Henry Center Travelogue, Day Three: Evangelical Identity and Ringo Starr

I'm in Hong Kong with the Henry Center, my employer, as we're hosting an international conference on evangelical identity. I'll be blogging about the conference on the Henry Center blog and will cross-post here.

The conference has now started in earnest. We're at the YMCA International House on Waterloo Street, right in the middle of bustling Hong Kong. Come join us if you're up for the fifteen-hour flight.

This morning, historians Doug Sweeney of TEDS and Kevin Yao of China Graduate School of Theology discussed the nature of evangelical identity as related to history. Sweeney's talk, "Modern Evangelicalism and Global Christian Identity: Promise and Peril as Seen Through the Eyes of a North American Church Historian", surveyed definitions of evangelicalism, suggested one that emphasized the fact that evangelicalism is founded upon an eighteenth century "twist", and then encouraged Christians of all stripes to simultaneously preserve the indigenous nature of the faith as expressed in their culture and to link arms with the global and historical church.

This was an important message for Christians of both East and West to hear. No group of Christians is immune to the danger of narrowed vision. Indeed, in America, we saw time and time again efforts and organizations pop up with great motives but no confessional and ecclesiastical connection. What great need, then, for Christians to simultaneously take the faith to their culture while connecting themselves, however awkwardly, to the church of all ages and cultures. Our faith must be both horizontal, linked to those who claim Christ across the world, and vertical, linked to the church of ages past and, God willing, of ages to come.

Yao gave a strong talk titled "Chinese Evangelicals and Social Concerns: A Historical and Comparative Review" on the nature of Chinese approach to government and society. Surveying the Christian heritage of China, he noted that in the past, believers took an apolitical position. Now, however, they are rethinking this position, and it seems best to Yao for the church to " to witness to Christian faith through teaching basic Christian values, charity and dialogue with the authority." I found this a provocative insight.

Following a panel discussion between Sweeney, Yao, and moderator Andrew Lam of Evangel Seminary, Old Testament scholars K. Lawson Younger of TEDS and Timothy Wu of China Evangelical Seminary spoke. Younger's talk, "The Old Testament in its Cultural Context: Implications of "Contextual Criticism" for Chinese and North American Christian Identity", propounded a forceful case for the need to analyze three primary environments in teaching and preaching the Scripture: literary (textual) environment, material cultural (archaeological) environment, and geographic (topological) environment. Younger gave examples of ways in which these methods buttressed and enhanced study of Scripture. Though the talk performed few exegetical feats, it gave a stirring call for close, careful study of the Bible. It is easy for students of God's Word to get distracted by various disciplines and endeavors. Ideally, we should use philosophy, theology, history, and so on to enrich our study of the Word, but all our preaching and teaching should be founded upon an attempt to get to the very heart of the text.

I remember well a great lesson from a class on Isaiah at Southern Seminary. I wrote a long paper on chapter 55, attempting to get to the marrow of every clause, every word, but I missed a crucial point (the background for the "dogs" that Isaiah condemns) and my professor excoriated me for not doing so. At the time, that stung a little bit. Ever since then, however, I've remembered my professor's point, and I've agreed with it completely. Bringing out the importance of that term would not have revolutionized my preaching of that text, but it surely would have enriched it, and fed the saints a richer meal. Younger's talk corroborated that experience and encouraged me to work very hard to understand the text, and feed the saints the fullness of God's Word.

Timothy Wu then spoke on "The Renewal of Culture: The De-Focus and Re-Focus After "Paradise Lost". Wu surveyed Genesis 1-11 from a canonical standpoint and sought to show how these chapters provide a model for the pattern of human history. After declension (fall) comes renewal and transformation (Abraham). It was very interesting to synthesize the two OT talks, as they together made the case for careful exegesis and biblical theology.

There are more talks to go in the day. I'm on my dinner break and have to go, although I must say that I'm not that hungry because our hosts are feeding us constantly and deliciously. On one of our "coffee breaks", which also provide us with little cheesecakes and scrumptious noodles (I can't tell you how well this strange mix works), I bumped into a waiter named "Ringo". I asked him if he was named after the Beatle. What ensued was an utterly hilarious conversation in which, I'm pretty sure, he thought that I was asking him if he played bass guitar. I'm sure I was explaining myself with a complete and utter lack of clarity, despite numerous gesticulations, re-clarifications, and, at one point, a citation of Yoko Ono. Oh well. Such is life in a foreign environment. It's a good thing our speakers are a great deal clearer than my attempts at connection!

By the way, all of the conference talks will be published in a forthcoming volume. The Center Blog will have more about that in the future. Speaking of the future, I'll be back tomorrow for more reportage and stories of self-humiliation.

Further Thoughts on Guys, Fighting, and Needless Violence

There have been some great comments on recent posts. Thanks to all who have written in with thoughtful things to say. Even when folks have disagreed with me, they've been charitable and reasonable.

I'll focus today on how Christians might understand needless violence. With pursuits like football, or backyard boxing, or karate, how are we to think as Christians about these things? Let me first say that I don't think that there is an easy answer here. In other words, I am not assuming that I have everything figured out, and that in thinking about this topic, all gray areas have been peeled away and I am now in a position to clarify the black area and the white area regarding this topic. Simply put--I'm not. There is a significant amount of gray area relative to the topic of "needless violence". For example, I play pickup basketball. It is not as violent or physical as is football or boxing, but it does involve physical contact, and thus in playing it, I run a higher risk of injury than I do if I simply stay home and exercise. With all of us, then, there are areas that cannot easily be defined as right and wrong; we are in one in this discussion.

Having said all that, I'm still game to try and come up with a framework for thinking through these matters. I start, as I did yesterday, with noting that it is fundamentally a good thing for a man to prepare his body for defense of self and family. I am not a pacifist, and I do not think that the New Testament teaches pacifism, but readers should note that neither do I sneer at it. It is true (however much we might like it to be otherwise) that there is no explicit command (that I know of) in the NT that enjoins us to defend our families with violence. Indeed, there is much material that does call us to peace and non-violent response to provocation and even pain (Matthew 5-7, for instance). With that said, the Bible doesn't cover everything, and I think it's legitimate to defend oneself and one's family from attack. No, that's too weak. It's imperative that one do so. If self-defense, after all, is not explicitly commanded in the Word, neither is pacifistic response to attack. This is a gray area, and I think that we have freedom to defend ourselves and our families from attack.

It is important, then, that men take the time and effort to make their bodies ready for defense and also for utility around the home. I don't have a specific verse to point to here, but it's a shameful thing when an able-bodied, physically capable man allows his body to become weak and flabby due to gluttony, laziness, and irresponsibility. We may joke about it, but if our homes were attacked, if our wife's purse were snatched, if our families were threatened with violence, would we be able to respond? In my humble opinion, men should take care of their bodies, exercise regularly, and make themselves strong (to a reasonable extent, of course) for the purpose of protecting and caring for their families. Get a BowFlex, join a gym, run three times a week, do pushups--exercise doesn't have to be fancy or even that long to be profitable.

Moving on to the matter of needless violence, we're all going to have to use our minds on this one. We'll need to think hard about our involvement in pastimes that could hurt our bodies and damage our ability to physically care for our families. There's no code to refer to here, and the Bible has very little to say on this matter, directly. It is my own personal conviction that I will play sports that have a relatively low degree of contact and possibility of injury. I personally would not box with other men. Concussions can come fairly easily in boxing, and I could not justify such potential injury. I need to be able to use my mind for the rest of my life, and I cannot see how risking long-term injury for no purpose fits in with responsible Christian headship. I am able to get the exercise and exhaust the energy I have in far less dangerous pursuits. If I am involved in a football game, I will always advocate for touch or flag-football. It may be fun to tackle (though it's not for shrimps like me), but let's face it: most of us twentysomething guys are getting old, and we can easily get injured from tackle football. With something like karate, I'm fine with it, personally. I don't know a ton about it, but if one does karate carefully and for the purpose of self-defense, I think that's fine.

But with things like mixed martial-arts, we're in another category. Yes, the church needs more testosterone--that is true, and if you read this blog for more than a day, you'll see that I argue just that, if in a nuanced way (I hope). But we don't need to lift up bloodletting and physical pain and needless violence to encourage a culture of masculine leadership. If we do so, I think that we're making a mistake. The authors of the New Testament do not teach us that physical exercise is of huge value--they teach us that it is of little (1 Tim. 4:8). It is possible for us to be so captured by the idea of a masculine pastorate that we go well beyond the categories of the New Testament and make requirements of our leaders that it simply does not make. While encouraging men to take care of themselves, to seek to live long by eating well and exercising much for the benefit of others, and to be robustly, unapologetically masculine, we must be very careful not to exceed scripture and think that our pastors must be capable of beating people up. If that is the requirement, friends, I have clearly misperceived my call.

On the matter of what entertainment we watch, some commenters made good points. I can honestly say that I am probably not as careful on this point as I could be. We should be careful about reveling in violence. In a violence-saturated society, sometimes it's hard to see that we are doing so. I'm sure that I'm sometimes guilty of this, and those who have pointed out this potential hypocrisy in me and others have made a good and worthy point.

Thanks to all who wrote in. Let's continue this discussion in days to come.

Is Vicious Combat Between Guys a Good Thing? The New York Times on Mixed Martial-Arts

The New York Times magazine just published a story on mixed martial-arts fighting that caught my eye. Paul Wachter has crafted "Gladiator" as an exploration of the culture and morality of this "sport", which is rapidly growing in the United States. I've read material on this sport before but had not encountered an article of such length and depth. This piece raises questions that many folks would have about "M.M.A.", and leaves one wondering whether it is appropriate for Christians to support and participate in such events.

Those of you who read Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll's material will know that he enjoys MMA and has attended fights in the past. Driscoll, who I respect and have benefited from, advocates that Christians not turn their back on the "sport" due to its authentic representation of the desires of contemporary men. Beyond this, Driscoll encourages Christians to engage the sport: "My three young sons and I enjoy watching Ultimate Fighting in conjunction with our Old Testament Bible studies", he said in a 2006 blog. "Because I am a Christian pastor I now need to find something that connects all of this to being a Christian. So, I'll just say that while young men are watching tough men compete, the reason they don't go to most churches is because they could take the pastor and can't respect a guy in a lemon-yellow sweater, sipping decaf and talking about his feelings." There's something to commend in these comments. The Bible is not a sanitized book, though many of us think it is. The Old Testament in particular is raw and bloody, its scenes and narratives acted out on the level of gritty, even gruesome human behavior. Many men, even men of God, were not soft-edged and soft-voiced. They were tough, salt-of-the-earth types who worshiped God with a sword in hand.

Furthermore, I don't condone feelings-oriented churches led by weak men. It's a beautiful thing to see a strong man of God balance courageous leadership with a compassionate disposition. I think that Mark Driscoll has some things to say on this matter, then. But while I do have great respect for Driscoll and look up to him, I wonder about a whole-hearted embrace of Ultimate Fighting and its counterparts. Wachter describes a street fight organized by a rival to the Ultimate Fighting Championship: "The two men approach each other throwing wild haymakers. Alvarez lands a knockout punch, and Tommy collapses to the ground. In the U.F.C., this fight would be over. Instead, Alvarez rushes over to his unconscious opponent and delivers five more punches to his head. Next, he leaps, bending his legs behind him, and slams his knees down on Tommy’s face with the full weight of his body. Then he does it again. Finally, Lynch intervenes as Tommy lies on his back, moaning and struggling to breathe, with blood streaking down from a gash on his chin." Now, we need to note that this is a bloodier, more brutal type of fight than the UFC would sanction (and, presumably, than Driscoll would watch, though I don't know that for sure). With that said, there are similarities between the formalized UFC and its street offshoots. In each, men beat each other up with savage ferocity. In both, men come away from their fights bruised and bloodied. Both celebrate a wild masculinity in which men are prized for their power--specifically, for their power to harm another man.

I in no way would want to encourage Christians to be physically weak. I think it's a very good thing--I would say a duty, but that might be too strong--for men to be strong and able to protect themselves and their families. Speaking personally, I would be wracked with guilt if I were physically unable to protect my wife and family in the event of an attack. It's also very helpful to be able to take care of things around the house for my wife--to move things, and shoulder burdens, and generally be capable of helping her physically. I don't have a Bible verse to back up this desire of mine, but I don't think it's entirely necessary here--it seems to me to be common sense. Men who are out of shape and weak should consider what they might do in the event of an emergency or an attack--would we be able, to some degree, to help or protect? Or would we be woefully unable to act assertively due to laziness, gluttony, and irresponsibility? These are important questions for the head of the home, I think. It should be clear, then, that I think that Driscoll and the UFC have something to teach us. I do not style myself a wimp, and though I lack height and bulk, I try to steward my body well in order that I might help my family and, to some degree, glorify God.

But I am not convinced that the UFC and its counterparts contribute positively to society. I'm afraid that they perpetuate an age-old stereotype of masculinity, namely, that it is determined not by the character of a man's heart but by the circumference of his biceps--and his ability to deploy said biceps in conflict, whether necessary or otherwise. I would challenge the notion that men today are especially drawn to violence. Couldn't we legitimately say that men have always been drawn to violence? Yes, the UFC does represent, I think, a response to a culture that beckons men toward effeminacy and weakness in many dimensions. In that sense, then, this movement is uniquely contemporary. But couldn't we also say that this is merely one iteration of many across history of men prizing blood-sport? If this is true, then we should mark that, even as we consult the scriptures for testimony encouraging men to prize needless violence.

The Old Testament, to be sure, includes numerous stories of war, bloodshed, and violence, but we've got to remember that much of this violence was in fact sanctioned by God. God not only allowed it--He decreed it! Israel incurred some of its harshest penalties for failing to carry out total warfare, in which entire cities and societies would be utterly destroyed. Our minds struggle to comprehend this reality, but it was so. In the New Testament, however, warfare seems to be carried out on a spiritual plane. We do not wage war against flesh and blood, but against spiritual powers (2 Co. 10:3). This statement seems to correct a mindset that exalts violence in the current day.

I make this last point to argue against a view of UFC-type violence that sees it as sanctioned in the current day because of Old Testament texts. Just war and defense-oriented war are, I believe, biblical, but random violence is hard to justify simply by citing texts on total warfare sanctioned by the Lord Himself for the purpose of carrying out judgment on wicked nation-states. There's a bit of a jump there, as I see it. I don't think that Christians should be afraid of violence, in one respect; that is, we shouldn't cower in its face, and we should be ready, as mentioned above, to defend ourselves, our families, and our lands, when these causes are just. But brutal violence that is needless should have little place in our homes, and little place in our raising of sons. As Christian fathers seek to be protectors, so they train their children to be protectors with nuance and wisdom. But these same fathers should avoid teaching their children to glorify and even pursue senseless violence. If it is poor stewardship of one's body to be weak and powerless when one is physically healthy and able, so it is equally poor stewardship to subject oneself to violence that could permanently impair our minds and bodies and could, in just the wrong moment, rob us of life. What a stupid reason for injury and, God forbid, death--a silly boxing match carried out for no reason other than to sate the hunger for aggressive combat. How one would answer to the Lord for that, I do not know.

"Gladiator" provokes much thought, then. It encourages us to put violence and masculine aggression in proper perspective. God has made men strong and capable of great physical feats (some of us, at least!). But it seems that He has made us so not to exercise our wildest passions, to revel in our base pursuits, but to be living reflections of His character. The Lord, after all, is our protector, but He is never frivolous or selfish in filling this role. It is our charge, then, to emulate our creator, and to steward our bodies well for the betterment of others. We do not seek to become gladiators--no matter what the culture tells us--but to be protectors. Each term is just a word in length, but there is an ocean of difference between what they signify--and what we must become.

The Week-est Link, February 22, 2008: Mohler, Carson, and One Powerful Song

1. Andy Naselli, a friend from TEDS and PhD student in New Testament (and D. A. Carson's research guy) blogs about the online history of Southern Seminary that I worked on a few years back. I'm linking to it here because Andy lays out the site's content in a really helpful way. If you've never looked at the site, I encourage you to--a number of us worked hard on the site to make it excellent. The seminary archivist, Jason Fowler, a personal friend, did terrific work in pulling it together, writing some content, and finding great photos for the various content pages.

2. This is a great article on how children's play has changed in the last few decades. The aforementioned Andy Naselli passed it on to me by email. Pretty depressing. I'm thankful that my parents strongly limited the amount of tv that my sister and I could watch. We were forced to use our imaginations, and we did. Some of my fondest memories from childhood are simple times in the backyard. How many kids--and Christian kids, shockingly--will never develop such memories?

3. Great Collin Hansen piece on the new book by New Testament scholars D. A. Carson and Greg Beale on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. There is such confusion on this subject. I attempt on my own little corner to push for healthy, full-canon biblical exegesis, but I am just a little fish--a minnow, perhaps. It's great to see a couple of sharks publish some meaty stuff on this important topic. Collin is also a TEDS student and is one of the best young writers around--make sure to get his new book when it comes out.

4. Future historian of eminence Matthew Hall blogs thoughtfully as ever about new studies in Mormonism. I'll have to think more about this before I comment, but it is interesting to observe the mainstreaming of Mormonism.

5. Al Mohler on a recent report of America's most sinful cities. His comments: "In reality, the whole world is a Genesis 3 world -- a fallen world inhabited by sinners. Sin is a universal problem and every single human being is a sinner. Put sinful humanity in close quarters, and sin inevitably multiplies." So true. It's fun to think about the morality of towns versus cities. Maybe a post for another day.

6. If you want to be edified and lifted up, you need to get this cd and listen to the song "Oh Lord Your Love." It is stirring and inspiring, and it never fails to direct my thoughts to the hope and joy that I have in Jesus Christ because of His death and resurrection on behalf of his church. Great work by Caedmon's Call.

Have a great weekend, all.

Things Christians Overlook: The Bible Has a Thesis (Hint: Christ)

I want to do a brief series on some key biblical things that I and other Christians have overlooked and do overlook. Today's topic is on a pretty simple but incredibly under-recognized idea, that the Bible has a thesis, and that this thesis is Jesus Christ.

I have talked about this before on this blog, and I'm sure I'll talk about it again, because it is incredibly important. I think that many Christians of the past century were taught to read the Bible rather flatly. That is, there is no peak in the canon which all preceding materials foretells and all following material explores. But there is such a peak: it is none other than Jesus Christ.

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44-46"These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead...

John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me...

These are some of the texts that point us to find the Bible's thesis in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Preachers are not being fanciful when they attempt to connect their sermon text to the person and work of Jesus Christ; they are being faithful. One can pick up a book of Scripture and read it in its context and take away lots of important information and context and content. This is, in fact, how many Christians read the Bible. They read a given text--say, Esther--and they come away encouraged by it, understanding more of God and man and how the two interact and what ancient Judaism looked like and how God triumphs over evil and things like this. Let me be clear: these are immensely important things. However, this Christian is missing the Bible's thesis, the richness of a thesis-driven reading of Scripture, and is in some way disobeying Christ and His explicit command to read the Bible in terms of a theological argument. I once read the Bible in this way, and though I am sure that I and others who did (and do) are not seeking to disobey Christ's direct teaching, it is clear that we are.

This post is not okaying any and all interpretations of Scripture so long as they purport to point to Christ (as if I can okay anything). No. We must be responsible Christocentricists. We can acknowledge that some texts foreshadow and disclose Christ's coming and work more clearly and fully than others. We can at times confess, both to ourselves and to our congregations, that the Christocentric connection is rather abstract due to a lack of clarity on our part (thus emphasizing our exegetical weakness and the Bible's mystery more than its lack of anything). With these caveats stated, whether you are a preacher or a politician, a teacher or a tradesman, a homemaker or a teenager, you are called to read the Bible as if it has a thesis, namely, the person and work of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament foreshadows Christ, the New Testament discloses His person and work in fullness (see the above texts). Thus, every text of the Bible in some way relates to the gospel of Christ, and every Christian must learn to the read the Bible with this rich, invigorating, glorious thesis. God in His wisdom wrote the Bible through men, and He did so with a distinct thesis in mind: He wrote the Scripture to tell of Himself, to illuminate the character of men, to record a history of His dealings with men, and most significantly, to point to Christ and His work as the center, the apex, the pinnacle, of the Word.

Let us read the Scripture accordingly--not as a book of sixty-six fascinating but loosely connected books, but as a collection of diverse authors and subjects who nonetheless speak a single central theme: the glory of God as revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Let us not ignore this matter; if we do so, after all, we're not disobeying a bunch of fanciful theologians who comment on the Bible. No, we're disobeying Christ, the One who wrote it.

Further reading: Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Proclaiming Christ from All of Scripture, P & R, 2007.

The Duty of Every Preacher to Disclose Christ

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

I have observed a troubling phenomenon in theological circles. Many people today think that we don't need to preach how all the passages of Scripture point to the Jesus Christ, who is the center of the Bible. In preaching only the original point of a passage, we deprive God of glory and our preaching of the rich fullness it was intended to have.

Luke 24:27 is the key verse here (quoted above). The context is this: the post-resurrection Christ appears to two of His disciples, shocking them, and proceeds to teach them how all the Old Testament relates to Him. We have no record of this conversation, and thus we do not know exactly what Christ said to the two disciples. But we do know this: the Old Testament testified en masse to Jesus Christ. It was not a compilation of orthodox statements about God and God's people. It might have appeared to be this, but it was much more than this. Its various components spoke in various ways to the reality that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the deliverer of God's people, was coming. The Old Testament authors understood little of this; but when Jesus unfolded this truth to His two disciples, He changed the entire Christian hermeneutic (interpretive scheme) in one exhilarating conversation.

This verse is sometimes called the "hermeneutical key." It teaches us an essential--absolutely necessary!--interpretation in interpreting and understanding the Bible. It all points in some way to Christ. This can be overdone, of course. We can allegorize the Scriptures and make them mean things they do not. This is one error that some of the godliest men of church history made time and time again. Yet if over-preaching Christ in the Bible is an error, so is under-preaching Christ in the Bible. It is my belief that every passage, every unit, of Scripture reveals Christ in some way. Now, some passages are closer to a clear and understandable revelation of Christ than others. It is difficult to know how exactly Christ is found in the genealogies. But it is less difficult to know how He relates to David, or Abraham, or the bad kings of Judges, or Solomon, or the testimony of the Minor Prophets, or Job, or tons of other things in the OT. Yet all too often, our preaching veers into moralism. Or, when it's done more faithfully, it reveals the character of God. This is good, but it is not enough.

True biblical preaching that follows Luke 24:27 does something more, something that requires great care and reflection: it reveals Jesus Christ. Unless we do this in our preaching, I do not think that we can say that we have preached truly. Or, to flip it around, if we have not preached Christ, have we truly preached?