What would a Black person have to do to live in your neighborhood?

"The the black man has to fly to get to something the white man has to walk to." - Chris Rock

I’ve been sitting here watching a Chris Rock special on Comedy Central.  I like the guy.  I think he’s hilarious on so many fronts.

I also find him thought provoking.

There was a minute long sketch where he goes into talking about his neighbors.  You can watch it below if you want (Disclaimer: I make no judgments on use of language, so if you do, don’t watch.  Or watch. Just don’t be offended and tell me about it later.  This is your warning.)

Here’s the gist.

Chris Rock has three well-known and widely recognized as pinnacles of success in their respective careers black neighbors:  Mary J. Blige (R&B Singer), Jay-Z (Hip-Hop, entertainment mogul), and Eddie Murphy (actor who specializes in talking, animated donkeys).  Of course, he includes himself, a very successful comedian.  The other neighbor, who is white, is a dentist.

And not a famous dentist.  Not a “top-in-his-field” dentist.  Just an ordinary dentist.

His next statement I latched onto as something worth sharing:

“The black man has to fly to get to something the white man has to walk to.” – Chris Rock

His logic is reasonable for sure.  You have award winning artists.  Entertainment trail blazers.  People who have hosted the Grammy’s.  And then you have a regular dentist.

I’m not into suggesting that all “white” people are to blame for this disparity, but I do think that Chris Rock is identifying something that everybody may take for granted:  What does somebody have to do to be able to live in your neighborhood?

This happens in myriad of ways.  For example.  I live in a part of Santa Fe, NM known as Eldorado.  It is very much a granola neighborhood.  In fact, it was developed as the first solar energy community in the country back in the 70’s.  Now its a typically nice place to live in Santa Fe.  The school is quite good.  Its only a 15 minute drive into town.  It takes a certain income level to live out here (but that’s true of any neighborhood).  But it also requires an All-Wheel or 4-Wheel drive vehicle.  Or a monstrously huge truck with a snow plow latched on the front…because we get snow.

Lots of it.  I’ve been shoveling it all day.  Why?

Because I’m one of those guys who don’t own a Subaru with All-Wheel/4-Wheel drive.  Nor am I the guy with a big truck and snow plow attachment.  So that means I shovel, and stay stuck regardless.

Every neighborhood…every city…every culture and sub-culture…has this aspect.  There are certain things that make it viable, or not viable, to live, work, play and be a part of the culture. That is the ever present problem of context – we all live, work, play in a context.

And unfortunately, we all breathe in the air of the context to such an extent that we may be “nose-def” to the problems, concnerns and interests of others who may or may not share that same context.

Now, what I’m left pondering after watching Chris Rock, is not just so mono-lithic as to say that the cultural plight of black america is still subject to the whims of white america (What about Asian, Hispanic, or dare I say it, Native American cultures?  In other words, there is a history for sure, but its also broader than any one culture or ethnicity over/against another singular culture or ethnicity?).  Nor am I trying to be self-absorbed and say “I feel it too!  Look here..”

But these issues are more indicative of how we live and relate as human beings, that has ethnic, cultural, socio-economic implications.  We  tend to never  think about what it would take to let someone else live in our neighborhood, because, well, that’s their problem, not mine?  I can’t be concerned about someone else’s needs, that’s their responsibility?

And all the while we just recycle the same sad, sorry and pathetic excuses at the expense of developing a more gospel-centered mindset – a mindset that embraces and embodies all that Jesus has done for us.  In a nutshell, this is taking on the interests of another upon himself (cf. Philippians 2), and so bridging the way for two opposing groups to be reconciled and live in relationship with one another.  That would be God and man, by the way.

So, the gospel, if we truly embrace all of who Jesus is and what He’s done for us, makes Chris Rock’s insight something we should consider.

What would somebody else – somebody who is not like you, somebody who is maybe antagonistic toward you, or someone who has been truly hurt by you or someone like you – have to do, to be able to move into your neighborhood?

Or live in your city?

Or your group of friends?

Or visit and connect with your church?

If we don’t wrestle with this issue, nothing will ever change.  And that’s something the gospel is all about.

Thoughts on Thursday – How do you share the gospel with someone who hates you?

Watch this to get an idea of how the gospel can transform the way we retaliate towards others.

Former Ku Klux Klan leader Johnny Lee Clary (Youtube – Watch this in its entirety)

How does the gospel transform the way we relate to those who would be our enemies?

This is enmity towards enmity at its best.

New Books: Church, Gospel, World, Reforming?

Well, yesterday I came home and had several new books waiting for me.  I thank the folks at Crossway who keep on sending me good and interesting reading material.  I want to highlight a couple of these and tell you all to be on the lookout over the next couple of months for some reviews.

The first book to mention is Total Church by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis.  This book had been previously published only in the UK, but thanks to Crossway and the new publishing banner of Re:Lit, it is now available here.  I have only scanned through the book, but the first chapter is promising.  The gospel is word-centered and mission-centered, so our churches need to be based on the word and on mission – love it!  I actually first about this book from a friend of mine over in South Africa (cheers Stephen!)

Book #2 – Wordliness, by multiple authors, but edited by a pastor’s pastor, C.J. Mahaney.  I wasn’t sure what to think of this book when I first started seeing it pop up on the web, but knowing C.J.’s other books (Humility: True Greatness and Living the Gospel-Centered Life) and pastoral heart (if you need some exposure, go check out his blog), I’m confident that this book will be insightful and helpful in discerning where and how the gospel applies to our world in our cultural situation.

Book #3 – Reforming or Conforming edited by Gary W. Johnson and Ronald D. Gleason.  This book appears to be a collection of various scholars critiquing the emerging church movement.  I haven’t dove in at all, but I will be interested to see if they distinguish between emerging and emergent.  Some of the chapters do seem fascinating (like “It’s Wright, but is it Right? An Assessment and Engagement of the “Emerging” Retreading of the Ministry of Jesus.” Caveat: I find myself being hesitant to read books like this.  I have read some thoughts by some of these guys on the internet and find myself not agreeing with their conclusions.  That being said, I do find myself appreciating the concerns they bring up.  Reading this will hopefully bring the fundamental issues to the front with constructive critique and positive assessments instead of just the reactionary tendencies demonizing those who differ.

Book #4 – Death by Love: Letters From the Cross by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears.  This book looks fascinating.  Its written as a series of letters addressing real live situations and people, with the full theological truth of the gospel.  I wasn’t expecting that, and I like it.  I honestly can’t wait to get into reading this one.  It seems to have a lot of potential of to help all pastors and lay leaders alike appreciate the depth of theological reflection, without losing sight of its pastoral implications.  This book also features some helpful answers to FAQ’s concluding each chapter (thank you Dr. Breshears for that!).  This is similar to their previous book, Vintage Jesus.

So, if you haven’t already done so, you should subscribe to my blog (button on the top right) and watch out for these forthcoming reviews.

Tim Keller on Denominational Renewal

Well,

It’s actually Tim Keller commenting on Greg Thompson’s talk from the 2008 PCA Denominational Renewal conference, and I think it is well worth the time linking and encouraging you all to read.

Click here for the full article.  Here’s a sampling:

As I read this terrific piece, however, it made me think about how we actually will have to do denominational renewal. The PCA is the great and tense place that it is because it is perhaps the only Presbyterian denomination that hasn’t purged or lost one or two of its historic wings. George Marsden says that Reformed churches have always had what he called ‘doctrinalist’, ‘pietist,’ and ‘cultural-transformationist’ wings. Weirdly, they all grow out of aspects of Reformed theology. Historically, they’ve produced some major splits–Old Side (doctrinalist) from New Side (pietist) in the 18^th century, Old School (doctrinalist/pietist) from New School (reformist) in the 19^th century. The OPC, though a doctrinalist church, grew and then shed a pietist wing (New Life Churches.) The CRC, though basically a cultural-transformationist denomination, had a doctrinalist split off (the URC.) In God’s providence, the PCA has significant numbers in all three wings.

Thoughts on Thursday: What makes the Gospel, gospel?

I have regrettably not been posting with much frequency lately. I am happy to get back into a groove with yet another Thought on Thursday.

This thought comes from a book I’ve recently finished: The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright by John Piper. Let me recommend this book to you if you are at all interested in the fairly recent debate regarding the Christian of Justification, especially if you are the least bit curious about N.T. Wright. I have been reading several of his books, and I must confess that I sometimes have a hard time following his thoughts.

But let me also say, that I have benefited greatly from Wright’s writing, thoughts and even parts of his theology – the man is brilliant and if you take your faith and theology seriously, you would do well to expose yourself to some of his insights. And John Piper would echo this thought. This book is is no way an attach on the man himself, or even an outright denial of everything Wright has put forth; Piper actually speaks fairly highly of Wright. Piper’s contribution comes in critiquing the few areas where Wright’s theology could be considered dangerous, particularly with the topic of personal justification of sinners in Christ.

Here’s a quote, and today’s thought:

Why should a guilty sinner who has committed treason against Jesus consider it good news when he hears the announcement taht this Jesus has been raised from the dead with absolute sovereign rights over all human beings? If Wright answers, ‘Because the narration of the events of the cross and resurrection are included in the heralding of the King,’ the sinner will say, ‘What good is that for me? How can that help me? Why does that provide hope for me or any sinner?’ If the gospel has no answer for this sinner, the mere facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus are not good news. But if the gospel has an answer, it would have to be a message about how the rebel against God can be saved – indeed how he can be right with God and become part of the covenant people…We are ‘saved’ through the gospel…and the gospel is the message that Christ died ‘for our sins,’ (I Corinthians 15:1-3). It is precisely the personal ‘for our sins’ that makes the heralding of the historic facts good news. And Paul is eager to make explicit that this ‘for our sins’ is good news because by it we are ‘saved.’ this is at the heart of what makes the gospel gospel, and not just an effect of the gospel.

– The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright,

by John Piper (Crossway, 2007), 89.

For further reading, you brave interested souls:

N.T. Wright addresses some of this criticism in an article, “The Cross and Its Caricatures”. If you’re worried that he denies substitutionary atonement, read this, especially pages 9 and following.

Jesus Christ did not die for you because you were His friend – A review of “Pierced for Our Transgressions”

The book Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution is a timely and welcome resource to anyone engaged in the theological discussion concerning Christ’s atonement. Everyone from pastors to church members, theological students to interested investigator’s can find Steve Jeffery’s, Michael Ovey’s and Andrew Sach’s treatment well worth the time to read – and own.

These authors set out to confront the relatively recent and influential criticism of the penal substitutionary aspect of Jesus Christ’s atoning work; the classic view that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners, with God imputing (or, ascribing) the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserved. This doctrine has recently come under some criticism in a more influential and widespread ways, and these authors set out to interact with the basic criticisms by establishing the reality of penal substitution from Scripture, theology, Church history, and finally they engage with the typical arguments against affirming this doctrine head on. And all the while, bringing the theology down to the very practical playing field of life.

Their first “line of attack” against the criticism of penal substitutionary atonement is to go straight to the Bible and ask the basic question, “Is it in there?” They succinctly and frankly write,

“If God himself affirms penal substitution, if it is part of the explanation that he himself has given for why he sent his Son into the world, then we dare not maintain otherwise,” (p. 33).

They then proceed to look at various passages of Scripture: Exodus 12 and the Passover event; Leviticus 16 and the meaning of atonement within the sacrificial system; the concept as seen in the prophets, particularly Isaiah. What is amazing is even before they reach the New Testament passages the authors have very adequately connected the concept of penal substitution to the bible and have drawn the connecting lines to Jesus Christ. They continue on, and go to the Gospels’ witness, particularly that of Mark and John, and also to the letters of Paul and Peter. Their conclusion is that the Bible – not just one or two obscure references, but a significant thread throughout the Bible – points to the fact that God has expressed that salvation is through substitution, and this is seen ultimately in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who gave His life “as a ransom for many,” (Mark 10:45).

This biblical framework is quickly followed by the building up of a theological framework, which the authors ascribe the doctrine of penal substitution a significant role, calling it the “centre of the [theological] jigsaw to complete a magnificent picture,” (p. 148). Without this concept of salvation through penal substitution, there are many facets of the Bible that become improbable if not impossible to understand; such as the Holiness and graciousness of God, for one example.

They then proceed to answer the criticism that the doctrine of penal substitution is a misguided doctrine that has been steering the historic church astray at least since the time of the Reformation. To answer this charge, Jeffrey, Sachs and Ovey present 23 distinct historical theologians and organization that have upheld the doctrine of penal substitution. Their historic pedigree ranges from Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Athanasius (300-373 AD), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD), John Calvin (1509-1564) and J.I. Packer (born 1926). Needless to say, they quite convincingly lay aside the misconception that the doctrine of penal substitution is a novel and misguided concept.

After they have built the case for penal substitution from the Bible, theology, pastoral/practical implications and also historical theology, the authors then begin to engage the specific points of debate. The address how the doctrine of penal substitution addresses and answers the criticisms regarding the Bible, the culture, violence, justice, our knowledge and right understanding of God, as well as our right understanding of the Christian life.

I find this section of the book to be of immense value as a resource to draw from while in pastoral ministry. It is full of helpful and illuminating connections and points of response to some very common questions regarding faith and belief in Jesus Christ.

Some of you may be saying, “So what? Everything about this topic and book is only good for theology; what could it possibly mean for me in everyday life?” I actually had that same thought before reading this book. After reading it, I have found that this book is incredibly practical and applicable to my life, as well as anyone else’s. One simple, but very penetrating sentence, that encapsulates the essence of this book, and what the doctrine of penal substitution upholds in its essence is this reality:

“The Lord Jesus Christ did not come into the world to meet with his friends. He came to die for his enemies,” (p. 152).

Pierced for Our Transgressions has helped me to see once again, the glory, wonder and sheer gracious love that is seen in Christ’s death on the cross on my behalf. This cuts away at my pride, superiority and desire for that which would replace my longing for God and His honor. By seeing myself as at one time God’s enemy, I can rejoice and bask in the finished and atoning work of Jesus Christ, who lived and died in my place, and welcomes me into the family of God.

This book is once again, well worth having on the bookshelf. Clear, compelling and comprehensive; I can’t think of a better resource to draw upon when considering the glory of penal substitution and its impact on our lives and ministries.

Christians and The Golden Compass

Alright,I confess and I’m not ashamed to admit it – I and my wife went to go see The Golden Compass over the holiday break. My take: it was a great movie! Enjoyable, interesting story, likeable characters.

Yes, there was an agenda with the movie that was not so subtle (or maybe that’s just because I was so primed for it from all the hub-bub on the “anti-anything non-Christian” crowd). I haven’t processed the underlying message of the movie; perhaps I will if time permits later.

I found Carl Trueman’s short little piece on the movie and the typical Christian reaction over at Reformation 21 very insightful. He gave a good and fair critique of our over-endorsement of some things simply because they are labeled with the adjective “christian”, and under-appreciation of other things because they lack, or sometimes provoke and antagonize Christians with what we believe.

Check it out in full here. But I loved this little bit, and had to include it on my blog:

I am puzzled by all this hoo-hah: if The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is a Christian story/movie, it teaches a woefully inadequate, if not unbiblical, doctrine of atonement — if Aslan is Christ, one might say, then he cannot save on the account given by Lewis; yet Christians were ecstatic about the movie. Pullman writes a piece that, if his critics are to believed, is very clear and direct in its anti-Christian message. So, if you’re worried about leading your kids astray, which, I wonder, is more likely to confuse them??? The subtle theological deviancy or the explicit anti-Christian message? Or maybe, just maybe, Narnia and Compass are both fun movies which are subject to a range of interpretations, and our children have the sense to see them as make-believe adventures about make-believe worlds.

Federal Vision and Reformed Theology

Scott Clark has a pretty good and helpful post on some of his thoughts regarding the Federal Vision stuff swirling about in Reformed, Confessional circles. Worth reading for sure.

Batting Practice with the FV Boys

Posting While Away

To all the few and faithful, We are currently on “vacation” for the Christmas break, visiting my folks in Augusta, GA. So, I know I don’t post that often anyway, it will probably be even less so between now and January 5th. I will still try to post a couple of times (though it won’t be my top priority – my family needs some Daddy and Husband time while school is out of session), and I do have a couple of saved posts I can put up.However, let me direct you to a resource that is going on Today. Darrin Patrick, pastor of the Journey church (St. Louis, MO) and Vice President of Acts 29 church planting network, will be on a live video feed this afternoon. It will be concerning some aspects of the recent controversy regarding The Journey, Acts 29, Missouri Baptist Convention, and all the other entailments. Go to Steve McCoy’s blog to find out more and follow the link. Other than all that, I hope you all enjoy this Christmas season. I pray that it would be a time of refueling and refreshment, for myself and for all of you, as we think about Jesus, and spend time with those we love.

Quotes and Links re: Journey, Acts 29, Alcohol and MBC

Here are a couple of quotes and links regarding this issue. I previously posted my inner response, actions and thoughts to this in my Thoughts on Thursday post, and wanted to try and keep the facts and murmuring separate from what I was trying to communicate there. Below you’ll find the quotes and links.

Quotes:

 

Scott Lamb:

“Members of the Executive Board presented and passed a motion during the miscellaneous business session that sets down a “no-partnership with Acts 29″ rule for MBC church plants. I have not received the exact wording of the motion yet, but it is a confirmed piece of news from an EC board member.Don’t misunderstand, this does not mean that churches cannot be in partnership with Acts 29, just that if they are so aligned then they will not be able to receive MBC church planting funds. Never mind the fact that Acts 29 church plants in Missouri are thriving.I do wonder if the EB will be consistent and pass a reciprocal measure that keeps Cooperative Program dollars from coming into MBC coffers via such “polluted churches”. [Very interesting point; is the severance of funds mutual, or one sided?]

Darrin Patrick’s response on a blog regarding the initial News Story run by the St. Louis Post Dispatch (and an accurate assessment of what is true regarding the church):

“It is really unfortunate that the reporter chose the title Beer and the Bible. He promised to make the article about our church, not the controversy. The content of the story is decent and toward that promise, but the title is distracting and will be disruptive to what we are trying to do in our state convention. The Journey’s policy on alcohol is that we do not personally encourage nor do we corporately promote alcohol as a church. The article could be read to sound like we have grown as a church because of our “beer ministry.” Totally ridiculous. We have a current event discussion once a month in a bar. Far from a “beer ministry”

Please pray for unity in our state convention so that we can stay focused on planting churches that reach people in culture.”

Timmy Brister (whose post is worth reading; link below)

“It is not enough to shake our heads and move on as though we think this situation is isolated to Missouri and Acts 29 churches. As we have seen, one state’s precedence becomes another state’s principle, and if they will do this to Acts 29 churches, what makes us think they will not do it to Founders or IX Marks churches? It is times like this that I wish some of our SBC leaders would step into the ring, even if they happen to disagree with the alcohol issue.”

Links:

Scott Thomas’ (Director of Acts 29) post on Dec. Newsletter (December 2007) – here

Steve McCoy’s post (January 2007) – here

Christianity Today article (July 2007) – here

Mark Devine’s post/article (April 2007) – here

Acts 29 Statement on Alcohol – here

Timmy Brister’s post – here