Collision

I had the privilege of attending the Arkansas premier of Collision last Wednesday. It was a special presentation made possible by the Central Arkansas Theological Society (CATS - of which I've written previously) and Logos Bible Software.

The movie is a documentary of sorts concerning a series of debates between Christopher Hitchens (athiest) and Douglas Wilson (christian). They debate the existence of God and the benefit of Christianity for the world. You can read an overview of the movie as well as bios on the "stars" on the movie's website so I won't bore you with those details.

However, I will bore you with my thoughts on the film...

I was riveted. The film is well produced. The dialogue is stimulating. The personalities are compelling. The conclusion is fulfilling (in a strange sort of way).

Both Hitchens and Wilson respect each other and that keeps the movie from degenerating into a shouting match (like so many silly talking heads). In fact, their respect for each other makes the movie utterly enjoyable - well that and the endless witty rejoinders. Both of them are bright, passionate, and winsome.

Intellectually speaking, no great new arguments arise on either side. Those familiar with this debate will find nothing new. However, Wilson artfully collates many of the best arguments and provides satisfying explanations at almost every point. I especially enjoyed his short discussion of Jewish ethnocentrism in the parables of Jesus. Great stuff!

In my opinion the debate boiled down to each man trying to place a heavier burden of proof on the other. Hitchens cries foul of Christianity and commissions Wilson to prove otherwise. Wilson asks on what moral basis Hitchens' can make his claim.

There are lots of other interesting points in the film that warrant discussion, but it would be better to just watch it with friends and discuss. I would heartily recommend this film to anyone - athiest or believer.

The power of the gospel

In my previous post I talked about an objection to Tim Keller's presentation on The Reason For God at Google, namely that he didn't present the gospel. I enumerated the arguments of Keller's defenders, but I want to return to the main reason behind the charge against Keller.

The objector(s) essentially argued:

• reasoning with foolish man is futile

• only the gospel is powerful to save (e.g. Romans 1:16, 10:17)

• therefore Keller should have stopped wading through intellectual arguments and presented the gospel

This is a straight-forward and powerful argument. The argument is made even more powerful for those like me who believe in total depravity (i.e. that we are all dead in our sins and can't understand the things of God until the Spirit regenerates us).

How one deals with this objection will depend on how one defines the gospel.

If the gospel is a concise message (e.g. "Jesus is Lord") with implications for all of life then that message can be expressed in countless ways in both word and deed through our lives. Consider Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 11:26. He says that observing the Eucharist actually proclaims Christ's death. Could our lives not also proclaim the gospel in a similar way? Could we "present" the gospel to an unbelieving friend by laying down our life for them? Clearly, the gospel needs to be articulated in speech. I do not mean to deny that.

However, if the gospel can only be articulated directly from Scripture then anything less would be meaningless in regard to evangelism. Or if the gospel is a technical, theological statement then expressing that in action or through simple explanation will be difficult.

Here are my questions about the nature of the gospel. How you define it will determine your answers:

• If only the gospel is powerful to save sinners then why do we do anything except proclaim it?

• Does total depravity invalidate any attempt to build a logical buttress for faith as a means to eventually introduce the gospel? Why?

What is the gospel?

A few weeks ago I attended a meeting of the Central Arkansas Theological Society (C.A.T.S.). Although it sounds fancy, it is just a group of guys (mostly from Redeemer LR) who get together, listen to a talk, and then discuss it.

We listened to Tim Keller talk about The Reason for God which was part of the Authors@Google series. I enjoyed the talk. Keller was winsome and engaged his audience appropriately. It had a Paul-in-Athens (Acts 17) feel.

However since I had already read a fair amount of his book and listened to the talk, I was more interested in the ensuing discussion. Our discussion centered mostly around a few objections that Keller did not make a clear presentation of the gospel. These reason's were offered in defense of Keller:

1. He was being sensitive to his context (i.e. he needed to build trust and credibility with his audience - a crowd of cynics and skeptics). Thumping his Bible (so to speak) would have been counter productive.

2. He was tilling the soil of their hearts (1 Corinthians 3:5-6 was cited).

3. He was asked to come to speak on a specific subject (the kind of reasoning that leads to monotheism - not Christianity necessarily). Straying from that subject too much would have been disrespectful and displayed a lack of integrity.

4. He did share the gospel (e.g. 39:50 - 41:48)

I agreed with all these sentiments, but reason #4 was the most compelling. Interestingly, it also exposed the hidden assumption that we all had the same definition of the gospel. Here's the essence of what Keller said about the gospel:

1. God created the world.

2. God created man.

3. God fell in love with man.

4. God saw man was suffering.

5. God entered the world to save man.

Clearly, some felt that was adequate and some didn't. My question isn't so much about the merits of what Tim presented, but about the gospel in general.

What is the pure essence of the gospel without which it can no longer be called the gospel?

We know from Galatians 1:8-9 that there is a true gospel and a false gospel. Getting the gospel fundamentally wrong will have eternal consequences so we would do well to get it as right as possible to the finest detail.

For further stimulation on this topic I suggest Trevin Wax's "The Gospel of God: Personal Atonement or Christ's Kingdom?" and his fascinating series on Gospel Definitions. I also found Scot McKnight's "Is Our Gospel Too Small" interesting.

Personally, I lean toward definitions of the gospel which are very concise but have broad implications (e.g. "Jesus is Lord") which are then made truly understandable by patient explanation and personal demonstration (i.e. self-sacrificing love).

What do you think? I would love to see a whole C.A.T.S. meeting devoted to this topic.

The "Will of God"

I recently listened to a wonderful talk given by Kevin DeYoung on the "will of God" entitled "Just Do Something" (like his book). The content of the talk (and I assume the book) is in agreement with another good book I've (mostly) read on this same subject - Decision Making and the Will of God. However, the talk is certainly more accessible than Decision Making and the Will of God (an exhaustive treatment of the subject) and therefore likely to appeal much more to the intended 20-something audience.

In my late teens I didn't struggle with the "will of God." Thanks to my parents, I entered college with a solid understanding of what I wanted to study and what I wanted to do when I graduated. That said, I wasn't walking with Jesus and so I didn't care about God's will.

However, during college God called me to Himself, and my life's goal became God's glory. What better way to glorify God than to accomplish His will? For a reason that still remains a mystery to me, I was distinctly impressed with the need to discover God's will before I made decisions - the more significant the decision the more important it was that I have clear "guidance" from God. This led to much agonizing over the life-changing decisions I was making (e.g. going overseas, taking a job, buying a house, getting married, etc.). I also noticed similar anguish among my friends who were making (or trying to make) such decisions of their own.

In the years since, I have studied the will of God not just for myself but also in the effort to help my friends. I believe the "will of God" is actually problematic for my generation at large. I believe part of the issue is the paradox of choice (caused in large part by American consumerism) but more than that is the inexplicable conviction that we must discover God's will in order to make the correct choice.

I enjoyed Kevin's lecture so much because it succinctly and compellingly confirms what I have discovered in my own studies. I wish I had heard it in college. It would have blessed me with the freedom that I now (usually) enjoy when making decisions. I highly recommend it.

Discipleship and "Biblical Counseling"

While researching Ephesians I stumbled across this comment from David Powlison's Seeing with New Eyes: Counseling and the Human Condition Through the Lens of Scripture:

You will not go wrong if you plunge into Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Master it. Be mastered by it. Work Ephesians into your thinking, your living, your prayers, and your conversation. The Bible is vast and deep, and human life is diverse and perplexing. But in a pinch you could do all counseling from Ephesians. It’s all there: the big picture that organizes a myriad of details.

Powlison's name was familiar to me as he is often referenced from Justin Taylor's blog. I decided to explore Powlison a bit more which led me to search Desiring God's website for references both to Powlison and to "biblical counseling." At that point I found this wonderful little article.

As I read the article I couldn't believe how clearly it captured many of my own thoughts. I have never researched "Biblical Counseling," but the brand of discipleship that I caught from Lewie and have discovered in the Scriptures has this kind of communication at its center (i.e. God-centered, Christ-exalting, cross-cherishing, Spirit-dependent, Bible-saturated, emotionally-in-touch, culturally-informed use of language). I joyfully endorse the ideas set forth in the article, and I think it serves as a great benchmark not just for "Biblical Counseling" but for conversations in general.

I tried to set out many of the same ideas in Discipleship and the Institution, but this article serves as a wonderful summary statement of my conception of discipleship focused communication.

Furthermore, check out Lewie's blog for some helpful, concise posts on the theological shape of discipleship and its practical application.

The Paradox of Choice

I recently stumbled across an absolutely fascinating lecture by Barry Schwartz author of The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. The lecture was a "Google TechTalk" although it has very little to do with Google or technology. Google is in the habit of having people come give interesting lectures all the time. But I digress.

To my knowledge the author is not a believer and the lecture is not directly related to anything spiritual. However, I think the implications of the lecture have everything to do with our discipleship, and that is why I found it so incredibly fascinating.

As the title indicates, the lecture is about the nature of choice. My synopsis is as follows: without the judicious application of spiritual wisdom, choice will tend to enslave rather than free.

This is a huge topic with lots of practical application for our lives, especially in our post-modern generation. However, before I get into any of that I will provide an outline of Barry's lecture.

1. "The Official Syllogism" - a deeply rooted, unquestioned assumption shared by most Americans:

1. The more freedom people have the more welfare they have.

2. The more choice people have the more freedom people have (freedom and choice are synonymous).

3. Therefore the more choice people have the more welfare they have.

2. Under this assumption, choice has exploded in the American consumer marketplace.

1. In the U.S., there was a three-fold increase in brands on grocery store shelves in the 1990's

2. The average grocery store has 30,000 unique products (i.e. "SKUs").

3. We not only have more options in areas where we've always had options (e.g. cereal), we now have significant options where there used to be none at all (e.g. medical treatments, plastic surgery, etc.). Subtle implications:

1. If we are ugly it is our fault because we have the ability to change anything about our physical appearance.

2. Many people are more connected to work (via cell-phones and black-berries, etc.) so people must continually deliberate about doing work even if they aren't working.

3. Pensions and 401Ks are considerably more complex.

4. University students get a large "catalog" of classes.

3. Family choices:

1. Who to marry

2. We now have many more options (who, when, how, etc.)

4. Identity:

1. We are encouraged to reinvent ourselves

5. Is this good news or bad news? Yes! Choice and freedom are good. However, too many choices can lead to:

1. Paralysis - there are so many options you choose none (lots of great examples in the lecture)

1. Exceptions:

1. When you decide exactly what you want before being faced with the choice.

2. If the options are explicitly and directly comparable (e.g. 5 piece chicken McNugget Extra Value Meal vs. 10 piece chicken McNugget Extra Value Meal).

2. Reduced decision quality - there are so many options you over-simplify the decision criteria (e.g. dating someone just because they are "hot").

3. Reduced satisfaction - if one overcomes paralysis and makes a good decision they will still feel worse than if they have fewer choices. Axiom: as capability increases usability decreases.

1. Why to lots of choices make people miserable?

1. Regret - any choice that isn't "perfect" it is easy to imagine another which would have been better. The more alternatives exists the easier it is to imagine a better one.

2. Anticipated regret - you are so sure you will regret your decision you simply don't make the choice (much like paralysis). "The specter of regrets makes even unimportant decisions loom large."

3. Opportunity costs - the more options exist the more often you will identify attractive features which you must reject (e.g. a car with a smooth ride but poor gas mileage vs. a car with a rough ride and good gas mileage - both would be nice, but one feature must be rejected).

4. Escalation of expectations - in the face of many choices our expectation of how good our selection will be increases.

1. "It's worth knowing that in case you have a choice between 'x' and making more money, you should almost certainly choose 'x.'"

5. Self-blame - it's my fault I made the wrong choice

1. "Self-blame, I think, is a critical component of why we are experiencing an epidemic of clinical depression in the United States at a time when we've never been richer or had more freedom of choice, people seem to be getting sadder and sadder."

6. Everything is made worse for the person who is out to get the "best" (as opposed to "good enough").

7. The "Monotonicity" Principle - The idea that if two options are better than one then three is better than two, etc. People have assumed this principle for a long time, but it is false. At some point more choice becomes worse than less choice.

8. The "Leakage" Principle - The idea that the context in which a decision is made will continue to exert influence even as you experience the decision's consequences (e.g. if you agonize about your choice of college you will continue to suffer while you attend classes at the college you chose).

9. The "Principal-Agent Problem" - When we (as principals) hire agents to help us, we take the decision burden off ourselves and are therefore freed to enjoy our agent's decisions more-so than our own (e.g. it's easier to enjoy a house that our expert real-estate agent finds than one we find ourselves).

10. "Libertarian Paternalism" - organize options so that if people do nothing they will get what is almost certainly in their interest (e.g. since participation in a 401k is almost always a good idea make it so that people must opt-out rather than opt-in).

A few observations before I open it up for discussion:

• Barry isn't telling us anything a good student of Scripture didn't already know. However, his insights are valuable because they deepen our understanding of human psychology in relation to the truth of Scripture. It's almost always helpful to know why we act the way we act as precisely as possible.

• It doesn't take much to see that Barry is articulating a real problem which is afflicting our generation in particular.

• Realizing that this is a problem and talking about it is helpful. Suffering in ignorance and silence can be deadly.

• These insights may help explain why so many people agonize to find God's "perfect will" for their lives (which by the way is not a Biblical concept - I may post on this later).

• Wisdom is particularly important in dealing with choice. Spiritual wisdom must intersect with the choices in our lives if we are to have any hope of effective discipleship. What decisions are actually worth deliberating? How much deliberation is necessary? Only those with "ears to hear" (as Jesus put it) will know. If we don't hear Jesus then we will likely be consistently mired in a swamp of choice.

I would love to hear your feedback.

Moving Forward Together

Today I met Copas and Jonathan for lunch. We met to discuss the book of Ephesians and how we might study it together. We hope to present our ideas to the church the next time we gather (tomorrow).

Our desire to study Ephesians comes from two main convictions:

• God's Spirit moves in power through the Scriptures.

• The Spirit's power through the Scriptures is vital for our health as individuals and as a church.

All three of us were excited as we talked about Ephesians and the overall purposes of God set forth in the Scriptural narrative. I believe our times together when the Scriptures take center stage will invigorate our minds and hearts and push us further in our quest to be like Jesus.

Right or wrong, I will not hide the fact that I am sobered by the practical difficulties we may face in this endeavor. Of course, most of us have young children and more (no less than three!) are on the way in rather short order. We will therefore need to be creative, flexible, and disciplined (all at once!) in our time together in the Scriptures. By no means do I want our time together to boil down to a sterile "Bible Study," or a dogged march through a bit of dry theology. Neither do I want to continue gathering without making explicit and consistent use of the Scriptures. As is true with any Kingdom effort, this will only succeed as each of us lays down our lives for the others.

Practically speaking, I envision our time in the Scriptures together being facilitated by one of the men who has studied and prepared specifically for that time. I do not envision a "sermon," but rather a dialogue between everyone - a mutual exploration of the text informed by personal study and enhanced by the contribution the other participants.

I am hopeful we can move forward together, and I fully expect to have our friendships deepened and our love for God and man enriched.

I would love to hear your thoughts.