Semper Reformanda

Chesterton on Aquinas

2006-09-06T00:42:00.000-07:00

I've been enjoying G.K. Chesterton's biography of Thomas Aquinas in preparation for a class on Calvin and Aquinas. It is not only a biography, but also an introduction to the philosophy of Aquinas. There are an endless amount of quotable passages from this biographical sketch of one of the Church’s greatest theologians by one of it’s greatest defenders of Orthodoxy. Chesterton has a knack for boiling down the essentials truths of very difficult concepts into pithy one liners. Here is a bit of lengthy passage on Aquinas’ understanding (and subsequently, Chesterton’s own understanding) on the role of apologetics:

If there is one sentence that could be carved in marble, as representing the calmest and most enduring rationality of his unique intelligence, it is a sentence which came pouring out with all the rest of this molten lava. If there is one phrase that stands before history as typical of Thomas Aquinas, it is that phrase about his own argument: “It is not based on documents of faith, but on the reasons and statements of the philosophers themselves.” Would that all Orthodox doctors in deliberation were as reasonable as Aquinas in anger! Would that all Christian apologists would remember that maxim; and write it up in large letters on the wall, before they nail any theses there. At the top of his fury, Thomas Aquinas understands, what so many defenders of orthodoxy will not understand. It is no good to tell an atheist that he is an atheist; or to charge a denier of immorality with the infamy of denying it; or to imagine that one can force an opponent to admit he is wrong, by proving that he is wrong on somebody else’s principles, but not on his own. After the great example of St. Thomas, the principle stands, or ought always to have stood established; that we must either not argue with a man at all, or we must argue on his grounds and not ours. We may do other things instead of arguing, according to our views of what actions are morally permissible; but if we argue we must argue “on the reasons and statements of the philosophers themselves.”

I would love a little bit more of an explanation of these “other things” that we may do instead of arguing. My assumption is that Chesterton is talking about a robust declaration of the revealed truth of the Gospel message as distinct from reasoning with people on their own terms through the discipline of philosophy to remove obstacles to belief. If this is the case, than I can think of no better way to express the role of the philosophical endeavor in the life of the Christian.

Sufjan Stevens on Total Depravity

2006-08-30T17:11:00.000-07:00

Sometimes the deepest theological concepts are not grasped through rigorous study or deep thought. Often, truths about God, his world, and our place in it are best communicated not through the scholar's pen, but rather through the creation of the artist. It is no wonder that in the middle ages, along with the accomplishments of scholastic philosophy and theology, the medieval cathedrals used the beauty of stained glass to communicate the events of redemptive history to the uneducated masses.

While the Church does not retain a monopoly on the arts in our modern age as it has in ages past, there are still plenty of artists who are using their creative abilities to glorify God and to reveal the beauty inherent in our fallen world. One such artists that I have been enjoying recently is singer/songwritter Sufjan Stevens. Stevens' music is not explicitly "Christian" (i.e. you won't find his albums in your local Christian bookstore or see him on a CCM label). He weaves commentary on faith in with themes of family, suffering, and loss. I have been soaking myself in his music over the past couple of days and I am overcome with the beauty of his music and themes.

In the song John Wayne Gacy, Jr. from his latest studio album, Illinois, Stevens deals with the theme of human sinfulness. The song chronicles the childhood of the famous serial killer from Chicago who was convicted of raping and murdering 33 boys and young men, many of whose bodies were found under the crawl space in his home. After singing of his broken family and the apparent normality of Gacy's life and the horrors of his crimes, Stevens ends the song with some self reflection:

And in my best behavior
I am really just like him
Look beneath the floor boards
For the secrets I have hid

These few words combined with a Stevens' beautiful, yet mournful melody do more to express the depths of human rebellion against God than any systematic theology ever could. Once the final chord is struck, there is no escaping the truth that the most horrific of atrocities that men commit are no worse than the sin that lies deeply rooted in each one of us. Through the beauty of a song, Sufjan Stevens is able to present us with our sin and make us crave ever more deeply the presence of our Savior than any scholar could hope to.

Huizinga and Oasis on the Hope of Heaven

2006-08-25T15:12:00.000-07:00

Every age yearns for a more beautiful world. The deeper the desperation and the depression about the confusing present, the more intense that yearning.

These are the words of Dutch historian Johan Huizinga as quoted by John Bolt in his book A Free Church, A Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper's American Public Theology. Not only are they words that most people would be able to affirm from their own experience, but they also speak of a inborn, creational longing for closer communion with God that is very much in line with Kuyper's creational theology. We have a combination of wonderful and exciting experiences on this earth despite our sinful condition, as well as more devastating experiences that show us how deeply that sin really affects us. These two factors come together to make us long for the future glory of standing in the presence of God and also escaping from the present corruption.

While this is a natural desire, and one that works as a necessary and proper motivation for anyone with a revelation of Christ, it seems that there are certain pitfalls that must be avoided. The use of the neo-calvinistic "structure/direction" distinction will be helpful here. Since looking forward to and anticipating the day when we will be in full communion with the Lord is obviously a good creational structure (most would argue that even pre-fall Adam and Eve looked forward to an increasing fellowship with God than the one that they initially had in the garden) we must be careful that the direction of this desire does not become misguided. As Huizinga states, the more "confusing the present, the more intense that yearning." Every age presents it's own set of tragedies and hardships, and a serious mistake in developing our desire for a more beautiful and restored earth would be to focus too exclusively on the difficulties of our own time and place. This sort of thing can often be heard coming from secular thinkers who would seek to set up their own man made paradise. In doing so, they attempt to alleviate the very real problems of ethic wars and racism with talk of multiculturalism one-world governments. In doing this, an earnest desire to see the injustices of the world set right becomes a misguided attempt to set up an alternative kingdom. It seems that a correction of this misdirection would come through a purposed examination of what the implications of a revelation of Christ are for issues such as ethnic cleansing and racism. It will only be this Christ centered longing for a more beautiful world that will truly bear fruit.

One of the things that helped to punctuate this quotation from Huizinga for me was a sort of providential music selection. Just moments after reading the quote, I heard the voice of Noel Gallagher of my favorite band, Oasis, drifting in from the next room. In lyrics from the song "Some Might Say," Noel expresses this very longing of oppressed and downtrodden people for a celestial home:

Some might say they don't believe in heaven
Go and tell it to the man who lives in hell

He Has Done All Things Well

2006-08-16T15:47:00.000-07:00

And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, "He has done all things well. He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak."
-Mark 7:37

He truly has done ALL things well. He lived the life of perfect obedience which we failed to do, He died the perfect death which we could never think of doing, and He established the assurance of our salvation with his perfect resurrection. As we are shown the miracles of his healing and restoring power in the gospel accounts, let us remember that these are not simply trivial displays of power. Rather, in his ministry of healing and restoration to the blind, the deaf, and the mute, Christ was showing us the way in which He works in the world at large. That which is broken will be made right. Those who have turned from God will be turned back and restored to Him. A world which once fully displayed His glory in a perfect way will be made to do so once more. May we all recall the healing and restorative power that Christ has displayed and will continue to make known in our own experiences, and thank Him that he has done it well.

Gilead

2006-08-04T02:01:00.000-07:00

In my previous post I looked at some words from Kuyper that expressed the goodness of creation as well as it's potential (perhaps hope is the better word) in Christ. As a pastor, theologian, statesman, journalist, teacher and, more generally, an active participant in culture, Kuyper expresses in a very clear manner the implications of a good creation order for Christians who are attempting to work out the will of God for the earth in it's fallen condition.

Recently, in reading the novel Gilead by Marilynne Robinson, I stumbled across a beautiful and moving literary expression of this same concept. Robinson's novel is written as an aging, Congregationalist minister's letter to his young son just before he dies. Robinson expresses here, as well as in many other wonderful passages throughout the novel, the beauty that is to be found in this present life, while looking forward with anticipation to the joys of an eternity spent before the face of God:

I can't believe that, when we have all been changed and put on incorruptibility, we will forget our fantastic condition of mortality and impermanence, the great bright dream of procreating and perishing that meant the whole world to us. In eternity this world will be Troy, I believe, and all that has passed here will be the epic of the universe, the ballad they sing in the streets. Because I don't imagine any reality putting this one in the shade entirely, and I think piety forbids me to try.

In this wonderful expression of truth, Robinson masterfully shows the tension between the beauty and sanctity of our everyday lives and the great anticipation that we should have of the glory that is to be revealed. While she is not a theologian (at least not formally) Robinson communicates through her fiction a practicality and wisdom regarding theological truth. I've no doubt that John Calvin, who is quoted by the old minister frequently, would be proud to see his work employed in such a unique way. Calvin's classic, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, was originally intended, not as a theological textbook, but as a guide for working class Christians to guide them through the complexities of the faith. Robinson has managed to take those words and show just how practical, comforting, and beautiful they can be, even to the inhabitants of a little Midwestern town called Gilead.

Kuyper on Creation

2006-07-31T18:41:00.000-07:00

In reading Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism, I have been impressed not only by the amazing depth of insight which he brings to the topic of worldview, but also the poetic style of his communication. Here is a wonderful quote from the lecture on Calvinism and Religion which displays both elements. He is addressing the dualistic nature of the Anabaptist outlook and providing a basis for the ever important "structure/direction" distinction that must be employed when dealing the goodness of creation and the subsequent effects of the fall:

It is not true that there are two worlds, a bad one and a good, which are fitted into each other. It is one and the same person whom God created perfect and who afterwards fell, and became a sinner - and it is this same "ego" of the old sinner who is born again, and who enters into eternal life. So, also, it is one and the same world which once exhibited all the glory of Paradise, which was afterwards smitten with the curse, and which, since the Fall, is upheld by common grace; which has now been redeemed and saved by Christ, in its center, and which shall pass through the horror of the judgment into the state of glory. For this very reason the Calvinist cannot shut himself up in his church and abandon the world to its fate.

Not only does this view of the creation order make the most sense when looking around at the beauty and goodness that is so evident in all aspect of life on this earth despite of the marring effects of our sin, which are also so evident, but it contains such a glorious promise. It tells us that the potential that we see - the potential that we see in others, that we see in ourselves, as well as the possibilities for the things we can do in this earth - will not not always go unfilled. There will be a day when all is put right; we won't have to start from scratch, and our labors in the here and now won't be fruitless. And what's most astounding is that this wonderful day on which we will clearly see the fulfillment of these amazing promises will also be the day on which we see Christ face to face.

Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought

2006-07-28T20:22:00.000-07:00

My summer reading to this point has been incredibly rich, and it has only been made more so by Arvin Vos' Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought. Vos is a Reformed Christian who teaches philosophy at Western Kentucky University. In his book, Vos contends that the traditional Protestant rejection of the thought of Thomas Aquinas is unwarranted, and that it is based not on serious scholarship, but rather on common mistaken suppositions about Aquinas' thought. Vos undertakes the task of showing that Aquinas and Calvin are actually in agreement over the way in which they understand the nature of faith and the distinction between nature and grace.

Among other things, Vos attempts to show 1) that Aquinas is not an evidentialist, claiming that the assent of faith should only be given if sufficient evidence can be presented for the belief, but rather, he holds to a fideistic view of faith that is akin to Calvin 2) that Aquinas' "preambles to faith" including his proofs for God are not propositions which must be fully comprehended to reach faith, as some have claimed, but rather they are a body of truths which can be laid hold of by faith 3) that the Protestant rejection of Aquinas' natural theology, based on the objection that he uses reason as a foundation upon which to build a superstructure of faith, is unfounded, instead showing that he clearly considered the knowledge imparted by faith to the most certain with reason serving as a handmaiden, and 4) that Aquinas' distinction between nature and grace does not lead to a dualism with nature emerging as an independent, self-sufficient order, but rather he clearly shows grace to be preeminent over nature.

Not only does Vos lay out clear and compelling arguments to show that the standard Protestant rejection of Aquinas is unwarranted, but I was particularly compelled by the way in which he approached the comparison between the two great theologians. He notes the radically different approaches by the two men, pointing out that Aquinas, as a product of the medieval schools, was educated in logic, metaphysics, and natural philosophy, while Calvin, receiving a humanist education which excluded all such subjects, would have studied literature. This accounts for the rigorous logic displayed in the Summa Theologiae compared to the literary insight of Calvin's biblical commentaries. These styles of learning were very much influenced by the differing times and cultures in which the two lived. Vos warns the reader to be careful in making the distinction between style and substance:

To sum up, there was more involved in the sixteenth century Reformation than just a powerful religious renewal of a corrupt church. Calvin and others were also reacting against the Medievals' approach to the ancients, their curriculum, and their use of philosophy. We will do well to distinguish these cultural differences from religious differences and divest ourselves of the naive assumption that a true Christian faith can be found only in the tradition with which we are familiar. We can only benefit by becoming more open to learning from both.

C.S. Lewis on Sola Scriptura

2006-07-11T19:42:00.000-07:00

It has been a long time since I've read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, but I was flipping through it earlier this evening and found an amazing passage in the chapter on social morality that I had forgotten about. The way that Lewis explains the role that Scripture should play in this area as well as others shows a profound understanding of what it means to say that the Bible is authoritative. He does not treat Scripture as though it were some sort of a reference book to instruct in the details of every specific situation, but properly sees it as the lens through which we see everything else. He gives this wonderful description of how the two books, the book of Scripture and the book of nature, interact with one another:

Christianity has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying "Do as you would be done by" to a particular society at a particular moment. It could not have. It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme which suited one place or time would not suit another. And, anyhow, that is not how Christianity works. When it tells you to feed the hungry it does not give you lessons in cookery. When it tells you to read the Scriptures it does not give you lessons in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar. It was never intended to replace or supersede the ordinary human arts and sciences: it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs, and a source of energy which will give them all new life, if only they will put themselves at its disposal.

Letters to a Young Catholic

2006-07-10T22:06:00.000-07:00

Vacation is over and luckily I've got a few days to recover from my vicious sunburn before returning to the grind. We had lots of fun in the mountains of Colorado, but (not having internet access) I've been anxious to post a few thoughts on Letters to a Young Catholic, having read it just before I left. For those of us who are not of a Roman Catholic persuasion, there is no need to be suspicious of the title. While George Weigel has written this book specifically as an exposition of the Roman Catholic world, he ends up offering a view of Christianity that speaks to Roman Catholic and catholic Protestant audiences alike. Even when he discusses certain aspects of Roman Catholicism that we as Protestants would take issues with, he does so in a way that forces the reader to reevaluate his or her thinking on the subject. For example, his discussion on dedication to Mary takes an issue which I have always tossed out as silly and superstitious (and I still believe that it is at root) and forced me to see how, at least for some, it is truly a means of pointing them to Christ.

Weigel's book is a primer on some of the foundational ideas of the Catholic faith as discovered through an exploration of significant Catholic landmarks throughout the world. In each chapter, Weigel visits a different site and uses that specific location to illustrate a specific principle. In the second chapter we are taken to the Scavi of St. Peters Basilica in Rome where we see the grittiness of the Catholic faith in which "the truth of faith is something that seizes us" and works itself out in space and time, in the arena of history. In the fifth chapter, Weigel takes us to the Birmingham Oratory founded by the famous churchman John Henry Newman. It is here that we are shown the importance of combating "liberal" religion, which shapes religion according to the fancy of man, with "revealed" religion which shapes man into the image of God. In my favorite chapter, we go to the Olde Cheshire Cheese in London, the favorite hangout of G.K. Chesterton. It is here that the stone, beer, and bread of the tavern show us the Catholic "sacramental imagination" which insists "that God saves and sanctifies the world through the materials of the world."

In Letters to a Young Catholic, George Weigel shows how Catholic (or catholic) Christianity should stand out amongst the secular society of our day. The unreachable goals of humanism are shown to be redeemed in light of the eternal love of God who shows us that He is transforming humanity into His image. In a culture where love and sex are cheapened beyond recognition of their true purpose, Weigel shows how John Paul II's theology of the body restores true meaning to human relationships. Again, there is no need for an evangelical audience to be frightened off by Weigel. The Christian way of viewing the world, which he so beautifully lays out, is the same articulation of "mere" Christianity given to us by C.S. Lewis. Weigel's discussion of Newman and the need to combat "liberal" religion is the same fight taken up by Francis Schaeffer in the twentieth century. Letters to a Young Catholic is a wonderful book for anyone who wants a fuller vision of the uniqueness, beauty, and depth of Christian faith and its many expressions throughout the world.

On Sabbatical

2006-07-01T00:02:00.000-07:00

My friends, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Boettege and I are going to be leaving early on Sunday morning for our sabbatical in the beautiful mountains of Colorado. This is going to be about as laid back a trip as you could hope for. We will be doing some camping, reading (I plan on reading Vos' Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought, as well as Budziszewski's Evangelicals in the Public Square) and hiking (nothing to strenuous in the hiking department; after all, we are the kind of people who read on vacation).

Now, I'm sure that any observant reader would point something out to me at this point; specifically that taking a "sabbatical" implies taking extended time off to accomplish some sort of career related goal such as writing a book, traveling, or doing research. It might also be pointed out that our week long summer excursion to Colorado does not meet this description. However, since I am envious of all of the academics and pastors who get to go to places like Cambridge on their sabbaticals, and since I do plan on at least accomplishing some reading, I am going to go ahead and call this trip a sabbatical. It's no Cambridge, but it's still going to be great.

Unfortunately, I haven't been posting as frequently over the summer as I told myself that I was going to (in all honesty, I think I knew that would happen) though not for lack of interesting material. When I get back I'll have to find some time to write a few thoughts about George Weigel's book Letters to a Young Catholic, as well as the nature of the sacraments.

Fathers and Reading

2006-06-26T02:14:00.000-07:00

"Perhaps the greatest gift any father can bestow upon his children, apart from the covenant blessings of parish life and a comprehension of the doctrines of grace, is a passion for reading. It is cheap, it consoles, it distracts, it excites, it gives a knowledge of the world, and it offers experience of a wide kind. Indeed, it is nothing less than a moral illumination."

I stole this Thomas Chalmers quote from one of J. Ligon Duncan's posts at the Together for the Gospel blog. I could not possibly agree more, considering that I am a product of a father who has passed along his passion for reading. As far as the "blessings of parish life" and the "doctrines of grace" he has not only passed these along as well, but he has often done so in the form of a book recommendation. As for reading being cheap, I think I could take issue with that! If I could get back the money I've spent between Borders and the Covenant Seminary bookstore, I don't think I'd have to worry about my tuition for next fall.

This quote has made me stop and think about how exactly my father passed on this love for reading. I know how he didn't: he didn't continually lecture me on how I should read and how it would be good for me. No, I can think of two specific ways in which he has taught me that reading is is one of the greatest joys in life, as well as being beneficial:

First of all, he has taught me by his own example. Despite working a demanding job which leaves him physically and mentally drained, my Dad always sets aside time to read. If he is not sleeping, he can usually be found with a Bible and two or three other books under his arm. His stacks of books are scattered around the house (a continual source of aggravation for my mom) and magically, a new one seems to appear every payday at least.

Second, and probably most important, he read to me as a child. I can remember the anticipation of waiting for him to come home from work so that my brother and sister and I could find out if Bilbo Baggins would make it to the next stage of his journey in The Hobbit. We would read through entire Hardy Boys novels over the course of a couple nights (these exciting mysteries, while extremely cheesy, were made that much more intriguing by the fact that my sister wasn't allowed to listen - guys only). By setting aside these times devoted purely to the enjoyment of a good story, my Dad created in us an anticipation of all the wonderful things to be found in books. Reading was never made something that simply should or had to be done, but rather, something to be looked forward to, something to spend every spare moment engaged in.

When I think back on all the time that my Dad (and my Mom for that matter - probably even more so on her part now that I think about it) spent reading aloud to us when he could have been doing any number of other things, I can't help but look forward to the day when I can read to my own children. Hopefully I too can demonstrate for them the vast knowledge, perspective, and comfort that can be found only in the written word. Not only will developing this love be good for them, but it will also provide me with an excuse for spending far too much money on books than I should.

Jesus Loves Karl Barth

2006-06-15T21:25:00.000-07:00

A reporter once asked Dr. Barth if he could summarize what he had said in his lengthy Church Dogmatics. Dr. Barth thought for a moment and then said: "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."

Perhaps the most amazing statement of all time. There is so much communicated in these few words, and yet they are some of the first learned by children growing up in the church. How astounding is it that the man who did more than anyone else to shape the study of theology in the twentieth century can sum up the complexities of his life's work in this simple phrase that is earnestly sung by so many Sunday school students?

The Good News which has saved our lives is all the more astonishing for the fact that this simple confession is as relevant to the eighty year old as to the eight year old. Yet, I'm sure that for some this is little more than a trite phrase, worn out form years of repetition. As we grow and mature in Christ, the wonder and the mystery behind these words should not decrease, but only grow. As children, we know that we are singing about someone wonderful, someone who has done something great. As we begin to mature, we realize just what it was that was done on our behalf. We are not simply singing about someone who is nice to us and shows great affection towards us. Rather, we are as we grow in Christ, we are given a greater understanding or our sin and rebellion towards God. From this, we realize that to say "Jesus loves me," is far different from saying, "My Mother loves me," or "My friend loves me." To say "Jesus loves me," is to say that the eternal God who we have displayed blatant hatred towards, has acted on our behalf in the person of Christ to reconcile us to the Father and to save us from eternal punishment.

When we say that "The Bible tells me so," we are confessing that not only has Jesus acted on our behalf in this way, but that he has revealed these saving acts in literary form. He has not only saved us, but he has provided us with a collection of books to instruct us in who he is, how he has saved us, and how he will shape us to look like him. We are not left in any doubt over what Jesus has done for us, but are given historic testimonies to saving power of Christ throughout all of history. So, if ever you find yourself at a loss words when you go to pray, or if you feel that you have nothing to thank and praise God for, simply remember that Jesus loves you, for the Bible tells you so.

Experiencing the Welsh Revival

2006-06-12T17:58:00.000-07:00

Is it necessary for the experiential and the objective aspects of Christian faith to be opposed to one another? It seems so often that those who are most fervent for a direct encounter with God that excites the emotions and moves us to devotion are those that take no stand on or have little understanding of doctrine and its implications. Similarly, it can often appear that the most strictly orthodox believers have little grasp on the importance of experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit. Does it have to be this way?

Thankfully not. I have seen few better examples of what it means to have an experiential encounter with God that is based firmly on objective work of Christ than in William Williams' little book, The Experience Meeting. Williams was a hymn writer, poet, and leader of the Welsh revival of the 18th century. He became an authority on how to organize and conduct the "experience meetings" that came from Methodist style spiritual societies (though Methodist in style, the doctrinal foundation of these believers was thoroughly Calvinistic). As Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says in his introduction, these societies were most concerned with providing, "a fellowship in which the new spiritual life and experience of the people could be safeguarded and developed," and placed a great emphasis "on experience, and the experimental knowledge of God and His love and His ways." When expressing the affect that these meetings have on those who regularly attended, Williams said this:

[Their growth can be seen in] their growing awareness of their need of a Mediator. This poor view of themselves mentioned above has made Christ, and all that pertains to Him, very precious - His righteousness, His sufferings, His power and His wisdom. These people, today, want to look to, to think of, to study nothing but the mercy, the bounty and the gentleness of the Messiah; the suffering on Calvary's hill is what they sing about. This is the subject of their talk and of their study; and they never look inwards (into themselves) except in order to compel themselves to lean more on Christ and to believe more on Him.

As Williams goes on in the book to discuss the specifics of how the experience meeting should be conducted and what should take place, it is wonderful to see how he lays out the joining of a clear and biblical knowledge of the work of Christ with the warmth and excitement that an encounter with God always provokes. Williams never even raises the question of whether the two things can or should be separated from one another. Rather, he takes for granted that a true experiential encounter with naturally flows from a revelation of God as revealed in Christ. May we all enjoy the wonder of shared experiences in God as we see more clearly the depths of our own sin and the unthinkable provision of Christ's righteousness on our behalf.

Christopher Hitchens on Education

2006-06-01T22:50:00.001-07:00

"The measure of an education is that you acquire some idea of the extent of your ignorance."

Truer words, I'm sure, have never been spoken. It's a bit disturbing to think that I'm halfway through earning a degree in philosophy, and yet I'm not exactly the authority the subject that I thought I'd be. Rather far from it as a matter of fact. It seems that for every concept that I grasp, there are a thousand more that I can barely get my head around; for every thinker that I become acquainted with, there are countless more that I become aware of, yet know virtually nothing about. It seems that most of us are under the impression that upon entering the university, we are embarking on a four year process that will somehow download into our brain all the relevant information from our chosen area of study. Sure, we might not be quite as advanced in our understanding of the minutia of the more specialized areas of our field as someone with a PhD, but we're still sort of "mini-experts" right? Unless something drastic occurs in my next to years of study, I'm afraid I'll have to say that this is a radically mistaken impression of the undergraduate experience. The idea that there is some checklist of raw data that we will be able to spout off in the context of a conversation or debate by the time that we receive our diploma is not exactly the reality.

Mr. Hitchens' (who, by the way, is the subject of a great article in the most recent World magazine) statement may seem a little pessimistic to some. One generally thinks that any sort of an education should work towards doing away with ignorance. Undoubtedly, this would be true if a real education did in fact consist of the acquisition of a specified amount of information. But as I've said, this is not true to experience. Far from pessimism, Hitchens' observation has helped me to redefine what I hope to get out of my time as an undergrad. I am not as worried as I once was that might not be able to pontificate at length about each of the major stages in the development of philosophical thought, thus doing away with all ignorance on the subject. Given that this would be an impossible task, it appears that Mr. Hitchens is right. A real education does not consist of the eradication of ignorance (as if that were possible) but rather of an exposure to knowledge that opens our eyes to a vast realm of information and ideas that we didn't know existed. Seen from this perspective, and education is not something that is achieved in the duration of the four years following high school. Rather, it seems that a formal education is something that should equip us with the tools and desire to explore the vast, unsearched reaches of our own ignorance. Hopefully our formal education will provide us with a basis from which to continue the ongoing process of a true education as we continue to find out what else it is that we are ignorant of.

One final thought on Christopher Hitchens himself: I find Mr. Hitchens to be one of the most interesting and stimulating public figures I can think of. His ability to comment in an insightful and clearheaded way on widely varying subjects, such as literature, politics, history, foreign policy, and much else, is extremely enjoyable. I would only note that I wish he would display the same sort of insight when discussing the subject of God and religion. As a self proclaimed "anti-theist" Hitchens believes, as he comments in the World article, that the concept of God "was completely invented by very underdeveloped human beings." It seems that Hitch might want to heed some of his own advice and be a little bit more aware of the extent of his own ignorance when it comes to the subject of religion.

The Experience of Conversion

2006-05-30T18:05:00.000-07:00

In Galatians 2, Paul speaks of false teachers who are spreading a gospel that is "contrary to the one we preached to you" as well as "contrary to the one you received." This repetition of the gospel as "preached" and "received" draws the distinction between the objective nature of the gospel message and the subjective appropriation of that message. While it is vital for us to understand that the gospel is the message of objective redemptive events, we lose much of the power of that objective work if we do not also dwell on the experiential side of the good news. Here are a couple of great quotes from Christian figures that speak of the joy and wonder they experienced as a result of the Holy Spirit applying Christ's work of redemption to their lives.

The first is from Abraham Kuyper, the prolific Dutch theologian and statesman:

What my soul went through in that moment, I have only later fully understood; but yet in that hour, nay, from that very moment, I learned to despise what formerly I admired, and to seek what formerly I spurned. But enough. You know the lasting character of the impression of such an experience; what the soul encounters in such a conflict belongs to that eternal something, which presents itself to the soul years afterward, strongly and sharply defined, as though it happened but yesterday.

John Wesley describes his conversion in these words:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation: And an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

Let each one of us experience anew the wonderful feeling of our hearts being "strangely warmed" as we meditate on the glorious certain redemptive work of God in Christ. May we remember with awe the time that the message of the gospel was first made known to us and may we experience it afresh each day.

Martin on Memorial Day

2006-05-29T01:15:00.000-07:00

For any who might doubt, yes, I can employ the writings of Martin Luther in the observance of any holiday or otherwise special occasion. For Luther, the question of whether military force could or should be employed by Christians was more than a mere theoretical issue. With the constant threat of violent force being brought against Reformational believers in Germany, this was an issue of the utmost practicality. While it would be foolish to read Luther's conclusions uncritically (I think I would have to take issue with a number of the specific statements in the following passage), his no-nonsense approach is quite refreshing. Here is a selection from Luther's treatise, That Soldiers, Too, Can be Saved:

When men write about war, then, and say that it is a great plague, that is all true; but they should also see how great the plague is that it prevents. If people were good, and glad to keep peace, war would be the greatest plague on earth; but what are you going to do with the fact that people will not keep peace, but rob, steal, kill, outrage women and children, and take away property and honor? The small lack of peace, called war, or the sword, must set a check upon this universal, world-wide lack of peace, before which no one could stand. Therefore God honors the sword so highly that He calls it His own ordinance, and will not have men say or imagine that they have invented it or instituted it. For the hand that wields this sword and slays with it is then no more mans hand, but Gods, and it is not man, but God, who hangs, tortures, beheads, slays and fights. All these are His works and His judgments. In a word, in thinking of the soldiers office, we must not have regard to the slaying, burning, smiting, seizing, etc. That is what the narrow, simple eyes of children do, when they see in the physician only a man who cuts off hands or saws off legs, but do not see that he does it to save the whole body. So, too, we must look at the office of the soldier, or the sword, with grown-up eyes, and see why it slays and acts so cruelly. Then it will prove itself to be an office that, in itself, is godly, as needful and useful to the world as eating and drinking or any other work.

On this Memorial Day, I would like to thank those brave soldiers, past and present, who have not hesitated to take up the sword as appointed by God at the proper time. Specifically, thanks to those from our own congregations at New Covenant Church, Major Paul Wynn and Second Lieutenant Steven Ottolini, who are currently serving the U.S. Army in Iraq. We are grateful to you for willingness to defend our freedoms, and we are praying that God will keep you in the power of his Holy Spirit.

Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?

2006-05-25T21:45:00.000-07:00

I recently enjoyed James K.A. Smith's latest release from Baker Academic entitled Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? This is another one that goes under the "should-have-been-studying-for-finals-but-was-reading-my-own-stuff-instead" file (which, incidentally, always turnout to be the best ones). Smith's book serves as a primer on the thought of the major continental philosophers whose work laid the foundation of postmodern thought. While the theories of such French philosophers as Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault are generally considered to be antithetical to historic Christianity, Smith contends that this view is due in part to a shallow reading and "bumpersticker" understanding of some of the key phrases that these thinkers employ. He thinks a deeper understanding of postmodern thought can not only show that the thought of these men in not in conflict with Christianity, but that, in fact, postmodern theory can go along way in informing the Church on how to develop an "ancient-future faith."

While I'm wary of much of the current literature that seems want an uncritical acceptance of all things postmodern for the sake of being "relevant," I found Smith's discussion of the subject to be very thoughtful and well reasoned. Smith's expertise is in the area of Continental philosophy, which allows him to discuss the themes of postmodernism is far more thorough manner than most. His task is not to in some way to make the Church more postmodern but rather to find the ways in which postmodernism can help the Church be the fulfill her task. As Smith states it:

On the level of practice, a more persistent postmodernism will engender not quite a postmodern church but rather a postmodern catalyst for the church to be the church.

This does not happen simply through a postmodern makeover which appeals to the sensibilities of a particular generation. Rather, postmodernism, according to Smith, reaffirms and restates some of the things that Christianity (and especially Reformed Christianity of a presuppositional persuasion) has always said. For instance, the emphasis postmodernity places on context and its role in creating meaning can find a parallel in presuppositional apologetics, which takes very seriously the role of presuppositions brought into any discussion of Christianity. While Smith shows great skill in drawing these sort of parallels, he is far from uncritical of postmodern thought in general. His ability to discern the good and the bad in postmodernism separates him form the pack on this subject.

Francis Schaeffer, the Anti-Conservative?

2006-05-16T18:16:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest injustices we do to our young people is to ask them to be conservative...If we want to be fair, we must teach the young to be revolutionaries, revolutionaries against the status quo.

These are the words of Francis Schaeffer. It seems that they are timely words for the Church today. We so often convey that the only message that we have as Christians is the need to adhere to a particular moral agenda. In taking a look at the Church's interaction with the culture at large, it seems that we often have little to offer those who reject any sort of moral standard (or simply the standard that they don't like) than an alternative set of morals. We hear a lot about how God's way is the right way and how marriage, the family, and society in general would be so much better off if only people would start doing things God's way. I believe this is true. I also believe that this is at best a peripheral declaration for the community of Christ.

One of the most devastating courses of actions that we can take as believers is to communicate to others that the solution to their problems is to simply adhere to "traditional moral standards." As the Church, we have been given a message that is revolutionary in the most fundamental sense. The reality of the perfect obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ on our behalf, as well as the promise of redemption for the entire created order radically redefines existence as we know it. No longer is a comfortable suburban lifestyle, or the achievement of a traditional morally upstanding society, hearkening back to a by-gone era, the best we have to hope for. We now are called to live as those who no longer trust that living the proper way or adhering to certain standards will gain us anything. It has been revealed to us that what we think of a moral lifestyle, even one that adheres to "traditional moral values," is actually corrupt to the core because of sin, despite any outward appearances. In place of a hope in our own goodness, we have been revealed the One who was good in our place and died on our behalf.

With a message such as this, why would we want to communicate anything less? While it is easy to fall into the tendency to chide those whose actions we know are sinful (I do it all the time), we cannot simply offer another set of actions as the solution. I believe that, as Schaeffer says, this is especially relevant to the way that we communicate the Christian faith to youths (and yes, I realize that I am included in that category). The tendency of young people to reject traditional standards in favor of what is seen as more radical or cutting-edge is not a bad one! Even when this tendency takes the form of an acceptance of a radical left-wing political agenda, or some other youthful "idealism" we must realize that this it comes from an inborn desire for something greater than traditional conservatism or right-living can bring us. The revolutionary desire is only natural in someone who is surrounded by a world of sin and has seen the righteousness of God in Christ. Let our message not be one of conservatism, but rather one of a radical revelation of Christ!

W.H. Auden on Luther

2006-05-12T10:57:00.000-07:00

Its not as if I needed another distraction for the last two weeks of the semester, but I've found one nevertheless. This one comes in the form of the Collected Poems of W.H. Auden. His poem Funeral Blues could possibly be the most moving poem of all time, as well as my favorite. Not only was Auden a great poet, but he was also a great man of faith who struggled immensely with the issue of his own sin, including his homosexuality. As such a figure, his poems dealing with Martin Luther, the ultimate source for issues regarding guilt and sin, are particularly profound.

This first poem is simply entitled Luther:

With conscience cocked to listen for the thunder,
He saw the Devil busy in the wind,
Over the chiming steeples and then under
The doors of nuns and doctors who sinned.

What apparatus could stave off disaster
Or cut the brambles of man's error down?
Flesh was a silent dog that bites its master,
World a still pond in which its children drown.

The fuse of Judgement spluttered in his head:
"Lord, smoke these honeyed insects from their hives.
All Works, Great Men, Societies are bad.
The Just shall live by Faith..." he cried in dread.

And men and women of the world were glad,
Who'd never cared or trembled in their lives.

This second verse in taken from a collection of similar short rhymes entitled Academic Graffiti (its not flattering but its funny):

Luther & Zwingli
Should be treated singly:
L hated the Peasants,
Z the Real Presence.

Structure, Direction, and Drunkenness

2006-05-09T11:04:00.000-07:00

Yes, I am a bit stuck on Albert Wolters at the moment. I am, out of necessity, reading and studying in other areas, but my spare thoughts keep drifting towards Wolters' distinction of structure and direction. In particular, I have been thinking of the way that this distinction could be applied to issues such as the natural desire of human beings to become drunk, high, or otherwise intoxicated. Is this desire, at the root, a product of the fall? It certainly doesn't seem so. It seems, at least to me, that there is an undeniable aspect of creational structure involved in these sorts of desires. Without a doubt, as it is directed towards alcohol or drugs, this structural desire is radically perverted and misguided by the corruptive influence of sin. However, it seems that as with anything else that is part of the creation order, we must not reject this desire foundationally, but rather seek to redeemtively redirect it.

I can think of no better direction for this desire to be drunk, that is to be completely caught up in an exhilarating emotional and physical experience, than the exercise of the gifts of the Spirits. The discipline of being filled with the Spirit and it manifestations in tongues, prophecy, and any other way through which the Spirit should choose to reveal Himself, provide us with just such an exhilaration. Instead of providing us with carnal pleasures, this sort of drunkenness serves to point us to the person of Christ and the rapturous and uncontrollable joy that a revelation of His work on our behalf produces. It is this very redirection of drunkenness that Paul appears to be addressing in Eph. 5:18 when he encourages us to "not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit."

It is unfortunate that so many Christians, including the majority of our Reformed brothers and sisters, who display such a deep understanding of this structure/direction distinction, would seek to discredit such manifestations of the Holy Ghost. It appears to me that in doing so, they are failing to see the structural goodness of intoxication and the redirection from "debauchery" towards being "filled with the Spirit." It seems that such a redirection is necessary if we are to truly be semper reformanda. How's that for an attempt at working out the implications of Charismatic Neocalvinism?

Cheers!

Wolters on Mosaic Law

2006-05-03T14:23:00.000-07:00

I'd like to bring out one more of the important aspects of Albert Wolters' book Creation Regained. Wolters deals with the subject of the Mosaic law and how we are to apply it today. This portion of the book comes after a long explanation of the eternal nature of God's law in the creation order. I have provided this selection from the book hoping that it will be of interest to those who have discussed the subjects of the law as well as tithing here as well as on other blogs recently.

One final point should be made about the revelation of God's law in Scripture and in creation. We noted earlier that the Mosaic law was the divinely accredited implementation of creational law for ancient Israel. This means that the law of Moses is fixed between two reference points: creational law and ancient Israel, the universal and enduring principles of creation and the historical situation of a particular people (Israel) in a particular place (Palestine) at a particular time (the centuries between Moses and Christ). Because of this double reference, the coming of Christ also involves a "fulfillment" of the law in a double sense. On the one hand, the law is fulfilled in that the shadow is replaced by the substance, and Jewish law is no longer binding for the people of God. On the other hand, the law is fulfilled in that Christ reaffirms its deepest meaning (see Matt. 5:17). In other words, insofar as the Mosaic law is addressed to a particular phase of history of God's people it has lost its validity, but insofar as it points to the enduring normativity of God's creation order it retains its validity. For example, the legislation concerning the year of Jubilee, applying as it does to an agrarian society in the ancient Near East, is no longer binding for the New Testament people of God, but in its reflection of a general principle of stewardship as a creational norm it should continue to function as a guide for the new Israel. The provision for a bill of divorce is no longer in effect, but it sill stands as God's own reminder to us of a basic principle of justice: there must be legal guarantees to minimize the effects of the hardness of the human heart. The same could be said concerning the laws for tithing, protection of the poor and sojourners, and so on.

Another way of saying this is that God did the implementing for his people in the Old Testament, while in the New he in large measure gives us the freedom in Christ to do our own implementing. That is the point of Paul's letter to the Galatians. But in both cases he holds us to the blueprint of the law of creation. In the Old Testament the explanations he gave included detailed instructions for the implementation of the blueprint; that was by way of apprenticeship. In Christ we are journeyman builders - still bound to the architect's explicit directions, but with considerable freedom of implementation as new situations arise.

Just a thought: could this freedom to "do our own implementing" of the specific laws in light of the eternal law of the creation order be considered natural law? Again, just a thought. If you care to comment, please don't feel the need to restrict your response to this question. There are plenty of worthwhile thoughts in this whole passage.

Creation Regained

2006-05-01T14:53:00.000-07:00

There are far too many thin paperbacks of immense value that distract me from the more pressing matters of end of the semester assingments and papers. One such book is the second edition of Albert Wolters classic on Reformational worldview, Creation Regained. This edition was released a year ago to commemorate the 20th anniversary of its publication and includes a new postscript by Wolters and Michael W. Goheen.

The book starts out with a discussion of what the idea of a worldview consists of. The term comes from the Dutch Reformed tradition and implies a "life perspective" or "confessional vision" (personally, my favorite term). More specifically, it is "the comprehensive framework of one's basic beliefs about things." This is distinct from philosophy in that it deals with the way in which we approach every discipline and activity, including things like philosophy. A worldview is not a matter of specialized study, but rather something which everyone has and operates under whether they are aware of it or not.

After the basic discussion of worldview, Wolters goes on to explain the three categories of creation, fall, and redemption. Creation has to do with far more than simply the creation of the earth as given in the Genesis account. It deals with the structures that God put in place to govern that which he created. The creation order exists and is maintained by the Word of God which implies normative structures for all aspects of the creation. Next is a discussion of the implications of the fall for the created order. Once sin has entered the world, every aspect of the good creation is perverted or misdirected in some way. Sin is a distortion of the original goodness of creation, not something that is added to it. Redemption is the restorative power of Christ to bring back the original goodness of the created order and to redeem it from the corruptive influence of sin. Redemption does not add something more to the created order, but rather is the process through which it is restored to its original intent.

Wolters ends by explaining the need to discern what he calls "structure" and "direction" in creation. Identifying the structure of a particular realm or discipline in creation requires us to discern the original intent for that sphere. We must look at politics, journalism, fashion, and every other kind of cultural activity in a way that identifies the normative structure that is given to them by the Word. Identifying the direction of these spheres will require us to see where they have deviated from their original intent through the corruption of sin. This sort of approach keeps us from seeing any particular aspect of the created order (which is all "good" according to God) as inherently evil or bad. It is not politics that is bad, but rather the abuse of political power that comes with sin. It is not the arts that are bad, but rather the misdirection of artistic ability. This understanding of "structure" and "direction" helps us to identify the goodness of the varying aspects of society while allowing us to see where they have deviated from their original goodness. Discerning this allows us to seek to redeem these fields instead of rejecting them.

The new postscript addresses some concerns that the authors have seen in particular appropriations of the idea of a biblical worldview. Their concern is that some have taken it "as though it were meant to be a full-fledged exposition of the biblical perspective on life and the world, whereas in fact it concentrated on what might be called the 'structural girders' of such a perspective." They emphasis the importance of a biblical worldview being placed in the greater context of a narrative understanding of the biblical story and our place and mission within that story. This requires that we gain a greater understanding of what it means to live in the "already-not yet" and that we see the Church's role as providing a "preview of the Kingdom." While this sort of thinking necessitates the Church's interaction with culture, it also acknowledges an unavoidable tension between the two which will only be relieved in the final coming of Christ.

This is a wonderful book, and one that deserves to be widely read in a Christian culture that is so inherently Gnostic in much of its thinking. Wolters affirms the goodness of the created order and opens up the reader to the possibilities of Christian interaction with cultural in light of Christ's work of redemption. He also provides a wonderful way of looking at the place of Scripture in developing a framework for thinking and acting in all parts of life without forcing the Word to speak where it is silent.

Bavinck and the Holy Spirit

2006-04-21T08:32:00.000-07:00

I have done some posts in the past on the current need in the Church at large for a fuller pneumatology. I would say that this includes those who simply see manifestations of the Spirit in the context of a meeting as ends unto themselves, as well as those who take a more cessasionist stance. As I mentioned in my recent post on Neocalvinism, this Dutch brand of Reformation thought offers a framework that emphasizes a much more robust understanding of the work of the Spirit in the earth, not simply limited to the soteriological aspects of the His task. It even seems that there is room in the Neocalvinist tradition for the Spirit to be understood in terms of charismatic expressions in worship and in the life of the Christian community. Herman Bavinck's definition of a Trinitarian understanding of reality is very helpful in the attempt to articulate the pervasive nature of the Spirit's work in the earth:

God the Father has reconciled His created but fallen world through the death of His Son, and renews it into a Kingdom of God by His Spirit.

This is not only a wonderful, concise statement of the Christian worldview in general, but it also shows the radical importance of the work of the Spirit in revealing Christ and bringing about renewal in the present age. It emphasizes not only the Spirit's work in regeneration of the individual, but also looks to Him for a renewal of all spheres of the creation order. While the Spirit is the seal of our salvation and does manifest Himself in context of congregational worship, there is a much broader aspect of the Spirit's work to which these things point. As we profess that we are sealed by the Spirit, we are also attesting to the Spirit's activity in sealing the salvation of the world at large. As the He manifests Himself amongst us in worship, we are proclaiming to the world that His presence is here and at work among us and in the whole earth.

Calvin and the Lord's Supper

2006-04-17T10:52:00.000-07:00

Here's a recent paper that I've written on Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The subject of the presence of Christ at the communion table is one that is virtually neglected by evangelicals altogether. Whether we realize it or not, most evangelicals hold to a Zwinglian or memorialist view of the table. In other words, Christ is not truly present in the Eucharist meal, but rather, we simply remember Christ's death. However, this is position is in one that has been held by a minority of Christians throughout the course of Church history. At the time of the Reformation, it was the controversy over how Christ's presence in the meal was to be understood that was the major issue dividing Protestants. While Luther held to an understanding of the real physical presence, similar to that of the Roman Catholic position, Zwingli denied any sort of real presence.

Calvin's doctrine was an attempt to moderate between these two positions. It maintains that Christ is truly present with his people in table, but he is with them spiritually. Christ's body and blood do not become bread and wine, but rather, bread and wine are means consecrated by God to bring us into the presence of Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit. In a Church culture that continues to diminish the place of the Eucharist in the gathering of the congregation, an understanding of Calvin's doctrine would do much to restore a reverence for the grace communicated to us through the Lord's Supper. For myself, nothing has done more to transform the communion table from a place of meaningless ritual to a source of joy and thanksgiving for the work of Christ than has Calvin's articulation of this doctrine. Keith Mathison's book, Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, is an excellent resource on the subject.

Martin Luther on Resurrection and Justification

2006-04-16T00:31:00.000-07:00

Here are some classic words from Martin Luther for this Easter. As we celebrate the resurrection of Christ today and everyday, may we remember what it promises!

St. Paul writes in Romans 4:25 as follows: “Christ was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification.” Paul is indeed the man who extols Christ in a masterly manner, telling us exactly why and for what purpose he suffered and how we should conform ourselves to his sufferings, namely, that he died for our sins. This is a correct interpretation of the sufferings of Christ, by which we may profit. And as it is not sufficient to know and believe that Christ has died, so it will not suffice to know and believe that he rose with a transfigured body and is now in a state of joy and blessedness, no longer subject to mortality, for all this would profit me nothing or very little. But when I come to understand the fact that all the works God does in Christ are done for me, nay, they are bestowed upon and given to me, the effect of his resurrection being that I also will arise and live with him; that will cause me to rejoice. This must be brought home to our hearts, and we must not merely hear it with the ears of our body nor merely confess it with our mouth. 7. You have heard in the story of the Passion how Christ is portrayed as our exemplar and helper, and that he who follows him and clings to him receives the Spirit, who will enable him also to suffer. But the words of Paul are more Christian and should come closer home to our hearts and comfort us more, when he says: “Christ was raised for our justification.”

A Biblical Framework for Cultural Activies

2006-04-14T10:38:00.000-07:00

Embarrassing title, excellent book. Holding Hands, Holding Hearts: Recovering a Biblical View of Christian Dating, by Richard and Sharon Phillips, is a discussion of what dating should look like for singles in the Church. Despite the horrific title (which, to be fair does communicate a rather good point), the Phillips' book gives a refreshing and practical perspective on how the cultural practice of dating can be approached by Christian singles without feeling the need to give it a strange name or apply some sort of overspiritualized "Christian" method. It clearly lays out a complementarian view of the relationship between men and women and then goes on to give practical and useful advice for Christians in or seeking a dating relationship. The Phillips' are able to lay out a description of the three basic stages of any relationship - commitment, intimacy, and interdependence - without trying to impose a formal structure that must be followed to the letter. The three stages are descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

As good as this book is by way of practical advice and biblical counsel on relationships, I found that the most refreshing thing about this book was the way that it undertook to describe a "biblical view" of a practice like dating. The Phillips' outline their approach in the introduction:

What does the Bible say about dating? Nothing. And everything! Our challenge is to think biblically about a practice that isn't in the Bible.

In one sense, the Bible has nothing to say about dating. However, just as with any other practice that changes from culture to culture, our perspective is shaped by our understanding of Scripture. In this sense, a greater understanding of what Scripture says about the relationship between a man and a women, as well as a biblical understanding of love in general, is essential to understanding the way that we should conduct our relationships. This is true not only of dating, but of many other practices and institutions that are unique to our individual culture. We must have an informed biblical framework from which to understand subjects like politics, education, social justice, and a litany of other things, without attempting to force Scripture to speak where it is silent. It seems that so often we are satisfied to create a Christian subculture in which we have chapter and verse to back up every practice. However, if we are truly to have a place of influence in our culture, we must realize that just as with dating, Scripture does not specifically dictate a course of action for most of our cultural activities. What it does do is provide us with a framework of truth that allows us much freedom and creativity, while providing us with hedges to protect and instruct as we engage the world around us.

Not bad for a book with such a cheesy title!

Charismatic Neocalvinism

2006-04-12T11:46:00.000-07:00

I know that people always say that they don't like labels, especially as Christians. I have to confess that I love labels. They help to define and clarify positions, even if they do oversimplify or generalize positions and viewpoints at times. Here's a great label from a recent article in Comment, an online journal, by one of my favorites, James K.A. Smith, the head of the philosophy department at Calvin College: "Charismatic Neo-Calvinism." Neo-Calvinism, a Dutch brand of Calvinism as set forth by Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd, Herman Bavinck, and more recently, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Richard Mouw, is an attempt at articulating a Christian philosophy of life which takes into consideration the sovereingnty of God in every sphere of his creation, as well as the goodness of the creation structure. This approach is encapsulated by Kuyper's famous quote:

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: Mine!

In his article, Smith explains why the Neocalvinistic tradition is his main frame of reference, while offering some suggestions as to the particular weakness that it is hampered by and some potential ways that this tradition could be supplemented and spoken to by other traditions. One of these traditions, Smith believes, is the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition:

Albert Wolters recently confessed: "It is my belief that a 'charismatic neocalvinist' is not a contradiction in terms." Thanks be to God, or I'd be a walking contradiction! My own introduction to and immersion in neocalvinism was concurrent with my own pilgrimage to Pentecost and identification with charismatic Christianity. I found in the wholistic worldview and anthropology of neocalvinism an articulation of just what I was experiencing in worship and spiritual disciplines in the charismatic renewal. I think Wolters is absolutely correct in discerning a deep affinity between neocalvinism and charismatic Christianity, and I think that the future of both would be well-served by their mutual interaction. And given the shape of global Christianity, I think this represents a critical opportunity for neocalvinism to serve the global church.

As a Reformed Charismatics, it is this sort of position that we hope to see spread through the Church at large. We long to see a Church that takes seriously the doctrines of grace, as well as the transforming effect that they can have on the culture as we begin to see that all creation is good and that our activity in different spheres of cultural can point others towards Christ. We also believe that this will only happen by a powerful movement of the Holy Spirit as we gain an ever increasing understanding of the biblical role of spiritual gifts and the subjective, experiential aspect of the Spirit's work in revival. In the article by Albert Wolters, referred to by Smith in his quote, Wolters lays out some suggestions as to how these two traditions might complement one another:

The power, vitality and emotional spontaneity of the charismatic movement, as well as its openness to the charismatic gifts, its emphasis on the effectiveness of prayer, and its acknowledgement of the reality of the demonic are all part of a vibrant biblical Christianity from which neocalvinism can benefit. On the other hand, I believe that charismatic Christians can derive great benefit from the strengths of neocalvinism, notably its broad cultural vision of the Christian life, its intellectual sophistication and maturity, and its tradition of responsible biblical exegesis.

Ok, so I know that we shouldn't be dependent on labels. They are often misleading, and as soon as we find one that we like, we usually find items that go under that label that we can't agree with. But come on, if you have to have a label, being called a Charismatic Neocalvinist isn't bad, is it?

Joel and the Lord of the Covenant

2006-04-06T16:09:00.000-07:00

I've been greatly enjoying O. Palmer Robertson's commentary on the book of Joel, Prophet of the Coming Day of the Lord. It comes from a series of very helpful commentaries put out by Evangelical Press. This is a simple exposition of the text of Joel with practical application and a very devotional feel.

One of the most interesting, as well as clarifying aspects of this commentary is the way in which Robertson chooses to render the name of God used in the Old Testament, known as the "Tetragrammaton." This Hebrew word YHWH or "Yahweh" is traditionally represented by the word LORD. Robertson points out that while this is not a bad translation, the significance of the Hebrew word, which is so pregnant with meaning, is often missed by readers when rendered this way. In his own translation, used in the commentary, Robertson uses the phrase "Covenant Lord." As one of the foremost experts on covenant theology within Reformed circles, it is not surprising that Robertson is able to recognize this particular aspect of the name of God. He explains the decision in this way:

The translation adopted in this commentary has worked with the generally accepted understanding that this special name for God is related directly to his revelation to his people as their 'Covenant Lord'. Only to the people called out to be his own has God made himself known by this name. In association with his oath-bound commitments, God has revealed himself as 'Lord of the Covenant'.

This is a wonderful truth, that God relates to us on the basis of the special relationship found in his covenant. The terms of this covenant are set by him and fulfilled by him as well. What better arrangement could we ask for?! Not only does this rendering of God's name as "Covenant Lord" reveal to use the way in which the Hebrew's understood their relationship to God, but, as Robertson points out, it has Christological implications as well. He sees the historic difficulty of translating the Old Testament name of God to have very specific foreshadowings of Christ:

It just may be that God intended it that way for a special purpose. The revelation that came in the person of God's Son burst onto the scene of human history with the greatest brilliance because of the 400 years of divine silence that preceded it. In a similar way, the obvious blank at the place where God's name should have been heard made the way clear for the name of 'Jesus' to receive the full honour it deserved. Without a rival even from Scripture itself, it is clearly and exclusively 'at the name of Jesus' that 'every knee should bow and every tongue declare that "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil. 2:10-11).

J. Ligon Duncan on Eschatology

2006-04-04T09:22:00.000-07:00

I came across this comment by J. Ligon Duncan on escatology recently and was amazed by the way that it expressed my own particular leanings on the question of the millennium. Its always wonderful when you can find someone as brilliant as Duncan express a certain viewpoint or position that you hold to, but may not be able to express or defend adequately.

The specifics of the millennial question have never been the main focus of my teaching on eschatology, but I suppose I'd be characterized as amil or postmil on most matters relating to that (I say a- or post- partly because on the one hand I look for continuity between the already and the not yet in terms of the reign of God's kingdom on earth [in a way that most amils don't], and yet on the other hand do not conceive of a "golden age" in the way that classic postmillennialism does - I see a simultaneously increasing opposition to the kingdom growing alongside an ever advancing and expanding kingdom).

Men like Duncan who are such accomplished scholars know more about eschatology than most of us could ever hope to know, even if it is not their main area of expertise. If someone so knowledgeable on such a subject can express a certain amount of uncertainty as to exactly how something like the millennium will play out, I hope we can all recognize that our own positions should probably be subject to some scrutiny. Any thoughts on the millennium or Duncan's particular position?

Bryan Chapell on Creation

2006-03-31T01:50:00.000-08:00

I want to pass along a great link to a statement on creation by Bryan Chapell, the president of Covenant Theological Seminary. The statement is a section of the '98-'99 President's Goals and Report. It deals with accusations of liberal leanings brought against the seminary because of the fact that it allows its professors to put forth various interpretations of the creation account in Genesis. Chapell defends this position by noting that the seminary has always held to the stance that a literal 144 hour creation is not the only possible interpretation. He also cites numerous examples of respected, orthodox Reformed theologians who have held to various interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis.

This is a subject of particular interest to me. In my course on Christian doctrine, taught by a Neo-Orthodox professor who is an ordained minister in the PC(USA), we have recently been discussing the doctrine of creation. The stance of the professor is that the creation account is not an attempt to convey a historical account, but rather, it communicates some more abstract idea about God's activity in creation which allows for an evolutionary process to take place. Throughout the class, the assumption has been that a literal view of the creation account in Genesis 1 must be conceived of as a 6 day, 144 hour creation and is necessarily opposed to the discipline of science. This sort of misrepresentation has been extremely frustrating. While I have no illusions that a perspective such as Chapell's (which allows for interpretations of Genesis 1 in ways that acknowledge the historical accuracy and reliability of the creation account apart from a 144 hour creation) would satisfy someone who takes such a stance, it would at least be nice if it were recognized that everyone who believes in the historicity of the Genesis creation account is not a literal 6 day creationist.

While this statement is a bit dated, it touches on a controversy that is far from dead, and it offers some excellent perspective. Aside from the specifics of the creation controversy, Chapell provides excellent insight into the way that doctrinal differences in general should be handled. In tackling issues such as the proper way to interpret and adhere to the Westminster Confession and what aspects of doctrine are non-negotiable for ordained pastors to affirm, Chapell offers these words:

I believe it is fear that is driving some in our church to be interpreting the Confession of Faith so narrowly that even small deviations openly discussed and freely explored for decades are now being taken as sufficient grounds for denying men ordination. While we should have no patience for liberalism (i.e., the denial of any portion of God's Word as absolutely and inerrantly true), neither should we believe that it will aid our church to deny men the opportunity to consider what have been deemed for decades, or centuries, to be legitimate Biblical interpretations that fall within our system of doctrine. Men denied the right to argue Biblically what does fall within historic Presbyterianism will either suppress their opinions for a time or will become facile at wording answers which are true but are nonetheless intended to blur distinctions.

Also, notice Chapell's comment that we should deal with differences in the specifics of creational views in the same way we deal with different millenial views. This is extremely insightful stuff in my opinion. For a good book that touches on this subject, check out God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1, by W. Robert Godfrey, the president of Westminster Seminary in California.

Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way

2006-03-27T20:11:00.000-08:00

I've found that often, the books that you most enjoying are the ones that you shouldn't be reading. Its scary to think about how little time is left in this semester and how much work I have to complete before its over. Its times like these that I begin to get a glimpse of what Paul was talking about when he said, "He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'" No doubt, part of that weakness is my inability to set aside personal reading to get done the work that is required of me by my various classes. However, even with this being said, I think its a these times that I need to be distracted for a little while with a book that I can simply enjoy and not worry about having to be accountable for the content. Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way, by Pope John Paul II was just such a book.

The book is an address to bishops concerning their specific tasks in ministry, as well as a memoir of John Paul's thoughts and remembrances of his own days as a bishop. It is a wonderful account of the way in which Church leaders should care for their congregations and how they should support one another in their fellowship. John Paul II discusses what the specific responsibilities of bishops should be by describing his own experiences in the office and by recounting different stories of other bishop's from all over the world and from all different times. His approach displays the wonderful unity and antiquity of Church that spans race, nationality, and even time itself. On the definition of the bishop's vocation, he has this to say:

The mystery of the bishop's vocation in the Church consists precisely in the fact that he is situated both in this particular visible community, for which he was made a bishop, and at the same time in the universal Church.

John Paul II displays a commitment, dependence, and faith in Christ that serves as a wonderful example and encouragement to believers from all Christian traditions. This faith is expressed through his desire to see men raised up in the Church that will fulfill the role of a pastor that was most evidently demonstrated by Christ Himself. By way of citing an example of just such a man, John Paul II provides a selection from poem that he had written on the martyrdom of St. Stanislaus, a Polish bishop:

Stanislus may have thought: my word will hurt you and convert,
you will come as a penitent to the cathedral gate,
emaciated by fasting, enlightened by a voice within,
to join the Lord's table like a prodigal son.
If the word did not convert you, the blood will.

The bishop had perhaps no time to think:
let this cup pass from me.

The book is filled with many passages that express the need for the sincerity of a bishop in his vocation in similarly beautiful ways. It seems to me that those of us within Church traditions that recognize the position of apostolic leadership (note the lower case "a" in contrast to the specific formulation of Apostolic authority in the Roman Catholic Church) can benefit from John Paul II's advice to ministers that have oversight over a number of congregations. Surely, we can all recognize the truth and the beauty in a call such as the one that he gives to bishops in the closing chapter:

Echoing the words of our Lord and Master, I too say to each one of you, dear brothers in the episcopate: "Rise, let us be on our way!" Let us go forth full of trust in Christ. He will accompany us as we journey toward the goal that He alone knows.

Aquinas, Natural Law, and Theonomy

2006-03-26T02:20:00.000-08:00

When talking with my good friend Gavin Deacon, one of the subjects that frequently comes up is that of Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction. While I'm not going to attempt to undertake any sort of detailed discussion of these topics in this post, I simply want to note one concerns that Gavin mentioned recently about Theonomy in general (which I've no doubt will be the topic of a post for him in the near future). Gavin mentioned that he was disconcerted by the way in which the principles of Theonomy seem to want to replace an internal knowledge of right and wrong, as witnessed to us by the Holy Spirit, with the specific dictates that regulated conduct under the Old Covenant. In doing some reading in preparation for a paper on Thomas Aquinas and his views on natural law, I have come across some specific passages from Aquinas that speak directly to this issue. Gavin, I just thought I'd let you know that Aquinas agrees with you wholeheartedly! On the use of the law under the Old and New Covenants, Aquinas has this to say:

"Now things may be distinguished in two ways. First, as those things that are altogether specifically different, e.g. a horse and an ox. Secondly, as perfect and imperfect in the same species, e.g. a boy and a man: and in this way the Divine law is divided into Old and New. Hence the Apostle (Ga. 3:24, 25) compares the state of man under the Old Law to that of a child "under a pedagogue"; but the state under the New Law, to that of a full grown man, who is "no longer under a pedagogue."

For Aquinas, the divine law, the law of God, is eternal and always remains the same. However, there are distinctions to be made in how the law is applied. We can see this distinction made in the law of the Old Testament and the New Law that came with the advent of Christ. The main distinction between the two is that the Old Law restrains our outward actions, while the New Law directs us internally:

"It belongs to the law to direct human acts according to the order of righteousness (Article [4]): wherein also the New Law surpasses the Old Law, since it directs our internal acts, according to Mt. 5:20: 'Unless your justice abound more than that or the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Hence the saying that 'the Old Law restrains the hand, but the New Law controls the mind.'"

For Aquinas, because this is the case, the dictates of the Divine Law can be worked out and known by human reason, on the basis of principles that are evident in nature. This means that we have a legitimate basis upon which to form laws which govern our society, apart from the reappropriation of Old Testament formulations of the law.

I'll probably have some more to say on Aquinas and natural law theory in the near future. At the least, I intend to post the paper (or perhaps selections from the paper) towards the end of the semester.

The Reasons of Love

2006-03-23T16:22:00.000-08:00

What are the reasons that we value the things that we do? How do we explain the courses of action that we take? What is the criteria that guides our life choices? These are questions that moral philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt (most know for his best selling On Bullshit) asks in his book The Reasons of Love.

Frankfurt divides this book in three sections: 1)The Question: "How Should We Live?" 2) On Love, and Its Reasons, and 3) The Dear Self. He starts out by asking what should be the motivating factor in making choices that determine what kind of life we should live? Is it enough to simply pattern our choices and actions in accordance with a particular moral code? While morality may provide us with a pattern of what we should do, it seems to Frankfurt that it is insufficient to provide us with compelling reasons to act in a certain way. While we often realize that we should make a particular choice simply because it is the right and good thing to do, it would appear that most of our choices are not based simply on a determination that it is the correct moral or ethical decision to make. It seems that we need something beyond the ability to reason out a moral code to explain most of our major decisions. Frankfurt suggests that since, "Morality does not really get down to the bottom of things," it is also legitimate to take into account "what we care about, what is important to us, and what we love." This is more than simply making decisions based on simple wants or desires, which Frankfurt explains with his definition of "caring":

"When a person cares about something...he is willingly committed to his desire. The desire does not move him either against his will or without his endorsement. He is not its victim; nor is he passively indifferent to it. On the contrary, he himself desires that it move him. He is therefore prepared to intervene, should that be necessary, in order to ensure that it continues. If the desire tends to fade or to falter, he is disposed to refresh it and to reinforce whatever degree of influence he wishes it to exert upon his attitudes and upon his behavior."

This definition of caring includes a certain kind of inevitability that comes with anything that we care about or love. There is a strong sense in which we do not chose to love the things that we do, but rather that we have a desire for them that we cannot control. It is when we make a choice or a determination to maintain this desire that we truly care about someone or something.

In the second part of the book, Frankfurt goes on to show how this kind of love can be a basis in and of itself for making choices about how we are to live our lives. He notes that a husband who saves his drowning wife at the expense of another person who is also drowning would be considered to have made the right choice, simply by the fact that he loves his wife. In the same way, a parent that protects his or her children at the expense of someone else is also counted as having done the right thing. These are not choices that are made on the basis of some moral or ethical principle that tells the husband or parent that the proper choice to make is the life of their loved one; instead, these are acts, which are generally considered to be morally acceptable, simply come out of the person's love for the person in danger.

The final section of the book discusses what Frankfurt sees as the most basic sort of love, necessary to all others: love of self. Frankfurt states:

"Insofar as a person loves himself - in other words, to the extent that he is volitionally wholehearted - he does not resist any movements of his own will. He is not at odds with himself; he does not oppose, or seek to impede, the expression in practical reasoning and in conduct of whatever love his self-love entails. He is free in loving what he loves, at least in the sense that his loving is not obstructed or interfered with by himself."

For Frankfurt, self-love is a necessary requirement for an individual to be able to love others. While this might sound ego-centric, Frankfurt's conception of self-love is not the same type of self-obsessiveness that we normally associate with the term. Frankfurt defines love as that which is 1) concerned for the well being of the person loved 2) a personal concern for the person loved 3) an identification with the person loved, and 4) constraining the will. In this sense, self-love is perhaps the purest form of love. It is not necessarily good or bad in and of itself, but rather it is a necessary quality to have if one is going to be able to properly love anyone or anything else. If we are divided in our will, that in, not "volitionally wholehearted" then will be unable to show the level of dedication or care that could be considered love to anyone else.

Frankfurt has a wonderfully straightforward style and displays a level of practicality in dealing with significant philosophical themes. He makes the subject of ethics to be more than simply a matter of obligation, but rather, he takes into account the things that matter the most to us. This approach takes ethics from the abstract and displays the importance that questions of morality really play in our everyday lives. Frankfurt works from the position of compatibilism, attempting to show how a certain kind of determinism can be affirmed while human being are still held responsible for their actions. This is much the same issue that we as Reformed Christians face in our grappling with the subjects of God's sovereignty and our own responsibility. Frankfurt's affirmation that the things we love are, by definition, things that we do not choose, seems to allow for us to acknowledge the sovereign hand of God in our lives. At the same time, his understanding of "caring" as the attempt to sustain our desires appears to take into account our responsibility for our actions.

Christ Succeeding in Our Place

2006-03-19T00:48:00.000-08:00

I happened upon this sermon by William Willimon who is Dean of the Chapel at Duke University. Aside from being referenced as one of the "12 best preachers in the English-speaking world" Willimon is also doing some amazing ministry on the Duke campus. As much as we like to talk about postmodernity and its various affects, he is someone who is effectively ministering to thoroughly "postmodern" people without making too much fuss about postmodernity itself. I think that this message given in the Duke Chapel is an example of just why his ministry is so fruitful. This is some of the best Law/Gospel preaching you will find, and ironically enough, it comes from a Methodist.

Willimon manages to communicate our inability to live up to the requirements of God's law in a way that is completely relatable. It seems that so often when a preacher attempts to convict his congregation of their sin and to illustrate their inability before God, he falls into simply brow-beating or chiding. I found that Willimon, was able to get right to the heart of what it means to be in despair over sin. He doesn't simply berate or chastise for our moral failing, but rather, he depicts perfectly a picture of failure that we have all experienced many times over. If we are honest, we will admit that our lives are marked by this sort of failure in all sorts of different areas. In bringing this out, Willimon shows us exactly what it means to "fall short of the glory of God."

However, once he has brought us to this point of despair, he does not leave us there. Instead, he does the only thing that can be or need be done: Willimon, very simply, points us to the success of Christ. He causes us to look the Cross once again and to be struck by the profound truth that victory for the human race came out of such apparent failure. He doesn't hype us up, doesn't tell us how we can do better the next time, doesn't try to give us six steps to success in the Christian life; he simply points to Christ.

Tolle Lege

2006-03-16T12:08:00.000-08:00

I'd like to direct people to Tolle Lege, the new blog of my good friend Brad Nichols. Brad and I have been friends for a long time and we are both currently studying in the philosophy program at Lindenwood University. We like to keep each other sharp spiritually and intellectually. I'm really excited that, through this blog, so many other people are going to be able to benefit from the spiritual insight and wisdom that I have access to on a daily basis.

Not only does Brad skillfully handle the subjects of theology and philosophy, but he is also one of the funniest people I know. Now Brad, I realize that you want this to be a forum for serious discussion and debate as well as a place where you can work out the serious thoughts and ideas that you are working through. I would just ask that, please, be sure not to deprive us of some random humor. I'm "pretty sure" you enjoy fun as well, so don't neglect to let us in on the fun.

Baxter's Generous Orthodoxy

2006-03-13T21:56:00.000-08:00

"In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things charity."

This was the motto of Puritan pastor and author Richard Baxter whom I've been reading a bit about recently. I have always been particularly struck by this quote and in thinking about it recently, it seems that this would be the perfect definition for the term Generous Orthodoxy. This term was coined by Yale theologian Hans Frei and is best recognized as the most recent book by Emergent Church leader Brian McLaren. I certainly wouldn't recommend the book, and yet I love the term. While McLaren's "generous orthodoxy" seems to be little more than a hodge-podge of his own personal preferences regarding the beliefs and practices of various Christian traditions (to which it could be argued that there is nothing "generous" about reinterpreting the orthodoxy of a particular tradition in a way that makes it compatible with any other tradition), I believe that this is a term that has considerable value. The trouble in trying to nail down a particular definition will no doubt be that the things considered "necessary" and the things considered "doubtful" will certainly not be agreed upon by all Christians. I'm sure I'd have a hard time finding any believer who found this quote unsavory. However, my suspicion is that many people whom might like this quote would be rather put off by the things that Baxter himself would have considered to be "necessary."

While this concept of unity in essentials and freedom in uncertainties is more than a bit elusive, I do not believe we are without examples of Christian who have demonstrated that it is possible. In his own day, Baxter worked with Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Congregationalists in attempts to organize and catechize their congregations. The Westminster Divines were made up of a similar collections of pastors and teaches from Reformed denominations in England and Scotland. Today, groups like Together for the Gospel demonstrate the ability of church leaders with different understandings of baptism, gifts of the Spirit, and church government to effectively work together on the basis of a unified understanding of the essentials of the gospel message.

Is it possible to see unification in the Church on essential issues without minimizing or downplaying or differences? What exactly are those essentials? What about Christians outside of Reformed, or even Evangelical circles that none the less hold firm to "mere Christianity" (a term popularized by C.S. Lewis but which was also coined by Baxter) such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox? These are questions that I have few, if any, answers to. I'd love to hear from others as to what they think would fall under the categories of "necessary things" and "doubtful things." How far do you think liberty extends in issues of doctrine, and what would this sort of "generous orthodoxy" look like in a practical sense?

Ministiring to Post-everythings

2006-03-09T11:34:00.000-08:00

I included a link to this same post on the NCC Young Adults blog yesterday. I'm including it as seperate post on my own blog for two reasons: 1) the more I think about the issues involved, the more curious I am to hear responses from people. In posting it on two different blogs, I'm hoping that the response will be greater, and 2) recycling posts makes me look like a more productive person.

Do you find it difficult to communicate the truths of Christianity and the message of Christ to those that you come into contact with? Is it hard for you to find ways to show people on the campus or in the work place that the isolation and despair that they experience is symptomatic of the fact that they have violated God's law and that they are in need of the righteousness of another to put them back in right standing with the Creator of the universe? More than likely, if you have attempted to share the truth of the Gospel with others you have encountered these problems. We live in an age that has been labeled, "postmodern." For the greater part of history, most people had taken belief in God as a given. With the coming of Englightenment thought in the seventeenth century, men began to attempt to arrive at certain knowledge of truth and reality by their own reason and intellectual abilities, apart from the idea of dependency upon or responsibility to a divine being. This move towards modernity has created the context for our dependence solely on what man can achieve and discover on his own, apart from any sort of supernatural reality. This can be evidenced by the almost religious reverence that we have when we speak of things being "scientific."

However, ours is a generation that is characterized by a despair of ever finding the certainty that the Enlightenment set out to give us. We are no longer sure that we can really say what is right and what is wrong, if such distinctions even exist. We are trapped within the context of our own experiences, and we cannot know anything for certain about the things outside of this context. This puts sever limitations on our own knowledge and our ability to discover truth (and again, this is a category that we aren't sure if we can even affirm the existence of) or to discern right from wrong. The ways in which we are traditionally taught to evangelize do not seem to be sufficient in light of this condition. Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan speaks to this dilemma in his article entitled Post-everythings:

"...typical evangelistic presentations are effective with persons who assume they should be good. Then the gospel-presenter tries to show them tha[t] they are not good enough - they fall short of God's perfect standards - and therefore they need Jesus to forgive sin and help them do the the right thing. This presentation was quite appropriate for almost everyone in my parents' generation. My parents, who are evangelical Christians, and my in-laws, who are not at all, had basically the same social and moral values. If you asked them the questions such as, 'What do you think about pre-marital sex, or homosexuality, or pornography?' both sets of parents would have answered the same. They were part of a world in which Christianity was the folk-religion even if it was not the heart-religion of most people. They believed that the purpose of life was to be a good person. This world no longer exists everywhere."

This is the problem: In previous generations, people have had general ideas about what is right and wrong and therefore had similar ideas about what a good person acts like. Appeals to sinfulness mean something to people like this. However, many in our generation would look at you cross-eyed or even react violently if you bring up categories of right and wrong. For these people, we must first find ways to communicate the concepts of good and bad before we can show them their depravity before a holy God and their subsequent need for a Savior. No doubt, all human beings have an inborn understanding of right and wrong, but the suppression of these concepts by our postmodern age have caused people to doubt their own ability to distinguish or affirm these distinctions.

How then can we set out to present the truths of the Gospel in a way that is faithful to God's Word and also able to communicate these truths in way that penetrates the minds of people in the postmodern world? Keller, who has had enormous success in ministering the Gospel to a young generation of hip Manhattanites, suggests several ways in which we can go about this task, including the use of narrative. Stories are one of the greatest tools we have in communicating the need for a Savior to our generation. Think of how obsessed our culture is with movies, role-playing games, first person shooter video games, and other forms of entertainment. We love being placed in the center of story.

This love of narrative, while particularly characteristic of our generation, is not a unique characteristic. The longing to be in the midst of story that is greater than the tale of our own individual lives is something that is inborn. We can easily see that Scripture, which is given to us largely in the form of stories, speaks to this longing. We are given the story of a majestic garden that is corrupted through the disobedience of its inhabitance. We are told of a race of people sought out by the Creator to bring restoration to his fallen creation. We follow these people through their captivity and their release, their military victories and their devastating defeats, all the while looking forward to the One who will set all things right. We are told of the miraculous events that surround the birth of this One and we listen to Him teach about the Kingdom that He is instituting. We see Him as He sets in to motion the promised restoration in an unexpected plot twist that sees our protagonist hanging dead on a cross. We are told of the impossible reality of His resurrection, and we are commissioned to bring about the realization of His kingdom in the world through the message of His death and resurrection.

This is an amazing story! Perhaps by attempting to communicate not only the propositions of the Gospel, but also the story of the Gospel, we can have a greater influence on our postmodern world. Our culture provides us with all sorts of narratives through film, music, and other mediums into which we can inject the redeeming message of Christ and His cross. Instead of simply telling people that they are sinful and that they need a Savior, perhaps we can show them through a stories that communicate to them. Instead of assuming an understanding of right and wrong, perhaps we can make sense of these categories for people through narratives that clearly illustrate them.

The question in now, how can we do this? I'd love to hear suggestions from people. As we set out to evangelize as a group and as we attempt to reach individuals with the message of the Gospel on our campuses, how could we employ narrative in our efforts? Does anyone have any example of different stories (i.e. movies, books, whatever) that communicate the realities of our sinful condition and a need for redemption? Let's make this practical!

Christus Victor

2006-03-08T14:01:00.000-08:00

The young adults at New Covenant Church are starting our own blog. Christus Victor will feature thoughts from the entire young adult community on current events, cultural issues, ministry opportunites, and discussion regarding our involvement in these issues. At least, that's kind of the idea at this point. The blog is still a bit sparse, but we should be putting some more information on it before long. I've entered an article of my own as the first official post. Check it out and leave a comment!

Horton on Kingdom and Culture

2006-03-02T11:27:00.000-08:00

There are few topics that are more interesting or vital than a proper understanding of how Christ relates to culture. At the same time, there are few subjects that are more controversial or have as wide a range of thought within the pale of orthodoxy than does our understanding of how we as Christians should relate to and interact with the world around us. Thankfully, in such a controversial and often confusing discussion, there are certain thinkers who can bring much needed clarity and scriptural insight. One such person is one of the foremost evangelical authorities on issues related to Christ and culture, Michael Horton. As an author, radio host, and professor, Dr. Horton educates Christian laymen and women on "what they believe and why they believe it." I believe that he does more to bring a balanced and scriptural view regarding our roles as dual citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven and the kingdoms of this world than any other current Christian author. I recently stumbled across an excellent article that he has written for Christianity Today entitled, How the Kingdom Comes that deals with this very subject. Here's a sample:

The kingdom at present is hidden under suffering and the Cross, conquering through Word and sacrament, yet one day it will be consummated as a kingdom of glory and power. First the Cross, weakness, and suffering; then glory, power, and the announcement that the kingdoms of this world have been made the kingdom of Christ (Rev. 11:15; see also Heb. 2:5-18).

This article, which was printed in the January edition of Christianity Today, was the first in a series dealing with the issue of the role of Evangelicalism in the 21st century. In it, Dr. Horton discusses how we can be truly "conterculteral," offering hope through the word and the sacrament, without creating a Christian subculture in which we mimic what we see the rest of the culture doing and label our particular appropriation of it "Christian." Dr. Horton brings much neededclarityy to this subject, not to mention the fact that he quotes CNN's Anderson Cooper. How cool is that?!

True Greatness

2006-02-28T08:20:00.000-08:00

Now that I'm getting further into the semester and the work is starting to pile up (if I stop and think about the papers for to long the panic attacks start to set in) the posts are getting shorter and farther between. But even in the business of classes, papers, work, and other activities, I have to make time for some reading of my own. The most recent of these "distractions" has been C.J. Mahaney's most recent book, Humility: True Greatness. I know that I have expressed my immense admiration for Mahaney as well as his church planting group, Sovereign Grace Ministries, but after having the privilege of reading more from his pen, I can't help but acknowledge once more the amazing work that is being done through this man and his ministry. Theirs seems to be the model for which all of us Reformed Charismatics are reaching for.

In this latest book, Mahaney undertakes a discussion of what I would image would be one of the most difficult topics to write or teach on, and he does in the same way that is characteristic of all his material - in light of the cross of Christ. He starts off with an introduction that covers the topics of the Biblical promises to those who are humble and the pervasiveness of the sin of pride in the lives of all, believers and unbelievers. In the second part of the book, Mahaney discusses how we naturally conceive of greatness and how that definition has been turned upside down because of the fact that Christ, God in the flesh, has revealed His might and power by allowing His enemies to crucify Him on a cross. The remainder of the book is made up of practical ways that we can cultivate humility in our own lives. The great achievement of this portion of the book is that is that Mahaney's suggestions never lapse into legalism, but rather, deal with the whole issue in terms of how we can gratefully respond to the work of Christ. C.J. gets practical, but he never separates our practice from the perfect practice of Christ.

Mahaney offers a list of daily practices as well as more specialized veins of study and service that help to show us "how to weaken pride and cultivate humility." They are well worth taking note of putting into action:

Always:
1. Survey the wonder of the cross of Christ

As each day begins:
2. Begin your day by acknowledging your dependence upon God and your need for God.
3. Begin your day by expressing gratefulness to God.
4. Practice the spiritual disciplines - prayer, study of God's Word, worship. Do this consistently each day and at the day's outset, if possible.
5. Seize your commute time to memorize and meditate on Scripture.
6. Cast your cares upon Him, for He cares for you.

As each day ends:
7. At the end of the day, transfer the glory to God.
8. Before going to sleep, receive this gift of sleep from God and acknowledge his purpose for sleep (a reminder of our dependence on Him).

For special focus:
9. Study the attributes of God.
10. Study the doctrines of grace.
11. Study the doctrine of sin.
12. Play golf as much as possible.
13. Laugh often, and laugh often at yourself.

Throughout your days and weeks:
14. Identify evidences of grace in others.
15. Encourage and serve others each and every day.
16. Invite and pursue correction.
17. Respond humbly to trials.

Saint and Sinner

2006-02-23T09:10:00.000-08:00

For anyone who saw the comment and subsequent response on my Mahaney and Cage, Revealing My Sin post, I've got another thought to add to it. This is not a thought of my own, but rather one that I came across this morning in Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians. I think there is no one better qualified to comment on how we should see ourselves in light of our great sin as well as our great savior:

This I say, that thou mayest be able to answer, if any shall thus object: Christ came into the world, and at once took away our sins, and cleansed us by His blood: what need we then to hear the gospel continually, or to receive the sacraments? True it is, that inasmuch as thou beholdest Christ, the law and sin are quite abolished. But Christ is not yet come unto thee; or, if He be come, there are yet remnants of sin left in thee; for where concupiscence, heaviness of spirit, and fear of death is, there is yet also the law and sin; but when He cometh, He driveth away fear and heaviness, and bringeth peace and quiteness of conscience.

Let there be not doubt that for Luther, to "hear the gospel continually," includes being constantly confronted the depth of our sin. Few people had as significant an understanding of their own sinfulness as did Martin Luther. And yet, few, if any in church history have better understood or done more to defend and propagate the pure, unadulterated gospel of God's grace and all the blessings that come with it. Let us confess along with Luther that we are simultaneously Saints and Sinners.

The Ethics of Unrequited Love

2006-02-22T15:34:00.000-08:00

How do we, as unmarried Christians, deal with romantic feelings, returned and unreturned, in a way that causes us to be more satisfied with Christ and more loving towards those we are drawn to romantically and those who are drawn romantically to us? Must love be returned for it to be worthwhile, or can unrequited love also be a love that conforms us more closely to the image of Christ? These are the types of questions that Laura A. Smit deals with in her book, Loves Me, Loves Me Not: The Ethics of Unrequited Love. Dr. Smit offers advice on how the love that we have for others can be a means of grace for us, even when it is not returned. She also discusses how we should act and show grace towards those who may be interested in us but whom we have no romantic feelings towards.

Our Christian culture often seems to simply encourage singles to try and make it through, to try and be happy, to try and be satisfied with Christ until that right person comes along. Marriage is seen as the normal course taken by all, and singles are, for all practical purposes, just bidding their time until they themselves can get married. Smit sees this as directly opposed to the New Testament picture of marriage. She states:

...this should be true of all romantic relationships: the burden of proof is on the decision to enter into such a relationship, not the decision to hold back.

With this in mind, the idea that in the light of the new creation that is coming we are being called to a life where we will not be given in marriage but will be consumed with a love for the person of Christ that will spill out towards others, single Christians must learn to deal with the issues of romance in a way that increases their love for Christ and develops a more Christ-like attitude toward others. Smit suggests that this can be done by seeing those who do not return our love as means of grace. These situations can give us a greater understanding of the way that Christ loves us. By loving someone who does love us in the same way we are disciplined to love selflessly, to learn to value a person simply for what we see in them and what they reveal to us of Christ. In this respect, unrequited love is not something that should be spurned or moved past quickly. If the only purpose we see for romantic love is to get married as quickly as we can, then we will never see unrequited love as something truly beneficial. Smit also deals with how we can reject and deal with rejection in a way that works towards the goal of seeing Christ's image formed in us to a greater extent.

This was a really interesting and encouraging read. There can be no doubt that the emphasis placed on marriage in the evangelical community can be disproportionate to the emphasis placed on the legitimacy of and the need for those who have purposed to remain single (which is virtually non-existent). As a twenty year old undergrad, I can personally attest to the existence of the mind-set in the church that says once you hit a certain age you are expected to start thinking about getting married. The implication seems to be that if you are not married or looking for someone to marry by the time you reach a certain age, then you are probably living in some sort of prolonged adolescence, one which you cannot escape until you are married. Smit provides a wonderful alternative to this mind-set and equips singles to deal with romantic feelings in a way that affirms them as good and as a means to grow closer to Christ through the love of another person.

Mahaney and Cage, Revealing My Sin

2006-02-18T17:03:00.000-08:00

How can we understand the immensity of Christ's work on the cross? Is it enough for us to simply say that God has been good to us, that He showed us mercy by sacrificing His Son on our behalf? This is a glorious, no doubt, but how often do we feel the force of Christ's work when we hear these words? I'm not sure about anyone else, but when I hear that Christ sacrificed Himself for me, I usually have a passing thought of some of the bad things I've done, express a shallow, fleeting feeling of sorrow, and then give Him a quick thanks for forgiving me for that time that I lied or that other time when I had a lustful thought.

Is this enough? Certainly there is some truth in this sort of a response, but can any of us actually believe that these shallow feelings of remorse over our petty sins is the extent of the meaning of the cross? Doesn't it seem that if we are to begin to grasp even some tiny part of the significance of the cross, that we are going to have to have a far more graphic and real understanding of what sin looks like and specifically how repulsive, evil, and egregious we ourselves are in our sin? How can we be continually struck with the full force of the grace of God in salvation if we are not continually confronted with the complete perversion and repugnance of our own sin? If we are to know what it meant for Christ to take on and become all of the sin that has ever been or ever will be committed, the surely we will need a realistic image of sin in our minds.

I have been reading Christ Our Mediator by C.J. Mahaney. Mahaney attempts to hit us with the force of our sin and our need for a mediator in light of God's holiness. He states that:

In making this point, my ultimate purpose is not to convict you of sin, but to convince you of grace. Unless you're deeply aware of your sin, and of what an affront it is to God's holiness, and of how impossible it is for Him to respond to this sin with anything other than furious wrath - you'll never appreciate grace, and it will never be amazing to you. Only those who are truly aware of their sin can truly cherish grace.

But how can we understand the full force of our sin? I think it is safe to say that if we have a proper understanding of the seriousness of our sin, this understanding will be regularly followed by feelings of horror over the grotesqueness of it. If we are honest, I think that we will admit that our daily transgressions and failings, deadly sins thought they are, rarely hit us with the force that they hit Christ in the Garden of Gathsemane when he was so burdened by the thought of them that he was unable to stand.

No doubt, the way in which we begin to realize the full measure of our sin will have a large degree of variety for each person as it is revealed to them by God. I was recently confronted with my sin in a way that I don't think we often enough allow for, and in many cases might discourage altogether. Last night I watched the movie 8MM, starring Nicolas Cage and Joaquin Phoenix, with some friends. It is a deeply disturbing film that is centered around a murder investigation in the underground pornography business. It depicts vial individuals who participate in the worst kinds of sexual and murderous sins. It shows the effects that these things can have on a "normal" like Cage's character. It makes not excuses regarding environment or upbringing for the people who participate in these soul scaring activities, but rather, as one character confesses, "I do these things because I like them."

I was completely repulsed by the images and characters in this film - which, I might add, was the entire point of the film. The most disturbing thing about it though, is not that these sort of repulsive and nauseating things are done somewhere, by someone - but rather, that my own repulsive and nauseating attitudes and thoughts come a whole lot closer to these sort of things than I am comfortable admitting. After watching a film like this, I cannot just dismiss my sins as little missteps that may grieve God, but in reality don't have that much consequence. I cannot think of Christ's burden taken to the cross as something less the worst possible fate that any person could dread.

But also, I cannot help but shout for joy over the grace that I have been shown! I cannot stop thinking about the love of Christ that he has taken these things on himself for me. I cannot stop wondering at the fact that it is not only the abstract concept of sin the He has forgiven, but it is my very own horrific transgressions that no longer count against me. This is an amazing revelation. If we are to truly understand and rejoice in God's grace, we must truly understand our own depravity. I believe that of the many creative ways that God has of doing this, one of them can be through artistic expressions of this depravity. Our God is unlimited and truly endless! We can see that in the unbelievable creativity and unpredictability of the cross. I believe that in order that we may better understand the depths of this glorious work, He will also use creative means to reveal to us our own sin.

Let us not shy away from the confession that we are the worst of sinners. It only makes Christ a more glorious Saviour.

Analyzing Auburn Avenue

2006-02-17T14:33:00.000-08:00

Since I've posted reviews of Wilson's Reformed is Not Enough, and a couple of N.T. Wright books recently, I figured that I had better make a recommendation of a book that was clearly not in the vein of Auburn Avenue/New Perspective. Auburn Avenue: A Biblical Analysis by Brian M. Schwertley is a refutation of the errors made by the proponents of Auburn Avenue theology of the Federal Vision.

I wish I could recommend it more highly. While I agree with most (if not all) of the basic points that Schwertley makes, I find the tone of the book to be a little disturbing. You would hope that while defending the Reformed understanding of justification, the most gracious act of God towards sinners, that Schwertley would be able to correct the deviations of his brothers in Christ in a gracious and loving way. No doubt, he would respond with a warning about the danger false teaching in the Church and the need to root out those who spread error (the appendix is entitled Christ's Warning Concerning False Teachers). While I agree that this is true, I am also convinced that this can be done in way that is loving and seeks not only to condemn, but also to restore. I do not believe that Mr. Schwertley has accomplished this. He regularly refers to the proponents of the Federal Vision as heretics (an assessment that I don't disagree with, although I wish the would refrain from using the term until they have been more plainly confronted with their errors by those in authority over them) and about halfway through the book he begins to refer to them as the "Auburn Avenue 'theologians' " (using quotation marks around the term theologians). This was a tactic that I found to be annoying, to say the least.

While I am disappointed with the tone of the book and some passages that seemed to be less than fair in their representations of his opponents positions, there is some excellent content. Schwertley does a good job of laying out a clear, biblical definition of justification and then showing the nuanced but serious deviations from this position made by the Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkens and co. His refutation of their rejection of the distinction of the visible and invisible church is particularly strong, as is his discussion on the issue of assurance. I found the most valuable aspect to be his discussion of the relation of faith and works in James, a point of particular contention in this debate. He lays out the proper way understanding this relation more clearly than I have ever seen it explained before:

James, from the start of his discussion, emphasizes that he is rebuking a claim to faith, a profession of faith but not a real saving faith...If one proceeds on the assumption that James is criticizing true saving faith, then the passage not only blatantly contradicts the teaching of Christ and Paul, but also is self-contradictory, for a faith cannot be genuine and worthless at the same time.

It is clear and insightful passages such as this that make this book worthwhile despite its shortcomings in other areas.

Jesus is Lord and Caesar Is Not

2006-02-15T14:55:00.000-08:00

I hope that I don't concern anyone by the fact that this is my second review of an N.T. Wright book in the last month or so. I know that when I see other people referencing his work on a regular basis I begin to become slightly suspicious, due to his errors on the subject of justification. However, while we must show discernment while navigating Wright's thought because of this error, there is certainly no need to dismiss his work, seeing that it is invaluable in many other ways.

The Millennium Myth was written in 1999 to counter the numerous Millennium theories that thought 2000 would bring with it the end of the world or otherwise apocalyptic events. However, the message of the book has lost no relevance six years after the turn of the century. Wright starts out by explaining the origin of our modern calendar. He notes that while many political and revolutionary movements have attempted to introduce new dating systems centered around the institution of their party or leader. During the French Revolution, there was an attempt to create a new calendar with the beginning of the Revolution as the starting point. When Dionysius, a monk from Scythia, introduced a new dating system around AD 500, he was employing a similar method. The difference in his system is that instead of inaugurating the new age around the rule of Caesar and the Roman power of the Roman empire, (the ruling political power at the time) Dionysius centered his system of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. By doing this, Dionysius was proclaiming that the power of Caesar is not what sets the world's agenda. Instead, it is the rule of the true Lord, Jesus Christ, who's power and victory were made known through his death that really matters.

Wright goes on to dispel some of the popular myths, usually spread by Dispensational thought, surrounding the millennium, focusing specifically on distinguishing the true meaning of the apocalypse or Revelation from the ideas of "earthquakes, cosmic collapses, giant meteorites, [and] interplanetary warfare." He also gives excellent summaries of Enlightenment and Postmodern thought and how they affect our world. Through the whole book runs this idea that "Jesus is Lord and Caesar isn't." Because of this truth, we are not doomed to the hopeless (and often accurate) conclusions of postmodernism. We now have "hope for the postmodern world," knowing that the Lordship of Christ gives us a new context in which to offer a solution to the poor and hurting in the world. The power of governments and presidents can never offer what Jesus has purchased for the world through his death. Rulers cannot offer the remission of sins - Jesus can. Head's of state cannot offer peace to a troubled conscience - Jesus can. This declaration gives us more than enough reason to offer up joyous praise and thanksgiving throughout this millennium and for all the millennium to come.

Current Events In Light of the Cross

2006-02-11T09:17:00.000-08:00

If you have been following the news story of the cartoons ridiculing the prophet Muhammad that were published in a Danish newspaper, causing outrage amongst the Muslim community, then this article, Being Mocked, by John Piper should be of great interest. I know that I often find myself struggling to know how I should respond to current affairs and world events in light of Christ's work on the cross. It is not always easy to have something worth saying on a particular issue and, unfortunately, it seems that often the only things that Christian leaders can offer when commenting on such issues are trite, moralistic statements that in some way make reference to God. Piper, however, has insight on this matter that is absolutely invaluable. His comments are those of someone who's life is so defined by the truth of the Cross that any issue he discusses is bound to be seen more clearly in its light.

Together For the Gospel

2006-02-07T12:15:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to direct people towards another group blog that I've happened upon. I'm really upset that I have only just recently found it, but now that I have, I would have to say that it' s probably my favorite of any of the group blogs that I read. It's contributors are (left to right) C.J. Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries, Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Mark Denver of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, and Ligon Duncan of First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Mississippi.

These guys are amazing scholars with credentials and various organizations that are far to numerous to begin to list here. The blog is part of an alliance between these leaders from various Reformation traditions who are also putting on a conference in Louisville, KY in April. Check out the site and while you are there take a look the blog. These are all amazing men, but I've got to say, C.J. is quite possibly one of my favorite people in the world! Reformed, charismatic, hilarious, and an ex-jock who likes to take jabs at the "nerdy" bookworm types that he's in dialogue with. Great stuff!

The Possibilities of Tithing

2006-02-06T17:13:00.000-08:00

I have recently been forced to think more deeply about the issue of tithing than I have in the past. While I certainly agree with the principle, I must confess, I have always been very uncomfortable with the common understanding of tithing as an obligatory rendering of 10% of an individuals income. The principle (or as some would say, "the rule") of tithing is often correlated to the Levitical tithe (Lev. 27:30-33), which is where the problem begins for me. If tithing, or a giving of 10% of the "herd" was a mandatory part of the Levitical law, then how is it that this particular conception of tithing is to be carried over into the New Covenant and spoken of as if it serves an identical purpose? Why should the tithe see continuation into the New Covenant while other ceremonial and civic aspects of the Mosaic Law are realized to be fulfilled in Christ?

Once again, I realize that tithing is not simply found in the Mosaic Law. It is a principle that is found all through out the Old Testament, and into the New Testament. The rendering of our wealth unto God is not something that we are released from, nor should we desire to be released from. However, it seems that most teaching does not conceive of the tithe so much as an eternal principle which allows believers a concrete expression of their gratitude toward God. Rather, it seems that it is more often conceived of as an unbending demand of God upon us of exactly 10% of our income, as though our keeping of this rule will somehow achieve or maintain favor for us in the eyes of God. No doubt, few people would recognize this as representing their position on tithing. "Of course tithing won't achieve us favor with God, only Christ can do that," I'm sure (or at least I hope) most believers would respond. But if this is really true, then why is it that in the minds of most of us, the tithe is still seen as a rule which says we must give 10% out of every paycheck? Why would we give this particular Mosaic law (and yes, I realize that there is a bigger discussion to be had here regarding the nature of the Mosaic Law) preference of practice over others?

There is no doubt, we must give of our wealth unto God for the building up of the local church and for the need of the Church at large. However, I'm convinced that this truth finds an even greater expression in light of the finished work of Christ on the cross than it had in the Levitical law where 10% was required. I believe that 1 Timothy 6:17-19 expresses the attitude toward tithing that we are now to have in light of Christ:

As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.

The tithe is no longer a jot or tittle in the Law that must be fulfilled for righteousness. The principle of the tithe, which was expressed as a tenth of an individuals income in the Mosaic Law, is now, in light of Christ, a way for us to express our gratitude to God for the work of his Son. It is a way to express the unity of the body of Christ, showing that we "hold all things in common" as did the church in Acts. Finally, and perhaps most of all, it is a way for us to show that we do not place our trust in the "uncertainty of riches" but rather, that we place our trust completely and wholely on the person of Christ.

Conceived of in such a manner, I believe that we could begin to see the practice of tithing through whole new eyes. No longer must the weekly tithe check represent something that we simply owe to God (despite the continual urgings of pastors to "give joyfully!"). We are now able to see the tithe as a way in which we participate with the spiritual and heavenly activities of God while we are still in our fallen, as yet unglorified state. It is a way that we can begin to see the Kingdom of God realized in the Earth in a real and eminently practical way. It can act sacramentally as way in which we acknowledge the reality of the promised glory by the keeping of the sign, whether this means giving 10, 50, or 100 percent of what we earn. If tithing is simply a rule, even a biblical or "covenant" rule, then it is purely a work of the law, expecting a certain return on a certain work performed; of that I want no part. However, if it be a response of gratitude to the message of Christ crucified, a way to declare that our hope and confidence rest solely on Christ alone and not on the wealth and provision of this world, then I joyfully take part in the taking up of the tithe.

The "Academic Study" of Christian Theology

2006-02-03T14:20:00.000-08:00

In my Christian Doctrine class this semester (in which we are undertaking the "academic study of religion"), we are reading Introduction to Christian Theology by Bradley C. Hanson. Professor Hanson is a liberal Lutheran with, as he puts it, "rather considerable agreement with liberation and feminist theologies." After the first chapter of reading, which gave a definition of faith and theology, we were asked to jot down a few thoughts that we had on the text. This was what I wrote, and please consider that I am trying to be diplomatic and polite in my response to something that I see as a defacing of true God-centered theology:

In reading the first chapter of Bradley C. Hansen’s Introduction to Christian Theology, I found that I was not quite satisfied with his definition of theology. Hansen defines theology as 1) “reflection on religious faith,” 2) “reflection on a religious faith,” that is, a particular faith, not simply reflection on faith in general, and 3) “personally involved reflection.” While these definitions certainly do describe at least some aspect of the study of theology, it seems that there is a large aspect of the discipline that they fail to capture.

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, said that the sum of theology is the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves. English Puritan, William Ames, calls theology the “doctrine of living to God.” These definitions contain an element that is lacking in Hanson’s definition; that is, the focus on knowledge of God. The very word “theology” is based on the Greek word for God, “Theos.” Hanson’s definition is comprised solely of the human end of faith. It is the study of the faith that people hold and the reflection upon those beliefs. While Calvin and Ames both take in to consideration the human, personal end of theology, they also recognize that the ultimate object of theology is not man, but God. While Hansen’s definition is good as far as it goes, it is deficient in what seems to be the most important part of the discipline: God. Theology is not simply the study of an individual’s faith, but rather the study of an individual’s faith in light of the revelation of God.

My proffesor took the time at the beginning of the class period yesterday to address the criticism that I had brought to the reading, citing it as a standard controversy over how theology should be defined. While he was certainly very polite in his response and acknowledged it as a good question to ask, his explanation was clearly a correction of the objection that I brought. As he put it, in the academic study of religion (the legitimacy of which is another topic that would be terribly interesting to bring up with him) we are starting from an anthropological standpoint, studying what is common amongst religions in different cultures. It is the study of what Paul Tillich would call the "ultimate concern" of each religion. In Christianity, the "ultimate concern" - the object that all other things are centered around and focused on - is the Theos or God. Therefore, when a Christian does theology, the focus will be God. However, for another faith it might be something else. Christians simply have the advantage of having the practice of theology named after their particular "ultimate reality." Given this example of a relativistic, potentially God-less definition of Theology, I hope it is evident why I am so cynical of a supposedly objective, "academic" study of religion that is removed from any sort of alligience to the truth of a particular religion.

Is Reformed Enough?

2006-02-02T14:50:00.000-08:00

In an attempt to become more familiar with the current Auburn Avenue debate, I recently read Douglas Wilson's Reformed is Not Enough. This was written in 2002, the same time that Wilson, Steve Wilkens, Steve Schlissel, and John Barach were accused by the Covenant Presbytery of the RPCUS of teaching new doctrines that deny some of the essential elements of justification. It was claimed that their teachings were "contrary to the Bible and the Westminster standards." These accusations were brought in light of teachings offered by these four at the Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. This book addresses largely the same issues that brought these charges and also acts to some degree as a response to them. It also serves the purposes of being a primer on the basics of the Auburn Avenue position, albeit a fairly conservative statement of these positions.

I must admit, I don't care much for the little of Wilson that I have read before, and no doubt, this prejudice will come through to a degree in my response to this book. The driving theme behind Wilson's attempt to "reform" the Reformation tradition is the idea of the "objectivity of the covenant." His conception of the objective nature of the covenant includes removing the distinction of the visible and the invisible church, affirming a form of baptismal regeneration, allowing for true "Christians" (according to his understanding of anyone who makes a profession of faith and partakes in the sacraments as a true Christian without acknowledging that there are false brothers present in the midst of the Church - if this sounds confusing then we're in the same boat) to fall away from salvation, a view of justification that includes an eschatalogical vindication according to a believers faithfulness to the covenant, among other things. According to Wilson, if the covenant is truly objective in nature and if the sacraments are truly affective, then anyone who apparently enters into covenant with God and his church and partakes of the sacraments must receive the blessings that they confer and therefore must be saved in a very real sense.

Wilson spends the first part of the book attempting to secure his allegiance to traditional Reformed thought. He would add, however, that most modern Reformed theologians, being influenced by Enlightenment thought, have misrepresented the Westminster Divines and even Calvin himself, who were writing from a medieval perspective. However, his exposition of the Confession seems more than a little forced at most points. He generally affirms the traditional understanding of a particular passage and then adds a certain element or nuance that he claims has been lost. Most of the language that he uses is extremely orthodox, and one would be hard pressed to find particular comments or formulations that could actually be called heretical (although I do believe they are there for the astute reader). However, the general emphasis of his position certainly seems to lean towards a works righteousness, with more emphasis placed on the individual's faithfulness to the covenant than on God's faithfulness to preserve the elect; more on man holding up his end of the covenant than on the Holy Spirit working effectually upon the individual. While Wilson is certainly more guarded in his language than some of the other Auburn Avenue theologians, he certainly seems to be communicating the same thing. When it comes down to it, his view of the covenant and justification is closer to that of N.T. Wright and the New Perspectives on Paul (see post http://tacstout.blogspot.com/2006/01/nt-wright-fresh-perspective-or-simply.html) than the traditional Reformed position. Ultimately, this is not a "new paradigm" or even a return to a more faithful representation of the traditional Reformed faith. Rather, it is the same mistake than originally caused the Reformers to separate from Rome and the mistake that Christians have always made and will probably always continue to make until Christ's return; it is the attempt to combine human works with the work of Christ in justification.

Building the Ark, and Killing Giants

2006-01-30T18:27:00.000-08:00

The weekend away with the men from New Covenant hearing from Tony Ling was wonderful! Tony opened the weekend with a message from Genesis 6, which chronicles the mysterious "Nephilim" or giants that were rebelling against God in Noah's day. The encouragement was brought to "build the ark" that is Christ's Church and allow God to take care of killing the "giants" of our day. The rest of the messages were portraits painted from Scripture of how God has killed giants in the past and exhortations on how He might use his Church to slay giants again.

I am amazed at Tony's deep knowledge of Scripture. It is more than obvious from listening to him speak that he does not simply construct some sort of topical message to deliver to God's people, but rather, his messages are the out-flowing of a love for and a prophetic discernment of God's Word. He is able to take comments that might normally sound cliche or trite, such as, "God is raising up a generation of young men to fulfill his purposes," and make them completely fresh and new by putting them in the context of the precedent of God's activity in the grand scheme of Scripture. It is wonderful to see the prophetic gift in action; not in the sense of giving spooky or weird predictions, but simply in bringing the Word of God to His people in a fresh way that speaks to a specific situation. And yes, he did make reference to my favorite biblical hero, "Shamgar, Son of Anath!"

Blood, Guts, and a Toilet

2006-01-27T11:28:00.000-08:00

This weekend is the New Covenant Church's men's retreat, and we are going to have the privilege of hearing from Tony Ling, a prophet and teacher from England. I can think of few people I look forwarding to hearing from more, especially since I haven't had the opportunity to hear him in person since I was much younger. I was probably ten or eleven the last time I heard him, but phrases such as, "Blood, guts and a toilet!" describing the story of Ehod and King Eglon in Judges 3, or "Shamgar, Son of Anath! [shouted as though it was the name of a superhero]" also of Judges 3 who killed six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad, will stick with me as long as I live, reminding me of the obscure but powerful stories all throughout Scripture. These types of messages are Mr. Ling's specialty, but despite the humor, it is far more than a simple gimmick. He uses these stories in such a way as to bring timely words and true prophetic vision to the people of God in a way quite unlike any other. I'm looking forward to an amazing weekend, sure to be full of exposition of the word, prophetic insight, great fellowship, and undoubtedly, some pick up basketball (sure to result in many bruised and aching middle-aged men).

Reformation 21

2006-01-25T11:55:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note to draw attention to a great blog that I recently added to my list of links. Reformation 21 is the blog for the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Its contributions come from the likes of Rick Phillips, Phillip Ryken, Ligon Duncan, Derek Thomas, and others. Its a really great blog that will keep you up to date on new book releases, cultural issues, and all kinds of happenings in the world of Reformed Evangelicalism. Be sure to check out Rick Phillips' Reflections on Uganda, part 1 and part 2.

N.T. Wright: Fresh Perspective, or Simply, Fresh Insight?

2006-01-24T16:10:00.000-08:00

I recently finished reading N.T. Wright's latest book, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, which is based on a series of lectures that he gave at a number of places, including the Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference. Having read a good bit of the material that is out there critiquing the New Perspective controversy, I thought it was time to give Wright a fair shot and read some of his original material. This is good place to start, especially for someone like myself who has not previously read any of Wright's works. Paul gives an overview of the work that he has done in Pauline studies up to this point and points forward to possible areas for further research.

I must confess, I was not sure what my reaction would be before I started reading. Most of the summaries and examinations of Wright and New Perspectives that I had read to that point were extremely negative in tone. While I believe that this negative tone is not only warranted but necessary in the discussion of Wright's take on Paul and justification, I was very surprised to find that I not only agreed with much he had to say, but also found his writing style to be winsome and extremely enjoyable. His blending of careful scriptural exegesis with extensive historical context is like nothing else I've read before. In particular, his chapter on Gospel and Empire shows an amazing ability to bring an understanding of the historical aspects of the Roman empire in Paul's day to bring out subtleties in Paul's letter to the Philippians. Wright notes that Caesar promised to be a 'Saviour' to the to cities, bringing freedom, justice, peace, and ultimately 'salvation.' Paul, living in the context of this sort of language, frames his letter to the Philippians in the same sort of language. By telling the Philippians that their "citizenship is in heaven," Paul challenges their allegiance to Rome in favor of the heavenly city. By speaking of the work of Christ in terms of bringing freedom, peace, and salvation, he is challenging allegiance to Caesar in favor of allegiance to Christ.

These type of insights are numerous and truly delightful. However, there are also serious concerns with much of Wright's conclusions, especially on the issues covenant markers and justification. For Wright, the Judaizers in Galatians were not guilty of imposing a 'works' religion on the New Testament church. The issue was not about works, but rather how the members of the New Covenant were to be identified. As Wright states it:

The doctrine of justification by faith...was never about how people were to be converted, how someone might become a Christian, but about how one could tell, in the present, who God's true people were...

This sort of idea is repeated in similar language many times through out the course of the book. The consequence of this is that justification is not longer to be considered (at least solely) as a declarative event that happens at a single point in time. Instead, justification has to do with the identity markers of the sacraments and good works performed, all proven in an eschatological fulfillment. Granted, my rendition of Wright's comments is not doubt far less subtle than his actual statements, and I'm sure that he would take issue with it. I would restate them more closely if I could, but I confess, in attempting to reword them, this truly seems to be the spirit of what is communicated. Wright is of course more capable of communicating them in a way that doesn't seem to indicate a sort of works righteousness than I am. But in this case, I think my inability to artfully cover this over reveals the true error of his view on justification. It seems that the whole issue could be boiled down to this: if being justified is about something seen in us, then it is not longer about what Christ has done and applied to us.

So, while there is undoubtedly much to be gained from Wright, there is also much to be lost. If we read this work uncritically, without being steeped in a biblical understanding of justification as God's declaration that we are right with him on account of the work of Christ, then we are in danger of being directed to trust in some sort of identity marker or eschatological vindication for our peace with God. While there is much insight to be taken from Wright, it seems that his perspective is not so 'fresh.'

Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God

2006-01-23T20:28:00.000-08:00

As you can see, I have neglected this blog for some time. I think the best way to start back will be to do some reviews of some books I have been reading recently. Hopefully this will spur me on to once again entering more regular posts.

Over the Christmas break I had the opportunity to read Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God by Gordon D. Fee. Fee is a Pentecostal exegete who believes that the Church is in vital need of a more robust theology of the Holy Spirit. This is a topic that I have been dwelling on for some time now and have done a couple of posts on. Fee deals with this topic in a way that is undoubtedly prophetic for the Church at large and seemingly for me personally as well. He sees Paul's theology as an unfolding and explanation of the experience that he has had with the Holy Spirit. This is founded on the objective work of Christ and a forensic declaration of righteous, of course, but the way that Paul communicates his message is as an explanation of a subjective experience that he has had concerning these things.
Fee lays out a theology of the Spirit that elevates the Holy Ghost to His proper (and almost totally neglected) place in the life of the Church and the individual while remaining fervently Christocentric.

Fee sums up the heart of Paul's theology of the Spirit in nine points that are well worth "re-summarizing":

1. The key to Christian experience - While Christ is the center of Paul's theology, the Spirit must play a more vital role in terms of how the Spirit makes Christ known to us.

2. God breaking into our lives - Paul is arguing from a point of a dynamic experience of the Holy Spirit and expects it to be the norm for his churches. We must recover this expectation of a dramatic breaking in of the Spirit.

3. End-time evidence and guarantee of glory - The coming of the Spirit has fulfilled the promises of the Old Testament and now is the guarantee of the future glory that is already with us but is not yet seen in full.

4. God dwelling in and among us - Just as God dwelt with his people in the temple in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit now dwells continually among God's people who are themselves the new temple.

5. "God very God" - it is foundational for Paul that the Spirit is the very expression of God the Father and of Christ.

6. Salvation made effective - because salvation is a fully trinitarian act, Paul always reminds the churches of their salvation in terms of their experience of the Holy Spirit.

7. A people called forth - God's people are made into the united body of Christ by their common experience of the Holy Spirit and called to begin to live the future life of glory in the present.

8. Righteousness made possible - the people of God are continually described as living "in the Spirit," empowered by the Spirit to live out, as Fee says, the "ethical life in all its dimensions."

9. The key to Christian worship - in our individual lives we are commanded to pray, "in the Spirit," and as a body it is Paul's expectation that the empowering presence of the Spirit will be manifested itself among us in "charismata."

This is truly an inspiring and, I would even say, life-changing read. Fee's call to a full-orbed Trinitarian theology is exactly the thing that will flood the Church with life. This is truly the way in which we are to go about fulfilling the Reformation call to be "semper reformanda." As he states, "If we are going to count for much in the post-modern world in which we now live, the Spirit must remain the key to the church's existence."

Amen!

Looking Forward to a Smoke

2005-12-06T09:19:00.000-08:00

At this very moment, I am greatly looking forward to sitting down this evening and enjoying a relaxing smoke from my pipe. This has come to be one of the leisure activities that I greatly enjoy. It is an activity that is conducive to deep thought, good conversation, and even just idle sitting. I love the aesthetics of and designs of pipes. I love the aroma of good tobacco. I love the care and attention, that a good smoke requires. I love attempting to perfect the subtle art of maintaining a cool, consitent burn. I love that a pipe is not merely a fun activity that you can participate in without truly giving yourself to, but that it requires something or your time, your patience, and your skill. At times like this one, while I am in the midst of finals and worn out by studying, there are few prospects that are more appealing than being able to sit down, forget about schoolwork for a while, and focus my attention on keeping a good light.

These thoughts were inspired by an article I found on pipe smoking by a guy named Phil Webb. I have no idea who he is and I admit, it's a bit sappy (well, maybe more than a bit) but I particularly liked it and found it to reflect some of my own feeling. I found that I could especially relate to this bit:

I smoke a pipe because it is, well, a bit eccentric. Two men I admire greatly are known for "going against the grain". C.S. Lewis while making no bones about his faith and beliefs also made no secret of the fact that he enjoyed a good drink and a cigar, much to the consternation of many modern evangelicals. Francis Schaeffer, probably one of the (if not the) greatest thinkers at the end of the 20th century enjoyed a glass of sherry after his evening meals whilst discussing the philosophy of the day with his students at L'Abri, profoundly confusing those who equate piousness and asceticism with belief and obedience. While smoking a pipe will not make me a great thinker (although it does help set aside time to think) it does, in a way that is tangible at least to me, provide a link to men whose thoughts I admire and to whose greatness I aspire.

Reformation Blogging

2005-11-25T11:17:00.000-08:00

I want to encourage everyone to take note of the new blog that I've posted a link to. Reformation Theology is a blog featuring contributions from pastors of varying Reformed traditions, including Presbyterian, Baptist, and Charismatic. It looks to be a very interesting blog and I would particularly like to point out John Samson's posts. He is the pastor of a Reformed Charismatic church in Phoenix seeking to promote what he calls an "impassioned orthodoxy" in teaching and worship.

Reforming Epistemology

2005-11-09T08:35:00.000-08:00

This is a paper that I wrote on Alvin Plantinga's article, On Taking Belief in God as Basic. It is somewhat in the vein of my last post in that it shows the criticisms that some Christian thinkers have of modernity. While it is not explicitly postmodern, this type of argument can lend itself to postmodern thought.

The question of God’s existence is one that must be asked by every serious thinker. Throughout the history of the debate there have always been those coming down on either side who could present clear, reasoned arguments for their positions. Certainly, wherever and whenever the statement has been made that God does exist, there have always been those who are willing to dissent. Despite these dissenters, it would appear that an affirmation of the existence of God has been the majority report in most periods of history. It could even be said of certain eras, such as the Middle Ages, that belief in God was all but universal (at least among Western thinkers). However, in his article, On Taking Belief in God as Basic, Alvin Plantinga points out that there are a significant number of modern philosophers who not only deny God’s existence but state that a disbelief in God must be assumed from the outset if one is to be intellectually responsible. The basic premise that this belief is based on is the claim that there is insufficient evidence to believe in God. Plantinga, in the tradition of the Protestant Reformers, wants to show that not only is belief in God plausible and intellectually responsible, but that it can also be considered a basic belief, or a belief upon which all of an individual’s other beliefs are based.

Plantinga begins the essay by noting what he refers to as the “evidentialist objection to theistic belief.” This view supported by thinkers such as W.K. Clifford, Bertrand Russell, and Antony Flew, among others, states that there is “insufficient evidence” for belief in God. This view does not necessarily claim that God does not exist or that he could not exist, but simply that there is not enough evidence to determine whether or not he does exist. While this view does not necessitate God’s nonexistence, it does make the claim that belief in God cannot be held responsibly. For an evidentialist, any belief that is held must be backed by sufficient evidence of its truth value. An individual’s beliefs affect not only himself but others as well. If he holds beliefs on insufficient evidence and someone is harmed by this belief or a repercussion of the belief, then the individual is morally responsible for holding a belief that they did not have sufficient evidence for. In light of these responsibilities to hold proper beliefs, it looks as though belief in God cannot responsibly be retained because there is a lack of evidence to make this belief irrefutable.

While Plantinga affirms that some type of responsibility regarding our beliefs must be accepted, he questions the strict sense in which an evidentialist would define these responsibilities. He offers three alternative ways in which intellectual obligations could be understood. First, they could be understood in a utilitarian sense, requiring that all intellectual endeavors make an attempt to provide for the good of as many people as possible. Secondly, intellectual obligations could be viewed aretetically, attempting to encourage “intellectual virtues” in oneself and in others. Finally, they could be construed deontologically. Plantinga describes this view as a “pure ethics of obligation.” This understanding would be representative of the evidentialist, requiring that a belief be held only if it can be shown to be true beyond any doubt. So, as Plantinga attempts to show here, while there certainly are intellectual responsibilities that must be fulfilled in forming beliefs, the evidentialist criterion that would seem to rule out belief in God appears to be only one way of understanding what these responsibilities entail.

As Plantinga goes on to explain, the evidentialist objection corresponds with classical foundationalism. Classical foundationalism would say that all beliefs are based on more basic beliefs. To build a responsible system of beliefs, one must base every belief upon a rightly held foundational belief. Plantinga expresses what he sees as the main tenet of classical foundationalism: p is properly basic for S if and only if p is self-evident, incorrigible, or evident to the senses for S. Plantinga’s objection to such a tenet is its inability to support itself by its own claim. It would seem that even this basic claim must have an even more foundational claim that it is founded on. This is a “self-referentially inconsistent” claim. The fact that the evidentialist claim is rooted in this foundational understanding of knowledge makes it untenable.

For Plantinga, the view of the Protestant Reformers, that belief in God needs no proof, is a position that, despite the objections of the evidentialist, is intellectually responsible. This position does not claim to prove the existence of God, just as the evidentialist position was not attempting to completely disprove God. Instead, the Reformed position attempts to show that belief in God is a properly basic belief. Plantinga notes that there are some who would assert that having no evidence for the existence of God would make the belief in God “groundless, or
gratuitous, or arbitrary.” To refute this claim, he looks at how we come to some other types of beliefs. In doing this, Plantinga lists the statements, I see a tree, I had breakfast this morning, that person is angry. These statements, regarding perceptions, memories, and ascribing mental states to another person, cannot be said to be founded upon irrefutable evidence. However, despite a lack of proper evidence for any of these statements, it can still reasonably be believed that the person has actually seen a tree, actually eaten breakfast earlier in the morning, or that the person they are observing is actually angry. In this respect, these statements can be considered basic beliefs. It is not he fact that the tree is there, or that breakfast was eaten, or that the person is actually angry that is basic, but rather the perceptions that reliably lead to these conclusion that are basic.

Similarly, some people can be said to perceive things about God. This would include impressions such as, God is speaking to me, God has created all this, God disapproves of me, God forgives me, God is to be thanked and praised. Plantinga would argue that these propositions could also be considered basic propositions. These are thoughts or feelings that many people have. As such, they can be seen to be just as basic as the other beliefs that have been listed regarding experience, perception, or memory. Since it has been shown that the task of classical foundationalism to find the most basic of beliefs seems impossible, Plantinga is attempting to show that there are some beliefs we must simply accept as basic. Insofar as these beliefs about God can be taken as basic, belief in the existence of God can responsibly follow from them.

To some it may seem that Plantinga’s argument is simply an elaborate attempt to deny the seemingly obvious fact that there is not sufficient evidence to prove that God exists and that the position that he does exist cannot be responsibly held. However, as obvious as this objection might appear, to raise it is to misunderstand Plantingas’s goal. His purpose is not to show that sufficient evidence actually does exist to prove God’s existence. On the contrary, he takes as an assumption that no such proof is available or even possible. His claim is that the existence of God can be legitimately taken as a basic belief upon which to build other beliefs apart from hard evidence that he actually exists. In this attempt, it would appear that Plantinga is quite successful. By demonstrating several ways in which intellectual responsibilities can be understood, he dispels the idea that belief in God must be dismissed because conclusive evidence for his existence cannot be demonstrated. Similarly, his critique of foundationalism shows that many of a person’s basic beliefs are not founded upon more basic irrefutable beliefs. By demonstrating how many basic beliefs are considered reliable simply by way of an impression or perception of them, he makes room for considering a person’s perceptions and impressions about God as basic beliefs as well. While this argument does not necessarily serve to convince an atheist that belief in God should be taken as a basic belief, it does demonstrate how belief in God could responsibly be taken as a basic belief. In accomplishing this, Plantinga defends the intellectual integrity of traditional theistic belief and legitimizes the Reformed understanding of basing all knowledge upon the existence of God.

The Holy Spirit and Postmodernity

2005-11-07T15:27:00.000-08:00

I have become increasingly frustrated by Christian brothers and sisters who speak of postmodernity as though it were the all-encompassing evil of our society. It would seem from the way that some people talk that postmodernity can simply be summed up by offering some rhetoric about the lose of absolute truth, the rise of religious pluralism, and downfall of all certainty in knowledge. These certainly are serious charges if they are true and not to be taken lightly. However, I would contest that this trite condemnation (which, at least in my experience, really does seem to be the extent of what many people have to say on the subject) is far from representative of even a basic survey of the subject. While I would acknowledge that the charges stated previously do in fact seem to have very legitimate grounds in postmodern thought, I would also claim that there is much more to be considered in a discussion of the topic. Furthermore, I would contest that the perspective from which postmodern thought addresses issues such as absolutes and plurality is one that is altogether wrong, evil, or even unneeded by the Church today. In fact, there seems to be strong sense in which a better understanding of postmodernity will give a better understanding of a particularly vital aspect of the life of the Church: the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

The term "postmodern" is one that is bantered about quite frequently, but often with seemingly little comprehension of what the term precisely means. While this may be a frustrating tendency, it also seems to speak of the truly ambiguous nature of postmodern thought. It is not something that can be easily defined and, I would argue, not something that should be fundamentally rejected and spoken of as though it were a thought system specifically designed to undermine the foundation of Christian thought. Dr. John R. Franke of Biblical Theological Seminary offers something helpful comments in his article, Reforming Theology:Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics:

"...the wholesale identification of postmodern thought as nothing other than a radical brand of relativism is simply too narrow to do justice to the actual breadth of the phenomenon and fails to account for the many postmodern thinkers who distance themselves from the more radical implications of poststructural and deconstructive thought."

Franke goes on to list many different current Christian thinkers in a variety of fields of study that employ curtain aspects of postmodern thought in their work. Included in this list are such Reformed thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga and William Alston, whose work in the area of Reformed epistemology is deeply critical of modern evidentialism and opens the door to at least some aspects of what would commonly be thought of as postmodern thought.

Upon examination of the term, it is obvious that postmodern thought would be that which follows modernity, or the Enlightenment of the 18th century. Included in modern thought is the Cartesian project to find a fundamental certain knowledge upon which to base all other knowledge. It is this project upon which our societies current glorification of empirical, scientific certainty is based. This is also where much naturalistic, evolutionary thinking finds its roots. It is difficult to see how this type of worldview is able to produce doubt about much knowledge that is fundamental to Christian belief. And even an outright rejection of any knowledge not derived from naturalistic means. This would threaten the idea of revelation or any other supernatural act of God. So, it would appear that this attempt at absolute certainty in all knowledge can make it difficult to retain many of the beliefs we would hold to be fundamentally Christian. Yet, in spite of these obstacles to faith it appears, to me at least, that his is a view taken for granted by most (or at least many) Christians.

As mentioned earlier, postmodern thought by definition follows after modern thought and makes an attempt at correcting it. Postmodernism, as presented by some of its major thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jean-Francois Lyotard, attempts to show the impossibility of the kind of certainty sought by the Cartesian project. It emphasizes the subjectivity of experience and the relative nature of truth as opposed to the objectivity and absolutism sought for during the Enlightenment.

While this is surely an inadequate definition, there is a sense in which a fuller explanation would not be of much use. As a reaction to modernism, postmodernism doesn't lend itself to absolute definitions and inflexible tenets. However, identifying postmodernism as a movement that entirely rejects absolutes and succumbs to complete plurality of truth is not a fair charge to make. While more radical versions may fall not this trap, most serious postmodern thinkers will not reject the absolute truth (realizing that "there is no absolute truth" is clearly a self-refuting statement) but instead focus on the subjective and experiential aspects of truth.

Now, with the preceding discussions in mind there are two traps that could easily be fallen into. First, we could totally reject all forms of thought connected with modern or Enlightenment thought for fear of the naturalistic tendencies that it can manifest. Second, we could write off all postmodern thought because some of it has produced views that reject absolute truth. Either one of these would be a terrible mistake to make. I believe that both thought systems have influenced the Church in strong (though not always easily identifiable) ways. However, while the aspects objective and absolute beliefs as articulated by modernity seem to be embraced with little or no discretion, postmodern tendencies to express subjectivity and unknowability (at least when expressed in the term postmodern) are rejected categorically. Not only is this a mistake, but it is one that I believe will rob the Church of a fuller understanding of an extremely important and often neglected aspect of its life and practice; specifically, the activity of the Holy Spirit.

An objective understanding of doctrine, such as regeneration, propitiation, and above all justification, is not only necessary, it is the foundation of the Church. Without a sure and absolute understanding of man's sinful condition, God's holiness, and Christ's work of reconciliation, the Church would have nothing of substance to offer. However, we must also recognize that we will never be able to absolutize all of the character and work of God in this way. Specifically, there is a strong element of the work of the Holy Spirit that must be a subjective, unexplainable experience. In a spiritual climate where all aspects of the Christian life are often expressed in subjective, experiential terms (despite a seemingly contradictory desire to hang on to thoroughly modern mindset in many other ways) this can be a dangerous proposition. But, if we are to maintain a proper element of the unexplainable and unexpected outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it is a necessary danger. A charismatic understanding of the gifts of prophecy and tongues is not something that can be systematized. Likewise, various outpourings of the Spirit in times of revival, such as the Great Awakening, are aspects of the faith that cannot and should not be denied even if they are not easily categorized. No doubt this is one reason why discussions on the work of the Spirit are so often limited to His role as the seal of salvation and the agent of sanctification. While these are central roles, there certainly seems to be room for a more comprehensive understanding of the Spirit's work if New Testament language on the subject is to be taken seriously.

No doubt, God is absolute truth and there are many things that may be said about Him absolutely. However, given our finite understanding of such an infinite God, surely we can recognize that there will always be an element of His activity, particularly His activity in the person of the Holy Spirit, that will always remain relative to our understanding. As the Spirit manifests himself in a plurality of new and totally unexpected ways, we must remain humble in our understanding of how He will go about His work. We can be assured that He will always work within the framework of clear, Biblical absolutes, but we must also recognize that Scripture allows Him more freedom tha nwe might often wish to. As we seek to more faithfully serve God and to better comprehend His ways, we must realize that He will not be encumbered by thought systems, modern, postmodern, or otherwise. However, if our spirit is humble and we allow Him to speak to us through His Scriptures, we will find a new ability to discern the truth. We will be able to benefit from positive and truthful elements of all philosophies without falling into extremes. Christianity is not modern or postmodern. It is not even premodern. The Spirit will not be confined by these labels. And yet, as our vision is set on Christ, He will be faithful to use the thought behind these labels to give us a better understanding of the work of His Spirit.

Emergent Church Analysis

2005-11-02T17:39:00.000-08:00

In doing a good amount of reading on the subject of the recent movement among young evanglicals called Emergent, I have found it rather difficult to neatly summarize or categorize this new way of practicing the Christian faith. I realize that the participants of this movement (many of its leaders would prefer that it called a "conversation" although if the explosion of books, churches, and websites with the title "Emergent" is any indication, it has certainly moved past the category of a mere conversation and at least started to become a movement) would be more than happy with my inability to put pigeonhole them with Christian labels or categories. I do, however, believe that it is important for any system of thoughts or beliefs to be able to communicate its basic tenets to those outside of it circles.

Surely, some of this is simply a matter of time, and if the program from PBS' Religion and Ethics Newsweekly to which I am posting a link is any indication, a better understanding is beginning to be grasped. This is probably the clearest summary and some of the best analysis of the Emergent conversation that I have come across. In particular, I found the interviews with Scot McKnight and D.A. Carson to be very enlightening. McKnight does a good job of summarizing the movement and Carson offers some insightful critiques (although if you read some of the other things he has to say about Emergent, he will be found to be much more generous in pointing out the movements strengths).

Cover Story Part 1

Cover Story Part 2

Happy Reformation Day!

2005-10-31T23:37:00.000-08:00

When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

With these opening words of the Ninety Five Thesis, Martin Luther launched an attack on the Roman Catholic teaching on indulgences and began to lay the foundations for what would soon become the Protestant Church. On this day, we celebrate the faithless of God to his Church as shown through men like Martin Luther and others throughout the history of the Church who were dedicated to the proper understanding and clear teaching of the infallible Word of God.

Today we, as the Church, are living in the light of the truths of the Gospel that Luther, Calvin, and the rest of the Reformers unveiled. As God works out his plan for the expansion of his Kingdom in time and space, we look back with inexpressible gratitude to such key points in that plan. As we continue in the purposes of God, may we constantly rediscover the truths of God's grace in the person and work of Jesus Christ. As we do this, we will undoubtedly live out Luther's call to a life of repentance. As the vision of Christ is made clearer to each one of us, it will not fail to realign our thinking, to adjust our beliefs, and bring us to a place of repentance. From this place of repentance we will truly be able to say that we are "always reforming."

Evangelicals Out of the Box

2005-10-25T09:16:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to post recently. It's certainly not for lack of subjects to write on, that's for certain. As soon as I catch a break from some schoolwork and other activities, I'll have a multitude of issues to put some thoughts down about.

I just wanted to put up a link to an interview with James K.A. Smith on the NPR show Speaking of Faith. Jamie Smith has become one of my favorite writers/bloggers and I believe that he has many important things for the evangelical community (especially those in the Reformed branches) to hear. Be sure to listen to some of the Behind the Scenes audio, especially the clip on An Intellectual and Spiritual Faith. It's always exciting to come across a Reformed Christian who also considers himself charismatic. Jamie's explanation of how these two traditions complement each other is spectacular. It is truly encouraging to hear a Reformed intellectual who not only recognizes the importance of manifestations of the Holy Spirit, but who also considers them to be an integral part of life and worship.

Grieve Not the Spirit

2005-10-17T17:16:00.000-07:00

Are we doing the Holy Spirit justice in the Church today? This is a broad question, no doubt, and certainly one that needs clarification. However, it seems that a question of this breadth might be needed to even find a starting point in the discussion, considering the general neglect of the third person of the Trinity that is to be found throughout much of the Church. While all of orthodox Christianity acknowledges the deity of the Holy Spirit and His equality with the rest of the Godhead, it seems that His role in the place of Christian doctrine and in the life of the individual believer gets a lot less airtime. As Vincent Barcote, assistant professor of theology at Wheaton College puts it, we need to seek an answer to what it means to be "fully Trinitarian as opposed to functionally 'binitarian.'" In his article, What is to be done in Theology, Barcote discusses this subject as well as other ways that he sees theology as needing to develop.

Surely, Barcote is right. There are countless ways in which we speak of Christ: His incarnation, propitiation, atonement, intercession, and countless other doctrines. Similarly we speak of the Father regarding His election, reprobation, grace, wrath, and on and on. Certainly, these few truths that we have been shown about the first two members of the Trinity do not even begin to scratch the surface of the true depths of God's character and action. There is more to be discovered through study and there is much, much more we will never begin to comprehend. Why is it then that so often we seem satisfied to relegate the Holy Spirit to the role of simply being our conscious? While His role in revealing sin and guiding the believer in truth is an essential aspect of His role, surely we would say that he is doing even more than this! Without in any way minimizing or devaluing the Spirit's role in the application of redemption and the progress of sanctification, can't we begin to unearth and develop in our thinking and practice the countless other ways in which He operates in the life of the believer and the progress of His Church?

It would seem that a large part of this development would have to involve a better acknowledgment and understanding of the experiential aspect of the Holy Spirit's ministry.
While the purposes of the Father and the work of the Son tend to lend themselves more easily to systematic understanding (without in any way being confined to this type of classification) there is an aspect of the Holy Spirit's ministry that refuses to be put into these categories. Times of revival such as the Great Awakening and some of the strange yet wonderful manifestations that accompanied them attest to this aspect. I must confess, coming from a church that would be identified by most as more charismatic than reformed, this element of experiencing the Spirit is one that has always accompanied any discussion of doctrine or teaching, and I see it as being no only beneficial, but crucial to a proper understanding of life in the Church.

I would like to invite anyone interested to comment on these thoughts, as well as expound upon or critique them. Please be sure and take a few minutes to read the Barcote article. He has much to say on this subject as well as others and there in much in the way further discussion and provocation.

Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition

2005-10-15T16:50:00.000-07:00

James K.A. Smith's latest effort, Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition, has finally been released and I am patiently (i.e. checking my mail hourly) awaiting my copy from Amazon. Smith has co-edited this work with James H. Olthuis as a follow-up to his previous release, Inrtoducing Radical Orthodoxy, which outlines the thought and objectives of Radical Orthodoxy as put forth by John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward among others. RO is a movement that originated in the UK, primarily at Cambridge, and is being exported with the help of scholars like Smith who are doing research in the area of postmodernity and its relation to Christianity. I won't embarrass myself by attempting any sort of detailed explanation of the tenets of RO (having read Introducing I found it to be very thorough, enlightening, and occasionally confusing). In broad terms, it is an attempt to do away with the myth of a secular arena that excludes the religious. It is critical of Modernity, seeing it as having played a primary role in bringing about the sacred/secular divide. In response, it seeks to rediscover an ontological understanding of the Christian faith that provides a basis for the development of all aspects of society. It focuses heavily on the incarnational and sacramental aspects of the faith and lends much focus to reapplying the thought of Augsutine and Aquinas. While Smith provides an excellent outline (as well as a comprehensive bibliography) of the movement, he also offers some critiques. Primarily, he seeks to supplement the basic teachings of RO with principles from Dutch Reformed theology in the heritage of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyewerd.

I would encourage anyone interested to pick up a copy of Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition (or Introducing Radical Orthodoxy for that matter) and offer any thoughts or comments that they might have. I can't wait to delve deeper into waters of RO and especially to see the accounts that some of the preeminent Reformed theologians have to offer.

Augustine and the Problem of Evil

2005-10-10T15:45:00.000-07:00

I decided to kill two birds with one stone and post some selections from a Philosophy of Religion essay that I just turned in this afternoon. Considering the fact that it was it was finished around 3 a.m. on Sunday night, I didn't think it turned out that bad. But then again, I'll have to wait and see my professor has to say about that.

For many people, the idea of the existence of God, at least in Judaic-Christian sense, seems altogether impossible and perhaps even unfavorable. While this is true for a multitude of reasons, there is one that seems to eclipse all the rest. That reason is the existence of evil. For those who would bring this objection, the idea that a God who is both all-good and all-powerful would allow evil to come into the world that he supposedly created is totally unthinkable...

These are powerful objections. They cannot simply be brushed aside by those who do believe in a loving God as begrudging protests by those who simply refuse to see the plain truth. On the contrary, these questions must be taken seriously even by those who whole-heartedly believe in God. Even those of this position can and are often times troubled by the seriousness and difficulty of such objections. It was for this very reason that St. Augustine, the most influential and ingenious philosopher theologian in the history of the Church, did not neglect this issue, but faced it head on, putting forth the classic Christian understanding of evil...

"What, after all, is anything we call evil except the privation of good?" (Augustine 19). In other words, evil is not to be understood as a separate entity from good. Evil and good are not two separate powers that somehow balance each other out. Instead, evil can only be said to exist in so far as good exists. Goodness is required for existence...

When a person is sick and then recovers, or is restored to health, it is not to be said that the sickness has left their body and gone somewhere else. The sickness does not exist in and of itself somewhere apart from the body. Instead, the body, which was at the time of sickness deprived of its wholeness or rightness, is restored to its former good disposition. However, it is important to note that while evil cannot exist apart from something that is good, good can exist all on its own. Augustine forged this idea in the attempt to defend against concepts of good and evil that would pit the two against each other equal powers...

While, again, the concept [evil as depreciationon] provides an excellent basis for understanding how evil can exist in the first place, most people would want to assert that there is a very strong aspect of reality about evil that Augustine fails to account for. This thought is expressed by William Edgar in his book, The Face of Truth. As he put it, "this view was an advance over the popular idea at the time of evil as a powerful force, nearly equal to God. It relativized evil, making it something negative, without substance, which notion has a grain of truth in it. But Augustine borrowed too heavily from Plato and his theory of ideas and shadows" (Edgar 105). Augustine certainly cannot be accused of ignoring this concern altogether, but his attempts to make evil understood in a more concrete sense do seem to come up lacking...

Books that Change Lives

2005-10-07T11:11:00.000-07:00

I have found that there are certain books that really do change your life. These type of books come along every so often and are totally unique to each individual person. Some of them may be classics; the type of books that are acknowleged as standards in their particular genre. Others may be more obscure, holding a special meaning for the reader. Regardless of how well a book of this kind is known, they all have one thing in common. They cause the reader to look at the world in a totally different way then he or she did before they cracked open the pages. This kind of book is read at a time in the readers life when the message that it conveys is needed. It may not appear to be a life-altering message, but it communicates to the reader exactly what they need to hear at that time. These books change us, imparting some type of wisdom or understanding of the world that we would never be the same without. They shape our thinking in such a way that we can point to them as turning points in our lives. In thinking about this concept of the "life-changing book," I have thought of a few books that fit this description for myself:

Chosen By God - R.C. Sproul
Orthodoxy - G.K. Chesterton
On Christian Liberty - Martin Luther
God Will Bless You - Charles Spurgeon
Confessions - St. Augustine
The Screwtape Letters - C.S. Lewis
The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
The Dark is Rising - Susan Cooper
Chronicles, Vol. 1 - Bob Dylan

Please feel free to leave a comment with a title or two (or a list if you like) that might fit the description for you.

Meditations

2005-09-30T15:50:00.000-07:00

Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Malachi 2:10

Once again this morning I was reminded of how vast, unknowable, and yet how wonderfully faithful God truly is; and subsequently I was reminded of how utterly limited, simple, and devastatingly faithless a creature I am. I pride myself in my knowledge, my ability, all the time blind to the inestimable greatness of a God that given all eternity I would still not even begin to catch a glimpse of. I try to pray and I am only ashamed and embarrassed by my inability to express anything that should even begin to concern Him.

"Why did the Son of God become man, one of us, our Brother, our Fellow in the human situation? The answer is: In order to judge the world. But in the light of what God has actually done we must add at once: In order to judge it in the exercise of His kingly freedom to show His grace in the execution of His judgment, to pronounce us free in passing sentence, to free us by imprisoning us, to ground our life on our death, to redeem and save us by our destruction. That is how God has actually judged in Jesus Christ."
-Karl Barth

Once again this morning I was reminded of how incomprehensible the work of Christ is; and subsequently, I was reminded that I truly am counted righteous and that one day that righteousness shall be evident in its fullness because of the work of Christ. I take pride, not in anything of myself, but in the person and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, continually thanking God that he has given me more than just a glimpse of what He is like, but revealed Himself in fullness to me. I start to pray and I encounter the Living God who has heard my words and does not neglect them but responds with the assurance of His Son.

Liturgical Worship

2005-09-28T16:48:00.000-07:00

Among other things, one of the effects that an understanding of Reformed theology has engendered in me is the appreciation of liturgical forms of worship. What used to seem like dead prayers and cold formulas of worship now appear to me as guardians and teachers of true doctrine. Not only do the best liturgies maintain substantial presentations of Biblical truths for the body, but they also ensure that the Word is taught in its full scope without pandering to "hot topics" or any other pet issues of the minister.

Even with the strengths that I have mentioned (and the many more besides) I am as yet unconvinced that a formally constructed liturgy is the only valid form of worship. The salvific work of God in Christ is the greatest truth of all time, and as such must lend itself to many varied and diverse forms of response. While we undoubtedly have certain non-negotiables of worship presented by Paul, it appears that the instructions given to the Church in the epistles lend themselves to the adaptation of many different people groups, cultures, and traditions. While God must be worshipped for the truth He has revealed, and that truth is the same across the board, there seem to be many different ways to express the gratitude for that truth. So long as the reality of man's sinful state and the gracious intervention of Christ's work of forgiveness is being proclaimed rightly, we should be grateful for the many diverse expressions of gratitude that different traditions produce.

One principle that is helpful for the true worship of God by His people is distinctiveness. The worship of the Triune God should look like no other activity that the world has to offer. Once again, this seems to me to be the strength of many liturgical forms. Try finding any other institution in the world whose gatherings look even remotely like the worship services of a church in the Reformed, Lutheran, or even Catholic tradition. It is essential that a Church whose message is the antithesis to any other message in the world, have a style of worship that is distinct from any other type of gathering in the world. However, I am as of yet unconvinced that the only way to do this is with one the historic liturgical styles of the Reformed tradition. No doubt, it is vital for any church to implement the historic creeds, confessions, and hymns of the Church throughout the ages, but where exactly do we find the standard for how these resources should be specifically used? I believe that keeping in mind this principle of distinctiveness, along with the proper proclamation of the Gospel and a regular use of the historic resources of the Church, there is room for many new expressions of gratitude for God's work.

In all honesty, the point of this post is to get you to read another post by Steve Bush, a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton University, to which I've provided a link below. He expresses this far better than I could.

http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2005/09/liturgy_and_con.html

Response to Barth

2005-09-27T13:37:00.000-07:00

I'd like to thank whoever it was that left the anonymous comment on my Karl Barth post. Not only do I appreciate the critique, I'm just glad to see that at least a few people are reading the blog. I'd like to respond to some of the concerns that were expressed in that comment regarding my rendering of Barth's view on general revelation. As far as his view of Scripture goes, I'll simply stand corrected for the time being, at least until I have a better grasp on Barth's position. I admit, I am finding it rather hard to pin down exactly. In light of this, my comments on the subject should probably have been more reserved in the first place. For now, I'll simply respond to the second objection.

As for natural and philosophical speculations about God, that is a development of a very Reformed way of thinking. Barth is protecting against the idea that we can reach God by means of our own inherent capabilities in any way whatsoever. He wants to preserve the notion that it is God and God alone who reveals himself to us and makes himself known through his revelation--and that we cannot achieve any knowledge of God on our own apart from that revelation. To put it another way: he's making sure God is put in the position of revealing who God is, not man. That seems right to me. We can't get to God naturally or by our own philosophizing--only God teaches us about God through his revelation in Christ, the scriptures, and the proclaimed word. It's hard to see much wrong with that.

I would agree with Barth's view as you have set it forth on this point. The only knowledge that man can have of God is that which God chooses to reveal of Himself. The question is, what kind of knowledge does he reveal? Barth would say (I believe) that the only knowledge we can truly have of God is what is revealed in the man Jesus Christ. I would agree that revelation of who God is and what he truly is like can only come from Christ, and that the knowledge that accompanies salvation must be that of Christ. However, this is not the only place that God has revealed Himself, at least in some measure. According to the Reformed tradition, all men do have some knowledge of God if only from what they see in nature or from the testimony of their conscience. This is not enough to bring anyone to a saving knowledge, of course, but it is the general revelation that God gives to all men. As you have said, "only God teaches us about God throughout his revelation in Christ, the scriptures, and the proclaimed word." These are the only means that He uses to reveal his saving purposes, but he also reveals himself in his creation. The knowledge that can be gained from this type of revelation is obviously not enough to relate the saving nature of God's work, but it is enough basic knowledge of God to condemn man for rejecting Him.

I realize that Barth formulated this view in the light of natural theology movements that attempted to develop a full full-orbed theology on the basis of what all men can affirm about God. With respect to challenges such as this his response was no doubt a much needed defense of the need for a specific revelation of the life and work of Jesus Christ. However, I believe that the account that he put forth is flawed. This flaw manifests itself in his outright rejection of the task of apologetics, a responsibility which is not only set forth clearly in the New Testament, but one that has also been a priority of the Church from its very beginning.

Again, I thankful or the comments that have been offered and hope that my response is clear and that there is some merit found in it. Hopefully whoever left the comment will stop by the blog again and offer anymore thoughts they may have.

Reporting on "Chosen"

2005-09-26T16:50:00.000-07:00

The Chosen by God conference at Twin Oaks this weekend were absolutely amazing! It was a once in a lifetime privilege not only to sit and hear Dr. R.C. Sproul teach, but also to get him to sign my well-worn copy of Chosen by God. As he once again showed this weekend, there is no one who has done a better job of preserving and dispensing the truths of Reformed theology, presenting them in a clear, easy to understand, yet deeply profound way for the average layman. Yet, as edifying as his sessions were, the sessions taught by Dr. Derek Thomas were perhaps even more engaging. Dr. Thomas imparted a vision of the grandeur of God and the election of Christ, which is the proper foundation for understanding the doctrine of election. He not only taught ideas correctly, communicated the heart of the doctrine. The scholarly precision of Dr. Sproul and the warm pastoral emphasis of Dr. Thomas provided an excellent balance.

And yet, as wonderful as the teaching sessions were, I must admit to being a little disillusioned by the whole experience. Ligonier Ministries is a great organization and I believe that they are providing an important service to the people of God by putting out some of the best material in Christian publishing. However, I became a little weary of being barraged with plugs for everything from the Reformation Study Bible to an Alaskan cruise with R.C., before, after, and inbetween each session. Running infomercials and stating (even in jest) that the audience can count themselves amongst the elect if they own a certain study Bible or subscribe to the tape of the month doesn't sit to well with me. Certainly, they need to sell their products to be able to continue providing the valuable resources that they produce, but surely there is a less crass way to do so. In addition, there was a polemic attitude that seemed to permeate much of what was said. By the end of the weekend I refused to laugh at one more joke simply because the punch-line was "an Arminian!" If the Doctrines of GRACE are going to be taught rightly, they must communicate a spirit of grace as well as precision of doctrine. There were moments at least were this spirit appeared to be sorely lacking.

Despite these slight concerns, the experience was truly wonderful. Here's a brief rundown of how it went: Friday night, Dr. Sproul held a question and answer session followed by a book signing. He opened the first session on Saturday morning by explaining the requirement that all biblical Christians have some doctrine of predestination and then expounded on the proper way to hold this view. Dr. Thomas took the next session and went through an exposition of Revelation 4:8-11, giving a picture of a majestic and mysterious God who shows us electing grace. After lunch he expounded on the bondage of the will and human inability. After taking some more questions and answers, Dr. Sproul finished with a session in which he responded to some the come objections to the doctrine of election. It was a truly inspiring and refreshing weekend.

Chosen by God

2005-09-22T17:25:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post to say how excited I am about the R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God conference at Twin Oaks tomorrow! Chosen by God was the first book I read dealing with Reformed theology and I still think it's one of the best introductions. Dr. Sproul might just possibly be the coolest person living on the planet at this point in time. I'll be sure and report back on the conference after the Saturday sessions are over.

Karl Barth

2005-09-21T17:15:00.000-07:00

I am currently reading a selection of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics edited by Helmut Gollwitzer. Growing up in conservative evangelical circles and reading the materials of that tradition tend to (or at least have in my case) produce a stigmatizing effect towards Barth and his writings. The term "neo-orthodox" is thrown around without much if any explanation, and it seems to be used almost simultaneously with "liberalism." However, with this negative connotation firmly entrenched in the minds of most evanglicals, it seems that very few have actually read Barth. This has been true for me at least, and I believe that I am greatly benefiting from having taken steps to remedy this. I have found Barth's writings to be filled profound insight and a fresh and invigorating passion for the Church, the Gospel, and most importantly, for the centrality of Jesus Christ in all things. Certainly, his view of scriptural authority and his tendency to dismiss all natural and philosophical understandings of God as certain paths to idolatry, are both disturbing aspects in his writings. However, it appears to me at least that these mistakes are made a consequence of attempting to make the revelation of Christ the most central reality of the human experience. While this does not necessitate or excuse the misunderstanding of the authority of the written Word of God or the truths about the general revelation of Himself therein, I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and to receive the blessing of wisdom that are contained in so much of what I have read to this point.

Here is a small sample of what I have been enjoying:

" It [the Christian community] cannot approve nor tolerate the way and ways of the world. It has to indicate a very different path. On the other hand, its decisive task is not to confront men with this objection, criticism and negation, nor with a programme, plan or law in the performance of which men must abandon that great attempt to live without God, counterbalancing it by the opposite attempt to return to God and with His help to make everything better. This is what the Synagogue does. This is what Freemasonary does. This is what Moral Rearmament does. But this is not what the Church of Jesus Christ does. It has no right to make proposals to men as though they could now help, justify, sanctify and glorify themselves more thoroughly and successfully than hitherto. It cannot set before them any better men, any sinless men, any innocent men, and men who escape the confusion and sorrow of the world. It has no such men to hold out as examples to follow, as though others had only to imitate them to extricate themselves from the quagmire and hell in which they live...No, its great and simple but very different commission is that of declaring to them the kingdom of God, and not therefore a means to help them to do something, but the one truth that God has already begun to do something for them and that He will also complete it in spite of their opposition, outbidding all the attempts which spring from this opposition, overlooking and bypassing all their perversity and futility."

I could keep quoting for pages (this quote continues with some amazing stuff about the "divine Yes"), but time and space constraints will force me to leave you something to be read on your own.

It is also taught among us...

2005-09-16T00:36:00.000-07:00

In looking back over the Augsburg Confession of faith recently this phrase, "It is also taught among us," stuck out to me in particular. Each article of faith follows the one before with this phrase and then goes on to expound on subjects such as:

Original Sin: "It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin."

Justification: "It is also taught among us that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before god by our own merits, works, or satisfactions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ' s sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is for given and righteousness and eternal life are given to us."

Repentance: "It is also taught among us that those who sin after Baptism receive forgiveness of sin whenever they come to repentance, and absolution should not be denied them by the church."

Freedom of the Will: "It is taught among us that...without grace, help, and activity of the Holy Spirit man is not capable of making himself acceptable to God, of fearing God and believing in God with his whole hear, or of expelling inborn evil lusts from his heart."

The princes of Germany presenting this confession to Charles V did not use this phrase flippantly. These were men whose subjects were searching after clear direction from the Word of God. Clearly defined teachings were going to be vital for the fledgling Lutheran church if it was to sustain the reforms that had to this point so desperately been seeking. Clear and correct doctrine was for these men not a peripheral issue but a matter of life and death as they presented their teachings to a Catholic sovereign ready to force them to submit even by means of the sword. If a proper understanding of salvation by grace through faith was not taught, correct implementation of the sacraments not observed, or true knowledge of repentance not grasped by the church community, then they would be risking their lives for nothing.

If only such fervor for the teaching of the Scriptures were to be found in the Church of our own day! Far less often than hearing about what a particular church teaches or what beliefs they hold to, we hear about the particular activities or social groups that they can offer. Instead of hearing about Christ crucified for sinners we hear about services and conviences offered to "seekers."

What is to be done about this woeful lack of proper instruction in the knowledge of the Triune God and the Word he has delivered to his people? If every Evangelical church on the continent started offering courses in the basic doctrine of their particular tradition and encouraged each member to delve into these subjects for themselves would the problem be solved? While these would certainly be steps in the right direction and are a necessities for any church, there must certainly be more to this kind of a transformation than simply offering the right courses or reading good books. What must precede these things is a true hunger for God. This type of desperate longing to have communion with the God of the Bible cannot be produced by simply understanding Him correctly. This sort of work can only be accomplished by a radical work of His Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. The saints at the time of the Reformation experienced this kind of revival. They sought after proper teachings of the work of Christ because they had been robbed of hope by doctrines that made this work to be less than efficient for the people of God.

So, how is it that we will see a hunger for the pure teachings of the Word restored in the Church during our day? It will be through a powerful work of the Holy Ghost as He works upon the heart of every believer. As this work takes place, careful exposition of the Word will be experienced in greater amount through out the Church, and the glory for this marvelous work will be attributed to the power of God alone.

Peace

2005-09-12T16:15:00.000-07:00

There are times when I'm so frustrated with myself, my sin, my weaknesses, my circumstances, and any manor of other things that I can hardly concentrate on anything else. I'd like to say that these times are short lived and infrequent. In reality I would probably be ashamed if other people knew how often I was assailed by these doubts, as I'm sure most of us would be if we were honest. The truth is that in these moments there are few things that can be of comfort. Despite the unshakeable knowledge that I am a recipient of Christ's righteousness in a real and concrete sense through his unalterable work at the Cross, in these times I am so distraught over the reality of my current sinful state that the knowledge of this truth doesn't fill me with the gratitude that it should. The only hope that I can find in these moments is in dwelling on the certainty that very soon I will be rejoicing eternally before the presence of God. In only a moments time I will be gazing upon the Father as he truly is and all the concerns of the former world will be as the vague memories of a dream. This is the reality that I long for in these times of frustration. You can call it escapism if you like. It suppose that it is. But when confronted with the disturbing reality of my own sin, there is no better option than to escape into the hope that soon I will be with the Father and because I am with Him, my sin will no longer beset me. This truth is captured perfectly in the verse entitled Peace, by 17th century poet Henry Vaughan:

My soul there is a Countrie
Far beyond the stars,
Where stands a winged Sentrie
All skilfull in the wars,
There above noise, and danger
Sweet peace sits crown'd with smiles,
And one born in a Manger
Commands the Beauteous files,
He is thy gracious friend,
And (O my Soul awake!)
Did in pure love descend
To die here for thy sake,
If thou canst get but thither,
There growes the flowre of peace,
The Rose that cannot wither,
Thy fortresse, and thy ease;
Leave then thy foolish ranges;
For none can thee secure,
But one, who never changes,
Thy God, thy life, thy Cure.

Blogging, Reforming, and Baseball

2005-09-09T16:27:00.000-07:00

I have become very interested in the phenomenon of blogging and at the prompting of friends (especially G-Funk @ gdeakin.blogspot.com) have decided to throw in my two cents worth. Although I have long be disgusted with many forms of internet communication, i.e. instant messenger, myspace, etc., I have found that blogging provides an excellent format for people to express ideas and engage in meaningful conversation without the ridiculous fractured thoughts or blatant self-advertisement that other venues seem to encourage. It is promoting more people to express themselves through the written word as well as to keep a record of their daily lives and thoughts, both practices that I'm sure most would agree have become all to uncommon.

My hope for starting this blog will be that it will help me foster some of these positive habits and perhaps be a starting point for some constructive dialogue. My passions are first and foremost focused on the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and the church that He has established and continues to build through the promptings of his Holy Spirit. I have come to believe that the most faithful way to express this devotion and to better understand the ways of God in light of Holy Scripture is through the Reformed Tradition. The truths of Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria, the Doctrines of Grace as expressed through TULIP (the five points of Calvinism), the understanding that salvation is received by grace through faith on the account of Christ alone, and the proper understanding of God's Word as comprised of Law and of Gospel, are truths that have truly transformed the church at one point in history, and certainly can do the same again. However, these wonderful doctrines will fall on deaf ears if the Church does not have a powerful encounter with person of the Holy Spirit and the gifts which he brings.

It may sound silly, but in some way I believe that blogging may have a part in this. As Christians from every tradition and background come into greater communication with each other, there is room for a better understanding of what Christ is doing throughout His body. We can see truths that others may have latched onto that our particular tradition has lacked. We can learn from each other and correct each other as we begin to see the vast and various things that God is doing in His kingdom. Hopefully, we will be humbled, but we will surely be surprised. One way we may be surprised is to see the way that the Holy Spirit uses blogs and other internet formats to aid in bringing about the visible unity of Christ's Church. Who knows? But enough with these grandiose ideas. I'm simply going to try to be faithful to continuing posting (at least on a semi-regular basis). My posts will include thoughts on books I'm currently reading, the Church, theological and philosophical topics in general, and probably the occasional rant about the current condition of the injury plagued yet still winningest team in the Major Leagues, the St. Louis Cardinals.