Kyle Strobel's Blog

Formed for the Glory of God: Learning from the Spiritual Practices of Jonathan Edwards

My new book, Formed for the Glory of God is now available! For more information, watch this short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...

My new book Charity and Its Fruits: Living in the Light of God's Love (Crossway) is now available. Click here to see it on amazon and here to see the publisher page. In addition to being the first single-volume edition of Edwards's original work, this volume includes:

A detailed introduction
Over 150 explanatory notes addressing difficult concepts throughout the text
Definitions of arcane terminology
Relevant quotes from Edwards’s other writings
A conclusion showing how to appropriate Edwards’s work



“I am thrilled that Kyle Strobel has edited this new edition of Edwards’s Charity and Its Fruits.
This series of sermons holds a special place in my affections for
Edwards for three reasons. First, in Munich, Germany, my wife and I read
it aloud to each other in 1972. What a way to build a young marriage!
Second, Edwards’s treatment of ‘Charity seeketh not her own’ profoundly
shaped my emerging Christian Hedonism. Third, the last chapter, ‘Heaven
Is a World of Love,’ is simply unsurpassed in its power to make me want
to go there. I am unabashed in my love for Jonathan Edwards—and the
grandeur of his God. May God give him an ever-wider voice.”

-John Piper, Pastor for Preaching and Vision, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Twin Cities, Minnesota


“This new edition of Charity and Its Fruits
is a most welcomed addition to the growing library of books by and
about the great Jonathan Edwards. For those who mistakenly think that
Protestant theologians overemphasize faith at the expense of love, these
classic sermons by Edwards will be an antidote to a stereotype. But
even more important, this deep mining of 1 Corinthians 13 is a pathway
into spiritual theology that will draw every believer closer to Christ.”

-Timothy George, Founding Dean, Beeson Divinity School; General Editor, Reformation Commentary on Scripture


“For
Jonathan Edwards, the true Puritan understanding of Christianity as
love-life in God through Christ was a lifelong
theological-pastoral-devotional focus, and his fullest display of it is
found here. Kyle Strobel’s comments help us appreciate this classic on
communion with God.”

-J. I. Packer, Board of Governors' Professor of Theology, Regent College; author, Knowing God


“As best I can tell, this is a first in Edwardsean studies. No one has done with Charity and Its Fruits
what Kyle Strobel accomplishes here—providing us with an enlightening
commentary and a readable text of one of Edwards’s most important,
though highly neglected, treatises. All who love Edwards (and everyone
should) will profit immensely from this exceptional volume.”

-Sam Storms, Senior Pastor, Bridgeway Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; author, The Hope of Glory


“Jonathan
Edwards is America’s most famous theologian, and he is experiencing a
resurrection among some evangelicals today. Not all who clap for Edwards
have read him extensively, and for some the applause appears to be
little more than groupthink. But this annotation of Edwards’s seminal
exposition of 1 Corinthians 13, edited by a competent young Edwards
specialist who offers an informed introduction to Edwards’s moral
thought, holds promise for all of us to become more dedicated to the
theological vision for the glory of God at work in the theology of
Edwards. All who read Edwards aright know they are in for an experience
of sensate knowledge, and not simply academic intelligence. Read this
book into worship.”

-Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olsson Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies, North Park University

I was reading the “MIM Porn Pandemic Handout,” the
other day and thought I should write something about it. Psychiatrist
Norman Doidge, author of the best-selling book The Brain That Changes
Itself (Penguin, 2007), writes,

“Pornography, by offering an endless
harem of sexual objects, hyperactivates the appetitive system. Porn
viewers develop new maps in their brains, based on the photos and videos
they see. Because it is a use-it-or-lose-it brain, when we develop a
map area, we long to keep it activated. Just as our muscles become
impatient for exercise if we’ve been sitting all day, so too do our
senses hunger to be stimulated.”

To put this in very different terms, porn changes the way you view
the world, yourself, and others. It gives you categories to place ideas
and desires that alter how you engage reality. It is certainly not news
that porn is ravaging the Christian world. But more importantly,
perhaps, is the reality that as evangelicals we simply do not have
categories of sexuality by which to respond personally or culturally to
this epidemic. It is this point I want to hit on a bit.

Sexuality is certainly a part of who we are, and is not necessarily
tied to sexual activity. Monks are still sexual beings even if they are
not, hopefully, sexually active (keeping in mind Juno’s allergy to that
phrase). But the way we wield our sexuality sexually, if I can put it
that way, is integral to who are are are sexual beings and who we are as
lovers. The created location of sex itself is in relationship, just
like our innate human sexuality is relational (that is what it is to be
human). Sex and all it incorporates are relational things. Among the
many problems with porn and issues like masturbation (which I’ve blogged about here),
is that they occur without relationship and actually make the
non-relational aspect the most titillating. I have a hard time
believing, in other words, porn films feature supposedly married
couples. The newness, uniqueness and thrill of engaging in sexual
activity with people you don’t really know becomes the thrill rather
than the deeply relational engagement of a couple over a lifetime.

But, and maybe most importantly, this can go both ways. Sex within a
marriage relationship can easily become a type of non-relational
self-indulgence. Sex can easily become a replacement for pornography
and/or masturbation. Rather, I suggest, when the end is relationship,
that should all change. Our ends should be knowing and being known,
entering into one another in a deeply honest and emotionally vulnerable
way that is intimately linked with one’s spiritual growth and calling.
When relationship drives the ship, so to speak, it colors everything
else. When sex drives the ship, relationship takes a back seat to
self-fulfillment. And this is where a robust evangelical sexuality needs
to rise to the surface. The self-giving nature of the Christian
message, and the deeply relational aspects of Christian living, all
harbor a natural sexuality. Rather, what we tend to find in evangelical
conversations on this matter are an emphasis on sex as an act, rather
than sexuality in a dynamic of growing in love. I noted the many
problems with evangelical views of masculinity,
and the problem seems the same. We seem obsessed with dealing with the
world on its own terms, rather than our own. Instead, we need to grasp
the reality that the Gospel has resources for the abundant life, in all
of its facets, and to dig deep there is to find the ways of life so
often pronounced in Scripture

CNN ran a short article called ‘The Demise of Guys’: How Video Games and Porn are Ruining a Generation.
I suggest that you click over and read it and watch the video at the
end. It is truly enlightening. Anyone who works with youth can tell you
that this is true. The young men in this generation are so addicted that
they are growing more and more socially anemic and relationally
superficial. The use of video games, internet, and porn has shown a rise
in “arousal addictions,” addictions that cause an obsession with more
newness, rather than the same old “high.” These addictions cause a
shrinking of one’s location within space-time, if I can put it that way.
The present becomes the only real, and the past and future cease to
have real import into decision making. This causes an obession with
immediate satisfaction. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that this
undermines everything about Christian discipleship.

Let me claim that this problem is significantly worse in
evangelicalism. Evangelicalism, or at least certain strands of it, have
adopted a worldly view of masculinity – the
pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, punch someone in the face, and
dominate kind of masculinity. Again, it doesn’t take a genius to see
that this runs directly contrary to pretty much everything Jesus said,
but leaving that aside, it pours fuel on the fire of this epidemic in
young men. Let me explain.

First, in evangelical circles, young men basically have one sin:
lust. Everything else tends to get relegated around that. This is
unfortunate because lust is a third-order sin. It is neither primal nor
primary, but really the fruit of much more fundamental vices. Lust
builds on things like lying, a second-order sin, but is really fed by
the primal need for control, grandiosity and dominance. These sins,
fundamental to our human condition, are not something to “deal with.”
These sins only lose their power at the cross. But that is why they are
so ignored. Instead, it is just easier to tell kids to “stop watching
porn,” and “play less video games” – if that is even happening. Instead
of focusing on the root of the problem, we focus on the fruit. Yes, we
need to do something about kids watching porn and spending 12 hours a
day glued to a tv, but there is much more going on than that.

Second, in approaching sin in this manner, what we are really doing
is fueling the primal sins – pride, etc. We are saying, “Look, you have
control and can dominate these things in your own power,” and therefore
add to their self-obsessed grandiosity. Not only is this sub-Christian
in every way, but it simply fails to deal with the sin. In some cases,
no doubt, things like watching porn are “defeated”, but there is no
victory there. This sin will happily morph into something different,
probably something that can dress itself up to look like a virtue and
reign as a primal vice without notice.

If we are going to take seriously the “way from below” of James 3, we
have to address the reality of our primal human condition and not
simply the way that condition plays itself out in our lives.

CNN ran a short article called ‘The Demise of Guys’: How Video Games and Porn are Ruining a Generation.
I suggest that you click over and read it and watch the video at the
end. It is truly enlightening. Anyone who works with youth can tell you
that this is true. The young men in this generation are so addicted that
they are growing more and more socially anemic and relationally
superficial. The use of video games, internet, and porn has shown a rise
in “arousal addictions,” addictions that cause an obsession with more
newness, rather than the same old “high.” These addictions cause a
shrinking of one’s location within space-time, if I can put it that way.
The present becomes the only real, and the past and future cease to
have real import into decision making. This causes an obession with
immediate satisfaction. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that this
undermines everything about Christian discipleship.

Let me claim that this problem is significantly worse in
evangelicalism. Evangelicalism, or at least certain strands of it, have
adopted a worldly view of masculinity – the
pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, punch someone in the face, and
dominate kind of masculinity. Again, it doesn’t take a genius to see
that this runs directly contrary to pretty much everything Jesus said,
but leaving that aside, it pours fuel on the fire of this epidemic in
young men. Let me explain.

First, in evangelical circles, young men basically have one sin:
lust. Everything else tends to get relegated around that. This is
unfortunate because lust is a third-order sin. It is neither primal nor
primary, but really the fruit of much more fundamental vices. Lust
builds on things like lying, a second-order sin, but is really fed by
the primal need for control, grandiosity and dominance. These sins,
fundamental to our human condition, are not something to “deal with.”
These sins only lose their power at the cross. But that is why they are
so ignored. Instead, it is just easier to tell kids to “stop watching
porn,” and “play less video games” – if that is even happening. Instead
of focusing on the root of the problem, we focus on the fruit. Yes, we
need to do something about kids watching porn and spending 12 hours a
day glued to a tv, but there is much more going on than that.

Second, in approaching sin in this manner, what we are really doing
is fueling the primal sins – pride, etc. We are saying, “Look, you have
control and can dominate these things in your own power,” and therefore
add to their self-obsessed grandiosity. Not only is this sub-Christian
in every way, but it simply fails to deal with the sin. In some cases,
no doubt, things like watching porn are “defeated”, but there is no
victory there. This sin will happily morph into something different,
probably something that can dress itself up to look like a virtue and
reign as a primal vice without notice.

If we are going to take seriously the “way from below” of James 3, we
have to address the reality of our primal human condition and not
simply the way that condition plays itself out in our lives.

You don't have to be interested in thinking about or debating Mark
Driscoll to find yourself pulled into the wave of his most recent
debacle. I am not interested in talking about the situation itself, or
even about Driscoll himself, but I want to make some notes about how
people react to him. I find it interesting that, for the most part, both
sides that debate Driscoll basically say the same thing. The issues
debated are not typically over justifying his actions, most people I see
interacting with him, on both sides, agree that he "goes too far," and
"lacks wisdom in what he say." The difference, I propose, has to do with
how we understand what a pastor is.

There is a growing belief in the evangelical church that "good"
preaching covers a multitude of sins. This is simple another way of
saying that the ends justify the means. The question we need to ask, I
think, is whether or not it is fitting for a pastor to lack humilty,
lack wisdom, and clearly project so many of his own psychological issues
onto God's work. Again, it seems to me that both sides agree to these
things, and both think they are at least regretable. The main
difference, as far as I can tell, has to do with how we view those
things in light of Driscoll's position as a pastor. One side, the
pro-Driscoll side, claims that everything else he does out-weighs these
particular sins, or else they invoke something like: "Boys will be
boys." The other side, believes that Scripture is clear about what a
pastor is like, and because he breaks these Scriptural mandates so
freely, frequently, and publically, that he should undergo, minimally,
church discipline.

At the heart of the issue is spiritual formation, and whether pastors
are called to humility, grace, and a higher level of scrutiny, or if
these things are more like desires that will never actually be
fulfilled.

What are your thoughts?

I've been reading and meditating on the Pentateuch (first 5 books of
the Bible) and I just read the passage in Exodus where God descends upon
the mountain in fire, thunder, and lightening. Interestingly, the focus
of this section is on fearing the Lord but not being afraid of the
Lord. It is coming close, but not too close. As I was meditating upon
this reality, I came to the conclusion that my upbringing has created
too great a flipancy in my relationship with God. In other words, I
never really had the sense of God as a consuming fire, even as that
imagery was sometimes used to talk about my purification.

Let me take a stab at why this was. I think a lot of evangelicals are
functionally Marcionites. Marcion was a second century heretic, who
accepted Jesus but reject the God of the Old Testament. In doing so, he
rejected the Old Testament itself. While evangelicals have never done
this explicitly, I think we tend to do it implicitly. We read the Old
Testament for prophecy about Jesus, for historical information about
Israel, and for the Psalms and Proverbs, but generally, we do not
believe it speaks meaningfully into our lives today (I always laugh when
I hear pastors, who almost never preach from the Old Testament,
suddenly act like Old Testament scholars when they preach about money –
tithing specifically!).

Rather than rejecting the Old Testament, we tend to bracket it to
obscurity. Instead of grasping Christ as the key that unveils these
Scriptures, we relegate them to merely affirming everything we already
believe about Christ. It is interesting, that when the New Testament
does affirm that God is a consuming fire, it is no less concerned with
our reverence, but states, "Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a
kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable
worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire" (Heb.
12:28-29).

Importantly, this same author states,

"Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the
heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we
do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness,
but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without
sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that
we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

We are called to draw near, but that nearness doesn't somehow
undermine the reverence and "fear of God" we must maintain in his
presence. What are your thoughts? Did you have a similar experience
growing up? Has your God lost his "consuming" nature?

To start this post, let me begin with several qualifications: First, I
think that theological education has some serious meditation to do
concerning its task. Second, I think the overall model / approach upon
which we've built is flawed. Third, I am excited about virtually
anything that seeks to think creatively about this. In comes Mike Breen.
Mike Breen, who I know little about but have heard good things, posted this back in November.
It is a wholesale engagement with the kinds of worries I have. In light
of that, let me again state some qualifications: First, I know nothing
about this other than this post. Second, if I saw this right when I
graduated seminary I probably would have called him up and said, "Sign
me up and tell me what to do." Third, I have some doubts about some of
the statistics in the video, but for the purpose of this discussion lets
assume they are true.

Now, qualifications aside, I was left frustrated by this post. But
why? Why would I be frustrated by someone who is, for all practical
purposes, hitting all of my sweet-spots? I actually found myself asking
this exact question at times. Let me try and point to some issues I
think are inherent to this project (keeping in mind how limited my
knowledge of it is).

First, it is built on over-simplification. The "Christendom" versus
"post-Christendom" divide is helpful for sermons but not for academic
discourse. Things are just not so simple. Furthermore, keeping in mind
my ignorance of their overall plan, this seems steeped in the present
evangelical culture. In other words, based on how evangelicals are
intuitively thinking about things, their overall approach makes perfect
sense. That worries me. This feels no different than the megachurch
mentality they oppose. In light of that claim, note the inherent
pragmatism to the message. We have statistics, we have an action plan,
and we can use Jesus as the model. But is this right? It strikes me that
it is not. Again, over-simplification seems to govern the day (maybe
this was just for the sake of the video?) Also, in light of their
allergy to the megachurches and the "business" model (again, no
complaints here), it seems to me that they have not dug deep enough to
the pragmatist idolatry that fueled the errors they worry about. In
other words, they could be trying to build on the same broken foundation
(even as they claim they are doing the opposite in their video).

Following the present culture, it strikes me that we have another
case of Jesus vs. Paul (and by Paul I mean the rest of the NT). As a
side note, if you haven't noticed this phenomena, watch for it. It is
pervasive. I think it gained popularity through the emergent church
conversation, particularly the more radical ends, but it is a view that
is becoming "normal." Notice how quickly we can just say: "Well Jesus
did it this way, therefore this must be a model." There is a pragmatism
and a lack of a robust biblical vision (or so it strikes me).

Second, I was struck by the odd feeling that I would have loved this
earlier in my life, but now I am left with much hesitancy. Why? First, I
think that my earlier point about pragmatism is again wielding its
head. The seminary grads I talk to almost all want pragmatic ways to fix
things. I tend to hand them Eugene Peterson. In other words, starting
from what seminary grads want doesn't necessarily lead us anywhere. I am
again struck by how similar this seems to be to the megachurch movement
these guys reject. I grew up at Willow Creek, and it feels the same to
me. We start with statistics, move to what makes intuive sense, and then
build a common-sensical model based on New Testament narratives. Is
this just the same old evangelical game? The fact that high-up on the
list of "to-dos" to get this thing going was developing a savvy video
strikes me that the answer would be: "Yes."

Third, I was struck by how much I disliked the terms "character" and
"compentence." Both strike me as inherently secular. As an advocate of
the spiritual formation conversation, I quiver when I see terms like
this. Maybe there is much more depth to them than strike me at first
glance? I don't know. To me, this again feels American (or Western would
probably be more adequate). It thinks of education in terms of trade
schools. Furthermore, there was a tinge of that classic evangelical
inclination that there was the Acts 2 church that lasted for a
generation and then everything has gone 100% wrong ever since.
Therefore, what we need to do is to just recover that church. I don't
know if that is there (it is certainly ubiquitous in the evangelicalism I
grew up in), but if nothing else, some form of that inclination is
still floating around. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of
theological depth in a discussion of theological education.

Fourth, other than reference to the importance of the mission of God (whose importance is not questioned here), there really isn't any focus on how thinking Christianly
is at the heart of our participation in the mission of God. 1
Corinthians would be helpful here. Again, with the last point, it seems
like the mission of God was picked up at random with no other
theological structures in place. And maybe it is here that my real
frustration lies. Rather than theology I find common-sensicalism.

Fifth, is the problem the model of education, or is the problem our
ideal of education? Both, no doubt, have their problems, but which is
more central? I would point to the total lack of theological
education over the last generation, where theology itself was seen as an
end rather than an aid to meeting Christ in the scriptures (see Stephen Holmes' post for some excellent thoughts on this).
Rather than a wholesale rejection of the model, why don't we start
asking new questions about how that model can be more faithful to the
call of the church? While I used to be on their side of things, wanting
to rethink everything from the ground up, it is my new inclination that a
more fruitful endeavor would be to rework the model from within it.
This is not just a pragmatic claim, but I have a lot in mind when I
suggest this. Maybe we can discuss this. I should say that  I was in an
innovative seminary program designed with many of the same worries as
Breen's, and it did deal with (in my mind) many of their worries (not to
diminish other major issues such as the financial, etc.).

Last, the post and video point to two distinct issues that they
believe are interrelated: the church and the seminary. I wonder if we
would explore the relationship between these in more detail if that
would help. For instance, I know few churches who really take a role in
future pastor's and missionary's development (spiritual, financial,
etc.). I wonder if the seminary is often required to hold a load a bit
too large? Anyone who has taught an introductory class at a seminary can
recognize how low biblical and theological knowledge truly is, as well
as an understanding of the Christian life. It is no surprise that three
years later they don't feel equipped for ministry.

In the end, I like the questions, I like the desire, but I am left
with much more hesitancy than excitement. It has too much of the feel of
the evangelicalism that continues to say: "I know, we should just start
from scratch;" and "Finally, I have come around to fix everything."
What are your thoughts? Am I being too harsh? Am I totally off about
what they are doing? What do you think?

I've been reading some Jean Vanier lately for some work I am doing on
theology and disability, and I've come across what appears to be an
idea central to his thought – that at our core, as fallen humans, is a
wound of loneliness. Most of what we do is develop strategies to
protect this wound, and most of our relational decisions stem from how
we respond to others in the midst of our woundedness. The disabled, for
Vanier, are special because they tap into our wound in a way others do
not. The disabled, and I'm thinking mostly mentally disabled here, do
not pick up on the kinds of strategies we usually employ in
conversations, nor are they impressed with the kind of things that
impress the world. Instead, they want someone to be with them, to love
them, and not leave them. The disabled only want what we do, and yet
they refuse to settled for what we do (i.e. shallow conversations,
approval, etc.).

I have heard people speak about this in a lot of different ways, but I
like his description of the wound of loneliness and how certain people
tap into that wound. Our calling, then, as Christians, is to be a people
who are taken through that wound of loneliness to find Jesus, who,
through his own wounds, has set us free. This freedom is not merely
freedom from sin, but freedom from sins effects – freedom from creating
selves to navigate the world without being hurt. Vanier offers us
another way, a way of being with others in love where we walk through
our brokenness to truly live. Doing so, he warns, will make you unable
to function in "normal" society. May it be so.

Any thoughts? Do you like this language?

There are a couple of things very close to my heart that I never seem to blog about. I'm not sure why that is. So here, I want to address one of them - writing. I come from a family of Christian writers. My dad, Lee Strobel, is well known in this area, but my sister is a Christian novelist and my brother-in-law writes children's books. It is just what we do. I have a deep love of writing, it feels like it is engrained in my DNA, but out of all of us, I am the least of a "writer." Let me explain.

Some people write because of the love of writing itself. I am not like that. I do love writing, but I can't just write anything. My writing is attached to my calling as a theologian. I write because I want to proclaim who God is. In this day and age, that can be difficult. I write in two realms, the academic and the popular. The academic world is easy. The audience does not drive the publishing nearly as much as in the popular realm. When the audience drives what is being published, it is often hard to speak deeply about something without being practical - when "practical" is taken to be "addressing the felt needs of your audience." The Bible is not practical in this sense. Our felt needs are the problem, so addressing those is a sure-fire way to make your work sub-Christian. I think audiences intuitively know this. Notice how well the Shack did. It was not practical in any specific sense, but its message that you have to walk through your pain to get beyond it is immensely helpful in the day to day reality in which we live. 

I hope to write more about my writing in the future. I do have a ton of writing projects going right now, some are just chapters, others are books, and I'm even working on editing some books right now. What I would like to know from you though, is what makes you buy a book? What is the main driving influence behind a book purchase? Is it the topic? The author? The cover? I would love to hear your thoughts.