First Things RSS Feed - Kevin DeYoung

Antifragile Faith

Mon, 01 Apr 2024 00:00:00 -0400

Life in the Negative World:
Confronting Challenges in an Anti-Christian Culture
by aaron m. renn
zondervan, 272 pages, $26.99

Continue Reading »

An American Evangelist

Mon, 01 May 2023 00:00:00 -0400

Timothy Keller:
His Spiritual and Intellectual Formation
by collin hansen
zondervan, 320 pages, $26.99

Continue Reading »

The Case For Kids

Tue, 01 Nov 2022 00:00:00 -0400

The most significant thing happening in the world may very well be a thing that is not happening: Men and women are not having children. The biblical logic has been reversed, and the barren womb has said “Enough!” (Prov. 30:16). The paradigmatic affliction of the Old Testament is now the great desire of nations. If Rachel wanted children more than life itself (Gen. 30:1), our generation seems to have concluded that nothing gets in the way of life more than children.

Continue Reading »

Why Are We So Offended All the Time?

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:13:30 -0500

Ok, so I rarely post over here. Sorry. But I figure the least I can do is cross-post once in awhile from my “real” blog. So here goes.

*****

Let me start with the caveats. Many people suffer at the hands of others. The world can be unfair, at times mercilessly so. Millions of people in the world are genuine victims, right now. All of us will be at some point, whether it’s for small matters or large, for a long duration or short.

But we aren’t all victims, not all the time anyway, not for everything.

Offendedness is just about the last shared moral currency in our country. And, I’m sorry, but it’s really annoying. We don’t discuss ideas or debate arguments, we try to figure out who is most offended. Buddhists are offended by Brit Hume. Christians are offended that critics disparage Brit Hume. Republicans are offended by Harry Reid’s comments about President Obama. If the shoe were on the other partisan foot, you can bet Democrats would be offended for President Obama (who can legitimately be offended by Reid’s remarks). Whenever someone makes a public gaffe, whether real or perceived, critics storm the microphones to let the world know how offended they are. Why is everyone in such a hurry to be hurt?

For starters, being hurt is easier than being right. To prove you’re offended you just have to rustle up moral indignation and tell the world about it. To prove you’re right you actually have to make arguments and use logic and marshal evidence. Why debate theology or politics or economics if you can win your audience by making the other guys look like meanies?

There’s nothing like being offended to nail your opponent. No one wants to look like a jerk (ok, maybe Donald Trump does). No one wants to come off as a free-wheeling dealer of pain. As a result, we end up held hostage by the possible taking of offense. It’s rarely asked whether such offense is warranted or whether it even matters. No, if there is offense, there must be an offender. And offenders are always wrong.

So we demand apologies. Sometimes, no doubt, because a genuine sin has been committed. But often we demand apologies just because we can. It’s a way to shame those with whom we disagree. It forces them to admit failure or keep looking like a weasel. The weakest offense-taker can now bully multitudes of intelligent men and women through the emotional manipulation that goes with chronic offendedness.

We live in an emotionally fragile culture. We are in touch with every hurt past, present, and perceived. We are the walking wounded and we want everyone to know. Which is too bad, because when people are genuine victims–profoundly, egregiously wronged–they deserve not to be lumped in the same category with those who got picked last for kickball or turned down for their church’s “special music.”

As Christians, we worship a victimized Lord. We should expect to suffer and should have particular compassion on those who hurt emotionally and physically. But we do not resemble the Suffering Servant when we take pains to show off our suffering. I’m not thinking of the Brit Hume ordeal now. I’m just thinking in general how we are tempted to gain the culture’s approval by playing the culture’s offense-taking game. If a law is broken or a legitimate right taken away, let us protest with passion. But if we are misunderstood or even reviled let’s not go after short-lived and half-hearted affirmation by announcing our offendedness for the world to hear. Every time we try to make hay out of misplaced calumnies, we hasten the demise of Christianity in the public square. As offendedness becomes the barometer of acceptable discourse, we can expect further marginalization of Christian beliefs.

So buck up brothers and sisters. Most often in this country, we are not victims because of our faith. There are just as many people, it seems to me, standing to Brit Hume’s defense as they are pillorying him. Let every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the world be crushed to (phony) emotional pieces when their ideas are scrutinized. We can chart a different course and trust that our beliefs can handle Keith Olberman’s disapproval. We have no reason to be anxious, every reason to be joyful, and fewer reasons than we think to be offended.

Continue Reading »

Justification: Here I Stand

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:43:07 -0500

Continue Reading »

What’s Wrong With Us?

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:26:21 -0400

If you’ve ever struggled to explain what went wrong with evangelicalism, or if you’ve ever been embarrassed to be around conservative, doctrinal Christians, here’s several popular villains to make sense of your angst. Once you find a way to include all of them into your narrative, you’ll have a cool book in the making.

5. Rene Descartes - He introduced linear thinking into the church for the first time ever. Before he came along Christians didn’t try to be logical or talk about propositions. Thanks to Descartes, we waste our time on information instead of formation.

4. Charles Hodge - He pretty much invented inerrancy. Before he came along people knew that the Bible is full of mistakes. He also talked about the Scriptures like it had facts and truths in it. Boy does that sound silly.

3. Plato - Besides coming up with the dubious idea of platonic guy-girl relationships, he also taught that the body is the prison house for the soul. Dualist! Now everyone thinks heaven is a place for disembodied spirits and sex and sexy movies are bad.

2. Anselm - No one thought of Christ’s death as a substionary sacrifice before him. The cross had nothing to do with justice and wrath until Cur Deus Homo ? duped us all.

1. Constantine - Where do we begin with this guy? He single-handedly invented Christendom, fake conversions, military conquest, political-religious entanglements, and church buildings. Plus he started the confusion: “it’s Istanabul, it’s Constantinople, it’s Istanbul, it’s Constantinople...”

Continue Reading »

A One-Sentence Definition of Evangelical

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:02:57 -0400

“Evangelical” is a theological term shaped by historical events. Since Joe asked us to define the word, I’ll define evangelicalism at its best, rather than at its worst.

An evangelical is someone who embraces the solas of the Reformation (salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, according to Scripture alone), responates with the emphasis on the new birth and the reviving work of the Spirit found in the Great Awakening, believes in the complete trustworthiness of the Bible contra the liberals and modernists, accepts the responsibility of world evangelization and social engagement as modeled by countless missionaries and reformers, rejects the obscurantism that marked parts of fundamentalism, and, in distinction to the pragmatists and postmoderns, affirms the importance of doctrinal propistions and the knowability of truth.

I know, a dense statement like this begs to be unpacked, but it’s a start. It may not be better than all the other definitions on this blog. But, hey, it’s only a sentence.

Continue Reading »

Defining Discourse Down

Wed, 20 May 2009 00:00:00 -0400

No one has mistaken our day as an age of powerful, rational discourse. The McLaughlin Group doesn’t usually evoke memories of Lincoln-Douglas, and Twittering about your favorite bagel from Panera isn’t exactly correspondence on the level of John and Abigail Adams.

Continue Reading »