You’ve seen books like this before. Shane Claiborne has written about it in The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical. More recently Francis Chan wrote about it in Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God. These books and now David Platt in Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream all point out that something is amiss in much of the way people who bear the name “Christian” live their lives. Revolution is needed. Crazy love is needed. Radical faith is needed. And I agree.

But Platt’s Radical is more of the same. There is the usual litany of Christian heroes who went all out for God: William Carey, Elisabeth Elliot, George Mueller, John Wesley, David Brainerd, among others. And there are also mini biographies of the author’s own congregants and acquaintances who lived radically. This all shows us what we already knew: that people do manage to live radical lives for Jesus. This we know. The problem, however,  is that we’re complacent, disobedient, and seduction-prone followers of Jesus, and some of us know that this ought not be. Others, don’t mind or care; thus, complacency. But, what Platt would hope to accomplish with his book is a radicalizing of the reader’s faith that would push him past complacency and into active, unwavering, sacrificial obedience to Jesus. And while I don’t think Platt quite gets us there, I think he nudges us in the right direction.

If you actually worked it out, you’d probably find that roughly half the book is made up of personal anecdote and well-known Christian tales of heroic faith. This isn’t all bad as there’s a lot of inspiration to be found in these stories. But if you’ve done much reading or spent much time in Christian circles, I bet you’ll be familiar with many of the tales, which at least for me, this familiarity diminishes their power. Again, the problem isn’t that we don’t already know that people live radically. We’ve heard the stories. The problem is that we have a battle within us to do it ourselves, if we’re at least cognizant of Jesus’ demand on our lives. The problem is we’re just not sure if living radically is for us. For me. Platt is helpful on this point. He shows that if we claim to be Jesus’ followers, radical living is for us. It’s what we signed up for and exactly what Jesus demands. It’s time we read about Jesus in the Scriptures instead of crafting our own that fits well with the American dream. Platt’s convinced that “we as Christ followers in American churches have embraced values and ideas that are not only unbiblical but that actually contradict the gospel we claim to believe” (p. 3).

In all the personal stories Platt shares, I’m struck by the sheer number of mission trips this man has taken. It sounds like the man has been to every continent. The back of the book touts this gospel-centered wanderlust to bolster his credentials, but I’m not so awed. I don’t know the details of his trips, but painting them positive with “a passion for the nations” while calling for radical living that eschews extravagance and calls for sacrificial living/giving strikes me as as bit backwards. One need only consult the incredibly enlightening When Helping Hurts to see that short-term mission trips aren’t all they’re packaged to be.

Perhaps the most helpful portion of the book is the concluding chapter in which Platt outlines a plan for radicalizing your faith to leave behind the gospel-opposed cravings of the American dream. There are five parts to the yearlong “radical experiment.” Pray for the entire world. Read your Bible through. Sacrifice money for a specific purpose. Spend time in another context. And commit to a multiplying community. These steps are great and I really think anyone who gives this experiment a go will be blessed. I mean how could you not expect to be a more radical follower of Christ by praying with a global scope, saturating yourself in his word, sacrificing (not just giving), spending time where you normally wouldn’t and planting yourself in a church where disciples are made? You will grow and be blessed. Also, the best part about these steps is that they are exactly what we are commanded to do anyways. Platt isn’t telling us anything new. It may be a new idea to you–an experiment–but Platt recognizes that this is just how we who claim to be Christ’s followers are to live. Radically.

Should you read this book? Well, have you read the two I mentioned above or others like them? If so, I’d say no. Don’t be dazzled by the endorsements. You already know what to do. So, do it. Try out Platt’s radical experiment and do it. But, if this all seems new to you (radical faith in Jesus that is), then you should give this a read. It won’t take long and Platt really makes sure you realize that God and his gospel are central to the Christian life.

Update

I think there is some valuable criticism of the individualism the book propounds in this review.

“…Hebrews’ protological language in relation to Christ is largely metonymic; that is, Hebrews associates Christ with the creation of the world because the telos of the world is fulfilled in Christ’s establishment of God’s rule on earth as it is in heaven.”¹

Interesting to reason from a figure of speech: Christ associated with end-goal of world (telos) therefore also with its beginning.

(Sorry for the wordy, pretentious title.)

photo credit: loswl

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).

Jesus’ mission and message, like his person, are so closely tied to the Law and the Prophets that he reveals their intention, their end. Here at the close of the Sermon on the Mount, in what is so often characterized as the kernel of Jesus’ message, we find in close proximity the Law and the Prophets. His message is not to be divorced from them.

How often we remember the Golden Rule (although not often enough) but untether it from its old, old Mosiac moorings.

To be sure this “the Law and the Prophets” forms somewhat of an inclusio with his opening “the Law and the Prophets” inMatthew 5:17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

photo credit: Vaultboy

Consider:

You know his name wasn’t really Jesus Christ, right?

Jesus is just the Greek translation of Yeshua, which translates from Hebrew to Joshua.

But his name wasn’t Josh Christ, either, since his parents weren’t Joseph and Mary Christ.

So it’s really not blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ”, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.

Isn’t religion fun?

To be honest I felt giddy when I read the above. It’s perfect to blog. It involves linguistics and Jesus and it’s moronic; the first two I love, the last just makes good blog fodder. Why’s the above moronic?

The Third Commandment

“Do not take up the name of the Lord in vain” (Exodus 20:7). The argument above borrows whatever potency the author believed it to have from this, the third commandment found atExodus 20:7. Blasphemy seems to be the issue, but what exactly is blasphemy?

How about misuse or use for no purpose. Or, use as if it were nothing, thus “in vain.” Check out the use of the same word in Jeremiah:Jeremiah 2:30,Jeremiah 4:30,Jeremiah 6:29,Jeremiah 18:15,Jeremiah 46:11. You’ll gain a sense of what’s going on real quick.

It would be a mistake, however, to narrowly limit “taking the Lord’s name in vain,” as the above does, to a particular word (e.g., “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” in whatever language). “The ‘name’ of God stands for so much more than the mere pronouncing of his title of address. It includes (1) his nature, being, and very person . . . (2) his teaching or doctrine . . . and (3) his moral and ethical teaching.”¹

Thus, speaking irreverently about almost anything pertaining to God is easily considered blasphemy.  I shouldn’t need to provide examples, but the point is that blasphemy isn’t only blasphemy if and only if you utter the right word in the right language. Blasphemy encompasses the content of and the heart behind language.²

The Name of the Lord

The author concludes “So it’s really not blasphemy to say ‘Jesus Christ’, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.” The question then arises, Which name should one take in vain if one wanted to take “the right name in vain”?

Exodus 20:7 has shem yhwh or “the name of YHWH,” often translated into English as “the name of the Lord” instead of “the name of Yahweh” with YHWH as a proper name. Taking YHWH in vain can be a bit problematic though as the Hebrew text doesn’t preserve the original vowels for the divine name. According to the above argument then it should be impossible to take the Lord’s name in vain and thus blaspheme. But is that true?

Blasphemy in the Bible

One can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, who is God (Matthew 12:31).

Jesus was accused of blasphemy for affirming that he is the Christ, the Son of God because some believed he was lying (Matthew 26:63;John 10:31-39).

In the first case one needn’t know God’s name in the right language to blaspheme against him. In the second, Jesus didn’t even use God’s name, but was called a blasphemer.

Isn’t religion fun?

Shooting Down the Upshot

It’s true that Jesus’ name wasn’t the Anglo-Germanic word “Jesus” nor was “Christ” his parents’ surname. It’s anachronistic to even assume so.

Do we then conclude that it’s not really blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ” when we accidentally stub a toe? Absolutely not.

The name “Jesus Christ” is the English result of that long etymological history given above that represents the man profiled in the Bible. “Jesus Christ” is how we can talk about that God-man. Therefore to use it in vain is blasphemous.

Two Examples

If the above argument holds true, Muslims shouldn’t have been offended at the now famous Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed because, well, that’s not really the prophet Muhammad because in order for the cartoon to be idolatrous it would have to be correctly labeled in Arabic rather than in Danish.

Or, if blasphemy or defamation of character can only be done correctly if used in the right language, there’s no such thing as international libel. Americans shouldn’t be offended by what any nation says about them, if not said in English.

photo credit: I, Timmy

You must do
what you cannot do
with what you do not have
for the rest of your life.

But Jesus will do
what he can do
with what he does have
through you
for the rest of your life.

Quoted in Camper Mundy – Giving & Receiving (Mark 6:30-44) [MP3]

 
photo credit: krisdecurtis

We woke up yesterday and went to church here in Williamsburg where we’re vacationing for the week. I employed the best method possible in finding a solid, evangelical church to worship at on the Lord’s Day: the phone book. Flipping through, we had an extended list of almost every conceivable denomination. We decided that we wanted to do something a bit different and go to a service at a denomination of church that none of us had ever visited.

I was immediately partial to a Coptic Orthodox church, but my sister-in-law wasn’t so sure about the possibility of incense. I then suggested we go Presbyterian. Still, so many to choose from. Is it the PCA or PCUSA that are the more evangelical, missions-minded denomination? We went with a good orthodox sounding name:  Grace Covenant. We like grace and I’m interested in covenant theology. It seemed like a good fit.

Great service. I was struck by, and this is the main purpose of this post, the singing of carols after Christmas. All except for one of the songs sung yesterday morning were Christmas carols. They’re hymns nonetheless, but they’re primarily now known as Christmas carols.

Doesn’t it make all the sense in the world to sing most of our carols after Christmas rather than before? They tell of the newborn babe lying in a manger. If the purpose of Christmas is to re-live the advent of the Savior, then the month leading up to the Day should be spent reading prophecy and the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke, stopping short of the actual birth narratives. The songs sung should be sung to match. Instead, we sing of the Savior’s birth before we celebrate it happening. Yesterday morning, it was refreshing to reflect on the birth of Savior through Christmas carols after we had celebrated it–or should have–on Christmas Day.

There is so much theology packed into these carol-hymns. Check out the last verse of Hark, the Herald Angels Sing:

Adam’s likeness, Lord, efface,
Stamp Thine image in its place:
Second Adam from above,
Reinstate us in Thy love.
Let us Thee, though lost, regain,
Thee, the Life, the inner man:
O, to all Thyself impart,
Formed in each believing heart.

Let’s spend the month of January singing about the new-born King rather than jumping straight to Easter.

I’m not exactly sure why I like this photo so much. Something old, something new, but yet much in common? Book write books. Both love Jesus. Both can be a bit controversial (depending on who you are). Anyways, just sharing what I found intriguing. Check out the interview where at this photo was taken. Number one theological issue Packer said for younger evangelicals to study? Regeneration.

• New blog post: 2009-04-08 Tweets http://tinyurl.com/cr8jmh 00:22:44
• Amazing that drinking hot tea in the US is considered feminine, but iced is not 10:16:06
• Old woman in a motorized cart at Harris Teeter just blind-sided me while i was checking out. 12:14:53
• Why is it I’m wont to start to every tweet with the word ‘just’ 12:37:07
• Moo’s commentary on Romans sitting at my door when i got home: a thousand pages of sweet exegetical love 12:39:17
• @acts29 Received Vintage Jesus right in time for my birthday! A thousand thank-yous for the freebie! 14:30:21
• Emily’s trying to convince me that she once had a pet hamster named Samuel Whiskers who ate off his own leg. Tripod? 16:46:37

photo credit: mnadi

It’s not that you have a place “around the table” of Christianity, for there is no table. There’s a person, Jesus Christ. We don’t gather around, rally around, an abstract idea or a metaphorical table but a person. He is the what we gather and rally around. We should then ask ourselves whether we have a place around Jesus to discuss the things of Christianity, not whether we have a place at an abstract “table.”

Several semesters ago during the presidential forum at Southeastern (SEBTS) the question was asked of President Danny Akin whether Arminians had a place at the table of Southern Baptists. His response was to the effect that if you can affirm the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M), you have a seat around the Southern Baptist table. You see within the BF&M is contained the basics (and not so basics) of what it is to be a Southern Baptist and on many counts what it means generally to be a Christian. What Akin is driving at is if you cannot afirm along with those with whom you wish to fit in that which they affirm, you have no place around “the table.” A place at the table is contigent upon like affirmation.

So, to find out if you have “a place at the table of Christianity,” ask if you affirm the basic teaching(s) of Christianity: the gospel. I am a sinner in need of a savior. Jesus Christ is that savior. From there, there is much to learn as the whole of the Bible testifies to; but starting here, one gains a seat around Jesus Christ whom we love and worship. He’s the around-which we should be looking to gather.

It is with this understanding of Christianity that we can proceed to enjoy the multiethnic beauty of Christians that make up his body. One musn’t have completed seminary to have a voice. Neither must one be Caucasian, nor must one be non-Caucasian. You gather around him because you love him, and you there (read: at him) find others around him much (un-)like yourself. What this all means completely I’m not quite sure; but that’s OK. It’s a good place to re-orient one’s thinking to.

(Reading The Mission of God has inspired this post [Chapter 1]. Yes, you should own it. Thanks, JBA!)

Thursdays in the chapel services here at Southeastern we pray for North American missions, and today the gentleman who was asked to lead in prayer started by saying, “Sweet Jesus…”

I wouldn’t recommend starting this way given the cultural connotations.