Category Archives: Culture

JONATHAN EDWARDS FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

George Marsden is widely considered one of the best living historians of American Christianity, if not the best. 

This is Marsden’s third book on Jonathan Edwards. His big biography won the prestigious Bancroft Prize.

In this book, Marsden gives us an Edwards for our own time. We perhaps find an unlikely partner in Edwards for helping to navigate our present time, but Marsden makes a compelling case that the 18th century clergyman has much to offer us.

Among other things, Edwards’s love of beauty and the natural world are simply stunning. They are chalked full of implications for how we see the world today.

Whether you know much or little about Edwards, An Infinite Fountain of Light is a terrific read.

THE EVANGELICAL IMAGINATION

Moore: How much of this book was sparked by you wanting to make better sense of your own public and sometimes fraught relationship with American evangelicalism?

Prior: Wow. You just dive right in, don’t you?

I explain in the introduction how this book emerged in large part through watching my students–I’ve been teaching evangelical students for 25 years–wrestle with their own fraught relationships with American evangelicalism.

But you have rightly intuited that it hasn’t been just my students that have had to contend with what we’ve all witnessed over the past several years within American evangelicalism. I have been formed and discipled by conservative evangelicalism for nearly 40 years. I was (am?) a culture warring evangelical. But, like so many, I’ve seen what that has gotten us. And I’ve seen what we’ve lost, too. So as much as I still very much identify as evangelical and want to recover whatever in it that is good, I also lament what we have gotten wrong. 

I know some (too many of my students, to be honest) have given up–not only on evangelicalism, but on the faith, too. No movement is perfect, of course. But I don’t see how any faithful person would not want to engage in an ongoing process of discernment, correction, and repair. Yet, in doing that–and in doing it very publicly–I have been attacked, misrepresented, and had my very faith called into question. (Others have had the same experiences.) 

So, fraught? Absolutely.

Moore: In my thirties, I was an associate pastor (more on that modifier in the next question) in a large, evangelical church. Some of the elders had a penchant for calling families “giving units.” In your book you write about the use of “Enlightenment-era machine metaphors.” Would you describe what you mean by that description?

Prior: I’ve got to be honest: “giving units” is a new one for me. I wish I’d heard of it to include in the book!

There are so many of these machine metaphors. They are so common we often forget they are such. When we talk about calculating our productivity, processing our thoughts, the light bulb going on, firing on all cylinders, or being fully functioning, we are using machine metaphors.

Now, there’s not anything inherently wrong with using these metaphors. But if we lose sight of what we are comparing ourselves to, then we risk losing a bit of the full sense of our humanity. 

Moore: Modifiers like youth, assistant, associate, music, discipleship executive, lead, senior, are more still (!), are common to use before pastor. Specialization in this sort of way is a recent thing. I think it would be hard to find much of it prior to the nineteenth century. How has specialization affected our imaginations as to the responsibilities of every pastor?

Prior: Late modernity is most definitely an age of specialization. Again, that is mostly a blessing. How good it is to have some physicians who can treat cancer so well and others who are skilled in brain surgery! What we can lose in overspecialization, however, is the essence of the calling: a physician is called to care and to heal. A teacher is called to teach no matter what the subject or who the students. And a pastor is called to shepherd his flock. When we lose sight of the telos (of anything), we lose sight of the thing itself. 

I think this is partly why the Southern Baptist Convention (for example) is in the midst of so many controversies over titles, and names, and terms. The same is true with controversial social issues: so much of the battle over labels is over the nature of things. Yet, we also live in a culture that increasingly denies the nature of things. A shepherd and a leader are quite different things, for example. Yet many think they are somehow supposed to be the same. I can’t help but wonder if the shortage of pastors that has been much reported recently is related to what the role is imagined to be like compared to what it really is.

Moore: I regularly develop mnemonic devices and I also like to come up with sayings that remind me of critical truths. Over the decades, I have listened to hundreds of Christians giving their “testimonies.” During my time on staff with Cru, I sometimes helped others put together their testimony. The only kind of testimony I have ever heard (and now you know I was guilty for aiding and abetting things!) is one of achieving some sort of spiritual victory. I now call this “Watch out who has the microphone.” What fuels the American evangelical love for only “overcomer” kinds of testimonies? Why don’t we ever hear “testimonies” where someone describes that they are presently struggling, but still trusting God?

Prior: Ok, here’s my chance. I want to say that I am presently struggling–but still trusting God!

But back to your very good question.

I think there are a few things at play here. First, it is simply human to love a great story, the more dramatic, the better. And it is particularly modern (although not exclusively so) to especially love the underdog who overcomes great obstacles or experiences a great transformation. And even further, it is especially American to desire or applaud the individual  achievement of some kind of greatness.

When these cultural factors are added to the biblical reality of conversion, then you have a perfect set of conditions for cultivating an appetite for extra spicy testimonies.

Moore: Offering non-Christians the opportunity to have a “personal relationship” with Christ is a regular feature of evangelical evangelism. This approach to evangelism is rather recent, isn’t it? If so, why is it, and what would be a better way to communicate (I was tempted to say “share”) the gospel?

Prior: Again, this is a particular feature of the modern age. Modernity is characterized by the rise of the individual. Evangelicalism’s emphasis on the individual experience of salvation and the conversion experience makes it harder for us to put this reality in balance with the passages in the Bible that describe families, households, and generations as being part of a covenantal faith. As an evangelical, I do see the need for individual acceptance of Christ or following him. But I am coming to see more and more the role that families, churches, communities, and cultures play in preparing the ground for individuals to believe.

Moore: I believe it is safe to say that the evangelical model of Christian growth is largely behavioristic. It seems that the Victorian Era, of which you write so well on, could be an influence with our focus on external behavior rather than addressing our inner motivations, or what Augustine called “properly ordered loves.”

Prior: Absolutely. The Victorians were very concerned with “keeping up appearances.” (Really, this is true of all human societies, of course, but the Victorians were just extra good at it and lived in a context, one largely shaped by evangelicalism and the industrial revolution, that facilitated it.) 

Then came behaviorism as an approach to human understanding in the early twentieth century. There is some truth in this school of thought, but as you point out, Augustine has a lot to offer us in understanding the relationship about how our inner desires are cultivated–and that they are cultivated–often by externals such as the social imaginary. If we fail to integrate the inward and the outward, one will always lead at the expense or deformity of the other.

Moore: What are a few things that you hope your readers take away from reading The Evangelical Imagination?

Prior: I hope that readers have a greater awareness of the powers of the imagination, our social imaginaries, and language–even on our deeply held beliefs. Even more, I hope they see how it is Christ who holds all these things together. He is at the center, and our desire should be to be centered in him.

 

MODERN LIFE/”OUR TIME”

A few reflections about “our time.” (HT: David Wells)

Speed is sexy, but what do we miss by going so fast? There’s no time to ponder the question.

Inventions and innovations alter the landscape of human existence. How can we properly measure the net benefit of cars and the Internet? We can’t, so we go by faith which is one of the ironies modernity presents. Modernity wants us to believe that everything is measurable, yet it is constantly creating things that defy measurement.

Everyone says they crave community, yet many of us habitually do things that impede the community we supposedly crave.

We are regularly reminded that suicide and depression are at epidemic levels. Is this a bug or feature of modern life? If it is the former, who is the exterminator? If it is the latter, what does this tell us about progress?

We live in a disenchanted world. Only the material is real. A personal God is absurd. Has shaking off the divine absurdity made us happier? Rises in suicide, breakdown of the family, depression, and other social maladies (because we can’t call them sins) should give us pause. Pausing to ponder is not in vogue among us moderns, so we go on our less than merry way.

Modernity produces ironic inconsistencies. Alan Jacobs is a literary critic and Christian. When Jacobs said he was leaving Twitter, many Christians applauded him by going to Twitter and retweeting his departure from the social media platform!

Modern non-Christians have no vocabulary for sin, so people get categorized as evil. Modern non-Christians have no vocabulary for redemption, so people get categorized as unredeemable.

Modernity extols the “virtue” of having no limits, yet proper limits are found in everything we cherish.

The love of fads and formulas, steps and strategies.

Machine-like efficiency reigns supreme. 

Many admit that our gadgets have resulted in a diminished attention span. What many of us fail to admit is that attending to what really matters is threatening. It just might mean some major change needs to be made in our character or lifestyle.

Blaise Pascal said this centuries before the Internet and social media: “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” Now we sit alone in our rooms, but most of us are playing video games or watching things that suffocate our souls.

Since we don’t have souls, there is no worry that pornographic and other worthless material can hurt us. The “real me” is only physical.

According to Emerson, since you are an autonomous individual (department of redundancy department), you, and you alone, hold the keys to the promised land of changing your identity. Congratulations!  You can be whoever you deem to be which is far better than the pathetic person you now face in the mirror every morning. It’s a sexy proposition. Many of us get snookered into believing this is really in our power.

Remaking the self is big business in America because we are amply supplied with gullible guys and gals who gladly buy the latest workout equipment, makeup, head to some exotic locale, or best of all, receive some plastic manipulation of body parts. Great effort coupled with high hopes all in the service of finding the better me.

 

 

 

 

TIMOTHY KELLER: HIS SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL FORMATION

I have read eight books by Tim Keller. None have been duds, but I certainly have my favorites.

Opportunities to interview Keller have come on two occasions. The first was on his book about suffering. That interview can be found here: 

Tim Keller on Suffering

The other was an exchange of emails about preaching. That exchange was published here: 

Tim Keller Answers: How Much Prep Time for a Sermon?

And now we have a terrific book on the formative influences that made Tim Keller who he is. Here then are a few observations from Collin’s Hanson’s wonderfully conceived book:

*Many times, God uses the most unlikely people. Keller’s awkwardness socially would not have made one think he was destined to the ministry we now know him for. By the way, Keller got a C in his seminary preaching class, not an encouraging sign that he would amount to much as a preacher.

*Mentors are hugely influential. Keller had several, but Edmund Clowney was one of the most formative. Clowney’s kindness, learning, and commitment to Keller reminds me of the role Ambrose played for Augustine.

*Keller’s ability to synthesize material, commitment to listen well to others, free people up to use their own gifts, but most of all, his humility, are things God has honored.

*There is no Tim Keller as we know him today without Kathy Keller. If you have a spouse who is a partner in ministry (I am graced by God to say that I do), then thank God for that blessing. If you are single and looking for a spouse, be diligent to find someone who shares the vision God has laid on your heart.

*If I were asked to list a couple of specifics that make a minister used of God, I would list true piety, humility, ability to keep loyal friends over the long haul, and courage. For the latter, Keller had a powerful model in a pastor who preceded him. He is a long-forgotten name, but you will be inspired by getting to know William E. Hill Jr. I’m glad Collin regularly brought in obscure figures who had a big impact on Keller.

*I mentioned above that I have read eight books by Keller. Making Sense of God is probably my favorite. I am glad that Collin gave some attention on the need to write such a book. My review of Making Sense of God is here: 

Tim Keller’s Newest

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE AIR WE BREATHE

I have read many books on apologetics and how best to engage the culture. I have read and, in some cases, reread classic works by Augustine, Pascal, Chesterton, and Lewis. Contemporary folks like Keller, both of the two big books by Charles Taylor, Sire, Guinness, Schaeffer, Pearcey, and Moreland have been very helpful. You get the picture. All these have been terrific, but the book that now tops my list is Glen Scrivener’s book, The Air We Breathe.

In relatively short compass Scrivener winsomely, wisely, and wonderfully showcases that we do as Flannery O’Connor said, live in a Christ-haunted world. (She said a Christ-haunted south, but I am expanding on her words.)

If you are looking for a well-written and compelling resource that makes it crystal clear that many of the things we love and take for granted like freedom are a result of Christianity, then this book is for you. If you are not looking for a resource like this, you should be!

AN AUSSIE WHO KNOWS AMERICA BETTER THAN MOST AMERICANS

This is the third book I’ve read by this author. All have been terrific.

Sayers has a real knack for putting things in a fresh perspective. He effectively uses history and global trends to illumine the topic at hand. In this book, it is how the church can wisely address living between eras, what Sayers describes as a “gray zone.”

There are many invaluable insights to be sure in this book, but many times I found myself launching in a direction that the author probably did not intend, but I nonetheless found fruitful.

Highly recommended!

WHY I HATE LOL AND OTHER MODERN ABBREVIATIONS

I’m sure most of us know that LOL stands for Laugh Out Load. When this abbreviation was first being used a friend used it in an email to me. I thought it meant Love O’ Lots!

There are now many of these abbreviations like TMI, Too Much Information or IDNK, I Did Not Know. 

I hate all of them.

They remind me of the pathetic and phrenetic world we now inhabit. Speed and the attendant loss of attention spans is now the accepted, even lauded norm.

We have lost much by such verbal shortcuts.

Christians should joyfully stand against the dismantling of language.

IMO, of course!