People
Your Personal Conflict with the Great Commission
**Simply fulfilling my promise to write about Radical all week. And don’t miss tomorrow’s post. Got a little surprise.**
Suspend your belief for a moment.
I want to change your view of history.
In January 1703, shortly after graduating and failing an audition for an organist’s post at Sangerhausen in January 1703, Johann Sebastian Bach didn’t take up his post as a court musician in the chapel of Duke Johann Ernst in Weimar…
But instead, while riding away from Sangerhausen, Bach felt a severe call on his life to travel to Tunisia to minster the gospel to the Arabs…
Summarily giving up his ambition to be a composer.
Revision of Van Gogh’s Little Life
Almost two hundred years later, Vincent Van Gogh succeeded in his early vocational aspiration to become a pastor and preached the gospel from 1879 until his death to a small mining town in Belgium…
Neglecting his elegant [but tortured] artistic output that resulted in intoxicating paintings like The Starry Night and Still Life: Vase with Sunflowers?
Naturally, even to conceive of such events means we have to revise history and do some heavy-duty speculating.
But here’s my point–what if every great Christian artist, writer, dramatist, composer or scholar simply shed their vocational ambitions to work strictly as a missionary, preacher, teacher or evangelist?
Would our culture be any less than it is without Bach’s sacred St. John Passion or the sublime chaos of van Gogh’s Irises?
The answer, or course, is “no.”
For one thing, conceiving of history without Bach the composer and his rich legacy of liturgical works or Van Gogh and his dreamy, sad impressionistic paintings is pure fiction.
It’s the stuff of revisionist history best left in the hands of novelists who like to entertain. Here’s what I’m getting at.
The Tension the Great Commission Creates
I get a strong impression after reading David Platt’s Radical that he’d like to see us all abandon our political, social, academic or artistic pursuits and share the gospel.
That, my friends, is radical.
It’s an over-reading of his point, of course, even though he is a pastor and [I think] would be quiet happy if every one in his church–and all the readers of his book–would become evangelists or missionaries.
In fact, after you read the book there’s a small part of you wanders if you should liquidate your 401k and send it to World Vision…
Or sell your suburban home and move your family of four to a grass hut in Bangladesh…
Or scrap your dream of being a veterinarian and take the first flight to Ethiopia to save ten-year-old girls from sexual slavery.
David Platt and his book just might ruin your life in that way.
Extreme, perhaps. But Jesus and his great commission was anything but superficial.
Which brings us to the tension with our cultural mandate: God’s decree that we subdue the earth by building schools, running governments and crafting art.
Questions the Book Will Stir Up
No question: There are those who will read the book and go to the extreme. Who will give it all up and make radical changes to their lifestyle to fulfill the gospel.
David Platt’s got the testimonies to prove it. For the rest of us, we at least re-think how we spend our money.
In reality, all Platt asks you to do is bear your heart before God and ask: What can I do? How can I give it all?
And what does that mean?
Does that mean I remain here in the suburban U. S. and churn out blog posts or novels or paintings or musical scores–for your glory?
Or do you have something more radical for me? Read Platt’s book and, in truth, you will ask yourself those questions. What do you say?
One Final Thought
Sometimes I wonder what Calvin would’ve written if he’d not had his conversion, but instead pursued his ambition to live a leisurely literary life.
I gamble he might have been a French Goethe. To this literary nut job, that sounds appealing.
Don’t get me wrong: I wouldn’t trade that history if it meant we gave up the Institutes. I’m just saying: Maybe it’s not so bad to let your imagination wander on occasion.
Who knows: You might stumble upon a brilliant idea. An idea you can offer up to the glory of God.
But maybe that’s enough? We’ll never know, will we?
David Platt Frightens Me
Ever hear anyone complain that academics are divorced from reality?
That theorists would simply collapse in shock if they ever stepped down from their ivory tower into the dirty world of human beings?
That some professors are educated beyond their usefulness?
That scholars are cut off from emotion, compassion and spiritual devotion?
Granted, there’s a lot of truth behind these complaints.
Intellectuals tend to elevate the mind over the heart, making the pursuit of doctorates more important than people.
But not all academics fall to this temptation. Take David Platt for example.
Educated to the Hilt
At first glance, you could level those accusations at David Platt.
He earned two undergraduate degrees from the University of Georgia. He followed that up with three advanced degrees.
But he wasn’t finished.
He added a doctor of philosophy from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary [NOBTS] to his curriculum vitae.
He then served as dean of chapel and assistant professor of expository preaching and apologetics at NOBTS.
The man is a highly accomplished academic. [And as an arm-chair intellectual, he scares me.]
Naturally, you’d expect his book Radical to read like a professional journal. But it doesn’t.
Entering the Dirty Business of Human Beings
Here’s what can’t be missed: Platt gets around.
His book is shaped by his overseas mission trips to places like India and Indonesia.
It’s influenced by his time as pastor at the Church at Brook Hills.
And it’s predisposed to sound a lot like John Piper–the quintessential scholar-turned-pastor–who obviously impacted Platt.
All this serves to make Platt firmly grounded in the dirty business of human beings, compassionate to the bone and ridiculously eager to make disciples.
Which in turn makes Radical a book anyone could read.
In fact, it’s almost simplistic. Sometimes redundant. It’s Richard Wurmbrand meets Kevin DeYoung.
You won’t get lost in this book. Neither will you have to re-read any sentences. In fact, you’ll almost get bored.
But at that moment when you’re tempted to close the book, Platt pulls you back in. He does this in a handful of ways.
Radical: Sticky from Experience and Education
He might draw out a beautiful analogy about the church being a troop carrier turned luxury liner.
Or a gripping story about a young, intelligent woman killed in a bizarre bus accident while she served Palestinian refugees in Egypt.
Or a potent scene where believers in China begged him to teach them the Old Testament…and ten days later to teach them the New.
While all these things make for a good read we have to remember that Platt argues from a very simple platform: the gospel of Jesus Christ.
A platform he demonstrates you don’t need a degree to preach. Or a doctorate to understand.
Just a heart that hungers to lose it’s will in the will of God and no longer desires anything for himself–except the glory of God.
And it’s just this kind of heart that drives the hardcore academic David Platt.
Why Did God Create Woman?
Women. Ah. My favorite subject.
Especially since I’m married to arguably the most merciful, kind and generous woman of all.
Indeed. Any amount of success I have as a father, writer or husband I owe to her.
The running joke around our house is that if not for my wife, I’d still be living with my mother.
In her basement.
Dead serious. My wife is classic helper. Classic companion. I’d be lost without her.
But what does “helper” mean? Where did that term come from?
Furthermore, why did God think man EVEN needed woman? And what does the Bible say about this union?
Let’s take a look.
History Before Woman
Long ago God created a man named Adam. He told Adam [a man made in God's image] to cultivate the earth.
To subdue it.
Adam shaped wood into tools. Domesticated oxen to plow fertile soil. He groomed fruit trees. He raised honey bees. He cultivated mint and cornflowers.
But the image of God in man was not complete. God said, “It is not good that man his alone.” He wanted to give Adam a companion.
What’s strange about this arrangement is that Adam doesn’t seem to notice his need for a companion.
He appears perfectly content to be alone.
This is problematic. Not to Adam, but to God. And for reasons we might not consider.
History After Woman
Then God created woman. Genesis 2:21-23 tells us what that looked like:
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
Because God created woman even though Adam was content in his solitude suggests God had something else in mind for man than merely tinkering around in a garden by himself.
God wanted to give man a partner in the stewardship of that garden. Together man and woman split the labor of subduing the earth.
He commanded them both to rule. To take dominion over the fish. The birds. The badgers.
And this responsibility–a sovereign authority you might say–is another way that man and woman are made in God’s likeness.
God is in charge of the universe…man and woman are in charge of the earth. But mere stewardship of goats and crops wasn’t all.
Something Adam Couldn’t Do Alone
Part of Adam and Eve’s responsibility involved multiplying humans. Procreation. Making babies.
A skill, we all know, Adam could not perform on his own.
This command would ensure God’s image spread over the earth. It allowed for Adam and Eve to fulfill their cultural mandate by sharing their workload with their children.
Yet another division of labor.
Call it imperialism if you want. But all for the glory of God. Here’s what I mean.
What Male-Female Union Does to God’s Glory
Listen: When man and woman work in harmony–sharing the responsibility of creating culture, raising children and sharing the gospel–God is glorified.
And he is glorified within the ordained parameters of marriage.
From the Genesis narrative of the creation of man and woman God demonstrates his plan for marriage equals a monogamous heterosexual relationship.
Proliferation of mankind–God’s image–could not happen any other way.
God knew that his glory was limited in the creation of one man. So he made woman. And then man and woman made child.
This union and procreation honors God. Glorifies him. Extends his joy as this man, woman and child honor them with their hearts and service.
It’s a lifestyle of adoration for their creator. Incomplete when man was alone.
Recommended resource: God, Marriage and Family Andreas J. Kostenberger
At Last! Dead Puritans Learn How to Blog
Just the other day I caught wind of a very curious blog.
It was Octavius Winslow’s. Yeah, the 19th century Puritan pastor.
The guy’s blogging.
Okay. Okay. HE’S not really blogging.
Someone else is blogging for him.
Someone else is amassing his body of work, sharing chunks of his sermons and exploring the life of this overlooked Reformed preacher.
Granted, this is nothing new.
Blogs devoted to bringing attention to near-forgotten pillars of the Puritan-cum-Calvinist persuasion have been cropping up for the past couple of years.
But this shouldn’t surprise us either. We are in the age of new Calvinism and its patrons are simply doing their duty.
7 Blogs about Dead Puritans, Reformers
The MO for these blogs is simple: collect into one place the works of largely forgotten Reformed theologians and preachers.
It’s not an easy task. Some of these guys works are out of print–and inaccessible. So a big hardy thanks to the men who run these blogs.
Enjoy the list.
Stephen Charnock Charnock didn’t live long enough to see his best work–The Existence and Attributes of God–published. Then again, I doubt he cared. He was a preaching machine with one mandate: Meticulously define God. I’d say he did it.
Octavius Winslow I didn’t know who this cat was until I stumbled upon his blog. According to Matthew Blair [who, by the way, is also a dog groomer and ex-atheist!], he was a prolific Puritan writer and preacher who wonderfully described the Christian life as a pilgrimage. Nice pick me up for those dark days.
J. C. Ryle Vigorous preacher and father of five children, John Charles Ryle pastored a church in England for over 38 years. He’s best loved for his uncompromising evangelical doctrine and expository preaching of the Gospels. Erik Kowalker steers this Puritan’s hand.
John Owens This 17th Century Puritan heavyweight stands in the shadow of Jonathan Edwards. But many agree–he’s Edwards’ peer. Owens manhandled the English countryside with stirring declarations of the supremacy of Christ and is best known for The Mortification of Sin. Justin Taylor mans this blog.
Herman Bavinck While not a Puritan, he’s a Reformed theologian of the first rank. He’s also German and dead. Good enough for this list. Tony Reinke takes up the cause for this stout theologian who produced some tremendous volumes–like Reformed Dogmatics and the Doctrine of God.
Charles Spurgeon This man hardly needs an introduction. And while he’s not a Puritan–his roots are. Phil Johnson stuffs this website with Spurgeon sermons, devotions books–and even authentic writings by the Prince of Preachers.
Jonathan Edwards Not a blog, but a website run by Yale University. A website that will make you drool if you’re an Edwards fan. Yale’s claim to fame here–a definitive collection of Edwards’ works. “Prolific” is an understatement.
Okay: Who did I miss? What Puritan, Pilgrim or near-forgotten Reformer have I overlooked? Please share. I want to expand this list. Help me fill in the blanks.
And by the way, where are the Puritan women? Got any ideas? I’d like to add them to the list, too. I appreciate your help.
Anthony Horvath: Director of Apologetics Ministry Talks
I get the feeling that Anthony Horvath doesn’t sleep.
The guy’s got a lot going on.
For starters, he’s the director of Athanatos Christian Ministries, an organization “committed to applying the Christian world view in creative contexts that range from Christian apologetics to education to the edification of the church to literature and the arts.”
He’s also a public speaker on the pro-life circuit [for good reasons]. An author of two fiction books. The founder of a literary apologetics writing contest. And the brains behind this publishing group.
Throw in a wife and four children–and Anthony is busy. But very interesting. As you’re about to see.
1. Give me a little bio of you and your ministry.
I was raised in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and had every intention of becoming a pastor when, in my first year of college, abandoned my beliefs.
When faith returned, my new passion was Christian apologetics.
I graduated with a pastoral ministry degree with a minor in the Biblical languages and then proceeded to be a religion teacher and other church work positions.
In the midst of the professional church work I continued to do apologetics. I started with AOL and then moved to forum discussions.
About five years ago circumstances conspired so that I became a ’stay at home’ dad and apologetics my ‘full time’ activity. I am a father of four, and on account of the birth of my daughter who has spina bifida, my ministry has a distinctly pro-life bend in it, too.
2. What motivated you to start Athanatos Christian Ministries?
ACM made official what had been going on all along. There are any number of duties involved in running a ministry, much of them having nothing to do with ministry at all. People don’t appreciate this fact. I think small businessmen will understand, though.
Most of the ministry activities we’re doing now were started before ACM became an official non-profit. I chose the name ‘Athanatos,’ which is Greek for ‘immortal’ or ‘not dying’ rather than ‘Sntjohnny’ (my AOL presence my ministry began with) to cast a larger vision for an apologetics ministry.
“He has set eternity in the hearts of men…” Solomon said. As Lewis said, “We have never met a mere mortal.”
I take as my starting point that everyone is longing for truth and meaning and they pursue it as naturally as they breathe. ACM seeks to facilitate that pursuit by any means possible.
3. You state on Anthanatos website that you no longer believe “the best, exclusive use of my time is to reach out and contend with atheists.” I like how you qualified that statement, but I’ve found in my own experience that engaging atheists enhances my understanding of my faith and actually better prepares me to answer challenging questions from Christians. Would you agree with that statement or disagree.
Well, I can see how this might come across as not wanting to engage with atheists but perhaps the statement should be understood by contrast to what I was doing before. My discussion forum, slightly a ghost town now used to consume all of my time.
When I say ‘my time’ I mean something on the order of 40 to 60 hours a week.
This includes the loads of reading and research that one would have to do to write intelligently. I draw heavily on this experience as I seek to equip Christians.
I definitely think that that kind of engagement is useful, because it helps us bridge the gap between what we think people’s objections will be and what they actually are.
I still contend with atheists (and others!). It just isn’t as much of my time as before. Also, as alluded to before, much more of my time is needed to management and administration of the ministry, which is a reality I’m not particularly happy about.
4. In 2006, you said that the Church was actually creating atheists. What did you mean by that? You also said that if you made that statement today, it’d hardly get noticed. What’s changed in four years?
That 2006 pronouncement was born of my realization that many, if not most, if not even all, of the atheists I was conversing with had been raised in the Church.
This goes to the other reason why I’ve shifted my time to equipping Christians over against banging heads with atheists: I deemed it might be more practical to stop Christians from falling away in the first place rather than try to win them back after they were long gone.
The really controversial part of my 2006 pronouncement, though, was that the Church itself was instrumental in breeding atheists.
Now, a certain natural cycle of doubt and questioning and a certain amount of people deciding that Christianity doesn’t have the answers is to be expected and is not problematic on its face.
The problem is that the Church is doing a poor job making sure that people are asking the right questions and then exposing them to the best answers. It’s worse than that: much Christian education actually sets people up to be clobbered when they finally started thinking through their faith.
I think Ken Ham’s Already Gone documents this very well. That book represents a survey that he personally commissioned and to his surprise they discovered that those most likely to have hardened positions against Christianity were those who had been through Sunday School, VBS, Confirmation, and the like.
Nonbelievers who were ’softer’ on Christianity hadn’t actually been through any Christian programming! While I don’t agree with Ham’s total conclusions, I think his theory on why this particular phenomena is taking place is probably correct.
Since I made that pronouncement in 2006, there have been a variety of studies that have come out showing that a high percentage of unbelievers were raised in the Church. Ken Ham I mentioned. Barna has produced numerous reports indicating something is amiss. There are others, too.
It isn’t a controversial pronouncement any more because I think generally speaking it is agreed that there is something seriously, seriously wrong in the transmission of the faith.
The remaining dispute is over what is wrong and what to do about it.
Search
Get Updates | Subscribe
Somewhat Essential
Recent Posts
Categories
Archives
