid guns down 30+ people and then takes his own life, we can see the extent to which men can be drawn to do what is wrong. But let's be clear about something: everybody is drawn to do what is wrong because we see them as viable and useful options. Everyone may not go out to buy weapons in a premeditated way in order to commit some act of community violence, but we all do things which treat people like disposable plastic icons.

We start dating sometimes because we need someone else to fill in our own personal need for attention; we break up when we think someone else will better suit that need, or will make us more socially acceptable. We manipulate situations at work in order to get promoted, or perhaps to simply avert being fired. We ignore people who are in need because we think they might latch on to us and cause us to lose some face in the community, and we despise people who do the same to us. We envy others who have what we want, and scorn others who can't have what we got. Yes: nobody dies most of the time, but once in a while some child gets aborted because we think our idea of a good time should include using another person's body for our own cheap thrills.

We don't want to admit it, but the truth is this: we are really like this disturbed kid who shot up his college campus in type, even if it is not in degree.

That's what "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" means. It means that we are all under judgment, and that (if we take our Calvinism seriously for a moment) it is really only because God intends to save at all that any of us don't wind up going farther and farther down the dark alley of our own desires until we don't have any choice but to mug or be mugged, to rape or be raped.

It means that I am just like Cho Seung-Hui -- not that I am unlike him and he's the one who did something God hates. I am like him. If I am honest, I can see in my own life the moments when I could have gone one step farther than I did in some sinful act and stepped into a life which would have meant that I was the one who would have killed 30 people who didn't even get a chance to be grown-ups yet. I'm the one who could have harbored that kind of rage. I'm the one who could have cut myself off from other people until they simply became targets in a shooting gallery. I'm the English major who could have written himself into a frenzy of confusion until I couldn't tell the difference between what's real and what's invented by my own distorted internal dialog.

He could have been me: I am a sinner, and I am the cause of sin.

So to ask the question, "Why does God allow?" has to go back to the issue of "What is God allowing?" The glib answer to the question is, "God is allowing evil deeds," but in fact God is allowing us to prove that we are what He has said we are. God tells us we are sinners -- and has provided the perfect Law to prove it to us. And in that, the solution God has on-tap is wrath against sin.

Think about that: the first solution in God's menu would rightfully be "wipe out all sinners" so that those who do wrong do not infect others with the wrongness, and so that God's own holiness is satisfied. But the problem is that God would have to wipe out everyone to get that done in a way that really solves the problem -- because if it's not Cho Seung-Hui, it's going to be Matt Gumm, or Phil Johnson, or Dan Phillips, or James White, or Pecadillo, or (most likely, in this list) me.

What God is allowing now is the proof that we -- all of us -- cannot solve the problem of evil. But that is hardly the end of the story.

Because the next item of God's menu is "show love: be the one who is just and is the justifier". God can't abandon the question of evil -- He knows as well as you (and far better, since this is His work of Creation) that evil must be overcome and punished, but there is the question of whether He can punish and still love.

And in that, God has already loved the world so much that He gave us something which is precious to Him above all the rest of creation: His only Son. God gave His only son so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life -- God didn't send the Son to judge this sick and sinful world in order to destroy it all, but in order to save it.

That is, to save it from our selfish relationships which violate the image of God in other men and women; to save it from the petty violence inherent in every lie, every theft, every murder; to save it from our cheap jealousy over cars and clothes and houses and lawns and clubs and herd-like solidarity; to save it from our dissatisfaction with our own spouses and from our imaginary fantasies that someone else's spouse would better satisfy us. And most of all, to save us from blaming God for the things we do willingly and consciously which other people recognize as shameful and sick but which we excuse ourselves from because we know we don't mean anything by it, really.

Why did God allow? Why does God allow you to do what you do, friend? Why does He allow you to harm other people -- or is that not what you meant?

God allows these things in order that a greater redemptive purpose can be manifest in Creation. So that nobody gets their nose out of joint more than I mean to put it, this purpose is God's purpose for God's own end and intention -- but it saves men.

A tragedy like this is about the essential, primary, necessary nature of the Gospel and the work of Jesus Christ to fulfill all the Law and all the Prophets. There is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Listen to the fear and the crushing sadness you hear in your own heart as you think about Cho Seung-Hui. It is not because he did something unspeakable: it is because he is just like you, and whatever the solution is for him, that solution is for you.

A parable: Organ-grinders & Monkeys

2010-08-13T00:01:00.000-07:00

This "best of" post is from the deep archives, and it's a tale of what our problem is as Christians who like to be entertained.

Imagine you have been walking down the cultural street, and you have been listening to the organ grinders that you have passed by. Occationally -- perhaps even at random -- you have been handing quarters out to the monkeys, all of whom have tried to bite you. It's annoying, but the monkeys are cute at first glance.

Suddenly, you stop at one organ-grinder because you thought you heard him say "to every tribe" and thought he had shibbolethed. But when you bend down to give his monkey a quarter, you find out the monkey tries to bite you! Why, the OUTRAGE! To show how mad you are, you walk up to the organ grinder and tell him, "Signore, your monkey tried to bite me even though I know you are a Christian."

To which the organ-grinder replies, "He's a monkey; you think I baptized him or something?" And you are somehow appalled that an organ-grinder is using a monkey.

They are all organ-grinders. They are all using monkeys. To get mad at this last one and boycott him when you have boycotted none of the rest for using monkeys is, in fact, arbitrary. It's an organ-grinder problem, not a monkey problem.

About Nuance

2010-08-09T14:07:00.000-07:00

To keep this space fresh, I am pulling in some "best of" posts from the other blogs I contribute to. Those of you following will be thrilled; those who pass by will at least not see just one post which is 10 months old.

By a long shot, this is one of my favorite posts because it's actually a great post about how to think, not just what to think.

Enjoy.

Over at TeamPyro, I posted a little something about the necessity of grasping nuance in order to have a full toolkit, intellectually. One reader posted this in response:

Nuance is the post-modern enemy of clarity.

Yes, you can quote that if you wish.

And this is sadly, exactly wrong. Let me give you a graphic example:

This is a picture of a real landscape, and it's interesting in its own way, but it is completely without any nuance. That is, it is rendered in plain black and white, and while we can get the general lay of the land (so to speak), we really can't tell anything about this place.

This one is only slightly better:

The difference is subtle -- the edges where the contrast changed are not strictly white or black -- it's gray-scale, but it's sort of the wrong kind of gray scale. There's no question there's more subtle use of web-friendly colors in this picture, but it doesn't gain us anything in perceiving the picture.

This would be one example of the misuse of nuance: it's sort of a doodling along the edges where we already understand there are meaningful differences, but it doesn't add anything to what we get in the end. If this were a discussion, it would be like talking about how many different ways you can sit in the pew at church (because you should go to church, amen?) rather than understanding that going to church to worship is for your sake, and for the sake of the body of Christ.

And just to be sure we cover all the bad examples first, here's another bad example of nuance:

It's almost completely unintelligible. In fact, I'd wager that if you hadn't seen the first two images, you'd have no idea what this image was at all. It's completely useless.

But what has happened here is just another kind of the same misuse of subtlety that we got in the first one -- it goes a lot farther, and blurs all the edges to the place where all distinctions are lost. But doodling at the edges is not at all what nuance ought to achieve. Simply making the edges softer is not nuance: it's smearing.

On the other hand, this is a valuable application of nuance:

Like the last two images, this is a gray-scale image -- but look: the grays are not simply blurring the edges. They are indicating meaningful characteristics like terrain, plant life, the brightness of the sky, detailed distinctions among objects in the middle ground, etc.

This picture demonstrates significantly more nuance than any of the previous images, and tells us far more about the landscape we are viewing. And if, for example, I was going to take a hike through this place, I'd much rather have this more nuanced view of the landscape than the black and white. Why? Because more relevant details are exposed in the more nuanced image.

And how much more dramatic is the difference between the gray-scale image of this landscape and this rendering:

You can actually make out what kind of foliage there is in this landscape now, and whether it is all sand or if it has some ground cover. It actually looks like a real place once all the nuances are understood. But before we take that as the whole point, let's examine one last rendering of this image:

This is a snapshot of the center of the color photo blown up to see the pixels. This would be another example of misunderstanding nuance -- because while all the details are there, the context is completely lost. We can see all the colored dots -- and how different they are from each other -- but we can't see the relationships anymore. We are literally majoring in the minors here, seeing every jot and tittle of detail and missing (quite literally) the big picture.

Nuance is not an enemy of clear thinking: it is the result of clear thinking. Being able to grasp the distinctions in a matter without over-blowing them or distorting them into smears takes patience and a certain degree of practice.

And before anyone thinks this doesn't apply to Jesus, the Gospel or theology, think about how often all but the color photo view of an issue erupts in these public discussions of theology.

Now back to your business.

Why iTurk.com?

2009-10-19T08:01:00.000-07:00

You know: the only person who has more blogs than I do is Tony "Kummeropolis" Kummer, so why on Earth would I open up a new blog when I can't keep the content current on my other (according to Blogger) 22 blogs?

There are three reasons, so follow me:

[1] I have owned iTurk.com since 1998, and I have only used it for (pheh) my permanent e-mail address -- and to that end, it has only brought me grief as some spammers have spoofed the domain and from time to time I get droves of complaints from people who want me to end the spam. For the record, the only person who has a legitimate e-mail address "@iturk.com" is me, and I don't run any servers. So I just thought it was time to build a homepage to call my very own.

[2] In the next 12 months I am about to have a variety of opportunities to do more than blog, and as those opportunities manifest you can read about them here. For example, Joe Carter has recruited me as part of a band of "evangelical" bloggers for FirstThings.com, and I am already causing trouble there.

[3] I am also trying to maintain the brands, so to speak, of my various endeavors. So while I want a "home page" that provides a more professional presentation, I can't really part with my personal blog, and of course in order to leave teamPyro I have to either kill or die.

So enjoy the new home page, offer your insights into how to improve it, and thanks for taking a peek.