fbpx
Articles

Radical Christianity is ordinary Christianity

/
November 10, 2014

On May 31, 1792, William Carey preached a sermon that has come to be called the deathless sermon because it changed the entire Christian world. Preaching from Isaiah 54:1-2, Carey declared that we must, “Expect great things from God” and “Attempt great things for God!” Radical things happened at that meeting—the Baptist Mission Society was formed, the modern missions movement was launched, and William Carey became its first missionary.

The radical experiment

In 2010, David Platt challenged the Church at Brook Hills to engage in “The Radical Experiment,” to spend a year praying for the world, reading the entire Bible, giving their money to those in need, spending time in a context beyond Birmingham, and building community. Platt later published the book Radical, which became a New York Times best seller.

Of course, the plan is radical in the sense that basic Christianity itself is revolutionary in a fallen world. Basic Christian discipleship is radical because of the propensity of believers in any culture, especially an affluent culture like America, to absorb into the world around rather than live as the counter-cultural outpost of the kingdom of Christ—the church. Platt’s call was to stop interpreting Christianity through the lens of the American dream, to live lives transformed by the gospel, and to interpret all of life determined to know nothing among anyone but Christ and him crucified.

“The Radical Experiment” was influential at the Church at Brook Hills, and through the book Radical and other resources, it was influential in countless evangelical churches. David Platt now serves as the head of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The critics of radical

However, the call to live radical, missional lives for Jesus has its evangelical critics. The loudest critic has been Anthony Bradley who is associate professor of theology and ethics at The King's College in New York City and serves as a research fellow at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Bradley is a gifted scholar, preacher, and public intellectual whose writings and ministry I have benefitted from and appreciate. He pulls no punches when he asserts, “Being a ‘radical,’ ‘missional’ Christian is slowly becoming the ‘new legalism.’ We need more ordinary God and people lovers” (Matt. 22:36-40). Bradley has been joined by others, like Michael Horton, whose new book’s cover looks a great deal like Radical’s cover. Horton’s book is titled Ordinary: Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World (Horton acknowledges the similarities are purposeful in this Key Life interview).

Bradley sees himself as defending the type of college students he teaches and counsels who he says are “stressed and burnt out from the regular shaming and feelings of inadequacy if they happen to not be doing something unique and special.” He continues,

The sad result is that many young adults feel ashamed if they “settle” into ordinary jobs, get married early and start families, live in small towns, or as 1 Thessalonians 4:11 says, “aspire to live quietly, and to mind [their] affairs, and to work with [their] hands.” For too many Millennials their greatest fear in this life is being an ordinary person with a non-glamorous job, living in the suburbs, and having nothing spectacular to boast about.

Again, this was a well-intentioned attempt to address lukewarm Christians in the suburbs, but because it is primarily reactionary and does not provide a positive construction for the good life from God’s perspective, it misses “radical” ideas in Jesus’ own teachings like “love.”

Why is Christ’s command to love God and neighbor not enough for these leaders? Maybe Christians are simply to pursue living well and invite others to do so according to how God has ordered the universe.

Recently, Bradley tweeted, “Parents, teachers, youth workers please don't tell kids to ‘find your passion.’ You're setting them up for narcissism & clinical depression.” I share Bradley’s concern over neo-legalism and have no interest in an abstract, utopian higher-life spirituality that leaves Christians always striving but never really arriving. My whole ministry is devoted to calling people to an earthy spirituality that embraces the ordinariness and everydayness of life. I call my congregation to repent of thinking we can decide what the big moments in life are. God consistently meets us in the everyday like he met a woman walking a dusty road to get water at a well (John 4). I tell them that being themselves surrendered to Jesus is the most strategic thing they could be doing.

But that is the point where I think Bradley is talking over Platt instead of actually engaging what Platt is saying constitutes radical Christianity.

I think I know what Platt is saying, and I know what I am saying: radical Christianity is a call to walk in line with the gospel by loving God and neighbor. It seems to me that critics can be just as reactionary as they accuse David Platt of being. After all, is modifying Christianity with ordinary any different that modifying it with radical?

The danger of a new legalism

A call to love God and neighbor can certainly be contorted into a new legalism just as easily as a call to a radical life of missional living and following the revolutionary Jesus and his countercultural kingdom. It is equally true that a call to living as an ordinary Christian can be contorted and misshapen into nominal, golden-rule American dream Christianity that possesses no genuine gospel vitality.

I certainly understand Bradley’s concern over counseling students who have gotten on a destructive legalistic Christian performance treadmill (I have written about Why Legalistic Preaching Does Not Work here), but I can assure him that I have counseled vast numbers of Christians who have baptized Christianity in their pursuit of the ordinary American dream and came out clinically depressed, narcissistic, and disillusioned as well. Perhaps it is better to see both neo-legalism and nominalism as enemies to genuine spirituality and to conclude that a spirituality that is biblically radical will seek to live in light of the gospel in the daily and ordinary. In other words, taking up your cross and following Christ daily by loving God and your neighbor wherever you are.

The radically ordinary life

Radical is one of the best words I can think of to describe Jesus’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount as he keeps asserting, “You have heard it said . . .but I say unto you.” When he finished teaching, Matthews records “the crowds were astonished at his teaching” (Matt 7:28). Platt and others are being taken to task for calling people to radical Christianity.

I do not think there is any other kind.

It is not the first time a young man with gospel passion was called out for pointing to the radical call of Christianity. William Carey spoke in a ministers meeting on September 30, 1785, and exhorted all in attendance to consider the radical responsibility they had to reach the whole world with the gospel. John Ryland Sr. spoke up and told Carey, “Young man, sit down! Sit down! You are an enthusiast. When God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do it without consulting you and me” Carey did not sit down and keep quiet. He spent 41 years in India for the sake of the gospel. At the end of his life he described his radical ministry in this way,

If one should think it worth his while to write my life, I will give you a criterion by which you may judge of its correctness. If he gives me credit for being a plodder, he will describe me justly. Anything beyond this will be too much. I can plod. I can persevere in any definite pursuit. To this I owe everything.

A radical gospel-centered Christianity that manifests itself in the ordinary plodding of daily life by loving God and neighbor. Radical Christianity is ordinary Christianity—two sides of the same coin. Pitting one against the other is an extraordinarily bad idea.

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24