(The below picture is from The Action Bible.)

I emailed this to a friend earlier this week:

I was just reflecting on the story of Nabal and Abigail in 1 Samuel 25. This nicely illustrates a difference between authoritarianism and complementarianism.

• Authoritarianism would say that Abigail sinned by not “submitting” to Nabal since she sent David and his men a lavish gift without telling Nabal, who had expressly refused to give David and his men anything.
• Complementarianism would commend Abigail for wisely not following her wicked husband and for shrewdly saving her household in a way that honored the Lord.

Are you aware of any books or articles making this connection? It’s an important one, I think, especially re how alleged complementarians (who are really authoritarians) encourage women to endure sinful abuse of various kinds in the name of submission.

The next day another friend of mine posted this from Nancy Wilson’s Building Her House: Commonsensical Wisdom for Christian Women:

The commands of submission and obedience are only difficult when we disagree with our husbands. If we agree with them and do what they say, it can hardly be called submission. Submission comes into play when we differ with them over an issue, but we defer to them and willingly give way.

But what about when the husband is in sin? This is a very important issue. What if the husband has adopted a wrong attitude and is heading in the wrong direction? Is a wife obligated to go along? It all depends. I have often been saddened that we don’t see more Abigails in the church today. She was not afraid to call her husband a fool and make arrangements behind his back without his permission [1 Sam. 25]. God blessed her abundantly for intervening in this way. She did not stay home and wait for David to attack her household while calling herself a submissive wife. She recognized that her husband was acting the part of a fool, and she exercised wisdom and prudence by going to King David herself.

If a man is acting foolishly, a woman is foolish to go along quietly. Of course this requires great wisdom. I am not advocating giving wives license to disobey in a willy-nilly fashion; that is what I am objecting to in the paragraphs above. But there are times when a godly wife should beseech her husband not to act in a foolish manner. It may involve doctrine. Perhaps she is alarmed that he is being attracted to heretical ideas, whether it is “openness theology” or Roman Catholicism. She should speak to him respectfully about this and let him know she cannot follow him there. If she belongs to a godly church, her elders would support her in this.

Perhaps he is plotting to create some kind of stink in the church. Abigail would not stand for it. A good Christian wife should go to the elders and ask them how she can be a good church member and a good wife at the same time. She should not simply stand by, hoping that her husband will do the right thing. Nor should she just accept anything her husband does as though he is infallible. If a husband is bad-mouthing his elders, his pastor, or his friends, a godly woman should refuse to go along. She should speak to him privately first, but if he is not receptive, she should go to her pastor or elders and seek their advice. This same pattern should be followed if a husband is violent, if he has a temper, if he is cheating on his income taxes, if he is not providing for the household, or if he is being sexually unfaithful in any way—and this is not an exhaustive list.

A wife is to be a helper to her husband, not a blind follower, and this sometimes involves going past him to get help. God blessed Abigail when she did this. In her case it was abundantly clear what was necessary. In other cases it might require pastoral input and oversight. But obedience and submission to a mere man is never absolute. God governs all of us. We demonstrate that we serve Him above all others when we realize that our submission and obedience to our husbands is always to be lived out within the boundaries God has wisely set for us. (pp. 44–45)

“Abigail obeys God rather than her husband (cf. Acts 5:29)” (Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach  [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], 650).

Some alleged complementarian churches are really authoritarian and don’t have a category for an Abigail not following her husband. For example, my wife knows a lady who was married to a deacon at very culturally and theologically conservative church. The husband was habitually unfaithful and abusive, yet church leaders threatened to discipline her out of the church if she left him. They basically took a hush-hush-“submit”-to-your-husband stance without sufficiently dealing with him.

How many women’s consciences are misinformed such that they think submission entails blind, mindless, unquestioning obedience?

There is a better way. For starters, read chapter 6 in this book (cf. my review).

Qualification

I don’t mean to imply that this is the point of 1 Samuel 25. It’s not.

I agree with cautions about abusing OT narrative. See, for example, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, “The Old Testament Narratives: Their Proper Use,” ch. 5 in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth  (3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 89–106.

I’m merely drawing what seems to be a valid inference. The story seems to implicitly illustrate a doctrine taught propositionally elsewhere.

Cf. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism  (ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem; Wheaton: Crossway, 1991):

5. What do you mean by submission (in question 4)?

Submission refers to a wife’s divine calling to honor and affirm her husband’s leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts. It is not an absolute surrender of her will. Rather, we speak of her disposition to yield to her husband’s guidance and her inclination to follow his leadership. (See pages 46-49) Christ is her absolute authority, not the husband. She submits “out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21). The supreme authority of Christ qualifies the authority of her husband. She should never follow her husband into sin. Nevertheless, even when she may have to stand with Christ against the sinful will of her husband (e.g., 1 Peter 3:1, where she does not yield to her husband’s unbelief), she can still have a spirit of submission—a disposition to yield. She can show by her attitude and behavior that she does not like resisting his will and that she longs for him to forsake sin and lead in righteousness so that her disposition to honor him as head can again produce harmony. (p. 61, bold added)

8. When you say a wife should not follow her husband into sin (question 5), what’s left of headship? Who is to say what act of his leadership is sinful enough to justify her refusal to follow?

We are not claiming to live without ambiguities. Neither are we saying that headship consists in a series of directives to the wife. Leadership is not synonymous with unilateral decision making. In fact, in a good marriage, leadership consists mainly in taking responsibility to establish a pattern of interaction that honors both husband and wife (and children) as a store of varied wisdom for family life. Headship bears the primary responsibility for the moral design and planning in the home, but the development of that design and plan will include the wife (who may be wiser and more intelligent). None of this is nullified by some ambiguities in the borderline cases of conflict.

The leadership structures of state, church, and home do not become meaningless even though Christ alone is the absolute authority over each one.

1. The New Testament command for us to submit to church leaders (Hebrews 13:17) is not meaningless even though we are told that elders will arise speaking perverse things (Acts 20:30) and should be rebuked (1 Timothy 5:20) rather than followed when they do so.
2. The command to submit to civil authorities (Romans 13:1) is not meaningless, even though there is such a thing as conscientious objection (Acts 5:29).
3. Nor is the reality of a man’s gentle, strong leadership at home nullified just because his authority is not above Christ’s in the heart of his wife.

In the cases where his leadership fails to win her glad response, we will entrust ourselves to the grace of God and seek the path of Biblical wisdom through prayer and counsel. None of us escapes the (sometimes agonizing) ambiguities of real life. (p. 62, bold and numbering added)

Michael Williams. How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens: A Guide to Christ-Focused Reading of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.

It’s concisely lists four items for each book of the Bible:

1. “the overarching theme”
2. “how that theme ultimately finds its focus in Jesus Christ” and “how this focus in Christ is subsequently elaborated upon in the New Testament” (i.e., “The Jesus Lens”)
3. “what that fulfillment in Christ must necessarily entail for believers” (i.e., “Contemporary Implications”)
4. “ways to communicate those entailments to others effectively” (i.e., “Hook Questions”). (p. 10)

Williams adds,

Available spring of 2012! The course from which this book arose will be available online to visitors at https://www.calvinseminary.edu/continuingEd/openCourse.php. Enjoy a video presentation of the details of each biblical book with music, images, author narration, and in-depth analysis. (p. 10)

Endorsements:

• Douglas J. Moo, Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies, Wheaton College: “Michael Williams has written a book that is badly needed: a survey of all the books of the Bible that shows how they work together to point toward Jesus Christ. While reflecting solid research, the book is readable and attractively packaged, making it accessible to almost any reader.”
• Kelly M. Kapic, Professor of Theological Studies, Covenant College: “To understand God we look to his Word, and to understand his Word we are dependent on the Old and New Testaments. What we discover is that amid the many stories is an underlying Story, which leads us to Jesus, Immanuel. Michael Williams ably goes book by book, offering suggestive and stimulating ways for us to see Christ as the climax of the story; from this vantage point he then offers contemporary implications that should inform our lives. Let Williams begin to shape the way you read the whole Bible, seeing it all in light of Jesus the Messiah.”
• Justin Taylor, Managing Editor, ESV Study Bible: “Average Bible readers—like me—want to answer three overarching questions when they read God’s Word: What’s the big idea in each book? How does each book point to Jesus? How does each book speak to contemporary life? In this concise and well written book, Michael Williams deftly guides us to the right answers. Few books do a better job of giving us an overview of Genesis to Revelation in such a compact way. This is the sort of book I’d love to have in the hands of every member of my church!”
• Ronald Youngblood, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Hebrew, Bethel Seminary San Diego: “The basic intention underlying this succinct treatment of every book in the Bible is to examine each of them in order to expound for modem pilgrims what Jesus had already explained to two distraught followers on the road to Emmaus two millennia ago: ‘what was said in all the Scriptures concerning
  himself’ (Luke 24:27). In that effort, author Michael Williams succeeds admirably. Using crisp, contemporary, and often humorous language, he invites us to focus our attention on the major theme of each of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments in a mere four or five pages apiece. The middle section of each of these brief chapters is entitled ‘The Jesus Lens,’ in which Williams zeros in on how every biblical book contributes to the centrality of Christ as the unquestionably dominant and infinitely most important figure in Holy Scripture. To be sure, How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens is a captivating and challenging read in its own right. But I am delighted as well to recommend it without reservation not only because of its impeccable scholarship but also because it is both solidly evangelical and stunningly evangelistic.”

I anticipate this being one of my favorite apps in the near future, but I almost never use it now because I can’t highlight the text or add notes to resources. (Very frustrating!) I’m waiting for Logos to enable those features to sync with Logos 4 across all platforms. Logos is working on this and has promised that these features are on the way.

It’s now here.

Logos recently announced and explained its updated app. I’ve been testing it out, and it’s beautiful!

This 55-second video shows you how easy it is to use on an iPad and iPhone:

That video doesn’t show the app’s most important feature: notes and highlighting sync across all platforms. So if you highlight words on your phone, they will also be highlighted when you pull up that resource on an iPad or computer; if you add a note on your desktop or laptop, that note will appear when you pull up that resource on your iPhone or iPad; etc.

Happiness.

Related:

1. iPad Resources
2. iPhone Resources
3. I love Logos Bible Software!
4. Do you own a Logos base package? If not, you can get one for 15% off by using the coupon code NASELLI2.

D. A. Carson. The Intolerance of Tolerance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. 186 pp.

It’s outstanding. I read it several times last year and enjoyed preparing the indexes.

• 30-page PDF. This includes the book’s front matter and first 25 pages.
• MP3s: part 1 | part 2. Don Carson has spoken on the intolerance of tolerance many times, often while evangelizing at secular universities. These two MP3s are from March 2004.

Here’s the book’s broad outline:

Ch. 1. Introduction: The Changing Face of Tolerance

1. The Old Tolerance and the New
2. Sharpening the Contrast between the Old Tolerance and the New

Ch. 2. What Is Going On?

1. Miscellaneous Examples
2. The Domain of Education
3. The Domain of the Media
4. The Domain of Homosexual Behavior
5. Target: Christianity

Ch. 3. Jottings on the History of Tolerance

1. Initial Comments to Orient the Discussion
2. Early Christian Thought
3. The Intolerant Road to Tolerance in the Modern Period
4. Notes on the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
5. More Recent Developments
6. Concluding Reflections

Ch. 4. Worse Than Inconsistency

1. On Claiming the Moral High Ground for “Tolerance”
2. On the Impact of Secularization
3. On Other Agendas

Ch. 5. The Church and Christian Truth Claims

1. The Challenges
1. The Charge of Intolerance
2. Inside the Church
3. The Subtle Pressure to Dumb Down, Dilute, and Minimize the Gospel
2. Aspects of Christian Truth Claims
1. Truth Grounded in Revelation
2. Truth Tied to Early Christian History
3. Truth Addressing Sin and Redemption
4. Truth and Love
5. Truth and Evangelism
3. Truth and Tolerance: Concluding Reflections
1. Religion without truth
2. “Tolerance” without convictions
3. Tolerance without religious liberty
4. Truth without the cross

Ch. 6. And Still There Is Evil

1. Morality and Truth
2. Morality and Relativism
3. Morality and Tolerance
4. And Still There Is Evil

Ch. 7. Tolerance, Democracy, and Majoritarianism

1. Understanding the Problem
2. Christianity, and Some Other Religious Faiths, Can Never Be Purely Private
3. Majoritarianism and Democracy
4. So What Do These Reflections Say about Tolerance and Intolerance?

Ch. 8. Ways Ahead: Ten Words

1. Expose the New Tolerance’s Moral and Epistemological Bankruptcy
2. Preserve a Place for Truth
3. Expose the New Tolerance’s Condescending Arrogance
4. Insist That the New Tolerance Is Not “Progress”
5. Distinguish between Empirical Diversity and the Inherent Goodness of All Diversity
6. Challenge Secularism’s Ostensible Neutrality and Superiority
7. Practice and Encourage Civility
8. Evangelize
9. Be Prepared to Suffer
10. Delight in and Trust God

Here’s the official trailer:

More clips and interviews here.

Some Strengths

1. It celebrates life in our culture of death. It’s about Hannah, a college freshman who learns that she’s adopted and that her biological mother unsuccessfully tried to abort her and then abandoned her.
2. It winsomely depicts abortion as what it is—murdering helpless, voiceless little people—with tears and heartache. It connects with people on an emotional level that mere intellectual arguments cannot.
3. It celebrates family, love, and forgiveness.
4. It’s relatively clean compared to typical Hollywood movies.

Some Weaknesses

1. It is religiously generic compared to films like Courageous and Fireproof (Provident Films distributes all three). My expectations, based on what I’d heard elsewhere, were higher. For example, towards the end of the film, Hannah enters a Roman Catholic church building and talks with a Catholic priest, who tells her that based on Paul’s letter to the Colossians, she can forgive others because Christ has forgiven her; but we never learn that Christ has forgiven her nor how or why or on what basis, which makes the priest’s words sound like a motivational Joel Osteen talk.
2. It sets us up to pull for the two main characters—Hannah and her childhood male friend—while they make some foolish decisions (e.g., traveling to Mardi Gras on spring break and awkwardly sharing a hotel room).
3. [Spoiler Alert] It promotes a wrong view of forgiveness. Hannah writes a simple note to her unrepentant birth mother: “I forgive you.” Chris Brauns argues in Unpacking Forgiveness: Biblical Answers for Complex Questions and Deep Wounds (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008) that we should respond to the unrepentant in three ways: (1) resolve not to take revenge; (2) proactively show love; and (3) don’t forgive the unrepentant, but leave room for the wrath of God (pp. 129–52).
4. It resembles a Hallmark movie (not that I would know, mind you). Many of the “funny” parts fall flat, and some of the emotional parts seem shallow. My wife put it this way: “It shows a skewed version of romantic love. I wouldn’t want my daughters to watch the movie without discussing with them ‘the dream boy who has grown up with you your entire life, knows everything about you, understands you better than your parents, and loves you anyway’ version of their romance.”

This film may do a lot of good, and I rejoice that it celebrates life. (I think we should co-belligerently celebrate life and oppose abortion.) But its weaknesses temper my enthusiasm.

Thabiti M. Anyabwile. Finding Faithful Elders and Deacons. 9Marks. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012. 173 pp.

It’s excellent. Although its primary goal is to help pastors cultivate and select leaders in the church, it’s an edifying read not just for people currently serving as pastors or deacons but for

• people who may in the future or
• any Christian since the qualifications for elders (except for the ability to teach) are qualities that should characterize all Christians.

It’s simple, clear, accessible, and wise.

Here’s what Mike Bullmore says about it:

As a member of a pastoral team that is always at some point in the process of identifying, developing, and affirming elders and deacons, I welcome this helpful book by Thabiti Anyabwile. Right from the start, with the simple clarity and conviction of its opening sentences, this book is marked by sound biblical teaching. The consistent transition into the practical counsel at the end of each chapter, however, is where this book really proves its worth. Finding Faithful Elders and Deacons will be a most useful primer for all those who are committed to doing church leadership by the Bible.

Some excerpts:

1. A church without godly leaders is an endangered church. And a church that does not train leaders is an unfaithful church. . . . If a man is not given to discipling others, it’s unlikely that he is called to the pastoral office. (p. 11)
2. Some men may “want the office,” but their wanting is really lust for power, and so they are not fit. Conversely, some men who are fit for the office think that wanting it shows pride, ungodly ambition, or impoliteness. Finally, some men are probably qualified, but they either lack the desire or think they are not qualified because they’re holding onto some idea of a “super elder.” (p. 51)
3. A man will not lead well until he first shows himself able to submit to leadership. (p. 54)
4. Paul’s criterion “able to teach” refers to the ability to communicate and apply the truth of Scripture with clarity, coherence, and fruitfulness. (p. 78)
5. If a man supervises but fails to nurture, it’s possible that he’s either a tyrant or an absentee landlord. Neither is fitting for a father, much less an elder. If he only nurtures but fails to supervise, he’s like the permissive good cop or friend to the children—he won’t give appropriate guidance. (p. 96)
6. Pride causes us to think more highly of ourselves than of others. It affects how we treat the sheep, perhaps even tempting us to treat them harshly. It also makes us unwilling to follow other leaders. (p. 100)
7. Is the prospective elder especially prone to defend himself when criticized? Does he interpret every disagreement as opposition? Pride sometimes manifests itself in an “untouchable” attitude toward the critiques, criticisms, and observations of others. (p. 102)
8. Nothing is more pastoral than protecting our people from such soul-threatening deception and error. (p. 112)
9. Christians can be too polite. And, generally, we are polite about the wrong things. We tend to think that great charity and liberty are important in doctrinal matters, but narrowness and resoluteness are demanded in debatable social and public policy issues. We are pleased to “call names” when it comes to politicians, but generally we shy away from doing so when it comes to a minister or preacher. Deny the Trinity? It is simply a matter of academic liberty or personal interpretation. But cross the picket line on taxes, and prepare to be tarred and feathered. (pp. 113–14)
10. Older pastors should be willing to give opportunity and to take risks when it comes to younger pastors. (p. 132)
11. Surround yourself with people who give honest, constructive feedback on the sermons. . . . Share teaching responsibilities with others, if possible. Pastors need help and should actively enlist gifted men in the leadership and in the congregation to help carry the load. (p. 144)
12. If everyone sees the pastor’s growth, it suggests that his people were already aware of some of his imperfections and flaws. (p. 149)
13. A good pastor surrounds himself with quality men who help him watch his life. Accountability is essential—and not just passive, reactionary accountability but searching, probing, initiative-taking accountability. Pastors need people to ask the tough questions that are avoided in normal conversation, to pursue us rather than merely to listen to us. Elders need Christian friends whose agenda for our holiness is at times more zealous than our own (Prov. 27:17; Heb. 10:24). Elder or pastor, can you list three to five men who have open access to your life? (p. 152)

The book is on sale from WTS books for only $5.50 (sale ends February 1).

The sale extends to all thirteen books in the 9Marks series.

A legalist is anyone who behaves as if they can earn God’s forgiveness through personal performance. (p. 112)

[Legalism is] a danger that we’ll never outgrow in this lifetime. The tendency for legalism exists for each of us each and every day—because of the pride and self-righteousness of our indwelling sin. (p. 114)

Douglas J. Moo, “Legalism,” in New Living Translation Study Bible (ed. Sean A. Harrison; Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), note on Col 2:16–23 (formatting added):

Legalism ([Col] 2:16–23)

Matt 23:13–33
Mark 7:1–15
Gal 2:14–21

At the time of Christ and the early church, Jews made much of rules and laws in their understanding of religion.

• This was natural to them because God had given his law to the Jewish people as a mark of his favor upon them and as a way for them to ratify the covenant agreement he had made with them.
• However, many Jews added to the laws that God had given his people, trying to develop rules for virtually every situation in which they might find themselves.
• Their motivation was often a positive desire not to transgress any of God’s laws.
• As Jesus often pointed out, however, the rules developed by rabbis sometimes became obstacles to obeying God’s rules (Mark 7:1–15).
• Furthermore, many Jews thought that following the law would automatically endear them to God.

Paul apparently confronted a situation of this kind in [Col] 2:16–23.

• False teachers, influenced by Jewish beliefs, were insisting that Christians follow certain rules as a way of expressing their faith.
• Paul criticized this in light of faith in Christ. As the culmination of all God’s plans and purposes, Christ is the center of all true piety.

This does not mean that rules for conduct are inherently bad.

• Some rules, such as the prohibition on lying (3:9), clearly manifest an aspect of Christ’s character.
• Paul also had no problem with individual Christians imposing rules on themselves that they think are conducive to their own growth in Christ (cp. Rom 14:5; 1 Cor 8).
• But they must not require others to obey these self-imposed rules.

The NT student and scholar must use the Jewish literature in the first place to understand Judaism. Only someone who understands early Judaism for its own sake will be able to use Jewish texts appropriately and accurately in the interpretation of the NT. The famous warning issued by Samuel Sandmel against ‘parallelomania’ in NT studies has its most general application here. Someone who knows the Jewish literature only in the form of isolated texts selected for the sake of their apparent relationship to NT texts will not understand those texts in their own contexts (literary and otherwise) and so will not know whether they constitute real or only apparent parallels and, even supposing they are real parallels, will not be able to use them properly. A principle which NT students and even NT scholars rarely take to heart is that, for the sake of a balanced view of the relationship of Christianity to early Judaism, it is just as important to study Jewish texts which are least like anything in the NT as it is to study those with which the NT writings have most affinity.

• This book collects twenty-three of Bauckham’s essays that were published between 1976 and 2008. Sample PDF.
• It was originally published in 2008 by Mohr Siebeck (WUNT 233).
• The above quotation comes from “The Relevance of Extracanonical Jewish Texts to New Testament Study,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (ed. by Joel B. Green; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 90–108 (2nd ed.; 2010).

Related:

1. Six helpful resources that explain the nature and significance of extracanonical Jewish literature
2. Tom Schreiner warns, “Too often in NT studies alleged background material is used to ‘prove’ various interpretations. Anyone who reads in NT studies knows how speculative such reconstructions can be. In reading such reconstructions I have often wondered why we complain about systematic theologians being speculative!”

In spite of persecution and poverty, they experienced an abundance of joy, which resulted in a wealth of generosity (the Greek uses cognates, “the abundance of their joy abounded . . .”). In the New Testament the Christian’s experience of joy has no correlation to his or her outward circumstances. Paradoxically, Christians can experience joy in the midst of great persecution and personal suffering. Poverty overflowing into wealth also may seem paradoxical, but it fits the crazy-quilt logic of the gospel: joy + severe affliction + poverty = wealth. Here, wealth relates to a wealth of generosity and joy multiplied. Material wealth, on the other hand, may cloak spiritual poverty, as Christ’s condemnation of the wealthy but tepid church at Laodicea reveals (Rev 3:14–22). That church considered itself rich and prospering, but the Lord considered it “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.” By contrast, Christ praises the poverty stricken church at Smyrna, also beset by affliction, as rich (Rev 2:8–11).

—David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians (New American Commentary 29; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 367.

—M. Zerwick, Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci (3rd ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), 396; translated by and quoted in Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 289, commenting on 2 Cor 3:10.

When I slept under the stars for a week last summer while rafting through the Grand Canyon, there were a few nights when the moon was so bright that it didn’t quite seem like nighttime. But you couldn’t mistake the contrast when the flaming sun was at full strength.

• For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. (2 Cor 3:10)
• Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant. (Heb 7:22)

Remember Tim Tebow’s controversial 2010 Super Bowl ad? He talks about it in his book, Through My Eyes (HarperCollins, 2011):

Even as we were thinking about what possibilities my next platform that God had in store might bring, another opportunity arose. In conjunction with Bill Heavener and Focus on the Family, we decided to create an advertisement to be played during the Super Bowl. We were very fortunate that Focus on the Family had donors set up to fund the ad.

Mom and I were the main actors in the ad and had a lot of fun shooting the commercial. But we didn’t let the subject matter of the script get out, and as soon as word got out that we were doing an ad with Focus on the Family, it instantly created a huge swirl of attention—with both supporters and detractors trying to figure out what the ad was all about. It was fun to see the speculation on every front as to the message the ad would convey. Because of the story surrounding the circumstances of my birth [see pp. 3–6], everybody on both sides of the issue immediately assumed that it was a pro-life message. So many columnists took me to task for something they assumed was going to be in the ad, but wasn’t.

Ultimately, the ad was a celebration of life and about the importance of family, showing me and my mom laughing and just being together. At one point in the ad, I tackled my mom, and she popped back up and warned me to be careful—“You’re not nearly as tough as I am.” Considering that she raised five homeschooled kids, she was right.

People seemed to enjoy the ad, and it really captured my mom and me and our relationship perfectly. Fun, lighthearted, enjoying life together. Focus on the Family’s website did contain a message about the circumstances of my birth, and they received a number of stories from people who altered their outlook on the issue based on my birth story. A survey of the Barna Group showed that five and a half million people indicated that they had cause to rethink their position on abortion. All in all, it was a great experience. (pp. 245–46)

Here’s the 30-second Super Bowl commercial:

Here’s the follow-up 10-minute interview with Bob and Pam Tebow:

They had fun making the ad:

Related:

1. my thoughts on Tebow’s autobiography
2. N.O.W. said that the Tebow ad glorifies violence against women!
3. Randy Alcorn, “Doctors Recommended that Tim Tebow Be Aborted”

Courageous

The DVD includes several interesting bonus features such as a 22-minute behind-the-scenes look at the making of the film.

Cf. my review.

It’s similar to one Owen wrote a month ago for TGC (“Tebow, Calvin, and the Hand of God in Sports”), but it’s more evangelistic since he wrote it for a different audience.

Related recent articles on Tim Tebow:

1. Randy Alcorn, “How Tim Tebow Messed Up My Plans and Forced Me to Preach This Coming Weekend”
2. Rick Holland, “If I Were Tim Tebow’s Pastor”
3. Nathan Busenitz, “Tebow Time: 10 Thoughts and a Cloud of Dust”
4. Michael Flaherty and Nathan Whitaker, “Tim Tebow’s Role Model”
5. Rick Reilly, “I Believe in Tim Tebow”

[Question 99 of 104]

How did C. S. Lewis view war?

Lewis’s views on war sprang out of deep conviction and were tempered by personal experience. As an infantry officer wounded in the First World War, Lewis experienced firsthand the death and devastation wrought by war. [n. 77: For a fuller evaluation of Lewis’s experiences and reflections on war, see Timothy J. Demy, “Technology, Progress, and the Human Condition in the Life and Thought of C. S. Lewis” (PhD diss., Salve Regina University, 2004), 76–84, 250–67.] Yet he can be understood to stand firmly within the just-war tradition, as his writings indicate. As a matter of conviction, Lewis thought that most people would become confused if they tried to sort out just-war principles and apply them to each real or potential conflict. Therefore, he encouraged citizens and soldiers, especially those of religious faith, to be keenly aware of their responsibilities vis-à-vis unlawful orders. In so doing, not only would they serve the cause of justice, but they would also provide a unified witness of moral principle to the onlooking world.

As to his own position at the time of the Second World War, Lewis declared to one friend: “I’m not a pacifist. If it’s got to be it’s got to be.” Lewis understood war to be a fact of human existence, an evidence of our fallen nature, and thus a part of human history. He believed that although the weapons of war, including nuclear weapons, might become more sophisticated, they do not change the fundamental nature of war or its participants. War, he maintained, accentuates the uncertainties of life and reminds people of the darker side of human nature, but it does not introduce any new dynamics into daily life.

In a collection of essays under the title The Weight of Glory, Lewis asks whether to serve in a war is immoral, morally neutral, or morally obligatory. In posing this question, he realizes that it will require answering a prior question, How do we decide what is good and evil?

The typical answer is that we follow conscience. But conscience, Lewis replies, is not some autonomous faculty; rather, it can be altered by argument and persuasion and can find confirmation in our personal experience. What’s more, people may be mistaken in the way their conscience perceives right and wrong. This leads Lewis to reason about reasoning itself as a cognitive process and consider how conscience is formed. The problem, as Lewis sees it, is that very often in the process of formation, people cannot “see” what for others is self-evidently true. What, then, can we do? Nothing, says Lewis, since the supposed inability to see is most often a refusal to see.

Lewis does acknowledge that all people possess a moral intuition about basic good and evil. This basic intuition, what he calls the “law of nature” or the Tao in other of his works, shows itself, for example, in the fact that all people prefer love over hatred, happiness over misery, and justice over injustice; these are “unarguable” moral facts. Having distinguished between opinion or private experience and morally intuited facts that find verification in all people based on the natural law, Lewis illustrates by way of pacifism. He finds it odd that one can claim, based on some moral sense, that “all killing of human beings is in all circumstances an absolute evil.” The one making this claim, Lewis believes, is “mistaking an opinion, or, more likely, a passion,” for a moral intuition.

How, then, Lewis wishes to know, do we decide on a question of morals? Moral judgment, he believes, depends on the meeting of facts, intuition, and reasoning, seasoned with a bit of humility. The result, to be sure, will not approximate mathematical certainty. But it will, hopefully, allow us to “reason.” What, then, may we say about war that is fairly certain? For one thing, all people agree that war is horrible; this is noncontroversial. But does war do more harm than good? And how might that be measured? Lewis leaves nothing to be taken for granted. He asks whether, in fact, wars—modern wars—achieve no good, and whether they cause greater harm than good in all cases. Would Europe be better, he asks, had it submitted to Germany in 1914? On this test, he confesses, he finds the pacifist position weak, since a Germanized Europe from 1914 onward more than likely would have been evil.

At the personal level, Lewis wonders whether violence can ever be done to individuals in a manner that is lawful. If violence is always immoral, then can criminals be subjugated and punished by society? Unless violence generically can be shown universally to be wrong, then one may conclude that good people everywhere will differ, say, on the question of capital punishment. The implications for war become apparent. For Lewis, the belief that war is always the greater evil implies a materialist ethic. That is, it proceeds on the assumption that death and pain are the greatest of all evils. But Lewis doubts that this is true. All people die, he notes, and some in great misery. Of course, Lewis readily grants that war is awful and that it can spawn evil. But the question for him is whether war is the greatest evil.

Lewis also wonders why only liberal societies tolerate pacifists. Totalitarian states do not tolerate them, and yet it is precisely those states that need the pacifist influence. What does this suggest? At the very least, Lewis concludes, it does not suggest that war must or should be abolished. Those who do make calls for the abolition of war, as he sees it, tend to assume that “the great permanent miseries in human life must be curable if only we can find the right cure.” But more often than not, Lewis finds, the utopian “fanaticism” of “Marxists, Freudians, Eugenists, Spiritualists . . . , and all the rest” is the fruit of such thinking. And from these people, Lewis notes, “I have received no assurance that anything we can do will eradicate suffering.”

Finally, Lewis is perplexed that so many cultural authorities—literary, religious, and social—seem to make a strong case against rather than for pacifism. What’s more, he takes seriously the light of religious revelation. He finds, as an Anglican, that the Thirty-Nine Articles declare it “lawful” for Christian men, in service to their society, to bear weapons and serve in wars. Moreover, the history of the church is such that its fathers collectively teach the legitimacy of the sword being used by the magistrate to protect the common weal. Why is this?

Given these consensual voices, on what then does the case for pacifism rest? This is the question that vexes Lewis. Ultimately, the entire case for pacifism, as he understands it, appears to rest on a certain statement by our Lord, “Do no resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). But does this statement not need qualification? Lewis thinks it does, believing that it can be interpreted in three ways.

1. One is to say that it imposes a universal duty of nonresistance on all people in all circumstances.
2. Another is that these words by Jesus are spoken as hyperbole.
3. A third is to say that our Lord is addressing the daily trials that attend Christian discipleship, and that the disciple is being cautioned not to react out of a retaliatory, vengeful spirit toward others.

In reflecting on these three options and the intended meaning of Matthew 5:38–39, Lewis asks rhetorically, “Does anyone suppose that Our Lord’s hearers understood Him to mean that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim?” Lewis thinks it impossible. “War was not what His hearers would have been thinking of,” he concludes. Rather, the “frictions of daily life among villagers” were more than likely to be on the hearers’ minds. Not only is this for Lewis the more natural reading of Matthew, but

it harmonises better with St. John [the] Baptist’s words to the soldiers and with the fact that one of the few persons whom Our Lord praised without reservation was a Roman centurion. It also allows me to suppose that the New Testament is consistent with itself. St. Paul approves of the magistrate’s use of the sword (Romans 13:4) and so does St. Peter (1 Peter 2:14).

In the end, Lewis concedes, “This, then, is why I am not a Pacifist.” There are simply too many impediments.

If I tried to become one, I should find a very doubtful factual basis, an obscure train of reasoning, a weight of authority both human and Divine against me, and strong grounds for suspecting that my wishes had directed my decision. . . . It may be, after all, that Pacifism is right. But it seems to me very long odds, longer odds than I would care to take with the voice of almost all humanity against me.

At a deeper level, Lewis believes that war encourages individuals to think about death and the afterlife. The temporal concerns of war direct the attention of people to the spiritual and eternal concerns of immortality. War makes death real to us, he writes in the essay “Learning in Wartime.” Keeping death in proper perspective, for Lewis, serves as a perpetual reminder of a marred and broken world because of sin.

Related:

1. D. A. Carson, “Just War” (audio), March 10, 2004.
2. D. A. Carson, Love in Hard Places  (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002). Carson updated his notes after 9/11 to include a 37-page section entitled “Hard Case Two: Osama bin Laden” (pp. 108–44).
3. William D. Barrick, “The Christian and War,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 11 (2000): 213–28.

Program facilitators include

• David Hosaflook (pioneer missionary in Albania), who has blogged about Frontline Experience: Cross-training for Cross-bearers
• J. D. Crowley (pioneer missionary-linguist in Cambodia)
• Tim Keesee (director of Frontline Missions)

Jim Bennett of Frontline Missions recently answered some questions about Frontline Experience:

1. When was the Frontline Experience program started? The Frontline Experience (FX) is a new training program developed by Frontline Missions International. It will be held May 14-23, 2012 on the grounds of the Bonclarken Conference center in Flat Rock, NC.
2. How many people can participate? Due to the nature of the program, each FX class will be limited to 50 participants.
3. What exactly is the program? Could you tell me a little bit about it? The FX training program is a 10-day sequence of classroom and field experiences. Anyone pursuing a ministry in cross-cultural fields will benefit from the program although it has been  designed primarily to prepare individuals for foreign ministry in settings that can’t be accessed with “missionary” stamped on a visa. The program includes traditional elements such as cultural engagement, ministry ethics, pioneering strategies, theology of persecution, and cultural intelligence but also includes many non-traditional elements such as working within a culture of radicalism, the effect of geo-politics on ministry strategies, cyber-security, and crisis management. It is a pretty packed schedule! We are particularly grateful for the group of facilitators God has allowed us to assemble. Next May these individuals will descend on the FX facility from all over the world for the purpose of challenging and equipping the FX participants to “advance the gospel in the world’s difficult places.” The group includes pioneer missionaries, seasoned educators, and skilled professionals that collectively bring years of experience and considerable expertise in areas such as culture, linguistics, diplomacy, entrepreneurialism, medicine, crisis management, and cyber-security.
4. Why was this program started? The heart of Frontline Missions International is to take the gospel to unreached people groups. There are billions of people in the world that have little or no access to the gospel and most live in places not accessible through what we would call “traditional missionary activity.” It has been exciting to see increasing numbers of people undeterred by this supposed limitation. They are thinking creatively and preparing with a sense of urgency and we are excited about being a part of the process.
5. What do you hope will be the result of this program? Our desire is that God will use this program to send a flood of well-equipped workers into places where He is not widely known or worshiped.
6. Any additional thoughts or comments? For more information on the FX program, please visit our website at www.frontlineexperience.org or e-mail us at fx@frontlinemissions.info.

This is the kind of work Frontline is all about:

I shared some thoughts about Tebow’s autobiography last August, and today I read two other critical and thoughtful reviews:

1. Ted Kluck
2. Daniel Threlfall

The reviews and authors differ:

• Ted’s review is old (September 20, 2011); Daniel’s is new (posted today). But rereading Ted’s review today in light of what has happened since September is especially interesting.
• Ted is a professional sports writer; Daniel doesn’t really follow sports. (Daniel is a good friend; we’re in the same small group in our church.)
• Ted almost got the job to help write Tebow’s book; Daniel just read the book recently out of curiosity.

But both reviews are critical and thoughtful.

While not necessarily disagreeing with them, my general perspective is more positive and less cynical. Tebow’s mission field is massive, and I thank God that—win or lose—Tebow is shrewdly stewarding his influence.

Related:

Highlights from Sunday night’s game:

Robert A. Peterson. Salvation Accomplished by the Son: The Work of Christ. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012. 619 pp.

John Frame, professor of systematic theology and philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, says this of the book:

Dr. Peterson told me in correspondence, “my work is not [systematic theology] as much as laying biblical foundations for systematics.” Well, people can define terms as they like. But I think Salvation Accomplished by the Son is systematic theology at its very best. It deals with doctrines of systematic theology by bringing them into closest proximity with the biblical texts that justify them. That is the kind of systematics of which we need much more. This is the book to which, after Scripture itself, I would first turn to explore any question about Jesus’s incarnation, atonement, or resurrection.

Mike McKinley. Am I Really a Christian? The Most Important Question You’re Not Asking. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

(See Brian Hedges’s review and my previous blog post on Mike’s first book, Church Planting Is for Wimps.)

The book’s website has several videos. In this one Mike answers the question, “Can someone believe the gospel but not really be repentant?”

In Praise of Paradox

I mentioned in the introduction that we must get used to the idea that antinomy and paradox will inevitably surround discussions such as this one. But the appeal to antinomy, paradox, and mystery is oftentimes troubling to those sympathetic to a less-than-Reformed understanding of God’s character and decree. In an attempted refutation of Calvinism and the “problem” of divine sovereignty, Jack Cottrell complains:

Calvinistic discussions of this problem are laced with words like paradox, antinomy, contradiction, and mystery. As Klooster says, “Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are paradoxical and beyond h man comprehension.” Despite this rather agnostic attitude, Calvinists have spent much time and energy trying to explain the unexplainable.

It may be that some Calvinists have given the impression that, in our discussions of the mysteries of the faith, we are attempting to exhaust what is inexhaustible. But surely Cottrell would not fault Calvinists any more than he would Arminians for attempting to bring together, as much as possible, what God’s revelation teaches concerning these mysteries. It is certainly not the case that the relationship of God to the world is absolutely inexplicable; rather, in whatever ways it is explicable, it will always remain for us incomprehensible as well.

This is yet another reason why it seems best to begin our discussions with the doctrine of Christ, specifically the person of Christ. Both Reformed and Arminian have agreed historically that when the Son of God became man, he did not give up his deity, his “Godness,” in order to take on a human nature. Arminians, like the Reformed, have historically been Chalcedonian in their affirmation of the incarnation.

Yet the Chalcedonian affirmations have always been seen to be paradoxical, even antinomic. [note 4: We should remember here that antinomy and paradox are always modes of creaturely expression; in God there is complete coherence and harmony such that no antinomies or paradoxes exist.] The Chalcedonian Creed is one example of the church’s attempt—and an accepted and acceptable attempt, at that—to “explain the unexplainable.” Not only so, but given that the incarnation itself is the “explanation” and application of God’s relationship to creation, we should expect that every other instantiation, indication, and explanation of such a relation would itself be paradoxical and antinomic and, in the end, incomprehensible.

The “explanations” therefore given by the Reformed of the relationship of God to creation, including his actions and reactions, will themselves be shrouded in mystery. Nevertheless, explanations are given both in biblical revelation and in theology. If we begin with christology, rather than with some abstract concept of antinomy, paradox, or mystery, we can start to see that all explanations of God’s relationship to creation can be understood properly only within the context of God’s relationship to creation as expressed in the incarnation. This, it seems to me, expands and enhances the Christ-centered approach to God’s revelation in such a way that the glory of God in his condescension, typified centrally in the gospel, is seen for what it is.

In all of this we must keep in mind, however, that there is no antinomy or contradiction in God. He is completely and exhaustively coherent in all that he says, does, and is. Thus, the admission of antinomy and paradox in Christianity points us to the complexity of God’s simplicity, the unfathomable depth that is God’s complete and incomprehensible perfection, for which, among other things, we worship him (Rom. 11:33ff.).

Related:

1. D. A. Carson on antinomy
2. “The Logical and Emotional Problems of Evil”
3. John Piper, “The Sovereign God of ‘Elfland’ (Why Chesterton’s Anti-Calvinism Doesn’t Put Me Off)”
4. Joel Arnold, “Theological Antinomy: A Complementarian Model for Paradox” (PhD diss., Bob Jones University, 2011), xii + 318 pp.

Related:

1. Accountability
2. Pitfalls and Benefits of Small Group Bible Study