I was recently reading some things on the net discussing the Federal Vision. For those not familiar with this term, in January of 2002, the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Monroe, Louisiana hosted a conference titled "The FV: An Examination of Reformed Covenantalism" speakers at this conference (John Barach, Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, and Douglas Wilson) highlighted the benefits of a covenantal perspective for issues such as the assurance of salvation and child training. Diagnosing a lack of these emphases in contemporary Reformed theology, the speakers presented their lectures as a healthy theological and pastoral corrective drawn from the wells of Reformed covenant theology.
Recognizing the serious need of the body of Christ and all the ways that the church falls short of properly ministering to the body should not be a surprise to anyone. As the Fair Minstrel eluded to in his last post, which has been a while now.....there is a cultural shift on the horizon and some of Modernity's answers to some of the issues we face need correction. That said, I do not believe that the F.V. folks have it right. Obviously this is a huge subject, but I'd like to comment on one statement, actually two, made by Doug Wilson from "The Auburn Avenue Theology"
"Are we asserting no distinction' between the apostate and the faithful son in the decrees? Absolutely not. But we are saying that when it comes to the covenant, the man who stands and the man who falls are distinguished in the standing and falling." Page 5...
"When a man falls away from the faith, there is clearly a sense in which he was never truly in the faith. But when a man falls away from the faith, in some sense he has to have been in the faith in order to fall away from it." Page 231...
I disagree. This boils down to what you mean by "in covenant" the distinguishment is either you are in the covenant or you are not. The falling away is an evidence that you are not. Not the other way around. Just as works are evidence of true faith in the heart, they are not what justifies, but rather evidence of a justfied person.
I do understand what these folks are reacting against, all the ways the Chruch has failed to properly minister to the people. The over emphasis on "personal salvation" at the expense of the covenant community of believers, but you don't have to redefine orthodox covenant theology to accomplish the task. You don't need to convince people that they are in convenant with God to love them and take care of them. We need to just love and take care of people and in the midst of doing that, share the good news of the gospel with them.
Obviously this is a complicated subject and one that requires much more depth than this contenxt allows. With the rise of the "Post-Modern" culture, the church must address a wide spectrum of issues, but what allows the church to effectively operate is not a constant re-definition of our Systematic Theology, but our unselfish application of the love of Christ working in us, doing the work of the kingdom. Correct theology is very important, but it is a means to and end, not the end itself.
We can treat people with dignity, love, and kindness, much better than we do now and accomplish the task without the convenant confusion that seems to be growing.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
on culture
“Personality and the Making of Twentieth Century Culture” by Warren Susman
(Source: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst203/readings/susman2.html)
I just finished reading this essay. The wealth of insights located here is more than enough to recommend itself to anyone serious about understanding where we are culturally and why, by understanding where we have come from. In this essay, Susman describes the two modes of selfconsciousness that defined the 19th and 20th centuries, and the shift in thinking that led from one to the other. To preface, both modes of understanding one’s self, in both centuries are unbiblical and man-centered. Neither reflected the Trinity, and the Trinitarian way of interaction, that is, pure gift, and selflessness. Self-awareness and self-consciousness is not the ultimate goal in the Trinitarian Christian’s life. Our only thought of self is who are we in Christ, and who are we in relation to neighbor. Christ and others form the web of our self-consciousness. Focus on self alone leads to idolatrous individualism and, ironically, self-destruction. But encouragement in that direction is not the purpose of Susman’s essay. His, rather, is to expose the modern (and in doing so, the post-modern) view of self, and how it has developed over the past two hundred years, having sustained a fairly drastic transformation at the turn of the century.
(Read the rest of my response here.)
(Source: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst203/readings/susman2.html)
I just finished reading this essay. The wealth of insights located here is more than enough to recommend itself to anyone serious about understanding where we are culturally and why, by understanding where we have come from. In this essay, Susman describes the two modes of selfconsciousness that defined the 19th and 20th centuries, and the shift in thinking that led from one to the other. To preface, both modes of understanding one’s self, in both centuries are unbiblical and man-centered. Neither reflected the Trinity, and the Trinitarian way of interaction, that is, pure gift, and selflessness. Self-awareness and self-consciousness is not the ultimate goal in the Trinitarian Christian’s life. Our only thought of self is who are we in Christ, and who are we in relation to neighbor. Christ and others form the web of our self-consciousness. Focus on self alone leads to idolatrous individualism and, ironically, self-destruction. But encouragement in that direction is not the purpose of Susman’s essay. His, rather, is to expose the modern (and in doing so, the post-modern) view of self, and how it has developed over the past two hundred years, having sustained a fairly drastic transformation at the turn of the century.
(Read the rest of my response here.)
Monday, October 1, 2007
Sense
I just had to post this. One of my employees found this and tacked it to our bulliten board. It makes me smile.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Storms
This is one of my favorite Rembrandts. It's his depiction of the storm on the Sea of Galilee, recorded in Matthew 8:23-27. That's Jesus there in the back of the boat, lying down, just awakened by the panicked disciples.
Notice the two approaches to dealing with storms that Rembrandt captures in this painting. There are the disciples up at the bow of the boat, furiously trying to set the sails and right the vessel. And then there are the ones back at the stern. I think they realize just how hopeless their efforts will be against the storm - how absolutly futile it is to pull at those lines when you're up against the wind and the waves.
And they're almost certainly more afraid than they ought to be, what with the Son of God in their craft. But there they are, on their knees, looking to Him for help.
Where are you in this painting? Up at the bow, pulling and striving while the waves crash around you, threatening to sink your little boat? Or there with your Lord, crying out in whatever weak and broken way that you can that He alone is your rock, your refuge.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
And now for something completely different...
Just to lighten the mood a bit.
I was rummaging through my college poetry vaults, and came across this little gem. This has actually been published by an acclaimed literary journal... from Cabrillo College. Six popsicles go to the first one to catch the literary allusion.
Fairsized
The Cow
Once upon a mid morn sunny,
As I pondered over money
All alone my soul felt funny
For my friends went to the store.
I was left all by my lonesome
Hearing far off cattle groan some
Shaken by some sad unknownsome
I began to worry sore.
First of all, a cow was mooing
Then I felt some trouble brewing
For I saw that bovine chewing
Stately ravens, birds of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he
Not a minute stopped or stayed he
But with air of Marsha Brady
Sat upon my chamber door.
How he got there, ne’er he told me
Yet with harsh words he did scold me
Then his actions did enfold me
For my mind he did explore.
“Prophet”, said I, “Thing of evil!
“Leave me now you bovine devil”
So he left me, off to revel,
And I saw him, nevermore.
I was rummaging through my college poetry vaults, and came across this little gem. This has actually been published by an acclaimed literary journal... from Cabrillo College. Six popsicles go to the first one to catch the literary allusion.
Fairsized
The Cow
Once upon a mid morn sunny,
As I pondered over money
All alone my soul felt funny
For my friends went to the store.
I was left all by my lonesome
Hearing far off cattle groan some
Shaken by some sad unknownsome
I began to worry sore.
First of all, a cow was mooing
Then I felt some trouble brewing
For I saw that bovine chewing
Stately ravens, birds of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he
Not a minute stopped or stayed he
But with air of Marsha Brady
Sat upon my chamber door.
How he got there, ne’er he told me
Yet with harsh words he did scold me
Then his actions did enfold me
For my mind he did explore.
“Prophet”, said I, “Thing of evil!
“Leave me now you bovine devil”
So he left me, off to revel,
And I saw him, nevermore.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Beware of Democrats Wielding Alliteration
Thus far, the "Wierd News" category has been populated by some really great, fictional news metaphors that have illustrated some important facets of the life of the soul.
I'm going to deviate from that trend, though, with the following non-fiction story - because it's really, well, incredible. Not incredible like "great" or "fantastic" - incredible like in-credible. Un-believable. Oh no he didn't. This one can't be called anything but Wierd News.
****************
Nebraska State Senator Sues God Over Natural Disasters
Monday, September 17, 2007
Fox News
Nebraska Democratic State Senator Ernie Chambers has decided to go straight to the top in an effort to stop natural disasters from befalling the world. Chambers filed a lawsuit against God in Douglas County Court Friday afternoon, KPTM Fox 42 reported.
The suit asks for a "permanent injunction ordering Defendant to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats." The lawsuit identifies the plaintiff as, "the duly elected and serving State Senator from the 11th Legislative District in Omaha, Nebraska."
Chambers also cites that the, "defendant directly and proximately has caused, inter alia, fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornados, pestilential plagues..."
Chambers says he isn't suing God because he has any kind of beef with the deity. He says the suit is to fight possible laws restricting the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Chambers tells KPTM FOX 42 News that his lawsuit is in response to bills brought forth by other state senators to try and stop lawsuits from being filed.
"The Constitution requires that the courthouse doors be open, so you cannot prohibit the filing of suits," Chambers says. "Anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God."
Chambers bases his ability to sue God, as, "that defendant, being omnipresent, is personally present in Douglas County."
****************
I think this proves at least two things. First, Democrats aren't really the intellectuals they've worked so hard to make us believe they are. Of course, Al Gore already has "Exhibit A" status there. Case in point here, though, (aside, even, from the clearly ludicrous nature of the claim itself)- Senator Chambers' stated purpose for filing this "suit" was, "To fight possible laws restricting the filing of frivolous lawsuits." Yeah, bravo. The opponants of frivolous lawsuits are all gonna pack up and go home.
Second, when you see someone making their case through excessive and deliberate alliteration, their theology is surely in the pooper.
I'm going to deviate from that trend, though, with the following non-fiction story - because it's really, well, incredible. Not incredible like "great" or "fantastic" - incredible like in-credible. Un-believable. Oh no he didn't. This one can't be called anything but Wierd News.
****************
Nebraska State Senator Sues God Over Natural Disasters
Monday, September 17, 2007
Fox News
Nebraska Democratic State Senator Ernie Chambers has decided to go straight to the top in an effort to stop natural disasters from befalling the world. Chambers filed a lawsuit against God in Douglas County Court Friday afternoon, KPTM Fox 42 reported.
The suit asks for a "permanent injunction ordering Defendant to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats." The lawsuit identifies the plaintiff as, "the duly elected and serving State Senator from the 11th Legislative District in Omaha, Nebraska."
Chambers also cites that the, "defendant directly and proximately has caused, inter alia, fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornados, pestilential plagues..."
Chambers says he isn't suing God because he has any kind of beef with the deity. He says the suit is to fight possible laws restricting the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Chambers tells KPTM FOX 42 News that his lawsuit is in response to bills brought forth by other state senators to try and stop lawsuits from being filed.
"The Constitution requires that the courthouse doors be open, so you cannot prohibit the filing of suits," Chambers says. "Anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God."
Chambers bases his ability to sue God, as, "that defendant, being omnipresent, is personally present in Douglas County."
****************
I think this proves at least two things. First, Democrats aren't really the intellectuals they've worked so hard to make us believe they are. Of course, Al Gore already has "Exhibit A" status there. Case in point here, though, (aside, even, from the clearly ludicrous nature of the claim itself)- Senator Chambers' stated purpose for filing this "suit" was, "To fight possible laws restricting the filing of frivolous lawsuits." Yeah, bravo. The opponants of frivolous lawsuits are all gonna pack up and go home.
Second, when you see someone making their case through excessive and deliberate alliteration, their theology is surely in the pooper.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Freak Windstorm in Central Valley
A homeowner near Patterson, CA experienced a freak of nature last night, and it seemed personal. Grover Adamson was doing a little house cleaning yesterday afternoon, placing everything on the front lawn. Being a calm evening, he decided to leave it there overnight, with the plan of going through it the next morning. During the night, a freak windstorm came and blew away the entire lot of goods he had out there. Every last scrap was gone, and still has not been found. No other houses on the block appear disturbed or even touched.
"I just couldn't believe it," said Mr. Adamson. "It was like an act of God had descended upon my front porch."
Whether really a sign from above or not, meteorologists are still trying to figure out how it started, where it went, and if it will come again.
"I was simply going through everything I owned," Mr. Adamson explained. "You know, the kind of deep cleaning that takes you under couches and in the cushions, in the corners of closets, the drawer in the kitchen nobody likes. I held nothing back. I put it all on the front lawn. And next morning it was completely gone. We know nobody stole it, because there were no tracks. It seems like a big vacuum cleaner came and just sucked it all up. Actually its sort of liberating, not having to deal with all that garbage."
"I just couldn't believe it," said Mr. Adamson. "It was like an act of God had descended upon my front porch."
Whether really a sign from above or not, meteorologists are still trying to figure out how it started, where it went, and if it will come again.
"I was simply going through everything I owned," Mr. Adamson explained. "You know, the kind of deep cleaning that takes you under couches and in the cushions, in the corners of closets, the drawer in the kitchen nobody likes. I held nothing back. I put it all on the front lawn. And next morning it was completely gone. We know nobody stole it, because there were no tracks. It seems like a big vacuum cleaner came and just sucked it all up. Actually its sort of liberating, not having to deal with all that garbage."
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Divine Abundance: Part Six
(Continued from Part Five)
So Beauty is real, present, independent, giving, bestowing, playful and creative. It is also diverse, copious, and harmonious. With Allah as God, only red is beautiful. All other colors submit in inadequacy. But with a Triune God ruling the heavens and earth, a rainbow of colors are considered equal in richness and beauty. Red and Blue can stand together and equally declare God’s glory in Beauty. But our God is three separate and distinct units, having no commonality. In like manner Red and Blue do not stand apart like in a debate, vying for the win. They are more like the two lines of music that when played together, harmonize. When something is beautiful, the individual aspects of that beautiful item work together to make it so. Take a beautiful tree. You do not separate the trunk from the branches, or the leaves from the ground its planted in. Every part plays its line in harmony. This is a microcosm of how the world works. There is a multiplicity of colors, textures, tastes, aromas, sights, sounds, that all work together in creation to glorify God. In their right created context, they are beautiful. This stems from the God we worship. Again, you cannot separate the creation from the Creator. A work always reflects its author.
Beauty is real, present, independent, giving, bestowing, playful and creative, diverse and harmonious. Beauty also carries an aspect of distance. Distance does not necessarily mean far away. It simply means space, and spatial relationships. In terms of our God, He is infinitely far, transcendent, and wholly other, and by the same token infinitely near, immediate, and within. Beauty therefore has these attributes as well. A painting perhaps best exemplifies this. To look at a painting one can see and touch the canvas, paint, frame, etc. In that sense it is near, close at hand. But it also has an aspect of distance, in that it takes you somewhere. From a Japanese bridge to a plaza in 18th Century Italy, to ancient Egypt (as with the pyramids). Beauty, in other words, is dimensional. Beauty has both the ability to transcend space and time, but also to locate one in a certain space and time. It not only remains beautiful through different cultures and era’s, but also takes the beholder and locates them in a different context. As I mentioned, this happens most readily with paintings, but architecture can have the same affect, both civic and landscape. Beauty brings the far near, and brings the near far away.
Beauty is real, present, independent, giving, bestowing, playful and creative, diverse, harmonious, and dimensional. Lastly, Beauty has context, and cannot be beautiful, at least in the same way, apart from its surroundings. To relate this directly to our God needs some clarification. God would still be God apart from His people, technically. But He Himself has chosen to irrevocably unite Himself to us, to identify Himself by us. Christ is now forever in human flesh. That cannot and will not be undone. To separate Him from that flesh would in some sense, hypothetically of course, diminish His beauty. In like manner, creation has context. The beauty of the trees in the mountains of eastern California could not be appreciated in the great plains of Nebraska. But in their context, they are some of the most sublime sights one can ever see on this earth. Likewise a Bach Cantata played at a hockey game, just does not fit, nor would the beauty be fully communicated and appreciated. Just because something works here, does not necessitate it working there. This is another way of joining the form/content debate. Form matters. The content is affected by the form. A cheesecake in a springform pan will look and taste different than a cheesecake in a meatloaf pan. The cheesecake needs its own specific context to function as it was meant to. Beauty works the same way. Beauty identifies with something. The point here is that the ‘something’ is important.
From this discussion, we have now a specific set of standards to judge beauty. These are objective standards that do not depend on taste. Beauty is real, present, independent, giving, bestowing, playful and creative, diverse, harmonious, dimensional, and within a specific context. Next time we will look at how if one of these aspects is distorted or maligned, the object no longer is beautiful. But for now, beauty is important, and how we understand it will affect how we live and relate with one another. And it happens whether or not we believe it.
So Beauty is real, present, independent, giving, bestowing, playful and creative. It is also diverse, copious, and harmonious. With Allah as God, only red is beautiful. All other colors submit in inadequacy. But with a Triune God ruling the heavens and earth, a rainbow of colors are considered equal in richness and beauty. Red and Blue can stand together and equally declare God’s glory in Beauty. But our God is three separate and distinct units, having no commonality. In like manner Red and Blue do not stand apart like in a debate, vying for the win. They are more like the two lines of music that when played together, harmonize. When something is beautiful, the individual aspects of that beautiful item work together to make it so. Take a beautiful tree. You do not separate the trunk from the branches, or the leaves from the ground its planted in. Every part plays its line in harmony. This is a microcosm of how the world works. There is a multiplicity of colors, textures, tastes, aromas, sights, sounds, that all work together in creation to glorify God. In their right created context, they are beautiful. This stems from the God we worship. Again, you cannot separate the creation from the Creator. A work always reflects its author.
Beauty is real, present, independent, giving, bestowing, playful and creative, diverse and harmonious. Beauty also carries an aspect of distance. Distance does not necessarily mean far away. It simply means space, and spatial relationships. In terms of our God, He is infinitely far, transcendent, and wholly other, and by the same token infinitely near, immediate, and within. Beauty therefore has these attributes as well. A painting perhaps best exemplifies this. To look at a painting one can see and touch the canvas, paint, frame, etc. In that sense it is near, close at hand. But it also has an aspect of distance, in that it takes you somewhere. From a Japanese bridge to a plaza in 18th Century Italy, to ancient Egypt (as with the pyramids). Beauty, in other words, is dimensional. Beauty has both the ability to transcend space and time, but also to locate one in a certain space and time. It not only remains beautiful through different cultures and era’s, but also takes the beholder and locates them in a different context. As I mentioned, this happens most readily with paintings, but architecture can have the same affect, both civic and landscape. Beauty brings the far near, and brings the near far away.
Beauty is real, present, independent, giving, bestowing, playful and creative, diverse, harmonious, and dimensional. Lastly, Beauty has context, and cannot be beautiful, at least in the same way, apart from its surroundings. To relate this directly to our God needs some clarification. God would still be God apart from His people, technically. But He Himself has chosen to irrevocably unite Himself to us, to identify Himself by us. Christ is now forever in human flesh. That cannot and will not be undone. To separate Him from that flesh would in some sense, hypothetically of course, diminish His beauty. In like manner, creation has context. The beauty of the trees in the mountains of eastern California could not be appreciated in the great plains of Nebraska. But in their context, they are some of the most sublime sights one can ever see on this earth. Likewise a Bach Cantata played at a hockey game, just does not fit, nor would the beauty be fully communicated and appreciated. Just because something works here, does not necessitate it working there. This is another way of joining the form/content debate. Form matters. The content is affected by the form. A cheesecake in a springform pan will look and taste different than a cheesecake in a meatloaf pan. The cheesecake needs its own specific context to function as it was meant to. Beauty works the same way. Beauty identifies with something. The point here is that the ‘something’ is important.
From this discussion, we have now a specific set of standards to judge beauty. These are objective standards that do not depend on taste. Beauty is real, present, independent, giving, bestowing, playful and creative, diverse, harmonious, dimensional, and within a specific context. Next time we will look at how if one of these aspects is distorted or maligned, the object no longer is beautiful. But for now, beauty is important, and how we understand it will affect how we live and relate with one another. And it happens whether or not we believe it.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Divine Abundance: Part Five
We have discussed the nature of the Trinity and its relation to Creation. The question then arises, what has this to do with aesthetics? What has this to do with beauty? The Creator God is Beauty, and there can be nothing more beautiful than God. Ultimate Beauty therefore must have the same attributes as the infinite God. If it did not, God could not be the Ultimate Beauty. In this way, we have an objective standard for Beauty. Beauty is not simply and only ‘taste’. Taste has its place, but it does not govern all areas of Beauty. Therefore, something can be truly, biblically beautiful, say a ripe peach, and not be pleasing to every single person on earth. If that example seems trite, think about it again. Peaches are an act of creation. They are created by God. God cannot make what is outside His nature. Hence, peaches reflect God’s nature, and are in that sense, Beautiful. But John doesn’t like peaches. And God has given him the freedom to not like them. Taste is a subcategory of Beauty, and not the other way around. Our modern/postmodern relativists have elevated taste above all, elevating their own decision-making abilities over and above what God has decreed. In this way they can look down on God and decide that He is not their type, just like John does not like peaches. But taste is not the heading, with beauty as bullet point number three, followed by truth, and flavors of ice cream. We must say that Beauty, who is God Himself, reigns and that all things flow from Him.
So in the past four discussions regarding the Divine Abundance, what framework have we given for our understanding of Beauty? We have looked at these each in their own place:
The ‘superfluousness’ of Creation
The necessary love of the Creator
The Triune nature and fellowship of the Creator
The divine dialogue and difference within the Trinity
The distance and immediacy of this Triune God
The identification of God with His people
What can we understand about Beauty from these things? The first thought to take away is that Beauty is real and present. It is not a figment of imagination, nor is it a created substance that will pass with time. Beauty surrounds us because it is emblazoned in creation. It follows then that Beauty does not need a subject to appreciate it to be beautiful. Creation was Good on Day 5. Creation was beautiful without Man. Now in the Almighty’s divine pleasure, it was not complete without man, but the presence of mankind does not suddenly give Beauty its life. Beauty has its life in that it reflects the nature of the Creator. Beauty is the very reflection. The Triune God was beautiful, was Beauty, from before the foundations of the world.
Beauty is real, and present, and independent from us. Beauty also gives and bestows. As the very reflection of God, it gives glory and bestows majesty on God. Acts of beauty then consist of bestowing on others. This is tempered and defined by the selfless love of the Trinity. The act of giving is an act free from selfish ends and desires. Beauty then is a selfless love, giving of itself for the pure reason of blessing others. This can be seen in music, to take an example from the art world. When various lines complement each other, and do not dominate, but harmonize and flow together, achieving a sound bigger than the individual lines, the overall product is beautiful, because it reflects the nature of Beauty, the nature of God, which involves a love which is directed outward, a selfless giving for the benefit and glorification of the other.
Beauty is real, present, independent, giving and bestowing. Beauty also is playful and creative. To look at the diversity of creation, and to speak of God as anything but playful, humorous, and creative, is to look but without seeing and understanding. Beauty then is rich in diversity (allowing for tastes), humorous, creative, and playful. I say playful in order to bring to mind images of delight and joy. God clearly enjoys His creation. Go to any national or international park, landmark, or reserve. From Yosemite, to the Fjords of Norway, to the (fill in your favorite desktop wallpaper). This again, speaks to the unnecessary nature of creation. God did not need to create 300,000 different types of beetles, but He did, and did so out of His own good pleasure and delight in creation. To watch antelopes and gazelles bounce and prance as they do over fields and hills, is a delight. Simply look at the giraffe for conclusive evidence that God is a comedian and enjoys playing. Beauty is a reflection of that playfulness. To watch the sun melt in a rainbow of colors, dripping down into the raising waves of a moving ocean, while the land and mountains behind you are seduced by the dark of night, is Beauty. It is beautiful because it is an exhibition of nature playing and enjoying the game of creation, the game God has given it to play.
(Part Two forthcoming…)
So in the past four discussions regarding the Divine Abundance, what framework have we given for our understanding of Beauty? We have looked at these each in their own place:
The ‘superfluousness’ of Creation
The necessary love of the Creator
The Triune nature and fellowship of the Creator
The divine dialogue and difference within the Trinity
The distance and immediacy of this Triune God
The identification of God with His people
What can we understand about Beauty from these things? The first thought to take away is that Beauty is real and present. It is not a figment of imagination, nor is it a created substance that will pass with time. Beauty surrounds us because it is emblazoned in creation. It follows then that Beauty does not need a subject to appreciate it to be beautiful. Creation was Good on Day 5. Creation was beautiful without Man. Now in the Almighty’s divine pleasure, it was not complete without man, but the presence of mankind does not suddenly give Beauty its life. Beauty has its life in that it reflects the nature of the Creator. Beauty is the very reflection. The Triune God was beautiful, was Beauty, from before the foundations of the world.
Beauty is real, and present, and independent from us. Beauty also gives and bestows. As the very reflection of God, it gives glory and bestows majesty on God. Acts of beauty then consist of bestowing on others. This is tempered and defined by the selfless love of the Trinity. The act of giving is an act free from selfish ends and desires. Beauty then is a selfless love, giving of itself for the pure reason of blessing others. This can be seen in music, to take an example from the art world. When various lines complement each other, and do not dominate, but harmonize and flow together, achieving a sound bigger than the individual lines, the overall product is beautiful, because it reflects the nature of Beauty, the nature of God, which involves a love which is directed outward, a selfless giving for the benefit and glorification of the other.
Beauty is real, present, independent, giving and bestowing. Beauty also is playful and creative. To look at the diversity of creation, and to speak of God as anything but playful, humorous, and creative, is to look but without seeing and understanding. Beauty then is rich in diversity (allowing for tastes), humorous, creative, and playful. I say playful in order to bring to mind images of delight and joy. God clearly enjoys His creation. Go to any national or international park, landmark, or reserve. From Yosemite, to the Fjords of Norway, to the (fill in your favorite desktop wallpaper). This again, speaks to the unnecessary nature of creation. God did not need to create 300,000 different types of beetles, but He did, and did so out of His own good pleasure and delight in creation. To watch antelopes and gazelles bounce and prance as they do over fields and hills, is a delight. Simply look at the giraffe for conclusive evidence that God is a comedian and enjoys playing. Beauty is a reflection of that playfulness. To watch the sun melt in a rainbow of colors, dripping down into the raising waves of a moving ocean, while the land and mountains behind you are seduced by the dark of night, is Beauty. It is beautiful because it is an exhibition of nature playing and enjoying the game of creation, the game God has given it to play.
(Part Two forthcoming…)
The Divine Abundance: Part Four
We left off a couple of months ago with the idea of the God of Creation, the God who is infinitely beyond all, stooping into history, and approaching His own. In Christ, the Unapproachable One, becomes approachable, the God of all takes on flesh and tabernacles among us. This brings us to a fourth point in our pursuit of a paradigm for understanding the beautiful and our place in it.
The Lord of all Creation is infinite. This must be so, or else God would have a beginning or an end, and that is nonsensical. There are two sides to this coin. The infinity of God by definition means that God is infinitely above us, beyond us, transcending every thought, concept, imagination, or word we can give. This we know, and have dwelt on already. From this starting point we arrive at our own superfluousness, and the unnecessary nature of Creation.
Infinity also means however, that God is infinitely close to His creation. As far as He is distant, He is also near. In short, He is the distance that separates us. He is the distance that breaks through the Creator/Creature distinction. He is the God who, though being above all, has irrevocably bound Himself to His Creation. He has defined Himself, named Himself, with relation to His people. In Exodus He gives Moses the name by which He will be known, and remembered. “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations,” (Ex. 3:14-15). Even in the very name of God, He involves His purpose, His people. He is to be remembered throughout all generations as the God of a certain, particular people.
This God identifies intimately with His bride. He puts His reputation on the line, if you will. Here we have a clearer idea why the history of God’s people is so important. It is through God’s relation with us that His glory is made known to the nations. Two things we take from this. One, God uses weakness to confound strength. He uses broken clay pots to conquer the iron and steel of His enemies. The second thing we take from this is that God is not using the history of His bride apart from divine foreknowledge. In other words, He is not simply hoping the story of His grace will fall on sympathetic ears. He will be made known to the nations, and He will bring redemption to the world, placing His enemies beneath His feet. This will happen. And in order to accomplish this, He chooses to use us, the fallen and restored Bride.
This however, is more contextual, and tangential to our discussion of aesthetics, though not unimportant. To reorient us, work through this quote from David Bentley Hart’s book, The Beauty of the Infinite:
This is why consideration of the analogy of being concludes this long meditation on Trinitarian doctrine: the Father forever sees and infinitely loves the whole depth of his being in the Son, illumined as responsive love in the fullness of the Spirit, and in the always determinate infinity of His triune being God begets all the riches of being – all that all things might ever be – in the image and light of His essence; and thus God himself is already his own analogy, his own infinite otherness and perfect likeness. All things – all the words of being – speak of God because they shine within his eternal Word. This Trinitarian distance is that “open” in which the tree springs up from the earth, the stars turn in the sky, the sea swells, all living things are born and grow, angels raise their everlasting hymnody; because this is the true interval of difference, every metaphysics that does not grasp the analogy of being is a Tower of Babel, attempting to mount up to the supreme principle rather than dwelling in and giving voice to the prodigality of the gift. (The Beauty of the Infinite, 248)
This is a little thick, so lets work through it. The ‘analogy of being’ refers to the metaphysical concepts of difference and transcendence. Packed in the luggage of those terms are the two sides of the infinite described above. The triune nature of God is in essence, one of love. We have seen how this love overflows in rich abundance into Creation, showing God’s playfulness and intimacy within unnecessary gift. This is seen in “all the riches of being – all that all things might ever be – in the image and light of His essence.” All creation therefore sings in praise of who God is, for He is intimately united, by choice, and not by force, to all creation. “He is before all things, and in Him, all things consist,” (Col 1:17). “For in Him we live and move and have our being,” (Acts 17:28). Because God is infinite, and is the very space that separates us (‘even in the depths of Sheol, You are there…’), He gives life to all things. He is therefore that “open” space in which trees grow and sway in the wind, angels sing their hymns, and the oceans clap their hands in praise. Hence every metaphysic (paradigm, worldview, theology) that does not understand this, is by nature the tower of defiance and rebellion. To not recognize the ruler of heaven and earth, is to declare autonomy, which will necessarily bring confusion and exile. We cannot mount up to God. However, He can stoop down, and has in Christ. This is that gift that we are to dwell in and give voice to. We dwell in God’s bounty whether we like it or not. It is simply the way things are. We can however choose not to give voice to it. Either we refuse and climb Mount Babel, or we accept, and honor God as God, and give Him thanks.
Here is gratitude, the only word on our tongue fit for the Creator God, who is above all, and in all, and through all. Glory and power and dominion are His forever, and ever, world without end. Amen.
The Lord of all Creation is infinite. This must be so, or else God would have a beginning or an end, and that is nonsensical. There are two sides to this coin. The infinity of God by definition means that God is infinitely above us, beyond us, transcending every thought, concept, imagination, or word we can give. This we know, and have dwelt on already. From this starting point we arrive at our own superfluousness, and the unnecessary nature of Creation.
Infinity also means however, that God is infinitely close to His creation. As far as He is distant, He is also near. In short, He is the distance that separates us. He is the distance that breaks through the Creator/Creature distinction. He is the God who, though being above all, has irrevocably bound Himself to His Creation. He has defined Himself, named Himself, with relation to His people. In Exodus He gives Moses the name by which He will be known, and remembered. “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations,” (Ex. 3:14-15). Even in the very name of God, He involves His purpose, His people. He is to be remembered throughout all generations as the God of a certain, particular people.
This God identifies intimately with His bride. He puts His reputation on the line, if you will. Here we have a clearer idea why the history of God’s people is so important. It is through God’s relation with us that His glory is made known to the nations. Two things we take from this. One, God uses weakness to confound strength. He uses broken clay pots to conquer the iron and steel of His enemies. The second thing we take from this is that God is not using the history of His bride apart from divine foreknowledge. In other words, He is not simply hoping the story of His grace will fall on sympathetic ears. He will be made known to the nations, and He will bring redemption to the world, placing His enemies beneath His feet. This will happen. And in order to accomplish this, He chooses to use us, the fallen and restored Bride.
This however, is more contextual, and tangential to our discussion of aesthetics, though not unimportant. To reorient us, work through this quote from David Bentley Hart’s book, The Beauty of the Infinite:
This is why consideration of the analogy of being concludes this long meditation on Trinitarian doctrine: the Father forever sees and infinitely loves the whole depth of his being in the Son, illumined as responsive love in the fullness of the Spirit, and in the always determinate infinity of His triune being God begets all the riches of being – all that all things might ever be – in the image and light of His essence; and thus God himself is already his own analogy, his own infinite otherness and perfect likeness. All things – all the words of being – speak of God because they shine within his eternal Word. This Trinitarian distance is that “open” in which the tree springs up from the earth, the stars turn in the sky, the sea swells, all living things are born and grow, angels raise their everlasting hymnody; because this is the true interval of difference, every metaphysics that does not grasp the analogy of being is a Tower of Babel, attempting to mount up to the supreme principle rather than dwelling in and giving voice to the prodigality of the gift. (The Beauty of the Infinite, 248)
This is a little thick, so lets work through it. The ‘analogy of being’ refers to the metaphysical concepts of difference and transcendence. Packed in the luggage of those terms are the two sides of the infinite described above. The triune nature of God is in essence, one of love. We have seen how this love overflows in rich abundance into Creation, showing God’s playfulness and intimacy within unnecessary gift. This is seen in “all the riches of being – all that all things might ever be – in the image and light of His essence.” All creation therefore sings in praise of who God is, for He is intimately united, by choice, and not by force, to all creation. “He is before all things, and in Him, all things consist,” (Col 1:17). “For in Him we live and move and have our being,” (Acts 17:28). Because God is infinite, and is the very space that separates us (‘even in the depths of Sheol, You are there…’), He gives life to all things. He is therefore that “open” space in which trees grow and sway in the wind, angels sing their hymns, and the oceans clap their hands in praise. Hence every metaphysic (paradigm, worldview, theology) that does not understand this, is by nature the tower of defiance and rebellion. To not recognize the ruler of heaven and earth, is to declare autonomy, which will necessarily bring confusion and exile. We cannot mount up to God. However, He can stoop down, and has in Christ. This is that gift that we are to dwell in and give voice to. We dwell in God’s bounty whether we like it or not. It is simply the way things are. We can however choose not to give voice to it. Either we refuse and climb Mount Babel, or we accept, and honor God as God, and give Him thanks.
Here is gratitude, the only word on our tongue fit for the Creator God, who is above all, and in all, and through all. Glory and power and dominion are His forever, and ever, world without end. Amen.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Hairy Potter
Welcome back Friar. After a long absence, we have all three abbey members posting in the same week. This is great!
Just so everyone is clear, I have not read any of the Potter books. However my opinions are not of the nature that make others think I wear tight pants. To address the fair friar’s first question, yes, there is a difference between Tolkien and Rowlings, and no its not simply a difference in gender. To put it simply, Tolkien and Lewis are 32oz Porterhouses, with AuGratin potatoes and a side of broiled asparagus, finished off with a fine, mellow glass of Pinot Noir. Rowlings is like Slimfast. There is still nourishment there, but of a different degree. This is explained by my response to his next question.
The presuppositionalist will readily see the underpinnings of Christianity in Harry Potter. This is natural, and holds true for any good story. Christianity is the only worldview that works, that is consistent with nature, and our experiences in this world. Science and the demigods in white coats, followed by the relativists of our own generation will say differently in print. However, they will not, cannot live their life consistently, if they wish to live their life. As I said, the story of Scripture is the only story that works. Therefore, if you wish to write a fiction that works, key elements of the Story need to be intact. For instance, if you end a story with a nihilistic death, with nothing afterwards and no meaningful outcome, nobody is going to read the book. It simply wont sell. However, if there is some sort of resurrection following the death, whether actual or symbolic, there is a sense of rest, that resolves the tension of death. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand this. This is something that is hardwired into mankind. Only believers, however, have the resources to explain why this is so.
So back to Harry and Frodo. The reason why Potter works (again, at least from what I have heard) is because it borrows elements from the Real Story, such as good beating evil, though evil is real and nasty. To my knowledge, Rowlings does this unintentionally, mixing in her own thoughts. To use another analogy, the Potter books are like cupcakes made with the flour and baking powder of Christian thought, but mixed with the flavor and frosting of Rowlings own personal worldview. Here is where we Christians practice our discernment. Just because she uses two cups of truth, does not make the whole cupcake good. There might be some redeeming value in reading it, and it can simply be a lark in a park. But if we only see the two cups of truth and not the sprinkles of disbelief, we are setting ourselves up for a fall. This is simply a call for us to be aware. Reading Potter is not a sin, and we should read them. But I agree with the JF that a steady diet, and a narrow diet of Potteresque books is dangerous for the soul.
That said, a few comments on Tolkien and Lewis. I have not read Potter, but I have had a steady diet of these two greats. Similar subject matter, right? So what’s the difference? Tolkien and Lewis both wrote their fictions from within the paradigm of faith. Their own personal convictions were such that they believed Scripture and the Story of the Gospel to be the Story of all Stories. This inevitably shaped and molded their own hand as they wrote. This is clearly evident in reading their works. The more Truth they personally took in, the more Truth came out through their fingers. It is simple proportions. Rowlings swallows two cups truth, and puts out two cups truth. Tolkien and Lewis daily eat loaves and loaves of truth, and therefore put out rich and meaty works, overflowing with the richness of their diet. We cannot separate a work from its author, as some have tried. We cannot separate a creation from its creator. Therefore we must study both, as each informs us of the other. So the call is to read, but to read wisely and with a mind to engage and discover.
Just so everyone is clear, I have not read any of the Potter books. However my opinions are not of the nature that make others think I wear tight pants. To address the fair friar’s first question, yes, there is a difference between Tolkien and Rowlings, and no its not simply a difference in gender. To put it simply, Tolkien and Lewis are 32oz Porterhouses, with AuGratin potatoes and a side of broiled asparagus, finished off with a fine, mellow glass of Pinot Noir. Rowlings is like Slimfast. There is still nourishment there, but of a different degree. This is explained by my response to his next question.
The presuppositionalist will readily see the underpinnings of Christianity in Harry Potter. This is natural, and holds true for any good story. Christianity is the only worldview that works, that is consistent with nature, and our experiences in this world. Science and the demigods in white coats, followed by the relativists of our own generation will say differently in print. However, they will not, cannot live their life consistently, if they wish to live their life. As I said, the story of Scripture is the only story that works. Therefore, if you wish to write a fiction that works, key elements of the Story need to be intact. For instance, if you end a story with a nihilistic death, with nothing afterwards and no meaningful outcome, nobody is going to read the book. It simply wont sell. However, if there is some sort of resurrection following the death, whether actual or symbolic, there is a sense of rest, that resolves the tension of death. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand this. This is something that is hardwired into mankind. Only believers, however, have the resources to explain why this is so.
So back to Harry and Frodo. The reason why Potter works (again, at least from what I have heard) is because it borrows elements from the Real Story, such as good beating evil, though evil is real and nasty. To my knowledge, Rowlings does this unintentionally, mixing in her own thoughts. To use another analogy, the Potter books are like cupcakes made with the flour and baking powder of Christian thought, but mixed with the flavor and frosting of Rowlings own personal worldview. Here is where we Christians practice our discernment. Just because she uses two cups of truth, does not make the whole cupcake good. There might be some redeeming value in reading it, and it can simply be a lark in a park. But if we only see the two cups of truth and not the sprinkles of disbelief, we are setting ourselves up for a fall. This is simply a call for us to be aware. Reading Potter is not a sin, and we should read them. But I agree with the JF that a steady diet, and a narrow diet of Potteresque books is dangerous for the soul.
That said, a few comments on Tolkien and Lewis. I have not read Potter, but I have had a steady diet of these two greats. Similar subject matter, right? So what’s the difference? Tolkien and Lewis both wrote their fictions from within the paradigm of faith. Their own personal convictions were such that they believed Scripture and the Story of the Gospel to be the Story of all Stories. This inevitably shaped and molded their own hand as they wrote. This is clearly evident in reading their works. The more Truth they personally took in, the more Truth came out through their fingers. It is simple proportions. Rowlings swallows two cups truth, and puts out two cups truth. Tolkien and Lewis daily eat loaves and loaves of truth, and therefore put out rich and meaty works, overflowing with the richness of their diet. We cannot separate a work from its author, as some have tried. We cannot separate a creation from its creator. Therefore we must study both, as each informs us of the other. So the call is to read, but to read wisely and with a mind to engage and discover.
Christian Presupposition in Harry Potter?
As the hub-bub about the final installment, (at least in writing), is coming to an end, this Jolly Friar ponders on some things Potter. Views on this subject are as polarized as the ice-caps and no shortage of opinion exists among Christian circles. So for the sake of stirring up the pot here at the abbey, I'd like to pose the question to all those who ponder.
Is there a difference between Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowlings? (Besides the obvious male/female distinction.) Are the Harry Potter series of books the same as "Lord of the Rings" or "The Chronicles of Narnia"?
For instance, the hero in the "Lord of the Rings" is Frodo Baggins, the humble hobit, with great character and self-sacrifice. Is there a reasonable parallel between Frodo and Harry? Gandalf uses magic and so does Harry. Is there a difference between them? Some say that Tolkien is fine, but Rowlings is not. Why? or Why not?
Some assert that the Potter books makes no sense, or could not have been written without a Christian presupposition. See Harry Potter Meets Cornelius Van Til Obviously using the Potter series as a spring board or opportunity to discuss the important matters of eternity is something that all Christians should be prepared to do. We must engage the culture and be able to intelligently speak about what is going on. I don't know how many times I've heard people comment on things they haven't read or seen. That is just ridiculous. If you haven't read something or seen it, you have no business commenting on it as though you know what your talking about.
This humble Friar believes that Christians may freely read Potter, but should always be discerning and understand what is truly Biblical and what is not. Children should indeed find an interest in reading, but if all they read is Harry Potter and nothing else, is that interest in reading a real benefit? I've known many who said their Children are reading more due to reading Harry Potter, but when you examine the content of what they read, there is little redeeming value in the content. In the final analysis, it's not Harry that's the problem in that scenario, the problem is much broader than this simple minded friar's opinion and well beyond the scope of "To Harry or not to Harry," that is the question.
Is there a difference between Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowlings? (Besides the obvious male/female distinction.) Are the Harry Potter series of books the same as "Lord of the Rings" or "The Chronicles of Narnia"?
For instance, the hero in the "Lord of the Rings" is Frodo Baggins, the humble hobit, with great character and self-sacrifice. Is there a reasonable parallel between Frodo and Harry? Gandalf uses magic and so does Harry. Is there a difference between them? Some say that Tolkien is fine, but Rowlings is not. Why? or Why not?
Some assert that the Potter books makes no sense, or could not have been written without a Christian presupposition. See Harry Potter Meets Cornelius Van Til Obviously using the Potter series as a spring board or opportunity to discuss the important matters of eternity is something that all Christians should be prepared to do. We must engage the culture and be able to intelligently speak about what is going on. I don't know how many times I've heard people comment on things they haven't read or seen. That is just ridiculous. If you haven't read something or seen it, you have no business commenting on it as though you know what your talking about.
This humble Friar believes that Christians may freely read Potter, but should always be discerning and understand what is truly Biblical and what is not. Children should indeed find an interest in reading, but if all they read is Harry Potter and nothing else, is that interest in reading a real benefit? I've known many who said their Children are reading more due to reading Harry Potter, but when you examine the content of what they read, there is little redeeming value in the content. In the final analysis, it's not Harry that's the problem in that scenario, the problem is much broader than this simple minded friar's opinion and well beyond the scope of "To Harry or not to Harry," that is the question.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
O My...
My new favorite Modern Evangelical venture into Pop-Relevance:
T-shirt - "California rhymes with Jesus"
T-shirt - "California rhymes with Jesus"
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Jacques and Rich would be proud...
Ah, it's good to be back at the Abbey.
I took a bit of leave to wander North and refresh my soul with my family. How good to see that the dialogue continues to be gracious and stimulating - not to mention diverse! From a Redemptive-Historical overview of Matthew's gospel to John Mayer - good heavens! A wonderfully full-orbed appreciation of the good and the beautiful.
What's with the redesign, though?! One might conclude that someone has been reading too much Derrida and Rorty, what with all the deconstructionist adjustments to the Abbey's appearance! Right-justified titles. Inconsistent margins. You aren't wearing baggy pants sagging below your hips, too, are you? Maybe I just have a touch of OCD, but I had to tidy things up a bit...
I took a bit of leave to wander North and refresh my soul with my family. How good to see that the dialogue continues to be gracious and stimulating - not to mention diverse! From a Redemptive-Historical overview of Matthew's gospel to John Mayer - good heavens! A wonderfully full-orbed appreciation of the good and the beautiful.
What's with the redesign, though?! One might conclude that someone has been reading too much Derrida and Rorty, what with all the deconstructionist adjustments to the Abbey's appearance! Right-justified titles. Inconsistent margins. You aren't wearing baggy pants sagging below your hips, too, are you? Maybe I just have a touch of OCD, but I had to tidy things up a bit...
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The first step
Mr. Hyper Wop wanted some online resources. This is the best start. Through New Eyes, by James B. Jordan. It is a full size book, close to 350 pages. But it the best launching pad to thinking this way about Scripture. It is a free PDF file too. Enjoy.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Matthew
My wife and I had the privilege this past Lord's Day to sit under the teaching of our former professor, Dr. Leithart, at a local Church, near the Abbey. It was a pleasure to see him again, as we had not for over a year, and he was a friend, as well as an instructor. He spoke on Matthew. It is the substance of that sermon which I wish to share here at the table. So pull yourself a pint of something dark, drag one of those thick heavy chairs from the corner over to the table, and lean back. This might take a while.
Matthew’s aim, as is well understood, in writing his account of Jesus’ life, was to approach the Jewish nation with the Gospel. This is seen in his mentioning of Jewish customs, and not explaining them (23:5), and his constant use if the Old Testament, more than any other gospel (21 times; Mark, 15 times; Luke, 16 times; John, 11 times). Those are just the direct quotes. To understand Matthew well, a thorough knowledge of the whole Old Testament is required. This outline is one step in that direction.
Matthew begins his account of the Good News with a genealogy. This is extremely reminiscent of Genesis. To top it off the opening verse of Matthew, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ...” in the Greek reads, “The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ...” using the same Greek word that the LXX uses to give title to the book of Genesis. And in Genesis 5 (as well as nine other times throughout the book), the exact phrasing is used, βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων, compared with Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Matthew is the story of a new creation, and a new “ἀνθρώπων”, Jesus Christ, the Creator God Himself. These are His generations, His “beginnings”. In Genesis, whenever a genealogy is given, the descendents are listed. But here in Matthew, the ancestors are listed. Could it not be that Matthew is hinting that they too are descendants, starting with Christ, and then Abraham? Abraham is a new Adam, the father of faith. Being a new Adam, he himself was a son of God, as Adam was. Abraham is a son of God, and therefore a son of the Son. Here lies a difference between the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Matthew starts with Abraham, and lists fathers. Luke starts with Christ, and lists sons. Matthew and Luke are doing two separate things. Luke wants to pick up where Mark left off, “Truly this was the Son of God.” But Matthew wants to show Jesus in a different light than Luke, with a different perspective. Perhaps this is to highlight the unity of the Father and the Son, showing the Jews this was written for, that Jesus is the “I AM” who was before their father Abraham, and greater too. But now we are approaching the skinny branches. What is clear is a harkening back to the first book of the Bible. Matthew wants us to view this story as a new Beginning for a new world, a new order, a new covenant.
The story of Matthew follows closely the story of Israel through their long and sordid history. To begin with, there is the genealogy, then the birth of Christ, His descent into Egypt, and His return followed closely by His baptism. Here we see a recapitulation of the birth of the nation of Israel, their time in Egypt, their exodus from the land, and their “baptism” in the Red Sea. It follows perfectly. What comes next is a time in the wilderness. As Israel wandered for forty years, so Christ for forty days. Matthew sets the stage in the temptation of Christ, showing us that not only is this a new Israel, it is an obedient Israel. Jesus rejects Satan on all the points Israel failed on. The grumbled for bread, the tested the Lord, they desired the kingdoms of Egypt. Jesus proves faithful, when the nation of Israel did not.
The next three chapters of Matthew, 5-7, are a record of Jesus, standing on a mountain, proclaiming to the people a new Law. This is exactly what happens after Israel finished their time in the wilderness. They were brought to a mountain, and the Law was recounted to them, full with blessings and curses. This also alludes to Sinai when I AM gave the law. Here Christ, who is the great I AM, gives the law. At the end of chapter 7 Jesus says this, “And everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” This again, is a picture of the house of Israel. Jesus is alluding to their immanent and final fall, as he does more explicitly later in the book.
Then in chapter 10, Jesus gathers 12 disciples officially. He prepares them, and subsequently sends them out into the unconquered lands. This obviously looks like the 12 nations of Israel, being called out, equipped with the word in Deuteronomy, and sent into the promise land, to conquer it. Hence Matt 10:34, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Jesus is a new Joshua, coming to bring the sword against Satan and his followers. He is coming to bring the sword against death itself. This also fits with Jesus using the examples of the old Canaanite cities of Tyre and Sidon and Sodom in chapter 11. But the new Conquest of Canaan, is not one of extinction, it is one of redemption. In chapter 11, Jesus tells John the Baptist that “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” Canaan is to be given new life. In chapter 12 this is made explicit with the quotation from Isaiah, which ends with “and in His name the Gentiles will hope.” Jesus has come to bring hope to all who are spiritually Gentiles, coming to conquer them, and kill them, but in order that He might raise them up again.
The second half of chapter 12 leads the people to be amazed and wonder if this Man is the Son of David (12:23). The Pharisees think he is of Satan. Jesus responds by telling them that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. And then in chapter 13, Jesus, in concentrated form, is concerned with kingdoms, and explaining the kingdom of Heaven. This fits perfectly with Israel’s history. They conquer the land of Canaan, and not too long afterwards, desire a king. The kingdom of Israel grows to maturity under Solomon, the son of David. Jesus, here, in a very Solomon-like way, gives word-pictures of what the kingdom of Heaven is like. Jesus is the King of the Jews. In chapters 14-15 he acts like a king, providing for His people, bread for 5000 first, and then 4000. To confirm this, and to answer the question posed in 12:23, He is confirmed as the Son of David by the Canaanite woman (15:22). This comes to a climax in the confession of Peter in 16, and the transfiguration in 17. Christ is the ultimate King, the Son of God, and the three witness His glorious majesty. The King theme is carried through chapters 18-20. It reaches another climax in chapter 21, as the Son of David returns to Jerusalem, this time on the foal of a donkey. Jesus assumes the Kingship of Jerusalem, as He is labeled on the cross, and His disciples and worshipers flock to His side. Then in chapter 22 the parable of the wedding feast for the King’s son is given. This is an important parable on two accounts. One, the inclusion of the nations is explicit. Two, a wedding is coming. The Bride is alluded to, made up of every nation, and every tribe, and every tongue. The very final verses of 22 wrap up this Kingship section. It is where Jesus tests the Pharisee’s knowledge of the Psalms. “Who is the Christ,” He asks. “The son of David,” they reply. “How so, in light of Psalm 110:1?” He answers (paraphrase mine). They cant answer, and Matthew leaves it at that. The answer is of course, that the Lord is not simply a descendant of David, He is also the Father of David, and is Himself a greater David. All that David was points to Christ. Pharisees have no eyes to see this, however.
Then in chapters 23-25, Jesus takes a very different tone. He becomes like Jeremiah, standing outside Jerusalem, proclaiming its destruction. The kings of Israel were not faithful, and another exodus was coming. But this time it was back into exile and slavery. Jerusalem would be judged. Here in Matthew Jesus speaks of the final judgment to come on Jerusalem, a judgment that would abolish the old ways, and establish the new. This judgment would bring about a time when the Priest, the King, and the Prophet were all found in one Man, the God-man, the Son of David, the King of Creation, the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. The second Moses, the second Joshua, the second Solomon, the second Jeremiah, has come and He is the true Israel, the true seed of Abraham. He has come to make disciples out the rocks of the earth.
Following the prophecy of exile, Jesus Himself enacts Israel’s death. He Himself experiences the departure of God the Father, as in Ezekiel 10. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He experiences the death of Israel, for Israel. But this death is a death of deeper magic. This is a death which brings the death of death. Faithful Israel is brought to life, and is Life Himself, never to die again. Thus we have in chapter 28, the rest of the story. The Old Testament leaves us unsure of Israel’s future. They come home from exile, but are still a mess. They need a lasting death, the death of something greater than bulls and goats. This finds its fulfillment in the Resurrection.
To end it all, Matthew copies the final verses of the Hebrew Scriptures which are found at the end of 2 Chronicles 36. They read, “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the Lord his God be with him. Let him go up.’” Does this have a familiar ring? Jesus final words in Matthew, and only in Matthew mind you, are, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Jesus, here, is a greater Cyrus who has been given power and authority and sends his people out, with the purpose of establishing something. The old Cyrus only has authority on earth, where the new Cyrus has authority over heaven and earth. The old Cyrus tells them to establish a specific house in Jerusalem, whereas the new Cyrus tells his disciples to establish a new Jerusalem. Both declare that the Lord their God will be with them, and in the second case, the Lord their God is the one telling them that He Himself will be with them, lo, to the end of the age.
Matthew, with these thoughts in mind, is basically a recapitulation of the entire history of Israel, starting from the Garden. It is structured in such a way that we might catch this connection, and witness the new Israel Himself, live as the old Israel was supposed to. In so doing, this new Israel redeems His bride. He breaks down the walls of nationality, conquering the gentiles by baptizing them and teaching them to obey all that He has commanded. This is the telos of faithfulness. This is the telos of Christ. Here is our call to go.
Again, many thanks to Dr. Leithart for his thoughts and insights. May we all seek to approach Scripture with Scripture in mind. That is the best hermeneutic.
Matthew’s aim, as is well understood, in writing his account of Jesus’ life, was to approach the Jewish nation with the Gospel. This is seen in his mentioning of Jewish customs, and not explaining them (23:5), and his constant use if the Old Testament, more than any other gospel (21 times; Mark, 15 times; Luke, 16 times; John, 11 times). Those are just the direct quotes. To understand Matthew well, a thorough knowledge of the whole Old Testament is required. This outline is one step in that direction.
Matthew begins his account of the Good News with a genealogy. This is extremely reminiscent of Genesis. To top it off the opening verse of Matthew, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ...” in the Greek reads, “The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ...” using the same Greek word that the LXX uses to give title to the book of Genesis. And in Genesis 5 (as well as nine other times throughout the book), the exact phrasing is used, βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων, compared with Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Matthew is the story of a new creation, and a new “ἀνθρώπων”, Jesus Christ, the Creator God Himself. These are His generations, His “beginnings”. In Genesis, whenever a genealogy is given, the descendents are listed. But here in Matthew, the ancestors are listed. Could it not be that Matthew is hinting that they too are descendants, starting with Christ, and then Abraham? Abraham is a new Adam, the father of faith. Being a new Adam, he himself was a son of God, as Adam was. Abraham is a son of God, and therefore a son of the Son. Here lies a difference between the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Matthew starts with Abraham, and lists fathers. Luke starts with Christ, and lists sons. Matthew and Luke are doing two separate things. Luke wants to pick up where Mark left off, “Truly this was the Son of God.” But Matthew wants to show Jesus in a different light than Luke, with a different perspective. Perhaps this is to highlight the unity of the Father and the Son, showing the Jews this was written for, that Jesus is the “I AM” who was before their father Abraham, and greater too. But now we are approaching the skinny branches. What is clear is a harkening back to the first book of the Bible. Matthew wants us to view this story as a new Beginning for a new world, a new order, a new covenant.
The story of Matthew follows closely the story of Israel through their long and sordid history. To begin with, there is the genealogy, then the birth of Christ, His descent into Egypt, and His return followed closely by His baptism. Here we see a recapitulation of the birth of the nation of Israel, their time in Egypt, their exodus from the land, and their “baptism” in the Red Sea. It follows perfectly. What comes next is a time in the wilderness. As Israel wandered for forty years, so Christ for forty days. Matthew sets the stage in the temptation of Christ, showing us that not only is this a new Israel, it is an obedient Israel. Jesus rejects Satan on all the points Israel failed on. The grumbled for bread, the tested the Lord, they desired the kingdoms of Egypt. Jesus proves faithful, when the nation of Israel did not.
The next three chapters of Matthew, 5-7, are a record of Jesus, standing on a mountain, proclaiming to the people a new Law. This is exactly what happens after Israel finished their time in the wilderness. They were brought to a mountain, and the Law was recounted to them, full with blessings and curses. This also alludes to Sinai when I AM gave the law. Here Christ, who is the great I AM, gives the law. At the end of chapter 7 Jesus says this, “And everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” This again, is a picture of the house of Israel. Jesus is alluding to their immanent and final fall, as he does more explicitly later in the book.
Then in chapter 10, Jesus gathers 12 disciples officially. He prepares them, and subsequently sends them out into the unconquered lands. This obviously looks like the 12 nations of Israel, being called out, equipped with the word in Deuteronomy, and sent into the promise land, to conquer it. Hence Matt 10:34, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Jesus is a new Joshua, coming to bring the sword against Satan and his followers. He is coming to bring the sword against death itself. This also fits with Jesus using the examples of the old Canaanite cities of Tyre and Sidon and Sodom in chapter 11. But the new Conquest of Canaan, is not one of extinction, it is one of redemption. In chapter 11, Jesus tells John the Baptist that “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” Canaan is to be given new life. In chapter 12 this is made explicit with the quotation from Isaiah, which ends with “and in His name the Gentiles will hope.” Jesus has come to bring hope to all who are spiritually Gentiles, coming to conquer them, and kill them, but in order that He might raise them up again.
The second half of chapter 12 leads the people to be amazed and wonder if this Man is the Son of David (12:23). The Pharisees think he is of Satan. Jesus responds by telling them that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. And then in chapter 13, Jesus, in concentrated form, is concerned with kingdoms, and explaining the kingdom of Heaven. This fits perfectly with Israel’s history. They conquer the land of Canaan, and not too long afterwards, desire a king. The kingdom of Israel grows to maturity under Solomon, the son of David. Jesus, here, in a very Solomon-like way, gives word-pictures of what the kingdom of Heaven is like. Jesus is the King of the Jews. In chapters 14-15 he acts like a king, providing for His people, bread for 5000 first, and then 4000. To confirm this, and to answer the question posed in 12:23, He is confirmed as the Son of David by the Canaanite woman (15:22). This comes to a climax in the confession of Peter in 16, and the transfiguration in 17. Christ is the ultimate King, the Son of God, and the three witness His glorious majesty. The King theme is carried through chapters 18-20. It reaches another climax in chapter 21, as the Son of David returns to Jerusalem, this time on the foal of a donkey. Jesus assumes the Kingship of Jerusalem, as He is labeled on the cross, and His disciples and worshipers flock to His side. Then in chapter 22 the parable of the wedding feast for the King’s son is given. This is an important parable on two accounts. One, the inclusion of the nations is explicit. Two, a wedding is coming. The Bride is alluded to, made up of every nation, and every tribe, and every tongue. The very final verses of 22 wrap up this Kingship section. It is where Jesus tests the Pharisee’s knowledge of the Psalms. “Who is the Christ,” He asks. “The son of David,” they reply. “How so, in light of Psalm 110:1?” He answers (paraphrase mine). They cant answer, and Matthew leaves it at that. The answer is of course, that the Lord is not simply a descendant of David, He is also the Father of David, and is Himself a greater David. All that David was points to Christ. Pharisees have no eyes to see this, however.
Then in chapters 23-25, Jesus takes a very different tone. He becomes like Jeremiah, standing outside Jerusalem, proclaiming its destruction. The kings of Israel were not faithful, and another exodus was coming. But this time it was back into exile and slavery. Jerusalem would be judged. Here in Matthew Jesus speaks of the final judgment to come on Jerusalem, a judgment that would abolish the old ways, and establish the new. This judgment would bring about a time when the Priest, the King, and the Prophet were all found in one Man, the God-man, the Son of David, the King of Creation, the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. The second Moses, the second Joshua, the second Solomon, the second Jeremiah, has come and He is the true Israel, the true seed of Abraham. He has come to make disciples out the rocks of the earth.
Following the prophecy of exile, Jesus Himself enacts Israel’s death. He Himself experiences the departure of God the Father, as in Ezekiel 10. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He experiences the death of Israel, for Israel. But this death is a death of deeper magic. This is a death which brings the death of death. Faithful Israel is brought to life, and is Life Himself, never to die again. Thus we have in chapter 28, the rest of the story. The Old Testament leaves us unsure of Israel’s future. They come home from exile, but are still a mess. They need a lasting death, the death of something greater than bulls and goats. This finds its fulfillment in the Resurrection.
To end it all, Matthew copies the final verses of the Hebrew Scriptures which are found at the end of 2 Chronicles 36. They read, “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the Lord his God be with him. Let him go up.’” Does this have a familiar ring? Jesus final words in Matthew, and only in Matthew mind you, are, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Jesus, here, is a greater Cyrus who has been given power and authority and sends his people out, with the purpose of establishing something. The old Cyrus only has authority on earth, where the new Cyrus has authority over heaven and earth. The old Cyrus tells them to establish a specific house in Jerusalem, whereas the new Cyrus tells his disciples to establish a new Jerusalem. Both declare that the Lord their God will be with them, and in the second case, the Lord their God is the one telling them that He Himself will be with them, lo, to the end of the age.
Matthew, with these thoughts in mind, is basically a recapitulation of the entire history of Israel, starting from the Garden. It is structured in such a way that we might catch this connection, and witness the new Israel Himself, live as the old Israel was supposed to. In so doing, this new Israel redeems His bride. He breaks down the walls of nationality, conquering the gentiles by baptizing them and teaching them to obey all that He has commanded. This is the telos of faithfulness. This is the telos of Christ. Here is our call to go.
Again, many thanks to Dr. Leithart for his thoughts and insights. May we all seek to approach Scripture with Scripture in mind. That is the best hermeneutic.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Diamond in the Rough
Every once in a great while, a piece of pure pop art hits on a grain of truth, and simply knocks it out of the ballpark. One such moment is found in John Mayer’s new hit song “Gravity.” Mayer is known for a deeper, more thoughtful lyric than his contemporaries, and is also quite deft at metaphor, something we here at the Abbey are in favor of. The song reads as such, with a simple beat, and an uncomplicated progression played smoothly on the guitar.
Gravity is working against me
And gravity wants to bring me down
Oh I'll never know what makes this man
With all the love that his heart can stand
Dream of ways to throw it all away
Oh Gravity is working against me
And gravity wants to bring me down
Oh twice as much ain’t twice as good
And can't sustain like a one half could
It's wanting more
That's gonna send me to my knees
Oh gravity, stay the hell away from me
And gravity has taken better men than me (Now how can that be?)
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Ohh.. where the light is!
The first thing of note is the title/first word of the song: gravity. This word is a metaphor for nature, unhindered, unconquered. Gravity normally is an outside force working externally. Throughout this song however, it seems to take on a inward role, something inside the singer, working contra to the desires of the singer. It is “working against me” and it “wants to bring me down.”
The inwardness of this ‘gravity’ becomes clearer as the next stanza is sung. “This man…dream[s] of ways to throw it all away.” Those dreams are coming from the inside, and are not a product of external influences. Note the way Mayer describes the affect of this inward gravity: “I’ll never know what makes this man with all the love that his heart can stand dream of ways to throw it all away.” He hits our human nature square on the head, and speaks clearer truth than most Christians have the guts to even think, and does so unaware (to my knowledge) of our natural state of rebellion in Adam. We have been given far more than we could ever ask or think, and what is our natural response, apart from the grace of Christ? Throw it all away, hoping that we can find something more fulfilling in that pile of crap over there. We receive the God of all the heavens and earth, and despise Him so much, that we bow to the ‘more sacred’ gods of wood, stone, and TV.
The next stanza is an insightful note on our contemporary culture. “Twice as much ain’t twice as good, and can’t sustain like one half could. Its wanting more that’s gonna send me to my knees.” Our culture is a culture of gluttony. Gluttony concerns everything, not just food. Gluttony of every appetite: entertainment, sexual, financial, etc. We want it all, and then supersized. We are gluttons, hard and fast (actually more squishy and slow). We seriously think that more is always, and without exception, better. If one portion was good, two is better. If one woman was good, two is better. If one house was good, two is better. To hell with the cost. To hell with the consequences. Damn the torpedos! Full steam ahead! We are a thoughtless, futureless society. We have no notion of heritage or legacy. How do we live so that our children and children’s children live well? Does it matter how we live? Are those generations effected by our present actions? What is this ‘generation’ that you speak of? What is this notion of cause and effect? These are foreign concepts to my modern mind. Legacy? Isn’t that an SUV or something? Do not get me wrong. I am not on some neo-modern hippie crusade, proclaiming the barefooted good news of dreadlocked organic living. There is just one simple concept that is totally lost on this irresponsible, self-serving generation. That simple concept brings to mind the first command ever given us: stewardship. But that takes too much thought, work, selflessness (fill in the blank with your favorite virtue). That takes learning from those who have gone before, and caring for those who come after. But we have no thought of the past, and no hope in the future. We are a bastard generation, fathering another bastard generation.
The final lines show the fullest amount of common grace found in this song. Even the devil’s own become an unwitting prophet, declaring the way of truth. “Just keep me where the light is.” I doubt Mayer knows the fullest meaning of this phrase (may God grant that he someday will). Our only hope of salvation from this downward spiral is the Light Himself. This becomes our prayer, “Just keep us where the light is.” Who will accomplish this? Gravity? We have seen his trajectory. Furthermore, gravity resides within. Here Mayer makes his greatest insight, wittingly or not. Help must come. And help, in order to come, must come from outside. The line itself is addressing something/someone outside of the speaker. On top of that, help must come from something/someone in which/whom this ‘gravity’ does not reside.
Our only hope is Light Himself. Light is not affected by gravity. Light does not regard gravity as too great a foe. In fact Light comes to conquer gravity. We could almost say that Light is sent by the Sun for just such an errand.
Come Lord Light, keep us where you are.
Gravity is working against me
And gravity wants to bring me down
Oh I'll never know what makes this man
With all the love that his heart can stand
Dream of ways to throw it all away
Oh Gravity is working against me
And gravity wants to bring me down
Oh twice as much ain’t twice as good
And can't sustain like a one half could
It's wanting more
That's gonna send me to my knees
Oh gravity, stay the hell away from me
And gravity has taken better men than me (Now how can that be?)
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Ohh.. where the light is!
The first thing of note is the title/first word of the song: gravity. This word is a metaphor for nature, unhindered, unconquered. Gravity normally is an outside force working externally. Throughout this song however, it seems to take on a inward role, something inside the singer, working contra to the desires of the singer. It is “working against me” and it “wants to bring me down.”
The inwardness of this ‘gravity’ becomes clearer as the next stanza is sung. “This man…dream[s] of ways to throw it all away.” Those dreams are coming from the inside, and are not a product of external influences. Note the way Mayer describes the affect of this inward gravity: “I’ll never know what makes this man with all the love that his heart can stand dream of ways to throw it all away.” He hits our human nature square on the head, and speaks clearer truth than most Christians have the guts to even think, and does so unaware (to my knowledge) of our natural state of rebellion in Adam. We have been given far more than we could ever ask or think, and what is our natural response, apart from the grace of Christ? Throw it all away, hoping that we can find something more fulfilling in that pile of crap over there. We receive the God of all the heavens and earth, and despise Him so much, that we bow to the ‘more sacred’ gods of wood, stone, and TV.
The next stanza is an insightful note on our contemporary culture. “Twice as much ain’t twice as good, and can’t sustain like one half could. Its wanting more that’s gonna send me to my knees.” Our culture is a culture of gluttony. Gluttony concerns everything, not just food. Gluttony of every appetite: entertainment, sexual, financial, etc. We want it all, and then supersized. We are gluttons, hard and fast (actually more squishy and slow). We seriously think that more is always, and without exception, better. If one portion was good, two is better. If one woman was good, two is better. If one house was good, two is better. To hell with the cost. To hell with the consequences. Damn the torpedos! Full steam ahead! We are a thoughtless, futureless society. We have no notion of heritage or legacy. How do we live so that our children and children’s children live well? Does it matter how we live? Are those generations effected by our present actions? What is this ‘generation’ that you speak of? What is this notion of cause and effect? These are foreign concepts to my modern mind. Legacy? Isn’t that an SUV or something? Do not get me wrong. I am not on some neo-modern hippie crusade, proclaiming the barefooted good news of dreadlocked organic living. There is just one simple concept that is totally lost on this irresponsible, self-serving generation. That simple concept brings to mind the first command ever given us: stewardship. But that takes too much thought, work, selflessness (fill in the blank with your favorite virtue). That takes learning from those who have gone before, and caring for those who come after. But we have no thought of the past, and no hope in the future. We are a bastard generation, fathering another bastard generation.
The final lines show the fullest amount of common grace found in this song. Even the devil’s own become an unwitting prophet, declaring the way of truth. “Just keep me where the light is.” I doubt Mayer knows the fullest meaning of this phrase (may God grant that he someday will). Our only hope of salvation from this downward spiral is the Light Himself. This becomes our prayer, “Just keep us where the light is.” Who will accomplish this? Gravity? We have seen his trajectory. Furthermore, gravity resides within. Here Mayer makes his greatest insight, wittingly or not. Help must come. And help, in order to come, must come from outside. The line itself is addressing something/someone outside of the speaker. On top of that, help must come from something/someone in which/whom this ‘gravity’ does not reside.
Our only hope is Light Himself. Light is not affected by gravity. Light does not regard gravity as too great a foe. In fact Light comes to conquer gravity. We could almost say that Light is sent by the Sun for just such an errand.
Come Lord Light, keep us where you are.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Egalitarian or Hierarchicalist?
While perusing the web (yes, we actually have internet here at the abbey), I came across an interesting article on woman in ministry. One of the local churches has taken the position of woman in ministry that I would argue miltates against Scripture. Naturally, they claim their position is supported by Scripture, however; they do recognize and state that this is a secondary issue and one that we need to have libertas in this area and that's a good thing.
Here's the trust of their argument:
"The classic text used to hold the line for a Hierarchicalist position (limited leadership roles for women) is 1 Timothy 2:12 where the Apostle Paul tells the young pastor Timothy, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man." Let’s quickly wade through the exegetical issues. First, it is not wise to build an entire position or a theological position around just one passage of Scripture as so often occurs with this passage. Second, since Paul did not teach against women prophesying when given the opportunity to do so in 1 Corinthians 11:5, we can see that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a universal appeal against women teaching at all. Third, this leads us to the conclusion that 1 Timothy 2:12 is dealing with a unique pastoral issue. Fourth, we are left needing to understand the meaning of the term "authority" or "authentein" in the original Greek language. The clearest meaning of the term deals with the violent use of authority or inappropriately usurping or misusing authority for one’s own benefit (a prohibition Jesus Himself gave to His male disciples in Matthew 20:25–28). We believe this means 1 Timothy 2:12 is speaking out against specific women who were abusing or usurping authority, not presenting a universal prohibition against women having any leadership roles. Therefore, we believe this passage is more accurately addressing a specific pastoral challenge coming from a group of women Paul later referred to in 1 Timothy 5:11–15 who were doing damage to the Gospel and the church through their attitudes and behaviors. When all of these points are considered together with all other texts addressing this issue, we embrace the full capacity of women and men to serve together in the church. Articles on Hermeneutics and Women in Ministry in the New Testament, David M. Scholer, p. 192–196."
First of all, I know for a fact that the abbey does not "cherry-pick" this verse out in support of men-only as Elders. I think woman may become friars, in some limited fashion, but that is another discussion for another time.
Secondly, I find it interesting that someone uses an argument of "not using a single verse to build a position on..." and then provide only that verse in support of their position! There's no mention of 1 Tim 3:1-13, Titus 1, mandates in creation, roles of men/woman, submission of wives to their husbands, etc...
Shouldn't we consider the entire panoply of Scripture to base our understanding on this issue (and any other for that matter)? I should think so, nay, I know so. In order to have fidelity to biblical truths, you actually have to deal with the ALL the texts.
Here's the trust of their argument:
"The classic text used to hold the line for a Hierarchicalist position (limited leadership roles for women) is 1 Timothy 2:12 where the Apostle Paul tells the young pastor Timothy, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man." Let’s quickly wade through the exegetical issues. First, it is not wise to build an entire position or a theological position around just one passage of Scripture as so often occurs with this passage. Second, since Paul did not teach against women prophesying when given the opportunity to do so in 1 Corinthians 11:5, we can see that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a universal appeal against women teaching at all. Third, this leads us to the conclusion that 1 Timothy 2:12 is dealing with a unique pastoral issue. Fourth, we are left needing to understand the meaning of the term "authority" or "authentein" in the original Greek language. The clearest meaning of the term deals with the violent use of authority or inappropriately usurping or misusing authority for one’s own benefit (a prohibition Jesus Himself gave to His male disciples in Matthew 20:25–28). We believe this means 1 Timothy 2:12 is speaking out against specific women who were abusing or usurping authority, not presenting a universal prohibition against women having any leadership roles. Therefore, we believe this passage is more accurately addressing a specific pastoral challenge coming from a group of women Paul later referred to in 1 Timothy 5:11–15 who were doing damage to the Gospel and the church through their attitudes and behaviors. When all of these points are considered together with all other texts addressing this issue, we embrace the full capacity of women and men to serve together in the church. Articles on Hermeneutics and Women in Ministry in the New Testament, David M. Scholer, p. 192–196."
First of all, I know for a fact that the abbey does not "cherry-pick" this verse out in support of men-only as Elders. I think woman may become friars, in some limited fashion, but that is another discussion for another time.
Secondly, I find it interesting that someone uses an argument of "not using a single verse to build a position on..." and then provide only that verse in support of their position! There's no mention of 1 Tim 3:1-13, Titus 1, mandates in creation, roles of men/woman, submission of wives to their husbands, etc...
Shouldn't we consider the entire panoply of Scripture to base our understanding on this issue (and any other for that matter)? I should think so, nay, I know so. In order to have fidelity to biblical truths, you actually have to deal with the ALL the texts.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The Nature of Grace
Right now I am reading Leithart's new book, "The Baptized Body" (published by Canon Press). So far an excellent read, very thought provoking, and assumption shaking. One thing he reminds us concerns the nature of Grace. It comes as part of a discussion surrounding the usage of the phrase "means of grace" and its reference to the sacraments (which he is not in favor of, the phrase that is. He still likes the sacraments.) The complaint comes from the word 'means.' To speak of grace as needing means, he says, conveys a notion that grace is its own entity, needing transportation. Grace is a passanger in need of a car, such as the table, to get from God to us. But this is not biblical. Grace does not come through the table. Grace is the table. The fact that God dines with men, is Grace. More specifically, "in the sacraments, there is a personal encounter with the Triune God through the particular agency of the Spirit" (pg 18). God shows grace, through grace itself, not through some vehicle created solely for that purpose. The sacraments are holy not because they are tools, ordained by God, to transfer favor to us. They are holy because they are themselves the favors of God, given to His children to bless them.
Monday, June 11, 2007
A Feast of Well-Aged Wine
Isaiah 25
O Lord, you are my God;
I will exalt you; I will praise your name,
for you have done wonderful things,
plans formed of old, faithful and sure.
For you have made the city a heap,
the fortified city a ruin;
the foreigners' palace is a city no more;
it will never be rebuilt.
Therefore strong peoples will glorify you;
cities of ruthless nations will fear you.
For you have been a stronghold to the poor,
a stronghold to the needy in his distress,
a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat;
for the breath of the ruthless is like a storm against a wall,
like heat in a dry place.
You subdue the noise of the foreigners;
as heat by the shade of a cloud,
so the song of the ruthless is put down.
On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples
a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,
of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.
And he will swallow up on this mountain
the covering that is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations.
He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the Lord has spoken.
It will be said on that day,
“Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us.
This is the Lord; we have waited for him;
let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
O Lord, you are my God;
I will exalt you; I will praise your name,
for you have done wonderful things,
plans formed of old, faithful and sure.
For you have made the city a heap,
the fortified city a ruin;
the foreigners' palace is a city no more;
it will never be rebuilt.
Therefore strong peoples will glorify you;
cities of ruthless nations will fear you.
For you have been a stronghold to the poor,
a stronghold to the needy in his distress,
a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat;
for the breath of the ruthless is like a storm against a wall,
like heat in a dry place.
You subdue the noise of the foreigners;
as heat by the shade of a cloud,
so the song of the ruthless is put down.
On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples
a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,
of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.
And he will swallow up on this mountain
the covering that is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations.
He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the Lord has spoken.
It will be said on that day,
“Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us.
This is the Lord; we have waited for him;
let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
There are words that are spoken at the grave. There are words that are spoken in memorial. There are words that wait until the shadow of grief has passed.
Witnessing the death of a family member, someone close and dearly loved, brings out one of two responses. For the one who trusts in the Lord Jesus, and believes the words of Isaiah, it is a strange mix of deep, heartfelt sorrow, and rich, abundant joy. To the ears who have not heard, and to the heart that will not listen, there is nothing but frightening blackness.
This blackness, I can only imagine, produces the deepest feelings of fear, despair, and meaninglessness. What is the point of all of life, after all, if all we are, all we ever become, all we remain for endless days, is simple clay? To watch a loved one enter into oblivion, if there is no hope in Christ and therefore life ever after, must unearth in the very core of a crying man, the terror of mortality. We die. We must die. It is one of the worlds most certain of facts. We are mortal creatures. Witnessing the finality of that aspect, reminds us that this is the case. We cannot live forever, on this earth, and we should not live as if we could. But the heart of man is wicked, who can comprehend it? We want to live as if death were not a factor. Hardened hearts will quickly forget the lessons learned at the side of the grave.
Deep inside every person, there is a God-given instinct, which assures us that we have meaning. We instinctively know that killing innocent people is wrong. We know that death is sad, and final. However, apart from Christ, death obliterates all meaning, putting us deep into the ground, never to resurface. There is no point to life, if there is no point to death.
The "fortified city" in the beginning of the passage above is a metaphor for man. God is the one who brings the man back to a pile of earth, never to be rebuilt again. This is why the peoples and nations will fear the Lord. He is to be feared for He has the power to destroy not only the body, but the soul as well. But our God is a gracious God, and good. He is "a shelter from the storm, and a shade from the heat." This testifies to God's Godness. Were He not God, He would not have the power to save, and bring new life. But He is God, and He desires that not one should perish, but that all reach repentance. In God-given repentance, we find that we will be rebuilt, but not in the same way, nor in the same place. The construction will be eternal, and will shine in the glory of the Christ.
Therfore, death in the eyes of the believer is rich in meaning. It is the doorway to the better country. It is the passage from a sin-cursed world, to eternal glory in Christ the Lord. John 12:24 assures us of this meaning: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” Our own passing is a picture of the death of death, the death brought on the shoulders of Christ. In that death, “the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations,” is swallowed up forever. That death is what grants us confidence, assurance, and hope.
Thus we can stand at the side of the grave, and mourn the loss of a friend, but at the same time we see the glory of God reenacted. It is the portal through which we ascend from glory to final glory. It is fitting that God should use the instrument that separated us from His presence in the Garden, so long ago, to bring His children home. By means of the death that entered the young creation, we were expelled from our place of rest. By means of that same death, the recipients of God’s grace are returned to a place of final rest. Rest from sin. Rest from sorrow. Rest from the veiled reality of God’s loving immediacy.
Here we find a mountain where the Lord of hosts has made for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And it will be said on that day,
“Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us.
This is the Lord; we have waited for him;
let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”
Friday, June 1, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Not Omnipotent, But Neither Impotent
Well, good Minstrel, you said 500 words or less – and I count more than 900 in your post! That’s a relief, because it gives me license to ramble a bit, since it was your gauntlet and all! This will be a response to your musings on the Evil One; my first contribution to the discussion. Should only be about twice as long as yours. ;)
First off, I think it’s essential to this discussion to properly understand the statement in Revelation 20:3 regarding the binding of Satan. I completely agree with you that this is a reference to the present age, and not some future, utopic Millennial kingdom – whether it be a premillennial or a postmillennial one. It is my belief, from the Scriptures, that this 1,000 year binding of Satan is a reference to the “Church age” – that is, the age intervening the Ascension of Christ and His Second Advent. The age in which we now live. But how are we to understand Satan’s binding during this present age? As you note, John’s words are clear – he is bound “So that he would not deceive the nations any longer”. But this is not the complete context. In order to understand the nature of his binding (what he is prevented from doing), it is critical to understand what he does do once he is let loose (“After these things he must be released for a short time”).
When he is released – Revelation 20:7, “And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations…” - it is what he does specifically in his deception of the nations that defines the nature of his binding during the 1,000 years (what he is kept from doing during the Church Age). Is it a general, absolute binding, where he is prevented from doing anything? From deceiving anyone to any extent? It can't be, because throughout the book of Revelation, Satan – the Great Red Dragon – is portrayed as being closely allied with the Beast and the False Prophet to persecute and deceive people throughout the Church Age (described also as a period of great tribulation, when the Dragon himself deceives and persecutes the Church, which is sovereignly protected by God - cf., Revelation 12:13-17). Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 – forewarning his disciples of what will come after His death and Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven (between then and His Second Advent) – are, “False christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” This supplies context to John's Revelation, where Satan’s ally, the Beast of Revelation 13, “Performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work … it deceives those who dwell on earth…” So, active Satanic deception is a reality in the Church Age, which is why Paul admonishes Christians to “Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil… In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one…”
Satanic deception and scheming is specifically said to go on during this period of time, meaning that though he is bound and kept from deceiving the nations, his deceptive influence is not rendered completely impotent. Again, it is the specific goal of his deception that he is prevented from accomplishing during the Church Age. That specific goal is revealed in Revelation 20:8 as his primary agenda once he is released; “And he will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle…” In other words, in putting these scriptures together, we learn that Satan is active in the Church Age – scheming, deceiving, persecuting, tempting, etc… But he is kept from being able to accomplish his ultimate goal in all of that. He is kept from being able to engender such global rebellion against God and His Church that the nations would band together in an all-out effort to utterly overthrow the Kingdom of God and His Church, and build a counterfeit, Satanic Kingdom. That is the nature of his "binding". It is not an absolute divesting of his power. It is a sovereign limitation of Satan's power in fulfillment of Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And that binding will remain until God sovereignly releases Satan, allowing him to gather the nations in outright war against God and His Kingdom - the result of which will be Satan's utter, final, eternal destruction when Christ returns (Revelation 19-20).
So, in this present age, even though God has bound Satan, limiting his power, he is none the less prowling about like a roaring lion, seeking whom to devour. He is active in deception and persecution and plaguing even Christians with his scheming and his flaming arrows. I don’t believe that Peter can be said to be speaking of the flesh as the "roaring lion", because he specifically makes reference to the “devil”, and not the “flesh”. (Grammatically, "The Devil" is the subject of the verb, "To Prowl". He - the Adversary - the Devil, is the one prowling. Not us, prowling around like the Devil, or devilishly). The English word "Devil" is a translation of the Greek, "diabolos", used 37 times in the New Testament, 34 of which are masculine nouns which refer to the Devil as a person, Satan. (The other 3 are used in the pastoral epistles with respect to human beings who are described as "malicious gossips", because of the character of their speech. Cf., 1 Timothy 3:11, 2 Timothy 3:3, and Titus 2:3). Elsewhere, Satan’s name is used specifically to speak of his influence in today’s world – he is a “tempter” in 1 Corinthians 7:5, who has designs for our defeat, 2 Corinthians 2:11. He sends messengers to “harass” Christians, 2 Corinthians 12:7, and hinders the ministry of the gospel when he can, 1 Thessalonians 2:18. When the Antichrist comes, it will be because of the “Activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders”, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, again giving context to Jesus’ warnings of Satanic influence in this present age, in Matthew 24. He wields the power to blind the eyes of unbelievers 2 Corinthians 4:4, and keep them in darkness, Acts 26:18.
He is bound, but he is still the powerful "Prince of the power of the air", Ephesians 2:2; the "god of this age", 2 Corinthians 4:4; and the "ruler of this world", John 14:30. He is not omnipotent, but his armies are strong, and we must stand "Against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" - not just those fleshly rebels here on earth. Jesus' own binding of the Strong Man in Matthew 12 did not consist of a complete divesting of Satan's power and influence, but in the casting out of demons so that the proclamation of the Kingdom would be effective. It was a sovereign limiting of Satan's influence, not yet his utter destruction which is still to come (Revelation 20:10). Yes, Satan has been defeated (Hebrews 2:14, Colossians 2:15). But like the flesh which has been crucified (Galatians 2:20), and yet still wages war against God's Spirit within me (Galatians 5:16, Romans 7); So Satan's defeat at the Cross 2,000 years ago doesn't mean that he is no longer at war with God prior to Christ's Second Coming, when his defeat will be consummated in everlasting perdition.
Over and over, God speaks in the New Testament scriptures of Satan having this type of influence now, in this present age, even though he is “bound”. So, his binding is real – and he is kept from accomplishing such rebellion and deception that he would destroy the Church – but his binding is not so absolute as to prevent him from doing anything by way of temptation, deception, persecution, etc… All of these verses refer to him either by name (Satan) or by title (the Devil). If the Apostles wanted to attribute the wickedness of those verses to the flesh only or primarily, they would have said that specifically and clearly. Yes, in Ephesians 4:26 Paul does say to us "Not to let the sun go down on our anger", so as not to "Give opportunity to the devil" in verse 27. This doesn’t mean that it is only our flesh that is responsible for evil – but that the devil actively takes opportunity to propound wickedness on the earth primarily through our flesh. Through tempting our weak, sinful, rebellious hearts. That is the avenue that presents him with the greatest opportunity to rebel against God and His Kingdom in attempting to do what he tried to do the day that he fell from heaven – dethrone the King of Kings and enthrone himself. But he is bound from being able to do it. For all his deceptive, scheming efforts, his purposes will fail and he will eventually be utterly vanquished when, at that climactic battle of Gog and Magog, “The devil who had deceived them [is] thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever”, Revelation 20:10.
Does he know my name? He knows enough about me to tempt me strategically, according to the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of my flesh – targeting them precisely with his flaming arrows, Ephesians 6:10-18. In Acts 19:15, the demons know Paul’s name – why not mine? Does Satan know my thoughts? Surely not as God does – but Satan was capable of filling Ananias’ heart with lies against the Holy Spirit, Acts 5:3, and he was able to “enter into” Judas, influencing him to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3). In John 13:2, John says that "The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot... to betray Him". So even if he can't be said to make us sin, Satan does have access to our thoughts and desires in some way, so as to tempt us to do his evil will. At the same time, Satan's estimation of the condition of Job's heart, and of how Job would respond to tribulation proved to be inaccurate (Job 1:9-11) - proving that Satan is not omniscient, and that he does not have comprehensive knowledge of our thoughts.
There is prolific demonic activity recorded throughout the book of Acts – subsequent to Jesus’ ascension, and those demons are clearly personal, intelligent beings who know things about the people they possess or oppress. Satan is not omnipotent, but it is a mistake to argue that he is impotent. He is clearly a powerful, active, intelligent being. Not even Michael the Archangel would speak personally against him, but pronounced the Lord’s rebuke on him in Jude 1:9. Satan's demonic emissaries are manifold – and though they are not omniscient (as only God is), they know a great deal about us and work through Satan’s influence to tempt and pester us regularly. I don’t believe that Satan is capable of knowing my thoughts as God does – but he is extremely crafty and understands the basic roots of evil and the nature of sin far better than I do (he's been at it longer), so as to be able to exploit my flesh through temptation in a highly efficient and effective manner. And we mustn't forget that Satan is a (fallen) angelic, spiritual being. His knowledge and understanding of the spiritual realm, where the true battle is fought, is far superior to our own, and we shouldn't underestimate it. And all of that means that I must be aware of his desire to tempt and deceive me. I must be acquainted with his strategies. I must realize that not only is my flesh wicked, but that I live in a wicked world in which Satan, the Devil, the god of this age and the ruler of this world, is presently active.
But of course the good news is that he was defeated at the cross, rendering his eventual and final destruction an absolute certainty. And, God’s wisdom and knowledge are boundless, and He is sovereign. Sovereign enough to guarantee that all of the resources that we need to resist the schemes of the devil are at our disposal through faith in Christ. Sovereign enough to guarantee that Satan cannot succeed in destroying Christ’s Church, or the life of any soul for which Christ shed His blood. Sovereign enough to promise that if we, "Resist the Devil," He will "Flee from us" (James 4:7) God is even Sovereign enough to utilize Satan’s purposes of deception, temptation, and persecution for His own glorious purposes – to sanctify His people through fiery trials, 1 Peter 4:12. To discipline His people through divine love, Hebrews 12:6. The violence of Satan is even used against him in God’s purposes of judgment, which is – I believe – one of the central themes of the whole book of Revelation. It is one of the primary reasons why evil continues to exist by Satan's agency – because it is inherently self-defeating. By continuing to rebel, Satan is ensuring his own eternal doom, and that of all those who will sinfully cooperate with his rebellious agenda. And that doom will accomplish God's Glory in the demonstration of His justice. In short, even though Satan is active and capable of great spiritual harm, the Christian need not fear - for our comfort is that even though Satan does roams as a ravenous, roaring lion – “We know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.” Romans 8:28 The biblical doctrine of Satan is not the Persian doctrine of dualistic deities - one good, and the other evil. He is a lion, but he is leashed by the sovereign hand of God.
Through the strength of God's Spirit within us, if we remain faithful - even through the worst that the Devil can throw at us - if we remain faithful even unto death, He will give us the crown of life (Revelation 2:10).
First off, I think it’s essential to this discussion to properly understand the statement in Revelation 20:3 regarding the binding of Satan. I completely agree with you that this is a reference to the present age, and not some future, utopic Millennial kingdom – whether it be a premillennial or a postmillennial one. It is my belief, from the Scriptures, that this 1,000 year binding of Satan is a reference to the “Church age” – that is, the age intervening the Ascension of Christ and His Second Advent. The age in which we now live. But how are we to understand Satan’s binding during this present age? As you note, John’s words are clear – he is bound “So that he would not deceive the nations any longer”. But this is not the complete context. In order to understand the nature of his binding (what he is prevented from doing), it is critical to understand what he does do once he is let loose (“After these things he must be released for a short time”).
When he is released – Revelation 20:7, “And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations…” - it is what he does specifically in his deception of the nations that defines the nature of his binding during the 1,000 years (what he is kept from doing during the Church Age). Is it a general, absolute binding, where he is prevented from doing anything? From deceiving anyone to any extent? It can't be, because throughout the book of Revelation, Satan – the Great Red Dragon – is portrayed as being closely allied with the Beast and the False Prophet to persecute and deceive people throughout the Church Age (described also as a period of great tribulation, when the Dragon himself deceives and persecutes the Church, which is sovereignly protected by God - cf., Revelation 12:13-17). Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 – forewarning his disciples of what will come after His death and Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven (between then and His Second Advent) – are, “False christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” This supplies context to John's Revelation, where Satan’s ally, the Beast of Revelation 13, “Performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work … it deceives those who dwell on earth…” So, active Satanic deception is a reality in the Church Age, which is why Paul admonishes Christians to “Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil… In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one…”
Satanic deception and scheming is specifically said to go on during this period of time, meaning that though he is bound and kept from deceiving the nations, his deceptive influence is not rendered completely impotent. Again, it is the specific goal of his deception that he is prevented from accomplishing during the Church Age. That specific goal is revealed in Revelation 20:8 as his primary agenda once he is released; “And he will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle…” In other words, in putting these scriptures together, we learn that Satan is active in the Church Age – scheming, deceiving, persecuting, tempting, etc… But he is kept from being able to accomplish his ultimate goal in all of that. He is kept from being able to engender such global rebellion against God and His Church that the nations would band together in an all-out effort to utterly overthrow the Kingdom of God and His Church, and build a counterfeit, Satanic Kingdom. That is the nature of his "binding". It is not an absolute divesting of his power. It is a sovereign limitation of Satan's power in fulfillment of Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And that binding will remain until God sovereignly releases Satan, allowing him to gather the nations in outright war against God and His Kingdom - the result of which will be Satan's utter, final, eternal destruction when Christ returns (Revelation 19-20).
So, in this present age, even though God has bound Satan, limiting his power, he is none the less prowling about like a roaring lion, seeking whom to devour. He is active in deception and persecution and plaguing even Christians with his scheming and his flaming arrows. I don’t believe that Peter can be said to be speaking of the flesh as the "roaring lion", because he specifically makes reference to the “devil”, and not the “flesh”. (Grammatically, "The Devil" is the subject of the verb, "To Prowl". He - the Adversary - the Devil, is the one prowling. Not us, prowling around like the Devil, or devilishly). The English word "Devil" is a translation of the Greek, "diabolos", used 37 times in the New Testament, 34 of which are masculine nouns which refer to the Devil as a person, Satan. (The other 3 are used in the pastoral epistles with respect to human beings who are described as "malicious gossips", because of the character of their speech. Cf., 1 Timothy 3:11, 2 Timothy 3:3, and Titus 2:3). Elsewhere, Satan’s name is used specifically to speak of his influence in today’s world – he is a “tempter” in 1 Corinthians 7:5, who has designs for our defeat, 2 Corinthians 2:11. He sends messengers to “harass” Christians, 2 Corinthians 12:7, and hinders the ministry of the gospel when he can, 1 Thessalonians 2:18. When the Antichrist comes, it will be because of the “Activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders”, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, again giving context to Jesus’ warnings of Satanic influence in this present age, in Matthew 24. He wields the power to blind the eyes of unbelievers 2 Corinthians 4:4, and keep them in darkness, Acts 26:18.
He is bound, but he is still the powerful "Prince of the power of the air", Ephesians 2:2; the "god of this age", 2 Corinthians 4:4; and the "ruler of this world", John 14:30. He is not omnipotent, but his armies are strong, and we must stand "Against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" - not just those fleshly rebels here on earth. Jesus' own binding of the Strong Man in Matthew 12 did not consist of a complete divesting of Satan's power and influence, but in the casting out of demons so that the proclamation of the Kingdom would be effective. It was a sovereign limiting of Satan's influence, not yet his utter destruction which is still to come (Revelation 20:10). Yes, Satan has been defeated (Hebrews 2:14, Colossians 2:15). But like the flesh which has been crucified (Galatians 2:20), and yet still wages war against God's Spirit within me (Galatians 5:16, Romans 7); So Satan's defeat at the Cross 2,000 years ago doesn't mean that he is no longer at war with God prior to Christ's Second Coming, when his defeat will be consummated in everlasting perdition.
Over and over, God speaks in the New Testament scriptures of Satan having this type of influence now, in this present age, even though he is “bound”. So, his binding is real – and he is kept from accomplishing such rebellion and deception that he would destroy the Church – but his binding is not so absolute as to prevent him from doing anything by way of temptation, deception, persecution, etc… All of these verses refer to him either by name (Satan) or by title (the Devil). If the Apostles wanted to attribute the wickedness of those verses to the flesh only or primarily, they would have said that specifically and clearly. Yes, in Ephesians 4:26 Paul does say to us "Not to let the sun go down on our anger", so as not to "Give opportunity to the devil" in verse 27. This doesn’t mean that it is only our flesh that is responsible for evil – but that the devil actively takes opportunity to propound wickedness on the earth primarily through our flesh. Through tempting our weak, sinful, rebellious hearts. That is the avenue that presents him with the greatest opportunity to rebel against God and His Kingdom in attempting to do what he tried to do the day that he fell from heaven – dethrone the King of Kings and enthrone himself. But he is bound from being able to do it. For all his deceptive, scheming efforts, his purposes will fail and he will eventually be utterly vanquished when, at that climactic battle of Gog and Magog, “The devil who had deceived them [is] thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever”, Revelation 20:10.
Does he know my name? He knows enough about me to tempt me strategically, according to the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of my flesh – targeting them precisely with his flaming arrows, Ephesians 6:10-18. In Acts 19:15, the demons know Paul’s name – why not mine? Does Satan know my thoughts? Surely not as God does – but Satan was capable of filling Ananias’ heart with lies against the Holy Spirit, Acts 5:3, and he was able to “enter into” Judas, influencing him to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3). In John 13:2, John says that "The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot... to betray Him". So even if he can't be said to make us sin, Satan does have access to our thoughts and desires in some way, so as to tempt us to do his evil will. At the same time, Satan's estimation of the condition of Job's heart, and of how Job would respond to tribulation proved to be inaccurate (Job 1:9-11) - proving that Satan is not omniscient, and that he does not have comprehensive knowledge of our thoughts.
There is prolific demonic activity recorded throughout the book of Acts – subsequent to Jesus’ ascension, and those demons are clearly personal, intelligent beings who know things about the people they possess or oppress. Satan is not omnipotent, but it is a mistake to argue that he is impotent. He is clearly a powerful, active, intelligent being. Not even Michael the Archangel would speak personally against him, but pronounced the Lord’s rebuke on him in Jude 1:9. Satan's demonic emissaries are manifold – and though they are not omniscient (as only God is), they know a great deal about us and work through Satan’s influence to tempt and pester us regularly. I don’t believe that Satan is capable of knowing my thoughts as God does – but he is extremely crafty and understands the basic roots of evil and the nature of sin far better than I do (he's been at it longer), so as to be able to exploit my flesh through temptation in a highly efficient and effective manner. And we mustn't forget that Satan is a (fallen) angelic, spiritual being. His knowledge and understanding of the spiritual realm, where the true battle is fought, is far superior to our own, and we shouldn't underestimate it. And all of that means that I must be aware of his desire to tempt and deceive me. I must be acquainted with his strategies. I must realize that not only is my flesh wicked, but that I live in a wicked world in which Satan, the Devil, the god of this age and the ruler of this world, is presently active.
But of course the good news is that he was defeated at the cross, rendering his eventual and final destruction an absolute certainty. And, God’s wisdom and knowledge are boundless, and He is sovereign. Sovereign enough to guarantee that all of the resources that we need to resist the schemes of the devil are at our disposal through faith in Christ. Sovereign enough to guarantee that Satan cannot succeed in destroying Christ’s Church, or the life of any soul for which Christ shed His blood. Sovereign enough to promise that if we, "Resist the Devil," He will "Flee from us" (James 4:7) God is even Sovereign enough to utilize Satan’s purposes of deception, temptation, and persecution for His own glorious purposes – to sanctify His people through fiery trials, 1 Peter 4:12. To discipline His people through divine love, Hebrews 12:6. The violence of Satan is even used against him in God’s purposes of judgment, which is – I believe – one of the central themes of the whole book of Revelation. It is one of the primary reasons why evil continues to exist by Satan's agency – because it is inherently self-defeating. By continuing to rebel, Satan is ensuring his own eternal doom, and that of all those who will sinfully cooperate with his rebellious agenda. And that doom will accomplish God's Glory in the demonstration of His justice. In short, even though Satan is active and capable of great spiritual harm, the Christian need not fear - for our comfort is that even though Satan does roams as a ravenous, roaring lion – “We know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.” Romans 8:28 The biblical doctrine of Satan is not the Persian doctrine of dualistic deities - one good, and the other evil. He is a lion, but he is leashed by the sovereign hand of God.
Through the strength of God's Spirit within us, if we remain faithful - even through the worst that the Devil can throw at us - if we remain faithful even unto death, He will give us the crown of life (Revelation 2:10).
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
A New Cosmology
So what about the bad guy? As a disclaimer, these are the thoughts of a layman. My study on this does not reflect years of training, and tomes of reading. These are simply thoughts, though spoken with confidence, sparking discussion and further clarification of my own personal questions.
Lucifer began as an angel, created in the Garden as an archangel, much like Gabriel and Michael. Ezekiel 28 (if we can understand this passage this way) describes him as "full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty... blameless in all [his] ways till unrighteousness was found in [him]." But his "heart was proud because if [his] beauty." Therefore, because he attempted to set his throne on high (Is 14), "above the stars of God," he was cast to the earth, with all his minions. Michael and his angels (Rev 12) defeated the Accuser, and there was no longer any room left in heaven for him. "Woe to you O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows his time is short."
In the old times, nations were governed by powers and principalities. Each nation had an angel, sometimes called gods, who guarded, governed them. Michael was the angel for Israel (Dan 10:21). Satan had been given real authority on earth, and had accumulated nations. Daniel 10 describes Michael and the linen clad man (Jesus) fighting against the prince of Persia for 21 days. The Lord's army of fire was very active in the days of the kings (2 Kings 6). The world was full of what moderns call "supernatural" activity, as if anything that we can't see under a microscope isn't natural.
So the world was governed, in a finite sense, by these created, angelic principalities. The Daystar, and the false "Bright star of Morning" was the leader of all these powers, excepting Michael, who was true to his Creator. This is why Satan could tempt Jesus, with some legitimacy, with the kingdoms of the earth, if He would simply bow down and worship him. But Jesus knew that He was receiving the kingdoms anyway, and so remained faithful to His Father. On the Cross, Satan was conquered (Heb 2:14). The strongman was bound, and his goods were plundered. He was cast into the abyss, and the door was shut and sealed. This is for a time, until the thousand years are ended. During this time the Church reigns with Christ as a holy priesthood. The dominions and powers have been cast down, and Christ sits on His thrown, making the nations a footstool for His feet.
So what of evil and the devil now? Satan is bound and "cannot deceive the nations any longer," (Rev 20). Why then are there still evil men? Well that's because there are still men. Our unhindered, unredeemed flesh is one of death and rebellion. Our flesh still wages war against the Spirit. Our flesh still desires power and thrones above the "stars of God." To put it tritely, in an oft used cliche, we are our own worst enemy.
Could not passages such as Ephesians 4:27, James 4:7, and 1 Peter 5:8 be understood this way? Ephesians 4:26 says to not let the sun go down on our anger, and then in 28, to not give any opportunity to the devil. In Galatians 5:13, Paul tells us to not give opportunity to our flesh. Could not the flesh be understood as the one who seeks to devour us, prowling like a lion? Our flesh craves the "schemes of the devil," and it is against the "schemes of the devil" for which we gird ourselves with the armor of God.
What is making me think all this? I am doubtful that Scripture teaches a theology of Satan which says that he knows my name. Why does he know my name? If he knows my name, what is to prevent him from knowing everyone in the world, from every age. Do angels have that kind knowledge, that kind of capacity. Does Satan know the thoughts of my heart? Can angels see into the heart of man? Does Scripture uphold that, and if so, where?
Would it not be wiser to locate our enemy in the old man which Christ bought, and is renewing by the Spirit? Is Satan really not bound and sealed up like Hebrews and Revelation say? Christ says "how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house," (Matt 12:29). Which is true? To me, Scripture seems to reiterate that Satan has been vanquished, and bound, though his servants still roam the earth, wrecking havoc. If what I have said is true, which I would not go to the wall for, the current Christian notion of Satan might be causing unnecessary fear and anxiety. If we believe that Satan has the power to know my inward thoughts, and affect them for his own design if we are not careful, there is no end to what oppression that could cause. Now if it is true that he does, our answer is obviously Christ, and the sovereign power of God. In Him alone rests ultimate power and authority. But if it is not true, why do we allow ourselves to think that way? Why would we ascribe to him knowledge that, we thought, God alone had, if he does not really have that knowledge? Again, it is obvious that if it is true, only God could have given him that knowledge. That is not the discussion. The discussion is if our beliefs about Satan are not true, why do we believe it?
Lucifer began as an angel, created in the Garden as an archangel, much like Gabriel and Michael. Ezekiel 28 (if we can understand this passage this way) describes him as "full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty... blameless in all [his] ways till unrighteousness was found in [him]." But his "heart was proud because if [his] beauty." Therefore, because he attempted to set his throne on high (Is 14), "above the stars of God," he was cast to the earth, with all his minions. Michael and his angels (Rev 12) defeated the Accuser, and there was no longer any room left in heaven for him. "Woe to you O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows his time is short."
In the old times, nations were governed by powers and principalities. Each nation had an angel, sometimes called gods, who guarded, governed them. Michael was the angel for Israel (Dan 10:21). Satan had been given real authority on earth, and had accumulated nations. Daniel 10 describes Michael and the linen clad man (Jesus) fighting against the prince of Persia for 21 days. The Lord's army of fire was very active in the days of the kings (2 Kings 6). The world was full of what moderns call "supernatural" activity, as if anything that we can't see under a microscope isn't natural.
So the world was governed, in a finite sense, by these created, angelic principalities. The Daystar, and the false "Bright star of Morning" was the leader of all these powers, excepting Michael, who was true to his Creator. This is why Satan could tempt Jesus, with some legitimacy, with the kingdoms of the earth, if He would simply bow down and worship him. But Jesus knew that He was receiving the kingdoms anyway, and so remained faithful to His Father. On the Cross, Satan was conquered (Heb 2:14). The strongman was bound, and his goods were plundered. He was cast into the abyss, and the door was shut and sealed. This is for a time, until the thousand years are ended. During this time the Church reigns with Christ as a holy priesthood. The dominions and powers have been cast down, and Christ sits on His thrown, making the nations a footstool for His feet.
So what of evil and the devil now? Satan is bound and "cannot deceive the nations any longer," (Rev 20). Why then are there still evil men? Well that's because there are still men. Our unhindered, unredeemed flesh is one of death and rebellion. Our flesh still wages war against the Spirit. Our flesh still desires power and thrones above the "stars of God." To put it tritely, in an oft used cliche, we are our own worst enemy.
Could not passages such as Ephesians 4:27, James 4:7, and 1 Peter 5:8 be understood this way? Ephesians 4:26 says to not let the sun go down on our anger, and then in 28, to not give any opportunity to the devil. In Galatians 5:13, Paul tells us to not give opportunity to our flesh. Could not the flesh be understood as the one who seeks to devour us, prowling like a lion? Our flesh craves the "schemes of the devil," and it is against the "schemes of the devil" for which we gird ourselves with the armor of God.
What is making me think all this? I am doubtful that Scripture teaches a theology of Satan which says that he knows my name. Why does he know my name? If he knows my name, what is to prevent him from knowing everyone in the world, from every age. Do angels have that kind knowledge, that kind of capacity. Does Satan know the thoughts of my heart? Can angels see into the heart of man? Does Scripture uphold that, and if so, where?
Would it not be wiser to locate our enemy in the old man which Christ bought, and is renewing by the Spirit? Is Satan really not bound and sealed up like Hebrews and Revelation say? Christ says "how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house," (Matt 12:29). Which is true? To me, Scripture seems to reiterate that Satan has been vanquished, and bound, though his servants still roam the earth, wrecking havoc. If what I have said is true, which I would not go to the wall for, the current Christian notion of Satan might be causing unnecessary fear and anxiety. If we believe that Satan has the power to know my inward thoughts, and affect them for his own design if we are not careful, there is no end to what oppression that could cause. Now if it is true that he does, our answer is obviously Christ, and the sovereign power of God. In Him alone rests ultimate power and authority. But if it is not true, why do we allow ourselves to think that way? Why would we ascribe to him knowledge that, we thought, God alone had, if he does not really have that knowledge? Again, it is obvious that if it is true, only God could have given him that knowledge. That is not the discussion. The discussion is if our beliefs about Satan are not true, why do we believe it?
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Answer me this my pretty...
Alrighty. Just to break the non-posting streak, I have a topic I would like my fellow ponderers to chime in on with their two or three cents.
Challenge: In 500 words or less, give a description of an orthodox theology of Satan, touching on the following points: What were his origins? What was his status in the Old world? What is his status in the New world? Is he omniscient? Does he know everyone's names, fears, temptations, etc.?
The gauntlet has been verifiably thrown down.
Challenge: In 500 words or less, give a description of an orthodox theology of Satan, touching on the following points: What were his origins? What was his status in the Old world? What is his status in the New world? Is he omniscient? Does he know everyone's names, fears, temptations, etc.?
The gauntlet has been verifiably thrown down.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
The Divine Abundance: Part Three
Following our discussion of Christian Aesthetics, we began with the unnecessary nature of creation. We then talked about the divine fellowship within the unity of the Godhead, and the nature of their love for one another, and what implications that had on our lives. This installment will address the divine difference within the Trinity. Hart continues discussing the Trinity, for it is the foundation of our understanding of all of life, and therefore our appreciation of life: beauty. Lets begin with two quotes.
Theology can speak of being as rhetoric and see in the surface of being a kind of intelligible discourse – not one concerning the scale of bare substances, but a doxological discourse, an open declaration of God’s glory, by which the God who differentiates speaks his beauty in the groundless play of form and action, the free movement of diversity, artistry, and unnecessary grace. The occurrence of difference as difference, as the reverberation of the variation in the very event of difference expresses – not dialectically, but aesthetically – the superabounding joy, delight, regard, and response that is God’s life.
[On our journey called life, we are continually] discovering and entering into greater dimensions of His beauty. This is so because God is always beyond, and still above the beyond, but also because God abides in absolute intimacy with creation as the infinite of surpassing fullness, whose beauty embraces and exceeds all that is.
In that first quote, Hart is basically saying that we can understand God as a form of divine dialogue. In Himself is drama. There is assertion and sacrifice, give and take, love and surrender. This dialogue defines the nature of the Triune relationship (if I may be so bold to say ‘define’). The three persons glorify one another, love one another, and are satisfied completely in one another. Their dialogue comes to us as distinct difference. The Father speaks to us (loves us) differently than the Son speaks to us (loves us). The Spirit relates to us (loves us) differently than the Father and the Son. And yet, in their difference, the mutually indwell one another (perichoresis) and are one. This essential difference that lies at the heart of their unity, gives creation the abundant difference it enjoys. God imparts His attributes to creation. Hence male and female. Hence sun and moon. Hence lions, tigers, and bears.
This difference is the foundation for beauty and our appreciation of that beauty. Beauty comes in the interplay of difference, and again, reflects the interplay of the Godhead. It can either reflect well (say in a Bach Cantata) or not so well (pick a Picasso, any Picasso). There is a reason Picasso’s later works are just plain ugly. He (intentionally) distorts the natural interplay of difference within creation. Take the face. The difference that lies in the human face between the eyes, nose, cheeks, mouth, and so on, gives the face a beauty. Some faces are more beautiful than others, because the interplay of the differences are such that they are more pleasing. This distortion of Picasso’s is a direct attack against the God of creation, and the beauty that He built in. It is interesting to think that the degrees of beauty are also built in. They are not just a result of the fall. For example take a male lion in full maturity. There is a cross-cultural agreement that that image inspires awe, and is, frankly, beautiful. Compare that to a hyena. Just as much God’s creation as the lion. Cries in affirmation of God’s glory just as much, but the difference is very noticeable. This difference is built in to creation, and gives testimony to the ‘groundless play of form and action, the free movement of diversity and artistry’ in which we witness our God bestow on His creatures, an aspect of Himself. This leads to that third clause of the quote, the unnecessary grace. This unnecessary grace is what calls us to a ‘divine playfulness.’ If we were made in the image of God, and are recreated in the image of Christ, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, made partakers in the very life of the divine, then how can we not join in “the superabounding joy, delight, regard, and response that is God’s life.” This response to God’s life is defined by the love the Father shows the Son shows the Spirit shows the Father and the Son. It is again, the selfless love, a love that is eternally bestowing to another.
Bringing us to the second quote. As our hearts, minds, souls, and bodies are enlightened more and more by the Spirit, we will see clearer and clearer the Divine Abundance that covers everything, enfolds everything, encompasses everything, upholds everything, breathing everything into life. The God of true diversity, a unified diversity, this God who is eternally beyond everything, purposefully stoops into human history. The completely Transcendent One has become flesh and blood in Jesus, thus introducing intimacy with His creation. Through this intimacy with the Holy God of all, we, His beloved, join in His beauty, which pervades all of life.
Makes getting mad at the guy who cut you off on the freeway this morning, look kind of petty.
Theology can speak of being as rhetoric and see in the surface of being a kind of intelligible discourse – not one concerning the scale of bare substances, but a doxological discourse, an open declaration of God’s glory, by which the God who differentiates speaks his beauty in the groundless play of form and action, the free movement of diversity, artistry, and unnecessary grace. The occurrence of difference as difference, as the reverberation of the variation in the very event of difference expresses – not dialectically, but aesthetically – the superabounding joy, delight, regard, and response that is God’s life.
[On our journey called life, we are continually] discovering and entering into greater dimensions of His beauty. This is so because God is always beyond, and still above the beyond, but also because God abides in absolute intimacy with creation as the infinite of surpassing fullness, whose beauty embraces and exceeds all that is.
In that first quote, Hart is basically saying that we can understand God as a form of divine dialogue. In Himself is drama. There is assertion and sacrifice, give and take, love and surrender. This dialogue defines the nature of the Triune relationship (if I may be so bold to say ‘define’). The three persons glorify one another, love one another, and are satisfied completely in one another. Their dialogue comes to us as distinct difference. The Father speaks to us (loves us) differently than the Son speaks to us (loves us). The Spirit relates to us (loves us) differently than the Father and the Son. And yet, in their difference, the mutually indwell one another (perichoresis) and are one. This essential difference that lies at the heart of their unity, gives creation the abundant difference it enjoys. God imparts His attributes to creation. Hence male and female. Hence sun and moon. Hence lions, tigers, and bears.
This difference is the foundation for beauty and our appreciation of that beauty. Beauty comes in the interplay of difference, and again, reflects the interplay of the Godhead. It can either reflect well (say in a Bach Cantata) or not so well (pick a Picasso, any Picasso). There is a reason Picasso’s later works are just plain ugly. He (intentionally) distorts the natural interplay of difference within creation. Take the face. The difference that lies in the human face between the eyes, nose, cheeks, mouth, and so on, gives the face a beauty. Some faces are more beautiful than others, because the interplay of the differences are such that they are more pleasing. This distortion of Picasso’s is a direct attack against the God of creation, and the beauty that He built in. It is interesting to think that the degrees of beauty are also built in. They are not just a result of the fall. For example take a male lion in full maturity. There is a cross-cultural agreement that that image inspires awe, and is, frankly, beautiful. Compare that to a hyena. Just as much God’s creation as the lion. Cries in affirmation of God’s glory just as much, but the difference is very noticeable. This difference is built in to creation, and gives testimony to the ‘groundless play of form and action, the free movement of diversity and artistry’ in which we witness our God bestow on His creatures, an aspect of Himself. This leads to that third clause of the quote, the unnecessary grace. This unnecessary grace is what calls us to a ‘divine playfulness.’ If we were made in the image of God, and are recreated in the image of Christ, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, made partakers in the very life of the divine, then how can we not join in “the superabounding joy, delight, regard, and response that is God’s life.” This response to God’s life is defined by the love the Father shows the Son shows the Spirit shows the Father and the Son. It is again, the selfless love, a love that is eternally bestowing to another.
Bringing us to the second quote. As our hearts, minds, souls, and bodies are enlightened more and more by the Spirit, we will see clearer and clearer the Divine Abundance that covers everything, enfolds everything, encompasses everything, upholds everything, breathing everything into life. The God of true diversity, a unified diversity, this God who is eternally beyond everything, purposefully stoops into human history. The completely Transcendent One has become flesh and blood in Jesus, thus introducing intimacy with His creation. Through this intimacy with the Holy God of all, we, His beloved, join in His beauty, which pervades all of life.
Makes getting mad at the guy who cut you off on the freeway this morning, look kind of petty.
Oh No...
This is bouncing around the Internet today:
NEW YORK, May 3 (UPI) -- Actor Kirk Cameron and author Ray Comfort will square off in New York with two atheists to debate the existence of God live on ABC.com.
The debate will be Wednesday after the network rescheduled it from Saturday to capture a larger audience, Comfort said in a news release.
Comfort, who says he can prove God exists scientifically, said ABC originally offered him four minutes to present his case. After conferring with Cameron and the atheists, the time was raised to 13 minutes.
"I'm ecstatic. I can prove the existence of God in that amount of time," Comfort said.
Now, here at the Abbey we are, of course, always enthusiastic when people take a stand for the truth of God and His Word and Gospel. We're not fond of atheism, and believe it to be an arrogant, dishonest and silly thing. We're all for the enterprise of apologetics and think it's important that all Christians be "Prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks [them] for a reason for the hope that is in [them]." (1 Peter 3:15)
But when we hear of apologists who say that they "Can prove God exists scientifically" (emphasis added) and claim to be able to do so in 13 minutes flat, some deep misgivings begin to rumble within our collective gut. This is because we've seen and heard quite a lot of indisputable nonsense get passed off as Christian apologetics. Like, for example, this charming but frankly embarrassing attempt to prove the existence of God from the shape of a banana.
The thing is that apologists have been using cosmological arguments and arguments from design for centuries, and not too many atheists have been persuaded. First off, to reduce all that down to 13 minutes seems sort of cocky. If only Aquinas knew of the simple splendor of the humble banana. He could've saved a lot of ink on the whole five-arguments deal. The contemporary 'ID' (Intelligent Design) movement has been making a lot of great arguments which show that the irreducible complexity of interdependent systems that undergird all of creation points to a creator more reasonably than it does a blind, naturalistic process. And those arguments are, frankly, much more elegant than Mr. Comfort's banana. I really feel kind of silly for even having to say that.
The point is that the enterprise of apologetics cannot be simply evidentiary demonstration for two reasons. First, because the nature of unbelief is not primarily rational - it is ethical. The unbeliever is not ignorant of the truth such that when you show him the irreducibly complex interdependent systems of, say, the human body or the magnificent and highly sophisticated symmetry of the cosmos, or even the admittedly convenient, ergonomic design of the banana, his eyes will pop open in shock and he will exclaim, "By Jove, old boy! You've really got something there!" Nope. That's not what they do. Instead they write books like this and this.
They do this because in their sin, they are so ethically committed to "Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18) that their response to every evidentiary "proof" in the universe of God's existence is, "Hogwash." Secondly, then, apologetics needs to transcend the rationalistic, evidentiary realm because in their unbelief, unbelievers have built their own philosophical foundation on their own set of epistemological rules. For the Christian apologist to try to prove the existence of God empirically, see, is to concede to the empiricist that his rules - his foundation - his epistemology - is the best one. The final one. The only one trustworthy enough to build a belief-system on. And at that point, we've given away the game and might as well just go home and console ourselves by watching strange Christian films conceived out of the same sort of biblical erudition.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
How To Make an American Layer Cake
I recently happened upon a book that was lying around the abbey. The title was "How To Make an American Layer Cake." Now, this isn't the sort of thing we read around here, but one of the introductory paragraphs was quite interesting, here's the text:
"These days, cake making has become something of a dying art. Too many home cooks rely on boxed mixes, which are not much less work than a good from-scratch recipe, or cakes purchased at local stores. But nothing matches the joy and taste of a good homemade layer cake. It is an honest, forthright expression of the American kitchen, a delicious celebration of simple ingredients with universal appeal."
Not so long ago, I was speaking to a brother about the finer points of the Council of Chalcedon, and his remark to me was "If you’ve got the time to ponder these things, more power to you. I think most people have trouble just managing their lives with the daily demands of work, family, etc., let alone completing the daily devotionals." Now what else is there to do at the abbey but ponder "these things"? There's an argument to be made that not every layman needs to understand the distinctives of the pronouncements of Church Councils, but the brothers comments do point to a growing problem in Christendom that seems to be affecting, or should I say infecting, more and more people. People don't have time for God. I find that very, very strange, not to mention disturbing.
I do not see or understand how it is possible for creatures, made in the image of God, who are chiefly here to mirror and reflect God's holy character, can possibly do that without an ever increasing knowledge and awareness of that character. More and more, people are spending lots of time doing "things" or keeping themselves busy, and their devotion to God is like the cake mix from a box. The ingredients are inferior and they don't really save much time, but by taking short-cuts, they miss out on the rich, authentic experience with God.
Nothing matches the joy of spending time with our Lord. To have an honest, forthright expression of the devotion and love for God, a "delicious celebration of truths," is what we were created for. Throw out the "cake-mix" Christian mentality and spend the time to pursue the things of God. Your spiritual taste-buds will come alive like never before, and once you taste the sweetness of the true and living God, you'll never want to return to the "cake-mix" again.
Monday, April 30, 2007
City outraged at Nebraskan man for tearing down his own mausoleum
Custer, Nebraska –
They city of Custer received complaints from several outraged citizens, last Thursday. Their complaint: a man bulldozed his own Mausoleum. Fred Appleton, fourth generation Nebraskan, bulldozed his family gravesite, and made preparations for planting a garden.
“I didn’t like the idea of all those folks just lyin’ there, ya know?” Appleton told reporters. “Seems like they would feel silly if they saw themselves.”
Citizens of Custer take pride in their cemetery. They hold all their civic celebrations in an amphitheater located on the back lot of the burial grounds. Their Fourth of July parade begins at the town hall, near the north end of the grounds, and comes to a climax at the cemetery’s picnic fields.
“Our cemetery has been awarded the blue ribbon no less than 47 times in the annual Midwest Cemetery Extravaganza,” Joe Mitchell, Custer Citizen, claimed. “Every family has their own space, and the grave houses are absolutely beautiful. The architecture varies from Victorian to Modern to Classical. Half of them are two stories high.”
The town’s Mausoleum Architecture and Care firm is the most thriving business downtown. Not only are they responsible for designing and constructing the houses of those who have passed on, but they have teams attending to the daily upkeep. Fresh paint and new shrubberies are always in order.
So imagine the surprise of the town folk last Thursday morning when they woke up to the sound of Fred Appleton revving up his bobcat and leveling his beloved house of rest.
When asked what his plans were, he replied, “I’m thinkin’ of lots of flowers, maybe even an apple tree. I was thinkin’ of buryin’ my family underneath it all, so perhaps their old bodies will finally bear some type of fruit. They didn’t do much of that when they were livin’.”
The judge declined to comment on the direction the case is going. He did say that, “This rashness opens up a whole new can of worms.”
Mr. Appleton goes before the town council next Tuesday.
They city of Custer received complaints from several outraged citizens, last Thursday. Their complaint: a man bulldozed his own Mausoleum. Fred Appleton, fourth generation Nebraskan, bulldozed his family gravesite, and made preparations for planting a garden.
“I didn’t like the idea of all those folks just lyin’ there, ya know?” Appleton told reporters. “Seems like they would feel silly if they saw themselves.”
Citizens of Custer take pride in their cemetery. They hold all their civic celebrations in an amphitheater located on the back lot of the burial grounds. Their Fourth of July parade begins at the town hall, near the north end of the grounds, and comes to a climax at the cemetery’s picnic fields.
“Our cemetery has been awarded the blue ribbon no less than 47 times in the annual Midwest Cemetery Extravaganza,” Joe Mitchell, Custer Citizen, claimed. “Every family has their own space, and the grave houses are absolutely beautiful. The architecture varies from Victorian to Modern to Classical. Half of them are two stories high.”
The town’s Mausoleum Architecture and Care firm is the most thriving business downtown. Not only are they responsible for designing and constructing the houses of those who have passed on, but they have teams attending to the daily upkeep. Fresh paint and new shrubberies are always in order.
So imagine the surprise of the town folk last Thursday morning when they woke up to the sound of Fred Appleton revving up his bobcat and leveling his beloved house of rest.
When asked what his plans were, he replied, “I’m thinkin’ of lots of flowers, maybe even an apple tree. I was thinkin’ of buryin’ my family underneath it all, so perhaps their old bodies will finally bear some type of fruit. They didn’t do much of that when they were livin’.”
The judge declined to comment on the direction the case is going. He did say that, “This rashness opens up a whole new can of worms.”
Mr. Appleton goes before the town council next Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)