I do, however, know that Makoto Fujimura is a highly regarded artist who also happens to be a Christian (an odd mix). Below is a video of Fujimura describing his latest project, an illustration of the four Gospels. The video not only describes this project but also explains some of Fujimura’s thoughts on contemporary art. One insightful comment made by Fujimura (one which extends beyond the visual arts) is that there is no short supply of depictions of “waywardness.” What is needed, however, is something to bring people “back home.”

Fujimura – 4 Holy Gospels from Crossway on Vimeo.

HT: Justin Taylor

Related posts:

1. Avatar and contemporary spirituality
2. Gabrielse named dean of College of Fine Arts at OBU
3. David Wells on uniqueness of contemporary culture

The Apostles follow suit. In the book of Acts, for example, after the Gospel has been presented, Peter and Paul routinely offer an invitation to “repent,” “believe,” or “repent and be baptized.” Although the response varies slightly, there is consistently a call to action that follows the proclamation of the Gospel.

While a declaration from God has always demanded a response, the invitation, or “walking the aisle,” is a fairly recent development. George Whitefield, the early 18th Century preacher, helped prepare the way for the altar call with his innovative preaching style. In contrast to the scripted and theologically dense sermons that marked Puritan preaching, Whitefield delivered a winsome and lively sermon that left his hearers spellbound. Whitefield’s appeal was more emotional, targeting the individual with the offer to be born-again. Whitefield’s persuasive preaching compelled people to respond. Even Benjamin Franklin, who disagreed theologically with Whitefield, could not help but empty his pockets of all his money thanks to a “stroke of (Whitefield’s) oratory.”

Historians Douglas Sweeney and Mark Rogers claim that Whitefield did not have altar calls and would have been clueless as to what one was. Whitefield’s sermons, however, do signal a turn in American preaching, a turn that would set the stage for the altar call.

It was the camp meetings of the early 1800s that gave birth to the altar call. These camp meetings, occurring in the backcountry of a young America, were often chaotic. One camp meeting observer describes a scene of hearers “agitated” by the power of God and “swelling and urging like the sea in a storm.” Eventually, the disorder marking these early camp meetings was calmed as preachers began to invite individuals to the altar in a more systematic way. The goal was to have a way of tracking those responding to the preacher’s message.

It was Charles Grandison Finney who masterfully engineered and dignified what had been a fairly crude invitation system. Finney came to faith in 1821 and quickly became a successful, yet unconventional, Presbyterian preacher. For Finney, the formula for a successful revival was as simple as getting wheat to grow; provide proper soil, sunlight and water, and success will follow. Mark A. Noll explains Finney’s logic by saying, “Since God had established reliable laws in the natural world and since humans were created with the ability to discern those laws, it was obvious that the spiritual world worked on the same basis.”

According to Finney, one of the ingredients for a successful revival was the “anxious bench.” This bench was reserved at the front of the church for any respondents who would come forward for individual counsel and prayer. Finney’s method of inviting congregants to the front in response to the sermon stuck, becoming standard practice for many American evangelicals.

Consider D.L. Moody, the late 19th Century evangelist who regularly called individuals to the altar following his sermons. If Finney saw the altar call as a tool to bring about salvation, Moody was quick to point out that only the Spirit awakens sinners, and the individual’s trip to the altar is simply a sign marking one’s salvation.

As one moves into the 20th Century, it was the “Billys” who used the altar call with great success. While playing baseball for the Chicago White Stockings, Billy Sunday attended a church service that would profoundly impact his life and, through his extensive preaching, the lives of many others. Upon hearing the invitation to respond to the Gospel, Sunday went forward. Lyle Dorsett describes it this way: “Those legs that stepped into the batter’s box with confidence and sped down the baselines with breath-taking speed and abandon were now unsteady—moving with the tentative deliberation of a frightened man unsure of his journey and destiny.”

After stumbling over some chairs, nervous Sunday made his way to the front. In contrast to his walk to the altar, Sunday’s preaching was unwavering, and the altar call was a regular part of this early 20th Century preacher’s strategy.

Billy Graham, thanks to his use of a new medium, television, has reached countless individuals worldwide with the Gospel. One of the characteristics of Graham’s evangelism has been the waves of individuals making their way forward in response to his preaching. R. Alan Street has noted that Graham’s invitation has evolved. Originally, Graham’s call was progressive. He would ask for attendees to close their eyes and bow their heads. Then Graham would ask individuals, with heads bowed and eyes closed, to raise their hands if they had accepted Jesus. Those who raised their hands were asked to proceed to the front.

According to Street, Graham eventually dropped the raising of hands request and simply had individuals come forward as heads were bowed. During the mid 1960s, Graham trimmed his invitation even more, giving only a one-step command; he simply asked individuals to come forward.

There are signs that the altar call that has played such an influential role in American Christianity is falling out of favor with some evangelicals, especially younger ones. Brett McCracken, author of Hipster Christianity, describes a younger generation of evangelicals that “cringe at the thought of an altar call.” For those disagreeing with this evangelical practice, the altar call is considered manipulative and tends to be fraught with bait-and-switch tactics. Although it is uncertain what will become of this evangelical practice, the altar call has undoubtedly left an indelible mark on American evangelicalism.

Casey Shutt is a special correspondent for the Baptist Messenger.

Related posts:

1. Heart of invitation has three-fold purpose
2. Invitation opportunity to respond accordingly
3. Giving a good invitation

There are certain themes that weave their way through the Bible. Consider light and darkness. From the opening of Genesis there is a formless, empty and dark Earth. Then God’s word pierces the darkness: “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3). As Scripture unfolds, the theme of light and darkness takes on richer meaning.

For example, when the Hebrews leave their enslavement in Egypt, they are led by a “pillar of fire” during the night hours (Exodus 13:21). This light served as a saving guide and was emblematic of God’s presence. In the Psalms, God’s Word is likened to a lamp directing one’s steps (Psalm 119:105). Not only does light direct, but it also seems to draw, as in the case of Isaiah’s description of the nations being drawn to the light of God (Isaiah 60:1-4). In these texts, God’s light guides, is saving and magnetic and represents His presence.

Perhaps another way to understand the biblical idea of light is to consider what is meant by light’s absence—darkness. The unrighteous are said to “walk in the ways of darkness,” groping and stumbling their way through life (Proverbs 2:13; 4:19). If God’s word is a lamp to one’s feet, then it only makes sense that without it, one ceaselessly totters and trips about. It is a small surprise, then, that Micah describes God’s withdrawal of his Word as a time of great darkness: “it shall be night to you, without vision, and darkness to you, without divination. The sun shall go down on the prophets, and the day shall be black over them” (Micah 3:6). Micah is anticipating what is often referred to as the 400 years of silence. This is the roughly 400-year period between the Old and New Testaments when no books of the Bible were written (this is when the Apocrypha was written). It was a time described as “night,” “dark,” “black” and without sun precisely because God’s Word had been retracted from the world.

Aside from the occasional “bah” of the sheep, it must have been quiet, and it most certainly was dark that night when angels, in their glowing brightness, appear before the shepherds. The nighttime timing could not have been more fitting, for the world was in a thick and weighty spiritual darkness. Struggling to see beyond the radiance of the angels, the shepherds learn that “the light of the world” (John 8:12) had arrived.

Matthew (drawing upon Isaiah) describes the beginnings of Jesus’ ministry as light dawning (Matthew 4:16). This is probably an allusion to the nativity star and its symbolism. And Luke points out the worldwide significance of this light entering the world. After all, this Messiah would be a “light of revelation to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32). To be sure, Mary, Joseph and the animals experienced something of profound significance when Jesus was born! Just as the first creation was marked by light piercing darkness, so the beginnings of the new creation would be marked by the light of the world piercing darkness. Lux venit! Our light has come!

What’s more, Jesus began to call His followers light (Matthew 5:14) and, as John would point out, walking in the light points to one’s rootedness in Him (1 John 1:7). Although Jesus’ followers may often feel as faint flickers of light dwarfed by darkness, a time is coming when darkness will drown in the rays of God’s glory. John describes the New Jerusalem as having no need of sun or moon, thanks to the glory of God that illuminates the world. Whereas the Bible begins with a formless, empty and dark Earth, it moves to an orderly and bright New Jerusalem that is marked by universal flourishing. This dramatic turn of events all pivots upon the light of the world crying in a manger.

Casey S. Shutt is senior writer
for the Baptist Messenger.

Related posts:

1. Perspective: Joy comes in the morning
2. Guest Editorial: Small is the Kingdom
3. Guest Editorial: Super Bowl commercials embarrassing

Complementing a fairly lackluster commitment to Sunday worship are Brad’s beliefs. He believes in the Rapture, going to Heaven, but “I am not sure what else,” he says. Continuing, Brad confesses, “I believe that there is a God and if we’re saved by him, that sort of stuff.” Aside from these initial commitments, Brad seems to pick and choose much of his belief system.

Brad represents just one of the many emerging adults (18-29 year olds) studied in Christian Smith’s latest, Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. This same generation was investigated earlier in a previous book by Smith titled Soul Searching.

In Soul Searching, Smith found that most teens adhere to “ Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” (MTD). MTD affirms that there is a God who has created things and continues to sustain that creation. This God wants people to be good and nice to others. For MTD, the primary goal is happiness and a rock-solid self-esteem. Aside from assisting the individual through difficult times, God is fairly removed from human affairs. And finally, MTD believes that good people will eventually end up in Heaven.

MTD is, Smith says, a “parasitic faith,” meaning that MTD cannot sustain itself, but must attach to other more established faiths. And this parasite appears to have latched on to evangelicalism. Smith notes that many (not all) evangelical teens have embraced MTD, a belief system with obvious divergences from a classical Christian worldview.

The Source of the Problem

The problem here is a theological one. Beginning in the 1940s and 50s there was a concerted, transatlantic effort to amend the defensive posture of conservative Protestantism, or fundamentalism, in American culture. Under the leadership of figures like Carl Henry, Billy Graham, John Stott and Harold Ockenga, fundamentalists re-engaged society and did so under a new name, neo-evangelicalism. Their strategy was primarily intellectual, centering on the creation and cultivation of institutions (like Fuller Seminary and Gordon-Conwell Seminary) and publications (like Christianity Today).

The movement enjoyed a surprising amount of success. Fundamentalists went from being perceived as rural, country bumpkins irrelevant to public life to gaining some measure of prominence and seen as, at the very least, a substantial political force. Indicative of this newfound success was the Newsweek issue that hailed 1976 as “the year of the evangelical.” As the 1970s gave way to the 1980s and 90s, evangelicalism appears to have conceded in many ways to culture.

Being relevant became the overreaching goal. And with a less than astute understanding of culture and cultural change, many evangelicals began to accommodate to contemporary culture. Such accommodation, while producing impressive numbers, has produced little depth as suggested by the comments of Brad and the theologies of many evangelical youth. Even worse, evangelicals have filled the theological vacuum inherited from many churches with assumptions about God derived from contemporary culture.

Southern Baptists and Evangelicalism

Southern Baptists, thanks to their size, have remained somewhat insulated from many evangelical organizations, agencies and other institutions. And many Southern Baptists would like to refute any hint that the denomination is evangelical. This sentiment was captured by Foy D. Valentine, former executive secretary of the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Valentine said sharply, evangelicalism is “a Yankee word.” To be sure, Southern Baptists, because of their size and resources, are uniquely situated in the Christian landscape, nonetheless they share many features with evangelicalism at large. And cross pollination between the two bodies seems to be increasing.

It may be that these problems within evangelicalism exist in Southern Baptist life as well. There has been much discussion this past year regarding the state of the denomination and proposals to solve its problems. Perhaps our problems are less about saving souls (measured by declining baptisms) and more about sanctifying saved souls. Maybe a large portion of Southern Baptists are like Brad and can only articulate a few fragmented ideas about Christianity, and are living out of step with the Gospel.

The antidote to this problem would be better gospel preaching to Southern Baptists themselves. By allowing the Gospel to be preached in all its sanctifying power, churches would solve the evangelism problem thanks to a new longing to spread that Gospel. This is because the Gospel becomes the congregant’s lifeline and craving. Week by week, individuals feel as though they desperately crawl into the sanctuary for a revitalizing dose of the Gospel. As believers are nurtured by the Gospel, they grow in Christ and cannot help but share him.

Moreover, the Church becomes the radical, alternative community that it is intended to be. And people are drawn, not because the church experience is like their everyday experience (which is often the strategy of churches seeking to draw in non-believers), but precisely because it is unlike it.

Casey Shutt is a senior writer
for the Baptist Messenger.

Related posts:

1. Guest Editorial: Representative response to Whitt
2. Guest Editorial: Coming Evangelical Collapse
3. GUEST EDITORIAL: Helping Southern Baptists win the lost

Shedding light on the matter, sociologist Peter Berger explains the way society or culture impacts us, both corporately and individually, by employing a three-pronged dialectic: externalization, objectivation, and internalization. For Berger, externalization is the process whereby individuals create through both mental and physical labor. Having been created, things become distinct from the producer and begin to take on a life of their own (objectivation). It is at this point that they are used by individuals and begin to force their logic on the user (internalization)(for more on this see Berger’s The Sacred Canopy). The thing produced has a way of shaping the user’s mind. Someone has said that to a man with a hammer, everything becomes a nail. This gets at the idea. The tools we use shape the way we think. Here is another example: I have a TiVo which I love. Fast-forwarding and rewinding are my most proficient skills. Oddly enough, I often find myself wanting to rewind reality now that I have a become a sharpshooter with the remote (too much TV?). This is just one example of the way our tools (be it hammer or TiVo) impact our consciousness.

So what do we do with this? I think it is helpful in diagnosing problems we might otherwise overlook. For example, a content-only Christian mind might be elated that pornography is in no way included in their web-surfing; This Christian is occupied with other, safer waves. What is neglected, though, is the massive amount of time spent on the web and the impact this has on their mental habits. Perhaps the disjointed nature of the web is creating difficulty in maintaining long, sustained meditation or reflection on a particular subject. David Lyon has said that the Internet’s openness and fluidity erodes authority structures because “it knows no priorities, respects no precedents, promotes no principles” (Jesus in Disneyland, 67). Maybe the Internet has bolstered this Christian’s sense of autonomy, empowerment, and self-sufficiency by undermining any outside authority. This would impact the way they relate to God and neighbor. Finally, the Internet’s bias toward efficient communication could conceivably hamper this Christian’s non-web-based communication. Their mind, saturated by the web, might be producing soggy communication and words.

This is not to say that the Internet should be avoided altogether (this is a blog after all). What I am suggesting is that Christian critique and concern extend beyond content to include form as well.

In addition to the books mentioned above, another book that has helped me on this issue is All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes, by Ken Myers.

Related posts:

1. Language and the pulpit/ministry
2. Are you reading?
3. 1995 prediction on Internet

For other Christians, Calvin’s contribution has been a blessing to the Church. God’s sovereign choice in salvation is a deathblow to self-righteousness. God’s unilateral resuscitation of the dead sinner magnifies grace, making the desire to proclaim the mercies of God to unbelievers irresistible. For these Christians, rather than being unfair and cruel, God’s ways are unsearchable and profound.

Curiously, a growing number of younger Christians are resonating with Calvin’s thought. In Young, Restless, Reformed, journalist Collin Hansen describes this swelling interest in Calvinism, especially among younger Christians. Even Time magazine recognized “The New Calvinism” as one of ten ideas currently changing the world. This Time story mentioned the likes of Mark Driscoll, Albert Mohler, and John Piper as key leaders in the movement.

Piper in particular has played a large role in popularizing this movement. In addition to his prolific writing, popular sermons, and other resources available at his website desiringgod.org, Piper’s annual Desiring God conference is a symbol of this renewed interest in Calvin’s thought. This year’s conference, which drew more than 3,000 attendees and centered upon cultivating the life of the mind, came with a cloud of controversy and confusion surrounding it. The controversy centered upon the selection of Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, as a keynote speaker. This choice lit up the blogosphere sparking a video response from Piper defending his selecting Warren. While many Piper followers were disappointed and even angry about Warren speaking at the conference, for most the reaction seemed to be a mix of confusion and intrigue.

Because of a family emergency Warren was not actually there but was able to present his message via video. As the attendees waited to hear from Warren there was a mood of excitement in the building. What was this influential and widely known Christian going to say?

After a minor technological glitch, Warren’s message commenced. He began by reminding attendees that there is a war taking place. This war is the battle for one’s most important asset, their mind. The individual’s mind is severely handicapped. It is opposed to God. Warren spent the bulk of the talk delivering principles for helping Christians win this battle of the mind. In closing, Warren provided the acrostic T.H.I.N.K. which called upon Christians to Test every thought, Helmet your head, Imagine great thoughts, Nourish a godly mind, and Keep on learning. In all, Warren communicated a clear, digestible lesson that garnered warm approval from Piper and other speakers at the event.

There is a question worth pursuing in all this. Might Piper’s choice of Warren and the subsequent outcry point to something about this resurgent Calvinism? For many of these Calvinist-leaning Christians, Warren represents the antithesis of their vision of ministry. Warren is pragmatic and programmatic. Warren is not theologically driven, but methodologically driven. In contrast to the sharp edges of Calvinist theology, Warren’s theology seems softer, garnering mass appeal as evidenced by his wildly successful The Purpose-Driven Life, which is said to have sold more copies than any other hardback book in American history.

Many of these young Reformed pastors are turned off by the whiff of anything programmatic. Programs and predictability dominated many of their experiences growing up in church and they want to shed those things. Instead, many of these pastors are interested in being rooted in the past, reading old theologians, singing old hymns (although often to new tunes), participating in old practices (like catechesis and the recitation of creeds). Many of these young pastors would like to think that God’s incomprehensibility makes “church-growth” techniques seem naïve.

Whatever is fueling this increase among Reformed types, one can be sure they pepper many Oklahoma Baptist pews. In fact, while at the conference I saw a handful of Oklahoma pastors and congregants who had made the 800 mile journey to Minneapolis.

Related posts:

1. Guest Editorial: Young, Southern Baptist and…irrelevant?
2. “Brothers, we are not professionals”
3. Missional Ministry Conference focuses on young adults

Burlap to Cashmere from electrolite films on Vimeo.

Related posts:

1. That’s Easter: Life to Death
2. That’s Easter: Death to Life!
3. Matt Chandler on Gospel Realignment and Cancer

Related posts:

1. Christianity and Yoga
2. The End of Christianity
3. Cutting – cool or carnal?

This ABC inclination may be especially alive in the hallowed halls of academia.

Consider this story from Timothy Larsen:

John had been a straight-A student until he enrolled in English writing. The assignment was an “opinion” piece and the required theme was “traditional marriage.” John is a Southern Baptist and he felt it was his duty to give his honest opinion and explain how it was grounded in his faith. The professor was annoyed that John claimed the support of the Bible for his views, scribbling in the margin, “Which Bible would that be?” On the very same page, John’s phrase, “Christians who read the Bible,” provoked the same retort, “Would that be the Aramaic Bible, the Greek Bible, or the Hebrew Bible?” (What could the point of this be? Did the professor want John to imagine that while the Greek text might support his view of traditional marriage, the Aramaic version did not?) The paper was rejected as a “sermon,” and given an F, with the words, “I reject your dogmatism,” written at the bottom by way of explanation.”

Thereafter, John could never get better than a C for papers without any marked errors or corrections. When he asked for a reason why yet another grade was so poor he was told that it was inappropriate to quote C. S. Lewis in work for an English class because he was “a pastor.” (Lewis, of course, was actually an English professor at Cambridge University. Perhaps it was wrong to quote Lewis simply because he had said something recognizably Christian.) Eventually John complained to the department chair, who said curtly that he could do nothing until the course was over. John took this to mean that the chair would do nothing and just accepted the bad grade.” (from “No Christianity, Please, We’re Academics” in Inside Higher Ed)

Read the whole thing. The comments are worth browsing as well.

Related posts:

1. Guest editorial: Twilight: Christian parents better teachers
2. A Christian Response to the Normalization of Homosexuality?
3. Son as sun

All these problems have raised suspicion in the minds of many individuals toward the trustworthiness of institutions.  According to Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow, when individuals no longer trust the major institutions that engulf them, they tend to turn inward.  The self has a way of shouldering the existential load that this state of affairs produces.  In order to do so with confidence, the self must be emboldened with confidence, perhaps even become divine.  This has led to the popular self movement which has infused the individual with an almost divine status. It appears that the divine is drifting.

According to evangelical theologian David Wells, the self movement has spawned its own “gospel” that is antithetical to the Christian Gospel.  This gospel that is prevalent in contemporary culture begins “from below,” Wells believes.  In other words, the way of salvation for many today is something that starts with the individual who must embark on a journey of self-fulfillment and realization so that they might “find themselves” and be saved.

This salvation model could not be further from the Christian Gospel.  The Christian Gospel, by contrast, begins “from above” with a gracious God-man, namely Jesus Christ, entering a dying and helpless world in order to resuscitate it through his work on the cross.  The individual is completely impotent in gaining salvation apart from Jesus.

With this competing gospel that contemporary society has birthed, Christians are tempted to subtly tailor the Christian Gospel in an effort to make it cohere with society’s false gospel that centers on the self.  For example, Christians may stress self-fulfillment as the purpose of Jesus’ work, neglecting the more fundamental aspect of satisfying God’s wrath toward sin.  In this way, as Wells has pointed out, Christians might stress the effects of the Gospel (e.g. a fulfilled life, or as Jesus puts it, “abundant life”) without ever explaining the actual Gospel itself (e.g. that Christ has died to save sinners).

Or, Christians may tend to think of the Gospel in terms of the therapeutic benefits that it bestows upon its recipients, failing to remember that Gospel-bearers are also cross-bearers that will undergo suffering.  With all the optimism toward the self that contemporary society produces, Christians may have a hard time believing that suffering could be the very means God is using to strip the Christian of their sin.  Under such circumstances, the good news of Jesus morphs into something that lacks the explanatory range to absorb a reality of life like suffering.  Individuals are left without the tools and resources in order to make sense of a fundamental aspect of their life.

Not only that, but if sin is slighted because of its offensiveness to contemporary sensibilities then the love of God is not understood.  After all, God’s love is great precisely because He loves woeful sinners.  A change in the doctrine of sin could leave Christians ill-equipped to contemplate the “breadth and length and height and depth” of Christ’s love (Eph 3.17-19).

Related posts:

1. On the divine drift
2. An (Adjusted) Gospel is a False Gospel
3. Avatar and contemporary spirituality