Why Christians Should Care About Zombies

Russell Moore:

Zombies are everywhere. Ever since the classic “Night of the Living Dead,” the undead have shown up in movies. Zombies now are featured in top-rated cable TV shows, and in apocalyptic novels and survival guides. An entire genre has ignited around the concept of adding zombies to classic literature (“Pride and Prejudice with Zombies,” etc.). But why are we drawn to these gruesome figures? 

In the New York Times, columnist Amy Wilentz reminds us why zombies scare us, and why we can’t help but watch through our clenched hands covering our eyes. The zombie myth is rooted in something quite real, and quite terrifying. The zombie stories emerged in a Caribbean context of brutal slavery. The zombie’s horror is that he is, she writes, a slave forever. After all, if even death cannot free you, you can never be free. 

That’s exactly the point, and here’s why it should matter to Christians. 

Zombies are horrifying not simply because they’re mean and aggressive. They are horrifying because they represent what ought to repulse us: the rotting decay of death. But they still walk. And, beyond that, they still crave. In their search for human brains, they are driven along by their appetites, though always under the sway of a slavemaster’s will.
That’s our story. 

The biblical story of the fall of humanity is one of a humanity that comes under the sway of death by obeying the appetite. God places a fiery sword around the Garden of Eden, Genesis tells us, so that the primeval humans wouldn’t eat of the Tree of Life and live forever. Why? It’s because God didn’t want to consign humanity to a never-ending existence of this kind of walking death. He sentences us to the curse of death so that, ultimately, we can be redeemed. 

The gospel tells us that, apart from Christ, we were walking in the flesh, that is slavishly obeying our biological impulses and appetites without the direction of the Spirit. As such, we were “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). But we weren’t inert. We instead, though dead, “walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2). We were walking dead slaves. 

And, in our death, our appetites weren’t silenced but instead drove us along. This walking death, the Apostle Paul writes, was driven along as we “carried out the desires of the body and the mind” (Eph. 2:3). 

Caribbean people could resonate with the horror of zombies because they knew what it was like to be enslaved by evil people, with no hope of escape. And maybe our culture pays attention to zombies because we know what it is like to be dead inside, but unable to find peace, unable to stop walking. 

The gospel doesn’t just extend our lives forever into eternity. That’s what we, left to ourselves, think we want. The rich young ruler asks Jesus how he can inherit eternal life, but Jesus points out that he wants to eternalize his present state rather than to be hidden in the life of Jesus himself. That’s a zombie walk, and Jesus loves us too much for that. 

Jesus offers instead life, and that abundantly, as we eat of his flesh, drink of his blood, share in his triumph over the accusing slavemaster. 

So let’s have some sympathy for the zombies. And next time you see the trailer for a zombie film, or see the picture of a walking corpse on the cover of a novel, remember that that was your story once, too.

John Piper: Parents, Require Obedience of Your Children

John Piper:

I am writing this to plead with Christian parents to require obedience of their children. I am moved to write this by watching young children pay no attention to their parents’ requests, with no consequences. Parents tell a child two or three times to sit or stop and come or go, and after the third disobedience, they laughingly bribe the child. This may or may not get the behavior desired. 

Last week, I saw two things that prompted this article. One was the killing of 13-year-old Andy Lopez in Santa Rosa, California, by police who thought he was about to shoot them with an assault rifle. It was a toy gun. What made this relevant was that the police said they told the boy two times to drop the gun. Instead he turned it on them. They fired. 

I do not know the details of that situation or if Andy even heard the commands. So I can’t say for sure he was insubordinate. So my point here is not about young Lopez himself. It’s about a “what if.” What if he heard the police, and simply defied what they said? If that is true, it cost him his life. Such would be the price of disobeying proper authority. 

A Tragedy in the Making 

I witnessed such a scenario in the making on a plane last week. I watched a mother preparing her son to be shot. 

I was sitting behind her and her son, who may have been seven years old. He was playing on his digital tablet. The flight attendant announced that all electronic devices should be turned off for take off. He didn’t turn it off. The mother didn’t require it. As the flight attendant walked by, she said he needed to turn it off and kept moving. He didn’t do it. The mother didn’t require it. 

One last time, the flight attendant stood over them and said that the boy would need to give the device to his mother. He turned it off. When the flight attendant took her seat, the boy turned his device back on, and kept it on through the take off. The mother did nothing. I thought to myself, she is training him to be shot by police.

Read the rest for Piper's nine observations to "help rescue some parents from the folly of laissez-faire parenting."

"How do you read so much?"

Ryan Holiday:

When you read a lot of books people inevitably assume you speed read. In fact, that’s probably the most common email I get. They want to know my trick for reading so fast. They see all the books I recommend every month in my reading newsletter and assume I must have some secret. So they ask me to teach them how to speed read. 

That’s when I tell them I don’t have a secret. Even though I read hundreds of books every single year, I actually read quite slow. In fact, I read deliberately slow, so that I can take notes (and then whenever I finish a book, I go back through and transcribe these notes for my version of a commonplace book. 

So where do I get the time? (Well for starters I don’t waste any of it asking dumb questions). 

Look, where do you get the time to eat three meals a day? How do you have time to do all that sleeping? How do you manage to spend all those hours with your kids or wife or a girlfriend or boyfriend? 

You don’t get that time anywhere, do you? You just make it because it’s really important. It’s a non-negotiable part of your life.

HT: Zach Nielsen

Tom Schreiner Reviews MacArthur's "Strange Fire"

Tom Schreiner:

The issues raised in Strange Fire are intensely controversial, so I should lay my cards on the table. I have traveled a road in which I was a cessationist in my early years as believer. I then became a non-cessationist and taught accordingly for a number of years. Finally, in the mid 1990s I slowly returned to a cessationist position. I am sympathetic, then, to the case MacArthur makes for cessationism. The dangers and extremes he identifies in the charismatic movement are timely and should be heeded seriously. 

Despite my fundamental exegetical and theological agreement with MacArthur, however, Strange Fire suffers from a focus on the extreme adherents of the charismatic movement. (I did wonder, incidentally, whether Joel Osteen should be labeled a charismatic, for one can be a prosperity preacher without being charismatic.) MacArthur says early in the book he doesn’t distinguish between the three waves of the charismatic movement, but this failure to make distinctions is problematic. He claims the extremes and abuses characterize the movement. But who really knows what the numbers are? Certainly, there are extremes in the movement, and obviously many who have gone astray. But many charismatics reject the likes of Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland. 

Despite qualifications here and there, one could get the impression MacArthur thinks almost all charismatics dishonor the Holy Spirit and are opposed to God. Certainly that is true of false teachers like Benny Hinn, but there are also many charismatics who repudiate the teaching and practices of people like Hinn, and hence the rhetoric of the book should be modified. MacArthur seems to acknowledge as much in his open letter to continuationists who have sound theology, though he believes they are a very small minority. Nevertheless, the clarion call of warning should be modified with clearer and more forthright admissions that many charismatics adhere to the gospel and are faithful to God’s Word. 

Not Open and Shut 

Further, it should be acknowledged that the arguments for a cessationist reading aren’t open and shut. Nowhere does the New Testament clearly teach that supernatural gifts have ceased. A good argument can be made for such a reading; indeed, I think the case for cessationism is convincing, and the warnings MacArthur raises are salutary. Still, we must admit there are some solid arguments on the other side as well. For example, a good case for the continuation of the gifts until Jesus’ second coming can be made from 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. 

Similar arguments could be made about tongues and prophesy. I think MacArthur is correct in saying that prophecy is infallible and doesn’t exist today, and that tongues are in foreign languages. On the other hand, good arguments for the continuation of prophecy and for tongues being in a code indiscernible to us are made by scholars like Wayne Grudem, Don Carson, and Gordon Fee. I think MacArthur rightly claims these arguments aren’t finally convincing. Moreover, I agree with him when he says that even the best of charismatic thinking introduces distorting elements into the church. In other words, impressions shouldn’t be confused with prophecy, and free vocalization isn’t the same thing as the biblical gift of tongues. On the other hand, those who disagree with us on this matter are trying to understand Scripture as well, and many “prophecies” in charismatic churches simply restate scriptural truth and much tongue-speaking going on isn’t demonic but a form of psychological relaxation (I know many on both sides disagree with me here!). Incidentally, though I am attracted to Vern Poythress’s argumentthat spiritual gifts today are analogous to but not identical with the gifts in the New Testament, the argument fails to convince, since there is no warrant in Scripture for a separate category. Poythress posits a realm outside the scriptural witness. 

We can be thankful for MacArthur’s longtime passion for the truth of the gospel and for his unswerving commitment to the Word of God. He rightly reminds us that we must be bold and courageous in renouncing false teaching. At the same time, the charismatic movement is painted with too broad of a brush in Strange Fire. We can be thankful for the many good things that have occurred and are occurring in the charismatic movement as well.

The Craziest Ride You'll Ever Pretend to Take

HT: Multiple places this week

Russell Moore: Should Christians Pull Back From Politics?

Russell Moore:

Don’t call it a pullback; we’ve been here for years. 

The recent profile in the Wall Street Journal highlighted a generational change in terms of the way evangelicals approach cultural and political engagement: toward a gospel-centered approach that doesn’t back down on issues of importance, but sees our ultimate mission as one that applies the blood of Christ to the questions of the day. 

The headline, as is often the case with headlines, is awfully misleading. I am not calling, at all, for a “pullback” from politics or engagement. 

If anything, I’m calling for more engagement in the worlds of politics, culture, art, labor and so on. It’s just that this is a different sort of engagement. It’s not a matter of pullback, but of priority. 

What I’m calling for in our approach to political engagement is what we’re already doing in one area: the pro-life movement. Evangelicals in the abortion debate have demonstrated convictional kindness in a holistic ethic of caring both for vulnerable unborn children and for the women who are damaged by abortion. The pro-life movement has engaged in a multi-pronged strategy that addresses, simultaneously, the need for laws to outlaw abortion, care for women in crisis pregnancies, adoption and foster care for children who need families, ministry to women (and men) who’ve been scarred by abortion, cultivating a culture that persuades others about why we ought to value human life, and the proclamation of the gospel to those whose consciences bear the guilt of abortion. 

That’s the reason the pro-life movement continues to resonate, with growing numbers, among young Christians. It’s very clearly not a singularly “political” issue, but an issue that demands political, ecclesial, and cultural reform and persuasion. Most importantly, it resonates because younger Christians recognize the gospel as of first importance, and the pro-life movement has demonstrated why the life issue is a gospel issue... 

...I don’t think we need a pullback from politics. I think we need a reenergizing of politics. This means we must do more than simply live off the fumes of the last generation’s activism. Millennial and post-Millennial Christians are walking away from the political process, and this is what alarms and motivates me. They’ve grown cynical at movements that are willing to adopt allies that are gospel heretics as long as they are politically correct (see “Beck, Glenn” or “Trump, Donald”). They are disenchanted with movements that seem more content to vaporize opponents with talk-radio sound-bytes rather than to engage in a long-term strategy of providing a theology of gospel-focused action in the public square. 

Those who wish to retreat are wrong. Ignoring so-called “political issues” doesn’t lead to a less politicized church but to a more political church. One cannot preach the gospel in 19th century America without addressing slavery without abandoning the gospel. One cannot preach the gospel in 21st century America apart from addressing the sexual revolution without abandoning the gospel. 

The question is the “why” and the “how.” 

We engage politically because we love our neighbors, we care about human flourishing. But we do so at multiple fronts. We engage on Capitol Hill (as I do), on issues ranging from stopping the abortion industry, to protecting religious liberty, to speaking out for human rights for the persecuted overseas. We cultivate churches that see the holistic nature of the kingdom of God and who shape consciences of people to live as citizens. But we always do that with a focus that we are not prosecuting attorneys but defense attorneys. We are seeking, ultimately, to point people to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Tim Challies: 18 Things You Won't Regret Doing With Your Kids

Head over to Challies' post to see these fleshed out a bit:

1. Praying with them for them.
2. Reading books to them.
3. Kissing them goodnight.
4. Taking them to church.
5. Taking them out for breakfast.
6. Letting my friends be their friends.
7. Doing family devotions.
8. Disciplining them.
9. Doing special things.
10. Asking their forgiveness.
11. Forgiving them.
12. Loving their mother.
13. Identifying God’s Grace.
14. Expressing affection.
15. Planning little surprises.
16. Giving them my full attention.
17. Pointing to the gospel.
18. Telling them “I love you”.

Music Video of the Week: Drew Holcomb and the Neighbors

Drew Holcomb and the Neighbors - "Good Light"



Direct Link to Video for RSS.

Recovering A Vision: The Presidency of R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Recovering a Vision: The Presidency of R. Albert Mohler Jr. from Southern Seminary on Vimeo.

An Encouragement to Care About the Discussion Happening at the "Strange Fire" Conference

Thabiti Anyabwile on the Strange Fire Conference that John MacArthur is hosting this week:

An honest discussion on this topic entails a number of uncomfortable admissions. And, perhaps it’s our inability or unwillingness to admit these things that hinder our discussion as much as anything else. We feel the stakes but we don’t want to face the stakes. For some people, this conference forces some difficult admissions, admissions we’d be happier not to concede. But, that, too, is reason to care about the issue and engage prayerfully. Consider what’s at stake. 

First, we have to admit that there’s a correct and an incorrect position on this issue. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong. The outcomes are non-correspondent. The thing can’t be “A” and “not A” at the same time in the same way. Those who are wrong are teaching error. That error impacts the next two things we need to admit. 

Second, we have to admit that how we view this issue substantially impacts the nature of the Christian life. It matters. It’s not an inconsequential idea. Someone worships God appropriately, someone doesn’t. Someone walks with God in a way that pleases Him, someone doesn’t. Our view of these things informs our  personal communion with God. 

Third, we have to admit that this issue practically impacts Christian worship and fellowship. It’s not only a private matter, but a corporate one as well. If we want to apply what we think the Bible teaches regarding gifts, it’s going to have a material impact on who we can actually worship with. It’s like baptism. We will either limit it to professing believers or we will include covenant children. But we can’t do both. Our decision about practicing or not practicing some secondary-but-important issues affects who can belong to our churches and what we’ll do when we gather. We may continue personal friendships (and we should), but we’ll find it difficult to continue corporate fellowship. 

Fourth, we have to admit the Bible does not answer the issue compellingly. Or, better, in our fallen reading of the Bible someone–perhaps everyone–is not understanding and applying what we ought. From what I can tell, everyone in this discussion believes the Bible is sufficient for matters of doctrine and devotion. I see people of varying perspectives affirming that. But if the Bible were as clear to everyone as we’d like, we wouldn’t be having the conversation. So, it seems we’ve got to interrogate ourselves about (a) whether we’re reading the Bible with a squint, such that things that ought to be seen lose focus, and/or (b) whether the Bible really intends to tell us all the things we desire on this topic. I believe the Bible is sufficient in all that it says, but perhaps people across the spectrum are tempted to make it say more than it does say. 

I read one tweet where a brother called for more “epistemic humility.” That’s a good phrase, I think. We might also call for some more “exegetical humility.” But “epistemic” or “exegetical humility” ought not be confused with “I could care less.” The two are miles apart. One receives God’s revelation as it really is, the word of God; the other waves an unconcerned hand in the face of God’s word and the godly men attempting to hold forth the truth. One takes God’s word seriously; the other tends toward a practical atheism that shuts His voice out. Always better to seek the truth of God’s word, even if we see dimly, than to swear off God’s word and debates about it. 

So, whether you’ve watched the live feeds or not, whether you’ve read multiple volumes on the debate or not, I hope you care about these things. I hope you’re following with careful concern to know the truth rather than to vindicate your party. I hope you’re listening with rapt attention because you’re eager to hear God’s voice more clearly and to walk with your Savior more closely. Even the thoughts of folks who get some things wrong can help us to do that if we’re discerning and humble beneath God’s word. 

May the Lord bless His Church.

Don't Give Your Kids a Trophy for Losing

More from Trevin Wax today. With just some slight caveats to this and some warnings to dads based on my experience growing up, I completely agree with him here.

That’s why, at the beginning of the soccer season, I asked my son: ”What’s more important? Having fun or winning? 

He answered: “Having fun?” 

“No,” I replied. “Winning. Because if you’re not winning, you’re not having fun.”
What do they teach children in school these days? 

At some point in the past two decades, parents began to worry that they were putting too much pressure on kids. So sporting events became less about the score, and more about the experience. That’s what I was told a few years ago when I asked why there was no official scorekeeping for T-Ball anymore. And then I joined the other fathers on the sidelines who were secretly noting every run. 

I can hear the objections already… 

It’s not about winning or losing; it’s how you play the game. 

Well, yes, let’s give a loud cheer for good sportsmanship. But last I checked, the point of playing the game was to win. To play your heart out and celebrate a victory with your team. 

Your kids will feel terrible if they lose. 

I certainly hope so! The last thing I want is my kid to feel good about losing. I hope he hates losing and loves winning. Because it’s when you put a strong emphasis on winning the game that you’re best equipped to learn from your losses – to channel the frustration and inner angst of losing into doing better the next time. 

You’re going to push your kids too hard and make them fearful later on in life. 

No… I’ll tell you what will make someone fearful later in life. It’s when they’re out in the real world and they realize that not everyone wins a trophy. Not everyone does well in life just because they did a respectable job or put forth some effort. I want my kids to learn this lesson now, so that they’re adequately prepared for the world they will live in one day. 

But don’t you want every kid to feel like a winner? 

No. Because when everyone’s a winner, no one’s a winner. If effort doesn’t matter and the results are always the same, then what’s the point of bettering yourself? If you get smothered with compliments after playing poorly, how will you ever believe the rightful praise that comes your way after you’ve played a stellar game?

Trevin Wax on Gravity

My wife and I saw the movie Gravity in IMAX 3-D last week, and I thought it was spectacular. It's essentially a secular take on what it means to be born again. Some very powerful imagery and dialogue.

I agree with Trevin Wax's take on the movie (SPOILERS BELOW):

1. Watching the movie is an immersive experience.This movie creates the sensation for the moviegoer that you are in outer space. From the startling silence during key moments of the film to the 3-D effects that make it seem as if you are maneuvering your way through cosmic debris, Gravity was made for the big screen experience. 

2. The storyline is compelling and is carried along by terrific acting.We’ve seen movies before where a single actor carries most of the film. Castaway, for example, told the story of a man (played by Tom Hanks) trying to survive on a deserted island. 

Films that rely so heavily on one actor usually rise or fall on the strength of the main character and the actor’s ability to keep moviegoers engaged. Gravity will probably win Oscars for cinematography, but it’s Sandra Bullock who particularly deserves an award. That Bullock can be so utterly believable as Dr. Ryan Stone is a tribute to her strengths as an actress. 

What’s more, the supporting character in this film is not George Clooney, but the earth itself. There’s hardly a moment where we do not see our planet in the distance, its stunning, tranquil beauty juxtaposed with the chaos and emptiness of space. Our immense and beautiful “home” looming just out of reach, so close and yet so far, becomes a visual picture of transcendence. 

3. The story does not shy away from questions about spiritual reality.Gravity tackles philosophical and spiritual questions. At one point, the hopelessness of Ryan’s situation leads her to reflect on the inevitability of death. We’re all going to die, she realizes, but “I am going to die today.” The knowledge that death is coming leads to a striking scene where Ryan, hovering weightless in the space module, moves into a fetal position, with a tether around her like an umbilical cord. As she cries, her tears do not fall but float. 

When all seems to be lost, Ryan turns to the subject of prayer, wishing someone could pray for her, but worrying that it is too late because no one ever taught her how. In the emotional climax of the film, the character is brought to the brink of death. But what seems most tragic is not just that the character is about to die, but that her death will take place alone, without the companionship of another human and without the spiritual ability to call for divine assistance. It’s striking to watch the spiritual dimension of human life come to the surface when a scientific minded, non-spiritual woman is facing her demise. 

4. Humanity triumphs against all odds.People love a story about someone beating the odds and surviving a horrible tragedy, and it’s no surprise that Gravity ends happily. The message of the film can be summed up like this: None of us will forever outrun death, so we might as well enjoy the ride.  

But while this philosophy, in other circumstances, could lead to a hedonistic lifestyle, in Gravity it leads to gratitude. As Clooney’s character drifts away to die, he marvels at the beauty of the sun reflecting off the earth. We glimpse the beauty of the Aurora Borealis in a scene that adds pathos and wonderment to the sense of solitude in space. And Ryan, when she emerges from the water after arriving back on earth, stands up, wobbling on her feet, and says, “Thank you.” She may have survived the tragedy triumphantly, but even this woman who doesn’t know how to pray cannot keep from thanking someone.

Music Video of the Week: Chvrches

Chvrches - "Lies (Live)"

Confidence in the Face of Christianity's Enemies

Jason Helopoulos:

Christians, don’t get too worked up about that new best-seller, popular philosophy, misguided ethic, or latest government action. Christ reigns and no enemy can thwart the Church or the Christian faith. 

The Powerful may scheme, but cannot crush Christianity.
Philosophers may pontificate, but cannot “out-truth” Christianity.
World Religions may spread, but cannot overcome Christianity.
Professors may lecture, but cannot unravel Christianity.
Persecution may kill, but cannot annihilate Christianity.
Bad preaching may undermine, but cannot undo Christianity.
Politicians may legislate, but cannot reduce Christianity.
Riches may seduce, but cannot outlive Christianity.
Empires may consolidate, but cannot subjugate Christianity.
Lies may confuse, but cannot unravel Christianity.
Fear may disquiet, but cannot destroy Christianity.
Heresy may darken, but cannot untruth Christianity.
News outlets may ignore, but cannot dismiss Christianity.
Moralists may mislead, but cannot proxy for Christianity.
Rulers may outlaw, but cannot vanquish Christianity.
Sin may instigate, but cannot overpower Christianity.
Satan may tempt, but cannot unseat Christianity. 

No empire, no country, no sin, no spirit, no lie, no religion, no philosophy, no thought, no school, no law, no edict, no emotion, no sentiment, no feeling, no ruler, no emperor, no king, no politician, no initiative, no discrimination, no nothing and no one can unravel Christianity. Every enemy of Christianity shall fail. Every foe is left undone. 

It is guaranteed. It is secured. Because we have a Risen Savior, who reigns over all. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. No matter what apparent setbacks we see, hear, feel, or think. He has secured the victory, reigns in victory, and shall consummate the victory. This is His world. Dear Christian, though surrounded by enemies on every side, you can rest at peace in a Savior, who reigns now and forevermore. Onward Christian soldiers!

Living in the Moment

Direct link for RSS.

A Conversation Between Father and Son on How to See Women

This post was back in August, but I thought it was really good, so I saved it in my favorites and have come back to read it a few more times since then.

Nate Pyle, imagining a future conversation with his son:

Hey, come here. Let me talk to you. I saw you look at her. I’m not judging you or shaming you. I know why you did. I get it. But we have to talk about it because how you look at a woman matters. 

A lot of people will try and tell you that a woman should watch how she dresses so she doesn’t tempt you to look at her wrongly. Here is what I will tell you. It is a woman’s responsibility to dress herself in the morning. It is your responsibility to look at her like a human being regardless of what she is wearing. You will feel the temptation to blame her for your wandering eyes because of what she is wearing – or not wearing. But don’t. Don’t play the victim. You are not a helpless victim when it comes to your eyes. You have full control over them. Exercise that control. Train them to look her in the eyes. Discipline yourself to see her, not her clothes or her body. The moment you play the victim you fall into the lie that you are simply embodied reaction to external stimuli unable to determine right from wrong, human from flesh. 

Look right at me. That is a ridiculous lie. 

You are more than that. And the woman you are looking at is more than her clothes. She is more than her body. There is a lot of talk about how men objectify women, and largely, it is true. Humans objectify the things they love in effort to control them. If you truly love a person, do not reduce them to an object. The moment you objectify another human – woman or man, you give up your humanity. 

There are two views regarding a woman’s dress code that you will be pressured to buy into. One view will say that women need to dress to get the attention of men. The other view will say women need to dress to protect men from themselves. Son, you are better than both of these. A woman, or any human being, should not have to dress to get your attention. You should give them the full attention they deserve simply because they are a fellow human being. On the other side, a woman should not have to feel like she needs to protect you from you. You need to be in control of you.

Read the rest.

Music Video of the Week: Switchfoot

Switchfoot - "Who We Are"