What would Jesus say about your church? Good thoughts here from Tim Gombis. Jesus probably wouldn’t criticize your church the way you want him to or embrace your causes, but instead encourage you to love the body as he does.
To whom much is given? G.E. Veith takes a look at an unfortunate comment from our president at a recent Prayer Breakfast.
Linsanity. Sports in New York City is, like everything else there, famously diverse—with all the teams to choose from New Yorkers tend to not agree on anything. The unexpected success of Jeremy Lin has excited just about everyone, however. He’s not only the first second-generation Asian-American NBA player ever, he’s also a Harvard graduate and an outspoken Christian (and not in just the generic Tebowian sense—his favorite books list includes John Stott, C.J. Maheney, and John Piper).
New York Times investigative reporter Michael Luo shares Lin’s ethnic heritage, Christian convictions, and Harvard education and reflected on it all in a weekend column.
Historical Adam. Discussion over interpretation of Gen. 1-3 has again emerged to the forefront of the evangelical landscape, thanks in large measure to claims from Christian biologist Dennis Venema that recent genetic research indicates that “there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple.”* Even NPR took notice.
There’s been a lot of back-and-forth on the blogosphere since this story came out last August, but I won’t take the time to reference it all. Instead, look at this—Kevin DeYoung offered “Ten Reasons to Believe in the Historical Adam” at The Gospel Coalition last week, whereupon James F. McGrath countered with an enlightening response—”Ten Really Bad Reasons to Believe in the Historical Adam.”
This interaction gives a pretty accurate cross-section into the meat of the debate, I think. The fundamental issues here are how scientific knowledge and biblical knowledge should interact (perhaps as one put it: general revelation and special revelation), and whether inerrancy really matters.** I’m solidly with DeYoung here—I think McGrath too quickly jettisons the attestations of Luke, Paul, and Jesus—but the discussion is important to those of us who are serious about rightly understanding the Bible and applying it to our contemporary context. There’s a lot more to be said about science and the Bible, but I’ll leave it there for now.
*I apologize for linking to an article clearly biased against Venema’s position. I was looking for a more objective source, but alas.
**If the biblical writers thought Adam was a real person (and I think they clearly do—cf. I Chronicles 1, Luke 3, Romans 5) then it seems you have to either accept their account or argue that they were “men of their time” and read the OT wrongly. If you adopt the latter position, inerrancy’s dead, obviously.