A Tale of Two Student Protests
Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Friday, March 24, 2023
The difference between my protesters and those berating Judge Duncan is this: Mine had not lost sight of the fact that they and I both share a common humanity. Nor had they lost sight of the purpose of public discourse: to persuade opponents to change their views for the better, not to terrify them into silence. Why has this become such a rarity in our modern world? One argument is that we have coddled the younger generation and made them incapable of handling any views with which they disagree.
Many First Things readers are no doubt sadly aware of the disgusting treatment of federal judge Kyle Duncan at Stanford Law School last week. Duncan was visiting campus to give a lecture sponsored by the Stanford Federalist Society. But his talk was disrupted by students who heckled him for his rulings on LGBT issues. Not only was Duncan subject to the now-traditional vile personal abuse from the pampered students who inhabit the lecture rooms of the nation’s most elite institutions, he was also treated to a lecture by the dean of diversity, equity, and inclusion (who else?) on what an evil person he is. While Stanford’s president has since apologized, it remains to be seen if the apology for allowing behavior inconsistent with the school’s policies will lead to the obvious consequence: the firing of the DEI dean for her own bizarre rant. If a senior administrator who so clearly undermines school policy is allowed to continue in office, the apology is meaningless.
Student protests and threats to speakers are not a new thing. There were student strikes at the universities of Oxford and Paris in the thirteenth century. Martin Luther, arriving in Leipzig to debate John Eck in 1519, surrounded himself with an armed cortège of Wittenberg students, anticipating trouble (or perhaps hoping to precipitate such) with the locals. Nineteenth-century Russia witnessed a surge in student radicalism. Dostoevsky’s The Devils provides a literary portrait of such, and the close connection between the term “intelligentsia” and revolutionary politics reflects this period. 1968 was not so much a novelty as a particularly intense example of a tradition. What Judge Duncan experienced at Stanford, while disgusting, is no innovation.
Yet protests do not always need to be obnoxious, like the one at Stanford. Some weeks ago I was myself subject to a protest while speaking at another college. The protesters, upset at my views on LGBT and Pride issues, organized opposition to my presence. But this group was different from the Stanford mob. My protesters attended my lecture, listened politely and even laughed at my jokes, asked some good questions, and then at the end left the lecture theater to hold a gathering elsewhere on campus. At no point did I feel disrespected as a human being. Far from it.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Decent and Orderly Corporate Worship
Corporate worship is corporate worship, not individual worship. Corporate worship is for believers, not unbelievers. Corporate worship has the primary purpose of edification, not merely expression. Corporate worship accomplishes edification through order, not disorder. Corporate worship should be biblically-regulated, not unregulated. And if we do follow these principles as we approach our corporate worship as a church, then our relationship with God will be properly formed and shaped according to his designs and his Word.
Our church’s worship is pretty formal, but I prefer Holy Spirit-led worship.” Such was the comment I overheard recently by a young evangelical describing his church’s worship service, illustrating a very common perception by many evangelicals today—if the Holy Spirit actively works in worship, the results will be something extraordinary, an experience “quenched” by too much form and order. A common perception, to be sure, but how grounded in Scripture is this expectation concerning the nature and purpose of corporate worship?
My goal in this essay is to assess this common expectation, measuring it against what is perhaps the single most important text in the New Testament regarding the nature and purpose of corporate worship. In fact, 1 Corinthians 14 is really the only chapter in the New Testament that gives direct and specific focus to the subject of corporate worship.
However, Paul addresses the subject of corporate worship not exactly directly, but rather indirectly by addressing a problem within the Corinthian church. But in addressing that problem, Paul highlights the central nature and purpose of corporate worship in cultivating our relationship with God.
Corporate Worship Context
Paul’s argument is essentially that the believers in the Corinthian church should desire the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues. Notice what he says in verse 5: “
5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
And again in verse 19:
19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
But notice that the context of the discussion in this chapter is “in church” (v. 19), “when you come together” (v. 26); that is, the context is specifically corporate gatherings of the church. But the specific focus is on the use of such gifts in the context of “coming together” within the gatherings of the church.
So, what the chapter teaches about the primacy of prophecy over tongues within church gatherings provides broader principles for the nature of corporate worship. In other words, the reasons Paul gives for why the Corinthian believers should desire prophecy over tongues in corporate worship help us to understand better the nature and purpose of corporate worship.
Tongues vs. Prophecy
But in order to do that, we need to grasp what, exactly, these gifts were. First, what is prophecy?
To prophesy is to speak the very words of God. Sometimes those words are predictive; more often those words are instructive or exhortative. But no matter the content, prophecy is the delivery of direct, divine revelation to the degree that one who prophesies can always unequivocally say, “Thus says the Lord.”
The gift of tongues is the ability to speak in known languages that the speaker himself does not know. And the content of the speech here in Acts 2 is important for our purposes as well: verse 11 tells us that they were speaking “the mighty works of God.” This is speech that brought praise to God, and it was speech in a known language, but one that the speakers themselves had never learned.
The purpose of the gift was as a sign to the Jews that God was shifting his focus away from them for a time and toward the Gentile nations.
There is, of course, debate over whether these gifts of tongues and prophecy continue today or whether they have ceased. Although I will not be able to offer a complete defense in this message, I will just note that the historically held view through the entirety of the church’s history until the nineteenth century is that that these spiritual gifts have ceased.
But This understanding of the gifts in Corinth sheds some light on why Paul would tell the Corinthian believers to prefer prophecy over tongues. Remember, Paul is specifically focusing on corporate worship, and therefore his insistence that tongues is less desirable than prophecy reveals to us some important principles about corporate worship.
The Nature and Purpose of Corporate Worship
So, Paul’s central argument in at least the first half of 1 Corinthians 14 is that for corporate worship, the gift of prophecy—divine revelation from God—is more desirable than the gift of tongues—a sign meant for unbelievers in the form of speaking praise to God in a known language but one not known by anyone in the congregation. This very central argument implies some key principles about the nature and purpose of corporate worship gatherings.
Corporate, Not Individual
First, corporate worship is corporate worship, not individual worship. This is the essential difference between tongues and prophecy: tongues is individual expression toward God, while prophecy has corporate benefit.
Notice how Paul describes the purpose of tongues in verse 2:
2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
We saw this in the book of Acts—the content of tongues was praise toward God. Now in the case of Pentecost there were people from various nations present who could understand the specific dialects, but if someone spoke in another dialect within a corporate worship service in the church at Corinth, no one in the congregation would have been able to understand what was being said.
Instead, verse 4:
4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
The whole rest of the section highlights the personal and individual nature of the gift of tongues. If someone speaks in a language that no one else in the congregation knows, he might bring individual praise to God, and he might have a legitimate individual experience with God that builds up himself, but he is of no benefit to the congregation as a whole. That would be like if someone came into our service this morning and started praising the Lord in Russian. That person might be genuinely worshiping the Lord, but it would be individual worship, not corporate worship. Paul is emphasizing the importance of the corporate nature of a church service here.
Prophecy, on the other hand, is a gift that edifies the entire congregation. Paul states this clearly in verse 3:
3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.
And again in verse 4:
4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
When the revelation of God is clearly proclaimed to God’s people in words they can understand, that builds up the church, which emphasizes the importance of recognizing the corporate nature of public worship. This is not to say that individual expression is always inappropriate—as Paul says in verse 5, if there is an interpreter, then tongues speaking can be edifying to all. In other words, if there is individual expression in corporate worship, it must be such that has corporate benefit.
Paul’s emphasis here runs contrary to a common way of thinking that has become prevalent in evangelicalism today, even among those who have in a sense recovered a God-centered focus to corporate worship, in which the purpose of the worship service is assumed to be for individuals to have a personal experience with God. Individual praise to God and self-edification are good, but when we gather as the church, our focus should be corporate, not individual.
When you come to corporate worship, are you just expecting to have an individual experience with God, or are you concerned about the whole body? Corporate worship is not the time to close your eyes and simply focus on God alone. Corporate worship is the time to open your eyes, look around, and join with the whole body in worshiping the Lord.
Believers, Not Unbelievers
Second, corporate worship is for believers, not unbelievers. Notice in verse 22 where Paul says that tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers.
22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.
As we see in Acts, God gave the sign of tongues in order to help first Jewish unbelievers, then Gentiles within Israel, and then Gentiles outside Israel recognize that anyone who believed in the name of the Lord would be saved. But the purpose of the corporate gatherings of the church is not primarily to bring unbelievers to faith in Christ; corporate worship is first and foremost a gathering of Christians, which is another reason Paul emphasized the superiority of prophecy—a gift of benefit for believers—over tongues in corporate worship.
This is not at all to downplay the importance of evangelism for the church. Indeed, part of what it means to fulfill the Great Commission is to preach the gospel to every living creature. But evangelism should happen primarily as we go out into the world; when we gather as the church, we are gathering as believers.
Read More
Related Posts: -
How “Woke Theology” is Weakening the Black Church
But, alas, I find what many term “social gospel” to be somewhat prohibitive to that end in that it relegates the central message of the gospel, namely, deliverance from the spiritual bondage of sin through faith in the propitiatory and substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ as secondary to a temporal “deliverance” defined primarily in terms of the socio-economic empowerment of black people (also known as ‘black power‘) and the embracement and affirmation, particularly by white people, of black social and cultural normativity.
The business of Christianity is not simply to make us feel happier or even to make us live a better life, it is to reconcile us to God.– D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
There is a movement afoot, particularly within black evangelical circles, to extol, if not exalt, social justice as the raison d’etre, that is, the most important reason and purpose for the existence of the church today.
I say “particularly” because the aforementioned movement is not restricted only to the realm of black evangelicalism. The truth is there are also certain elements within white evangelicalism which, being motivated to some extent by a collective acquiescence to the idea of “white guilt,“ have attached themselves to this movement like a caboose to a locomotive.
The problem with movements, however, is they invariably beget labels (e.g. “social gospel”, “liberation theology”, etc.). And labels tend to subtly, though eventually, reorient our focus from that which is of utmost importance, namely, the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world, to an ethno-centric “gospel” constructed from a collective worldview espoused by “woke” theologians and philosophers who are considered by many to be the most socially and culturally aware on matters of social and liberative justice.
Again, this mindset is not exclusive to black evangelicalism, and yet it is within that milieu that this movement, I believe, is doing the most harm.
I make that statement neither lightly nor disparagingly. I was raised in the Black Church. The affinity I have for its history and traditions is borne not only from education but experience. I appreciate the invaluable sacrifices and contributions to black ecclesiology of figures like Absalom Jones, Morris Brown, Jarena Lee, John Marrant, Betsey Stockton, Henry Garnet, and Richard Allen.
I spent half my life, into my early 20s, as a member of Chapel Hill Missionary Baptist Church, located in Atlanta’s West End in the shadows of such venerable HBCUs as Morehouse, Spelman, Clark-Atlanta, and Morris Brown, where I worshiped alongside many family members and friends to the music of black gospel stalwarts as Walter and Edwin Hawkins. In fact, to this very day, the Hawkins-penned Changed, a powerful testimonial of spiritual redemption in Christ, remains one of my all-time favorite gospel songs.
It was at Chapel Hill that I witnessed people of all ages “catch the Spirit” during high points of what often seemed unending worship services. It was at Chapel Hill that I watched royally accoutered choirs march slowly into the sanctuary to the uplifting refrains of ‘We Are Soldiers In The Army‘. It was at Chapel Hill that I passed those faux gold-plated offering plates – you know the ones – with the red crushed-velvet matting, to congregants sitting next to me in pews that, likewise, were fashioned with red crushed-velvet padding as if to match the aesthetics of the offering plates.
It was at that small church on Northside Drive that, Sunday after Sunday, I listened to the verbum Dei, the Word of God, preached – from the King James version of course – from behind an old wooden lectern with the letters ‘IHS’ engraved on the front. And it was at Chapel Hill Missionary Baptist Church that “the doors of the church” were always open, inviting sinners like me to step out from those crushed-velvet cushioned pews, walk that red-carpeted aisle, sit down in the lone wooden chair placed front-and-center of the sanctuary by a white-gloved deacon or deaconess, and “get saved” as it were.
All this to say that there is nothing about the so-called “Black Church experience” to which I cannot personally relate. Which is why, though I am Reformed – and, thankfully, Reformed theology is slowly but steadily gaining exposure within contemporary black evangelicalism – there will always be a place in my heart for the Black Church and, likewise, an equally heartfelt desire to see a recovery of biblical orthodoxy as its primary raison d’etre.
But, alas, I find what many term “social gospel” to be somewhat prohibitive to that end in that it relegates the central message of the gospel, namely, deliverance from the spiritual bondage of sin through faith in the propitiatory and substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ as secondary to a temporal “deliverance” defined primarily in terms of the socio-economic empowerment of black people (also known as ‘black power‘) and the embracement and affirmation, particularly by white people, of black social and cultural normativity.
It is an ideology that is more anthropocentric (man-centered) than theocentric (God-centered). As Dr. James H. Cone, whom many regard as the founder of black liberation theology, explains:
“Black Theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievement of black humanity. Black Theology is a theology of “blackness”. It is the affirmation of black community that emancipates black people from white racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both white and black people. It affirms the humanity of white people in that it says no to the encroachment of white oppression.” – Black Theology: A Documentary History, Volume 1: 1966-1979
Read More
Related Posts: -
I’m Not What I Feel
Written by Rev. Aaron Vriesman |
Wednesday, May 3, 2023
Mental health affects faith and how we relate to God. Depression can open a new way to connect with the man of sorrows who was familiar with suffering (Is. 53:3), or it can build resentment and rejection of the sovereign God who would allow such a cursed affliction. Choose the former to avoid the latter.It is written that if we must boast that we boast in our weaknesses (2 Cor. 11:30). Here goes. Clinical depression has been my reality for at least 25 years now. In other words, the feelings of worthlessness and pointlessness are always there. Sometimes they are lighter and sometimes heavier. There are moments of delight or distraction, but the sadness never goes away. You can run but you can’t hide. It’s always there.
Why this would be a problem is a guessing game. Caring parents and family, knowing and loving Jesus all extend to my earliest memories. No abuse or neglect. No tragedies or traumas. If only there was a loss to grieve or a memory to deal with. Then the sadness makes no sense. As such, there is no solution.
For twenty of these 25 years I have been on medication. I’ve lost count of how many meds I have tried. Almost all of these years have involved therapy, usually on a weekly basis. I’m on my fourth psychiatrist and a sixth therapist. The matter is way beyond the usual platitudes of thinking positive and looking at the glass half full. Diet, exercise, chiropractic laser treatments, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, and light therapy lamps have brought negligible results in my case. If these work for you, wonderful. Therapy has been helpful. Medication has been helpful. I recommend both to make the burden more manageable, but there is no silver bullet.
An endless supply of insults and ridicule will either trickle or torrent through the mind. Spontaneous thoughts of being a loser, a failure, and a waste of space occur daily. Sometimes the thoughts come by the minute. They come out of nowhere and for no apparent reason. Also, an unexplainable deep sense of purposelessness and worthlessness underlie the daily grind. Even when things are going well, a cloud of nothing being accomplished rains overhead. Sometimes the schedule is so full that there is no time to stop or think. Running here and there or a delightful evening with fun people will crowd out the emptiness, but not for long. When the laughter and chatter among familiar faces transitions to a silent walk back to the car, the cloud remains. An unsolicited compliment will renew confidence for a while. For a moment, it seems like efforts are helping someone. Being here means something.
Read More
Related Posts: