Mohler on New York Magazine: Just how pro-choice is America, really?

Al Mohler has some thoughts on an article in New York magazine entitled "The Abortion Distortion -- Just How Pro-choice is America, Really?" and written by Jennifer Senior.

Several things really jumped out at me from this article but I will share only one from a doctor:

And then there was Harris, who wrote about performing an abortion on a woman who was 23 weeks along and then immediately running to deliver a premature baby … of 23 to 24 weeks. “I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its mother’s uterus,” she writes, “but that the same kind of violence against it now would be illegal, and unspeakable.” Later she notes, “Currently, the violence and, frankly, the gruesomeness of abortion is owned only by those who would like to see abortion (at any time in pregnancy) disappear.”

Here are Mohler's thoughts: An Amazing Article on Abortion in New York Magazine

A tidbit:

Along the way, Jennifer Senior makes some fascinating observations. In terms of the motivation to be engaged in the issue of abortion, she quotes Harrison Hickman, a former NARAL pollster, as saying: "If you believe that choosing the wrong side of the issue means spending eternal life in Hades, of course you're going to be more focused on it." That is a very powerful affirmation of the fact that one's worldview really does matter.

She also understands the great generational shift taking place on the issue. She recognizes that the current generation of younger voters "is the most pro-life to come along since the generation born during the Great Depression." Why? This same generation is the first to grow up with ultrasound images taped to the refrigerator door. Their understanding of the fetus is dramatically different from those who never had to face those images. Furthermore, Senior also raises the fascinating insight that the big technological advance experienced by this generation was IVF -- a technology that allowed having babies rather than not having them. This generation understands the issue in terms of infant human life. They do not see a mere fetus. They recognize a baby. Nancy Keenan of NARAL is cited as saying that the biggest defenders of abortion are now a "menopausal militia."

Crisis at Calvin College over Homosexuality

Another preacher mentioned to me recently that the day will come when many (professing) Christians will consider homosexuality to be permissible. I responded that such a day is already here in some circles.

Where I didn't think it would be an issue is in Reformed circles. Christianity Today has written about the issue at Calvin College here.

Of course, others here and here have said that it is not so much an issue of approving or condemning homosexuality as it is academic freedom. The fear of a slippery slope is apparently what has stirred up the faculty at Calvin College (one faculty leader asked if this was "the thin edge of the wedge").

The verdict is out with me as far as whether this is an academic freedom issue or not. Calvin is a liberal arts college but is also supposed to be a confessional school and is tied to a denomination.

My point still stands, however, in that this issue has now touched the innermost circles of evangelical Christianity in an unavoidable way.

Dunn on the Authorship of 1 Peter

James D. G. Dunn seems to contradict himself on 1147 of Beginning from Jerusalem. Dunn points out that the material in 1 Peter is hard to evaluate because there is little to compare it to except the speeches in Acts. Then Dunn reminds us that the speeches in Acts are not so excellent a source as one would think on first glance because Luke was probably using primitive material when he compiled these sermons.

While this may be true, it does not follow that the more certain we are of the lack of authenticity for the Acts speeches means the less sure we are of the authenticity of 1 Peter. Could it be that Peter’s teaching in 1 Peter reflects mature theology learned in the crucible of ministry?

If the Acts speeches represent the earliest proclamation of the Christian movement, then one would expect there to be differences between Acts and 1 Peter. Also, the teaching in 1 Peter seems directed more toward those who have already professed faith in Christ while the Acts sermons are directed primarily toward those who have yet to embrace Christ.

Dunn goes on to rightly address the criticisms but some of the criticisms he handles seem less important than the time he gives to them. The first, that the Greek is too good for a Galilean fisherman is an argument that is used in other contexts, as well. The easiest answer is that the author dictated and a scribe wrote. Since this was not uncommon in the ancient world (and Peter, given his stature in the church, he would certainly have had access to a scribe) the objection seems rather elementary, certainly not worthy of a scholar of Achtemeier’s stature. Dunn does not address the idea that Peter may have written in Aramaic and someone else translated it into Greek.

The objection that the letter does not mention reminisces of Jesus is not only consistent with other NT letters (Dunn points this out), but if the Gospels were in circulation there would have been no need. If one accepts Papias’ statement regarding Petrine influence for Mark’s gospel, Peter would have said what he needed to say about that there. Dunn will later point out the influence of the Jesus tradition upon 1 Peter (1154) and if the Gospels (or some Gospel or other) was in circulation, then one would expect Peter to build on that tradition rather than simply rehash the stories.

The last objection, that the letter does not reflect the state of Palestine during that era, begs the question. The objections that Achtemeir and others raise are themselves the result of conjecture and so more is assumed than can be proven.

The “Pauline flavor” of the letter may be explained simply through a unity of teaching that had arisen in the decades following the events of Acts 1-2. This leads to circular reasoning: doctrinal development took centuries so this epistle cannot be authentically Petrine because it shows too much doctrinal unity with Paul. How do we know that doctrinal development took centuries, because no authentic documents exist since 1 Peter et al, are inauthentic.

Also, as Dunn points out later (1153), there is a strong Jewish influence (in thought and in Scriptural allusion) in 1 Peter that supports Petrine authorship. One would expect this from a letter authored by 1 Peter and here one has it.

I understand that Dunn must answer these objections and he is writing primarily for the academy so that he has no choice but to answer them, but it seems that many of the objections the scholars make are of the sort that fail to “see the forest for the trees.” Dunn must answer them, I as a pastor must interact with them and be able to answer them, but I think many of these scholars fail to realize that thinking Christians are answering their objections using simple logic and common sense. Such Christians are also losing respect for the academy (in some circles they already have) because such intelligent and educated intellectuals make too much out of such flimsy evidence.

Seven for Saturday

Tim Keller on John Calvin on Two Kinds of Popularity

There's a reason for gaining people's esteem that is not vain-glorious, and, at the same time, there's a motivation for boldly speaking the truth -- that is vain-glorious.

Kevin DeYoung talks about the New Gospel and why we must be discerning.

The New Gospel generally has four parts to it.

1. It usually starts with an apology: “I’m sorry for my fellow Christians. I understand why you hate Christianity. It’s like that thing Ghandi said, ‘why can’t the Christians be more like their Christ?’ Christians are hypocritical, judgmental, and self-righteous.”

2. Then there is an appeal to God as love.

3. The third part of the New Gospel is an invitation to join God on his mission in the world.

4. And finally, there is a studied ambivalence about eternity.

Why So Hot?

This way of telling the good news of Christianity is very chic. It’s popular for several reasons.

1. It is partially true. God is love. The kingdom has come. Christians can be stupid. The particulars of the New Gospel are often justifiable.

2. It deals with strawmen. The bad guys are apocalyptic street preachers, Crusaders, and caricatures of an evangelical view of salvation.

3. The New Gospel leads people to believe wrong things without explicitly stating those wrong things.

4. It is manageable. The New Gospel meets people where they are and leaves them there. It appeals to love and helping our neighbors. And it makes the appeal in a way that repudiates any hint of judgmentalism, intolerance, or religiosity. This is bound to be popular. It tells us what we want to hear and gives us something we can do.

5. The New Gospel is inspirational.

6. The New Gospel has no offense to it.

Why So Wrong?

It shouldn’t be hard to see what is missing in the new gospel. What’s missing is the old gospel, the one preached by the Apostles, the one defined in 1 Corinthians 15, the one summarized later in The Apostles’ Creed.

Read the whole thing here.

Doug Wilson comments on the poor writing in the Twilight novels.

My favorite part:

Now the thing is this—if this were not vampire fiction, but rather, say, premill rapture fiction, there would be all kinds of artsy fartsy Christians apologizing for it from here to Toledo. But because it is the kind of thing that might upset James Dobson, we give the writing a pass.

Feeling Down? 39 Ways to Boost Your Mood

Don't like how you're feeling? You control how you feel. Here are some ways (from a secular blog that I often find helpful) to lift your mood when it is down.

Get ready, there is a growing gay agenda in evangelicalism

ancient hebrew poetry explains why educational blogging has a huge price tag

Finally, Michael Spencer on Christless Preaching

I like it that Spencer is gracious at first, realizing that preachers have bad days. But he goes on to hit the nail on the head not only with his description of the problem, but his explanations of the reasons for the problem. May this never be true of me (or of you, if you are a preacher or aspire to preach).

The Manhattan Declaration

You may download the Declaration here (the link is in the upper right; the document is in pdf format).

Al Mohler explains why he signed the Manhattan Declaration.

William Dembski is also in favor of the Manhattan Declaration.

Now for the other side of the argument.

Frank Turk says "I Respectfully Decline."

James White explains The Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration over at Possessing the Treasure

John MacArthur on why he didn't sign the Manhattan Declaration.

Seven Links for Saturday and Sunday

Here's some interesting stuff from my Google Reader this week.

(1) I think the resurrection of the pastor-theologian as an ideal is long overdue. Here are some thoughts over at SAET:

Doug Sweeny On the Professor as Researcher and the Pastor as Theologian

We should work toward a day when professors view themselves as handmaids serving pastor-theologians, and pastor-theologians play an important public role in guiding people theologically. Professors should continue to offer specialized instruction in ancient languages and history, exegesis, church history, social science, and philosophy. They will continue to raise up future generations of pastors. But we should work to raise up the kinds of pastors who can synthesize, exposit, and apply the knowledge of God to the lives of all God’s people with authority.

(2) I know there's much to disagree with Eugene Peterson about, but I have profited immensely from his books. Matt Chandler quoted him in a recent sermon (video - audio) and the Thinklings excerpted the Peterson quote. Then Internet Monk added some thoughts about Peterson and Chandler that are worth reading.

(3) Sometimes a church gets the pastor it deserves. If you have a man who will preach the truth even though it is difficult, you should thank God for him, even though he isn't perfect.

(4) Jewish tradition has something to teach us about thanking God for our food before we eat. (We're supposed to bless God, not the food.)

(5) Kevin DeYoung from East Lansing has A Word of Optimism from the State of Perpetual Bad News (that state would be Michigan).

(6) Ever thought about reading the Psalms together in worship? I think it's a great idea.

(7) I already quoted Al Mohler once this week, but here he explains that economists are happy about falling fertility rates.

Mohler: Younger Pastors and the Hope of a Future

Al Mohler has some thoughts after spending time with a group of young SBC pastors. He lists eight qualities he saw in these men:

1. They are deeply committed to the Gospel and to the authority of Scripture.

2. They love the church. They have resisted the temptation to give up on the church or to be satisfied with a parachurch form of ministry.

3. They are gifted preachers and teachers. They rightly divide the Word of Truth and they make no apology for preaching the Bible. They are dedicated to expository preaching and they actually know what that means. They may not use pulpits, but they do have something important to say when they get before a congregation.

4. They are eager evangelists.

5. They are complementarians who affirm the biblical roles for men and women in both the church and the home.

6. They are men of vision. They apply intelligence and discernment to the building up of the church and the cause of the Gospel.

7. They are men of global reach and Great Commission passion. They long to see the nations exult in Christ.

8. They are men of joy. To be with them is to sense their joy and their lack of cynicism. They are not interested in complaining about the church. They are planters and fixers. They scratch their heads as they look at many denominational structures and habits, but they have not given up.

This is good news not only for the SBC, but for the Kingdom. Mohler's concluding thoughts show insight and a reason to hope:

Most denominations now look to the younger generation and wonder if there will be any pastors, or if the younger pastors will love the Gospel, preach the Word, and commit themselves to the church and the Great Commission. Southern Baptists are now blessed to look at the rising generation of pastors and see so much that should bring satisfaction, hope, and joy. The younger you go in the Southern Baptist Convention, the more conviction you discover. There is reason for great hope.

Read the whole thing here: Al Mohler - Younger Pastors and the Hope of a Future

The LHC and the End of the World

According to this story at CNN, the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider will not work because:

(a) bread-crumb-dropping birds can mess it up

(b) people in the future keep stopping it, and/or

(c) the physicists don't know what they're doing.

If it does work either

(a) the world will collapse into the black hole that will form, or

(b) it will take years to find what they're looking for.

And some people think Christianity is nuts.

Carl Trueman on The Beauty of Boring Churches (and most of them are "boring churches")

From Carl Trueman, "The Nameless One" over at Reformation 21 (the emphases are mine):

Finally, I worry that a movement built on megachurches, megaconferences, and megaleaders, does the church a disservice in one very important way that is often missed amid all the pizzazz and excitement: it creates the idea that church life is always going to be big, loud, and exhilarating and thus gives church members and ministerial candidates unrealistic expectations of the normal Christian life.

In the real world, many, perhaps most, of us worship and work in churches of 100 people or less; life is not loud and exciting; big things do not happen every Sunday; budgets are incredibly tight and barely provide enough for a pastor's modest salary; each Lord's Day we go through the same routines of worship services, of hearing the gospel proclaimed, of taking the Lord's Supper, of teaching Sunday School; perhaps several times a year we do leaflet drops in the neighbourhood with very few results; at Christmas time we carol sing in the high street and hand out invitations to church and maybe two or three people actually come along as a result; but no matter -- we keep going, giving, and praying as we can; we try to be faithful in the little entrusted to us. It's boring, it's routine, and it's the same, year in, year out.

Therefore, in a world where excitement, celebrity, and cultural power are the ideal, it is tempting amidst the circumstances of ordinary church life to forget that this, the routine of the ordinary, the boring, the plodding, is actually the norm for church life and has been so throughout most places for most of the history of the church; that mega-whatevers are the exception, not the rule; and that the church has survived throughout the ages not just - or even primarily - because of the high profile firework displays of the great and the good, but because of the day to day faithfulness of the mundane, anonymous, non-descript people who constitute most of the church, and who do the grunt work and the tedious jobs that need to be done. History does not generally record their names; but the likelihood is that you worship in a church which owes everything, humanly speaking, to such people.