Gal Luft, the executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, lambasted oil man T. Boone Pickens in the LA Times today. While Luft may have made some valid points in his critique of Pickens' proposal, his disparaging of Pickens, the man, for his pursuit of profit is discouraging. In a recent interview, a reporter asked Pickens about the allegation that he is trying to pursue a profit, to which he essentially answered "Of course!"
Since when has "profit" become anathema to the American mind and a curse word in the American vocabulary? We have a free-market economy, where success in productivity and innovation is rewarded. The American economy is rooted in the idea that there is no greater incentive for individual and corporate success than a potential profit. If a person becomes a mere cog in a nationalized economic machine, that person performs their function and nothing else. Yet if a person is allowed to run her own machine, maintain it as she sees fit, and even create a new machine, then she will strive do do so.
Boeing and Northrop Grumman are competing to build a new tanker for the Air Force. The winner of that competition will earn a government contract, which will provide better equipment for the defense of our country and a good deal of money for a private corporation. While our government squabbles over how best to punish corporations and regulate our way into a more sound energy policy, they should look to people like T. Boone Pickens for inspiration. He represents old-school American ingenuity. In his proposal, Americans are presented with the mentality that made American great--one which seeks to harness the power of the free-market to create and make a profit.
If the Pickens Plan is not one's cup of tea, new proposals should be put forth by the private sector, with the promise of government awards for success. I would love to see the federal government present Pickens with a monetary reward for his work on the issue and persistence in bringing it before the public. The government should offer free-market incentives and avoid regulation and taxation, lest their incompetence erode the foundations of our economy. Let the competition begin! Gal Luft would have a fit, but the economy that is the pride of America and the beacon for the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Goldberg on the Postmodern Obama
One on my favorite political writers, Jonah Goldberg of National Review, wrote a column today on "Obama, the Postmodernist." As usual, Goldberg offers helpful philosophical insights into that amorphous concept we call "postmodernism." In addition, he does well in showing that Obama in many ways is postmodernism personified. What isn't as usual for Goldberg is that he fell short in two regards: One, our society as a whole can be generally labeled "postmodern" (perhaps even Goldberg himself). Two, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially compared with the worldview that is riding in on its coattails.
As a general point, we imbibe our thought patterns in large part from the philosophical currents of the day. Even in critiquing postmodernism, we are simultaneously immersed and heavily influenced by postmodernism. Postmodernism in is no way an exclusive trait of the Democratic party. Even in rejecting certain implications of postmodernism (i.e. moral relativity), Republicans and other traditionalists do so for reasons influenced by postmodernism. Often, traditionalists embrace and defend moral absolutes for pragmatic reasons, such as maintain social order and good governance. In justifying truth claims for pragmatic reasons instead of philosophical, traditionalists display their part in the postmodern milieu.
Postmodernism is not a clearly definable concept, let alone an inherently evil one. According to scholars like Thomas Oden, postmodernism is best defined as that which is not modern. It is more a reactionary movement than a progressive one and has no cohesive agenda other than to undermine the modern worldview. The work done by postmodernism has actually done much to help conservatives. Twentieth-century modernism attempt to construct an edifice of truth to compete and eventually annihilate a Christian-revelatory truth. It embraced Darwinism as the authoritative scientific paradigm, "progress" as the authoritative social paradigm, and therapeutic-victimization as its psychological paradigm. In all of these ways, it made itself a competitor to Christianity and natural law governance, believing that these worldviews would not be able to survive their competition with "the fittest."
Postmodernism is America was largely precipitated by Vietnam and hippie disillusionment. The secular truth paradigms had largely failed in morally advancing the human race and a vacuum was created that created mass soul-searching. Christianity was not able to fill this void as it had largely capitulated to the modern worldview. In particular, Protestant Christianity had failed in bringing the Christian worldview to bear. "Christian" modernists continued to work in the intellectual realm, but without anything distinctively Christian; Christian fundamentalists had largely retreated from the intellectual realm.
Postmodern philosophy, vacuous in its own right, stepped into the void and began demolishing the secular edifices. Darwinism, "progress," and modern psychology had all failed in their promises for Utopian existence and had largely ignored their own philosophical assumptions along the way. But postmodernism by definition is not able to create anything, let alone an ideology. It has done positive and negative work in its deconstructing of truth paradigms (throwing the Christian baby out with the bathwater) and now leaves its own void.
As Christianity still struggles to regain its voice in America, it has largely left the work of reconstruction to neo-paganism. Instead of banishing God through pride in the intellect (like modernism), neo-paganism instill godlike spirituality into every crevice of this world. This modern pantheism, in its decimation of the transcendence of the Creator over His creation, subsequently blurs all other lines instituted by God (man/woman; human beings/animals/nature; etc.). As Goldberg helpfully notes, it also discards the quest for truth in employing empty rhetoric which is devoid of a telos.
Barack Obama is encapsulates the postmodern vacuum, but more importantly, the neo-pagan reconstruction. For that matter, President Bush displays similar characteristics (belief in human goodness, denial of Christianity exclusivity, etc.). The problem we face now is philosophical, not political. We have a captivating political figure rising on the wings of an ancient philosophy, which is soaring over the heights of all political factions (and even many religious traditions). There is a reason Obama has special appeal to the young, who largely belong to this new worldview. Traditionalists should not target Obama, the postmodern, but Obama, the neo-pagan. In order for Obama's messiahship to be made palatable, people must first come to view their need for this type of new-age messiahship. Let the Christian reconstruction of the postmodern intellect begin with haste before this pagan messiahship is realized and the kingdom of the pagan gods is brought to earth.
As a general point, we imbibe our thought patterns in large part from the philosophical currents of the day. Even in critiquing postmodernism, we are simultaneously immersed and heavily influenced by postmodernism. Postmodernism in is no way an exclusive trait of the Democratic party. Even in rejecting certain implications of postmodernism (i.e. moral relativity), Republicans and other traditionalists do so for reasons influenced by postmodernism. Often, traditionalists embrace and defend moral absolutes for pragmatic reasons, such as maintain social order and good governance. In justifying truth claims for pragmatic reasons instead of philosophical, traditionalists display their part in the postmodern milieu.
Postmodernism is not a clearly definable concept, let alone an inherently evil one. According to scholars like Thomas Oden, postmodernism is best defined as that which is not modern. It is more a reactionary movement than a progressive one and has no cohesive agenda other than to undermine the modern worldview. The work done by postmodernism has actually done much to help conservatives. Twentieth-century modernism attempt to construct an edifice of truth to compete and eventually annihilate a Christian-revelatory truth. It embraced Darwinism as the authoritative scientific paradigm, "progress" as the authoritative social paradigm, and therapeutic-victimization as its psychological paradigm. In all of these ways, it made itself a competitor to Christianity and natural law governance, believing that these worldviews would not be able to survive their competition with "the fittest."
Postmodernism is America was largely precipitated by Vietnam and hippie disillusionment. The secular truth paradigms had largely failed in morally advancing the human race and a vacuum was created that created mass soul-searching. Christianity was not able to fill this void as it had largely capitulated to the modern worldview. In particular, Protestant Christianity had failed in bringing the Christian worldview to bear. "Christian" modernists continued to work in the intellectual realm, but without anything distinctively Christian; Christian fundamentalists had largely retreated from the intellectual realm.
Postmodern philosophy, vacuous in its own right, stepped into the void and began demolishing the secular edifices. Darwinism, "progress," and modern psychology had all failed in their promises for Utopian existence and had largely ignored their own philosophical assumptions along the way. But postmodernism by definition is not able to create anything, let alone an ideology. It has done positive and negative work in its deconstructing of truth paradigms (throwing the Christian baby out with the bathwater) and now leaves its own void.
As Christianity still struggles to regain its voice in America, it has largely left the work of reconstruction to neo-paganism. Instead of banishing God through pride in the intellect (like modernism), neo-paganism instill godlike spirituality into every crevice of this world. This modern pantheism, in its decimation of the transcendence of the Creator over His creation, subsequently blurs all other lines instituted by God (man/woman; human beings/animals/nature; etc.). As Goldberg helpfully notes, it also discards the quest for truth in employing empty rhetoric which is devoid of a telos.
Barack Obama is encapsulates the postmodern vacuum, but more importantly, the neo-pagan reconstruction. For that matter, President Bush displays similar characteristics (belief in human goodness, denial of Christianity exclusivity, etc.). The problem we face now is philosophical, not political. We have a captivating political figure rising on the wings of an ancient philosophy, which is soaring over the heights of all political factions (and even many religious traditions). There is a reason Obama has special appeal to the young, who largely belong to this new worldview. Traditionalists should not target Obama, the postmodern, but Obama, the neo-pagan. In order for Obama's messiahship to be made palatable, people must first come to view their need for this type of new-age messiahship. Let the Christian reconstruction of the postmodern intellect begin with haste before this pagan messiahship is realized and the kingdom of the pagan gods is brought to earth.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Of Mice and the Need for Men
The mighty men and women of yore have always had to face their inevitable decline. Very few have gone out in a blaze of glory at their peak, like the heroes in most movies. Hitler committed suicide while hunkering in a bunker. He had almost conquered Europe. Saddam Hussein, who only a decade before was running wild over the Middle East, was found in a hole and subsequently hanged. The same anti-climatic demise has held true for many heroic figures. The great missionary/scientist Livingstone died in the African bush. Twentieth-century theologian J. Gresham Machen died of pneumonia in a barren stretch of North Dakota. Ronald Reagan, after one of the most consequential presidencies in American history, was slowly dragged away by Alzheimer's.
Yet many mighty men and women of the present forget history's lessons and desperately cling to legacies which are quickly slipping away. Two such figures are very different in their politics--Dr. James Dobson and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Both of these men were pivotal in the political landscape for a time, but now are mice in the hands of the movements they created. Dr. Dobson increasingly finds himself out of touch with younger evangelicals, who are becoming more heterodox in their theology and liberal in their ideology. Rev. Jackson has quickly aged beyond his usefulness, representing an era of civil rights pioneering that is lost on an increasingly heterogeneous population.
Both of these men have looked puny when up against the presumed man of the hour--Barack Obama. The presumed heir to the presidency represents and connects with the present generation's moral listlessness and vague platitudes. Along with the younger generations, he disdains those moral causes represented by figures like Dobson and Jackson in the name of a moral unity that merely seeks out the lowest common denominator. Dobson and Jackson both fought for substantive change in eras when change was needed--the family structure was under attack and people were still not treated as equals. The present populace, on the other hand, has embraced a restless contentment instead of guilt and a vacuous call for "change" rather than anything substantial.
Young people--blacks and evangelicals included--are embracing Barack Obama because he speaks in the "parsel tongue" (to borrow a Harry Potterism) that opens the door to modern (or rather, postmodern) affections. His hollow rhetoric and warm smile is exactly what many people want--the ability to feel good about themselves without any sense of responsibility. The time for Dobson and Jackson's demise has come and their adherents must make their peace with that reality. The more scary prospect is the demise of moral causes in America. The War on Terror demands moral resolve, as does a variety of domestic causes during a time of unprecedented prosperity. To relinquish ourselves to Obamian ambiguity at this juncture could prove fatal.
Yet many mighty men and women of the present forget history's lessons and desperately cling to legacies which are quickly slipping away. Two such figures are very different in their politics--Dr. James Dobson and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Both of these men were pivotal in the political landscape for a time, but now are mice in the hands of the movements they created. Dr. Dobson increasingly finds himself out of touch with younger evangelicals, who are becoming more heterodox in their theology and liberal in their ideology. Rev. Jackson has quickly aged beyond his usefulness, representing an era of civil rights pioneering that is lost on an increasingly heterogeneous population.
Both of these men have looked puny when up against the presumed man of the hour--Barack Obama. The presumed heir to the presidency represents and connects with the present generation's moral listlessness and vague platitudes. Along with the younger generations, he disdains those moral causes represented by figures like Dobson and Jackson in the name of a moral unity that merely seeks out the lowest common denominator. Dobson and Jackson both fought for substantive change in eras when change was needed--the family structure was under attack and people were still not treated as equals. The present populace, on the other hand, has embraced a restless contentment instead of guilt and a vacuous call for "change" rather than anything substantial.
Young people--blacks and evangelicals included--are embracing Barack Obama because he speaks in the "parsel tongue" (to borrow a Harry Potterism) that opens the door to modern (or rather, postmodern) affections. His hollow rhetoric and warm smile is exactly what many people want--the ability to feel good about themselves without any sense of responsibility. The time for Dobson and Jackson's demise has come and their adherents must make their peace with that reality. The more scary prospect is the demise of moral causes in America. The War on Terror demands moral resolve, as does a variety of domestic causes during a time of unprecedented prosperity. To relinquish ourselves to Obamian ambiguity at this juncture could prove fatal.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
To Know and To Love
Famed theologian R.C. Sproul wrote in his book, The Intimate Marriage, that the two most important elements to marriage are those of knowing and loving. A person in a marriage cannot do without either of these elements. If your spouse knows you but doesn't love you, then you will constantly feel exposed and ashamed. If he or she loves you but doesn't know you, then you will constantly feel isolated and cut off except on the superficial realm.
In Tess of the D'urbervilles by Thomas Hardy, this axiom reaches poetic expression. Tess, the heroine, takes upon herself the shame of society's scorn for those who are sexually promiscuous. As the hero, Angel, tries to woo her to himself, he must convince her that any knowledge of her would not affect his love for her. After a prolonged resistance, Tess finally gives in to him and entrusts herself to his love. On their wedding night, she confesses to him her past infidelities, to which he grows cold, forsakes his love of her, and travels far away from her. Her worst nightmare--that the love of her betrothed might be forsaken with a more comprehensive knowledge of her--proved nightmarishly true. Thus the hero proves himself to be a demon; his betrayal ultimately ruining her.
Perhaps this axiom explains why movies like Pretty Woman and Moulin Rouge and even Good Will Hunting prove to be so moving for so many. In each of these stories, love proves unconditional with full knowledge and the mettle of that love proves unbreakable, but by death.
This in part is what makes divorce and estrangement so abominable. In marriage, you promise to love through better or worse 'til death do you part. It is a promise that transcends all social relationships--one that promises a lifetime of security and hope. When one's parents or spouse reneges on that promise, all hope for unconditional love seems lost. The next thing you say or do might be the last thing you say or do to/with the person you love.
People have this inherent yearning for an unconditional love based upon full disclosure because it mirrors the same love they need for present joy and eternal hope. Very few people argue over whether God is all-powerful. If He exists, then He knows us. Thus says David:
Psalm 139:1 For the director of music. Of David. A psalm. O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. 2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. 3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. 4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. 5 You hem me in-- behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
God knows each person better than that person knows him or herself. That knowledge proves terrifying to the ordinary human heart, because knowledge necessarily entails exposure of sin and guilt to judgment. If known by God, then accountable to God; if accountable to God, then in need of love from God.
This is why the Christian may rejoice in the intimate knowledge of God of his or her heart:
Psalm 103:1 Of David. Praise the LORD, O my soul; all my inmost being, praise his holy name. 2 Praise the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits-- 3 who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases, 4 who redeems your life from the pit and crowns you with love and compassion, 5 who satisfies your desires with good things so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's. 6 The LORD works righteousness and justice for all the oppressed. 7 He made known his ways to Moses, his deeds to the people of Israel: 8 The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. 9 He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever; 10 he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. 11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; 12 as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. 13 As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him.
God knows His children and He loves them, promising "never will I leave you nor forsake you." As He loves us in Christ, who paid for our sin and placed His perfect life before God on our behalf, He loves us unconditionally. Never need we fear for the love of our God. And that, to use a borrowed cliche, makes all the difference...especially as it pertains to our confidence, love for others, and intimate, unconditional love for our spouses.
In Tess of the D'urbervilles by Thomas Hardy, this axiom reaches poetic expression. Tess, the heroine, takes upon herself the shame of society's scorn for those who are sexually promiscuous. As the hero, Angel, tries to woo her to himself, he must convince her that any knowledge of her would not affect his love for her. After a prolonged resistance, Tess finally gives in to him and entrusts herself to his love. On their wedding night, she confesses to him her past infidelities, to which he grows cold, forsakes his love of her, and travels far away from her. Her worst nightmare--that the love of her betrothed might be forsaken with a more comprehensive knowledge of her--proved nightmarishly true. Thus the hero proves himself to be a demon; his betrayal ultimately ruining her.
Perhaps this axiom explains why movies like Pretty Woman and Moulin Rouge and even Good Will Hunting prove to be so moving for so many. In each of these stories, love proves unconditional with full knowledge and the mettle of that love proves unbreakable, but by death.
This in part is what makes divorce and estrangement so abominable. In marriage, you promise to love through better or worse 'til death do you part. It is a promise that transcends all social relationships--one that promises a lifetime of security and hope. When one's parents or spouse reneges on that promise, all hope for unconditional love seems lost. The next thing you say or do might be the last thing you say or do to/with the person you love.
People have this inherent yearning for an unconditional love based upon full disclosure because it mirrors the same love they need for present joy and eternal hope. Very few people argue over whether God is all-powerful. If He exists, then He knows us. Thus says David:
Psalm 139:1 For the director of music. Of David. A psalm. O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. 2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. 3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. 4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. 5 You hem me in-- behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
God knows each person better than that person knows him or herself. That knowledge proves terrifying to the ordinary human heart, because knowledge necessarily entails exposure of sin and guilt to judgment. If known by God, then accountable to God; if accountable to God, then in need of love from God.
This is why the Christian may rejoice in the intimate knowledge of God of his or her heart:
Psalm 103:1 Of David. Praise the LORD, O my soul; all my inmost being, praise his holy name. 2 Praise the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits-- 3 who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases, 4 who redeems your life from the pit and crowns you with love and compassion, 5 who satisfies your desires with good things so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's. 6 The LORD works righteousness and justice for all the oppressed. 7 He made known his ways to Moses, his deeds to the people of Israel: 8 The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. 9 He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever; 10 he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. 11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; 12 as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. 13 As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him.
God knows His children and He loves them, promising "never will I leave you nor forsake you." As He loves us in Christ, who paid for our sin and placed His perfect life before God on our behalf, He loves us unconditionally. Never need we fear for the love of our God. And that, to use a borrowed cliche, makes all the difference...especially as it pertains to our confidence, love for others, and intimate, unconditional love for our spouses.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Christ--the Great Liberator
The mission of Jesus Christ in His coming to earth is often misunderstood. Many people "draft" Christ into their various political or socio-economic missions: social justice, egalitarianism, moral culture, democracy, etc. Such gross anachronisms give weight to argumentation (who wouldn't want Jesus on their side?), but ultimately obscures and perverts His true mission. Each of these various causes betray the belief that Jesus was the best conjured-up expression of an idealized humanity, setting an example for all of the most noble causes. Such beliefs are actually an insult to Christ an His mission. He did not come to epitomize humanity, but to save humanity. He was able to do so, not only because of His perfect righteousness as a human, but also by virtue of His deity.
Man does not progress into a state of godlikeness--there is nothing godlike about man. Man is created in the image of God, but is still pure creation in direct contradistinction from the Creator. Man is universally sinful, regardless of individual sins (i.e. adultery, homosexuality, murder, etc.). All people stand in the same natural state before God: rebels deserving of wrath. The forgiveness of sins does not capture the work of Christ, because human beings are sinners. People need to be forgiven--not simply thoughts, words, or deeds.
Therefore, any attempt to obscure the mission of Christ, the God-man, who lived the life that man couldn't live and died the death man couldn't bare--in order to save those who believed--is an insult to the power of God and callous toward the true needs of man. With regard to the persistent wrath of God against a rebel creation, man does not need a liberator of an economic, social, or political variety--but a Savior from sin. This need sets all sinners on level ground before the foot of the cross.
The Christian realizes (or should) this reality, and thus offers herself to the glory of God in a state of gratitude. This gratitude is not a mere legalism, nor is it a license to sin. It brings about a love in the Christian that reflects the love of God for sinners and seeks the salvation of all, that the world might indirectly be made more just, and ultimately, that God's name would once again fall upon the lips of His fallen creation. Here is one example of such gratitude in the African context from this past summer:
Man does not progress into a state of godlikeness--there is nothing godlike about man. Man is created in the image of God, but is still pure creation in direct contradistinction from the Creator. Man is universally sinful, regardless of individual sins (i.e. adultery, homosexuality, murder, etc.). All people stand in the same natural state before God: rebels deserving of wrath. The forgiveness of sins does not capture the work of Christ, because human beings are sinners. People need to be forgiven--not simply thoughts, words, or deeds.
Therefore, any attempt to obscure the mission of Christ, the God-man, who lived the life that man couldn't live and died the death man couldn't bare--in order to save those who believed--is an insult to the power of God and callous toward the true needs of man. With regard to the persistent wrath of God against a rebel creation, man does not need a liberator of an economic, social, or political variety--but a Savior from sin. This need sets all sinners on level ground before the foot of the cross.
The Christian realizes (or should) this reality, and thus offers herself to the glory of God in a state of gratitude. This gratitude is not a mere legalism, nor is it a license to sin. It brings about a love in the Christian that reflects the love of God for sinners and seeks the salvation of all, that the world might indirectly be made more just, and ultimately, that God's name would once again fall upon the lips of His fallen creation. Here is one example of such gratitude in the African context from this past summer:
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Second Commandment
Exodus 20: 4(E) "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5(F) You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am(G) a jealous God,(H) visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands[b] of those who love me and keep my commandments."
I remember once reading a book about the Second Commandment and learning that there was more to it than is commonly understood in modern times. Many people like myself have understood this commandment as simply prohibiting the worshipping idols, as opposed to God. Yet it is not merely foreign idols that are delineated in this commandment, but "carved images" of any sort. This includes images made of the true God. When I read this, I shared this information with fellow Reformed Christians who casually dismissed such an assertion, but as I continue to read--this is the traditional position of Reformed Christians since the Reformation and even existed in earlier centuries when the debate over the use of icons within the Church gained full steam.
In relation to the First Commandment's "who" with regard to worship, the Second Commandment provides the "how." Specifically-speaking, we are not to use any images in our worship of the Lord. Our faith is one belonging to the ear (the preached Word), with two specific sacraments offered for our visual edification (baptism and communion). It is God alone who reveals Himself and to pull Him down in any form not prescribed by Scripture is to "attempt a peek at God in the nude" (Luther). More broadly-speaking then, we are not to worship God on our own terms, but on His terms. This application has taken the form of the Regulative Principle of Worship in the Reformed community, which sets forth that our substantial elements of worship must be specifically prescribed by Scripture.
Of course, this new learning comes to one who watched "The Passion of the Christ" three times in the movie theaters. In our age of do-it-yourself Christianity, such traditional (and biblical) understandings of how we are to worship our God is difficult, but refreshing.
I remember once reading a book about the Second Commandment and learning that there was more to it than is commonly understood in modern times. Many people like myself have understood this commandment as simply prohibiting the worshipping idols, as opposed to God. Yet it is not merely foreign idols that are delineated in this commandment, but "carved images" of any sort. This includes images made of the true God. When I read this, I shared this information with fellow Reformed Christians who casually dismissed such an assertion, but as I continue to read--this is the traditional position of Reformed Christians since the Reformation and even existed in earlier centuries when the debate over the use of icons within the Church gained full steam.
In relation to the First Commandment's "who" with regard to worship, the Second Commandment provides the "how." Specifically-speaking, we are not to use any images in our worship of the Lord. Our faith is one belonging to the ear (the preached Word), with two specific sacraments offered for our visual edification (baptism and communion). It is God alone who reveals Himself and to pull Him down in any form not prescribed by Scripture is to "attempt a peek at God in the nude" (Luther). More broadly-speaking then, we are not to worship God on our own terms, but on His terms. This application has taken the form of the Regulative Principle of Worship in the Reformed community, which sets forth that our substantial elements of worship must be specifically prescribed by Scripture.
Of course, this new learning comes to one who watched "The Passion of the Christ" three times in the movie theaters. In our age of do-it-yourself Christianity, such traditional (and biblical) understandings of how we are to worship our God is difficult, but refreshing.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
An Executive Traitor
Former President Jimmy Carter is currently meeting with members of the terrorist organization, Hamas, and will soon be meeting with their leader. Hamas is one of the more prominent terrorist organization, condemned by the vast majority of the international community. They have murdered over twenty Americans, countless Israelis, and doubtless many Muslims who have proven themselves "infidels" in some form or another.
For any American official to consort with these heinous criminals is morally abhorrent; for the former leader of the free world to do so is despicable (even that is an understatement). In a bipartisan plea, 50 members of Congress today called upon Carter to cancel the meetings. The Bush Administration and Israel's government are both infuriated. Not only is such a move immoral, but it is also politically disastrous as it legitimates a heartless, criminal enterprise.
When a young man from California was found amidst al-Qaida troops in Afghanistan a few years ago, he was rounded up with the other prisoners of war, branded a traitor, and taken captive by allied forces. While such an extravagant move cannot properly be employed against a former President, there should currently be a discussion on Capitol Hill concerning whether charges of treachery and aiding and abetting known terrorists should be drawn against Carter, as well as possibly barring Carter from U.S. territory as one who has consulted with enemies of the free world.
There was once a time when former Presidents upheld the dignity of their office by working in a non-partisan way toward good causes, e.g. former Presidents Bush and Clinton joining together to aid the victims of the tsunami in southeast Asia. With Clinton now playing the part of schoolyard political bully for his wife and Carter hobnobbing with Hamas, Americans may duly feel ashamed and disappointed.
For any American official to consort with these heinous criminals is morally abhorrent; for the former leader of the free world to do so is despicable (even that is an understatement). In a bipartisan plea, 50 members of Congress today called upon Carter to cancel the meetings. The Bush Administration and Israel's government are both infuriated. Not only is such a move immoral, but it is also politically disastrous as it legitimates a heartless, criminal enterprise.
When a young man from California was found amidst al-Qaida troops in Afghanistan a few years ago, he was rounded up with the other prisoners of war, branded a traitor, and taken captive by allied forces. While such an extravagant move cannot properly be employed against a former President, there should currently be a discussion on Capitol Hill concerning whether charges of treachery and aiding and abetting known terrorists should be drawn against Carter, as well as possibly barring Carter from U.S. territory as one who has consulted with enemies of the free world.
There was once a time when former Presidents upheld the dignity of their office by working in a non-partisan way toward good causes, e.g. former Presidents Bush and Clinton joining together to aid the victims of the tsunami in southeast Asia. With Clinton now playing the part of schoolyard political bully for his wife and Carter hobnobbing with Hamas, Americans may duly feel ashamed and disappointed.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
The Wise and Perverse
Biblical wisdom is that ability to rightly discern the created order (and twisting thereof), which logically produces action consistent with that understanding. Romans 1 speaks of the inability of a sinful mankind to comprehend their rebellion against mankind, which in turn produces action consistent with that rebellion--namely, participation in the fallen order and the twisting of creature-to-creature relationships (for example, homosexuality). Thus, homosexuality speaks of the brokenness of this world and the wisdom that desires it rightly ordered.
That said, the perverse may still be instruments of insight. Christopher Isherwood, gay author of The Single Man, portrays that lifestyle as more of a philosophical critique of society than a caving to perverse desires. Such a portrayal demands a nuancing of homosexuality that is quite foreign to many Christians. Even in the foolishness of his rebellion, Isherwood has the ability to step back and view his lifestyle in relation to a quickly-crumbling American society. Having cast off notions of a higher authority, Isherwood saw Americans as unwitting players in a sort of social determinism: studying, graduating, marrying, working, reproducing, dying. Their ignorance concerning their numb, mediocre existence made Isherwood's homosexuality alluring--not merely as a lifestyle choice, but as an act of rebellion against a social structure gone mad.
Thomas Hardy once wrote that "If a way to the better there be, it exacts a full look at the worst." This means not only a clear-minded view of homosexuality and the sadist heterosexuality of a Normal Mailer, but also an understanding of the gravity of their depravity. In other words, those in the muck often see the muck better than the self-righteous, and offer sterling insights that enable those with loyalty to the King to better understand the perversity of the world. Social determinism numbs the heart and mind to true beauty and genius; social Darwinism allows for wicked ideals to ravage true community while the blind remain blind. America, in its advanced state of science of technology, has detached itself from the reflective roots which produced some of the most ingenious documents and societal foresight and given itself over to shallow, unreflective living and entertainment-induced passivity.
And in the knowledge of the vacuous and mundane, a need for a better existence is impressed upon the human heart.
That said, the perverse may still be instruments of insight. Christopher Isherwood, gay author of The Single Man, portrays that lifestyle as more of a philosophical critique of society than a caving to perverse desires. Such a portrayal demands a nuancing of homosexuality that is quite foreign to many Christians. Even in the foolishness of his rebellion, Isherwood has the ability to step back and view his lifestyle in relation to a quickly-crumbling American society. Having cast off notions of a higher authority, Isherwood saw Americans as unwitting players in a sort of social determinism: studying, graduating, marrying, working, reproducing, dying. Their ignorance concerning their numb, mediocre existence made Isherwood's homosexuality alluring--not merely as a lifestyle choice, but as an act of rebellion against a social structure gone mad.
Thomas Hardy once wrote that "If a way to the better there be, it exacts a full look at the worst." This means not only a clear-minded view of homosexuality and the sadist heterosexuality of a Normal Mailer, but also an understanding of the gravity of their depravity. In other words, those in the muck often see the muck better than the self-righteous, and offer sterling insights that enable those with loyalty to the King to better understand the perversity of the world. Social determinism numbs the heart and mind to true beauty and genius; social Darwinism allows for wicked ideals to ravage true community while the blind remain blind. America, in its advanced state of science of technology, has detached itself from the reflective roots which produced some of the most ingenious documents and societal foresight and given itself over to shallow, unreflective living and entertainment-induced passivity.
And in the knowledge of the vacuous and mundane, a need for a better existence is impressed upon the human heart.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Reformed Theology as Covenantal Theology
In a past entry, the assertion was made that Reformed theology was at its foundation covenantal theology--that is, the bountiful and beautiful truths offered in Reformed Christianity are rooted in God's covenantal relationship with His people.
There are three covenants revealed in Scripture: the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The proper understanding of the latter two covenants is essential for a biblical theology. Within these categories, the majesty of God's character and the gravity of Christ's atoning work is put on display with an unequaled profundity.
A former classmate, Brennan Ellis, now working on his doctorate at St. Andrews in Scotland, produced a helpful summary of these covenants at his website, creedorchaos. Follow this link: http://creedorchaos.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/covenant-theology-is-reformed-theology/
Enjoy!
There are three covenants revealed in Scripture: the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The proper understanding of the latter two covenants is essential for a biblical theology. Within these categories, the majesty of God's character and the gravity of Christ's atoning work is put on display with an unequaled profundity.
A former classmate, Brennan Ellis, now working on his doctorate at St. Andrews in Scotland, produced a helpful summary of these covenants at his website, creedorchaos. Follow this link: http://creedorchaos.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/covenant-theology-is-reformed-theology/
Enjoy!
Friday, April 4, 2008
Honoring MLK
It is tempting to take those who have slipped the surly bonds of this broken world and make them into other-worldly figures. Myths come to enshroud certain historical figures--perhaps giving them added power of inspiration but denying that inspiration the grounds for moving the average person today. George Washington could not tell a lie about chopping down the cherry tree, yet every person does lie, as evidenced by the propagation of the cherry tree myth. Since when did transcendence become a higher historical value than accessibility?
Martin Luther King Jr. was a plagiarist and known adulterer. History has forgiven him as well it should, but should his shady side be diminished in order to propagate a mythical figure with the power to inspire, yet bereft of the power to move people? His transgressions, when put in the context of his mighty struggle for basic personhood, prove him to be a more mighty person because he was human, through and through. He was a flawed man seeking justice from a flawed society with flawed rules.
Never should children be told myths, for then mere mortals will fail at attempts to change the world because their heroes are lost to transcendence. Let a child say "I want to be like Martin Luther King" without feeling the pangs of being unable to measure up. For MLK certainly envisioned a society where every person has the opportunity to be hero. He demanded that opportunity, and if society is to respect his legacy, it will demand the same by making its heroes accessible to the average person.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a plagiarist and known adulterer. History has forgiven him as well it should, but should his shady side be diminished in order to propagate a mythical figure with the power to inspire, yet bereft of the power to move people? His transgressions, when put in the context of his mighty struggle for basic personhood, prove him to be a more mighty person because he was human, through and through. He was a flawed man seeking justice from a flawed society with flawed rules.
Never should children be told myths, for then mere mortals will fail at attempts to change the world because their heroes are lost to transcendence. Let a child say "I want to be like Martin Luther King" without feeling the pangs of being unable to measure up. For MLK certainly envisioned a society where every person has the opportunity to be hero. He demanded that opportunity, and if society is to respect his legacy, it will demand the same by making its heroes accessible to the average person.
Daily News
So...for the second straight day at Fenway Park (home of the Red Sox), a hawk attacked a visiting tourist. This time, the victim was a young girl. She had to go to a hospital for a scratch on her head. When will we say enough is enough? As long as these hawks roam the land, free from any sane regulations, they will pose a threat to the well-being of average, ordinary Americans. If I was a politician, I would introduce legislation in which every hawk would be assigned a "safety tether" that would prevent them from accidentally implementing their destructive power. This will be for their own good and the safety of your children.
******************************************************************************
President Bush and Russia's Tyrant-in-Chief, Vladimir Putin, will be meeting in the next several days to discuss a wide range of issues. Many believe that these meeting could be "contentious." Really? Vladimir Putin has interfered in the elections of neighboring nations in order to exert Russian influence, has eliminated an impressive number of independent journalists (even those residing in democratic Western countries), and has virtually destroyed independent businesses and media in his country. Meanwhile, President Bush has gotten approval from the NATO allies to install missile defense positions in several former Soviet republics in eastern Europe. Contentious? Perhaps we'll have a repeat of Rocky IV. Stay tuned...
******************************************************************************
Another bout of tornadoes have beset poor Little Rock, Arkansas, which boasts the former political residence of Bill Clinton. Tornadoes in populated areas bring about unsurpassed tragedies, but tornadoes in the boonies where chasers can get kick-butt footage...awesome! In reality, with all due respect to victims of tornadoes, what guy would not want to see a good F-4 or F-5? In a society of incredible wealth and weenie challenges, a tornado is just what a guy needs to realize that typical man activities totally suck.
******************************************************************************
President Bush and Russia's Tyrant-in-Chief, Vladimir Putin, will be meeting in the next several days to discuss a wide range of issues. Many believe that these meeting could be "contentious." Really? Vladimir Putin has interfered in the elections of neighboring nations in order to exert Russian influence, has eliminated an impressive number of independent journalists (even those residing in democratic Western countries), and has virtually destroyed independent businesses and media in his country. Meanwhile, President Bush has gotten approval from the NATO allies to install missile defense positions in several former Soviet republics in eastern Europe. Contentious? Perhaps we'll have a repeat of Rocky IV. Stay tuned...
******************************************************************************
Another bout of tornadoes have beset poor Little Rock, Arkansas, which boasts the former political residence of Bill Clinton. Tornadoes in populated areas bring about unsurpassed tragedies, but tornadoes in the boonies where chasers can get kick-butt footage...awesome! In reality, with all due respect to victims of tornadoes, what guy would not want to see a good F-4 or F-5? In a society of incredible wealth and weenie challenges, a tornado is just what a guy needs to realize that typical man activities totally suck.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Spontaneous Observations
So the other night, two of my housemates--Dan and Buttsis--and I were all going to bed. Dan turned to me and initiated the following exchange:
Dan: Night night. I'll see you in dreamland.
Steve: Umm...Dan...I don't think I care to talk to you anymore.
Dan: I'll see you in 15 minutes.
Steve: Dan, I'm not sure we should put a time frame-
Dan: I'll go get ready.
With exasperation, I went into my room and slammed the door--clearly at a loss for words.
____________________________________________________________________
Today was D-Day +1 in my fight against the larvae in our house food pantry. It has not been pretty. The warfare was preempted by the presumption of said larvae (and consequently, moth-like things) to occupy a place in our pantry and not pay rent. A few moths fluttering around the house is no problem, but when I pay a buttload of money each month, they sure as heck should not be attaching their eggs to my chocolate bars and packets of oatmeal. Imagine if each of these assorted larvae and moth-things paid rent--divided equally (as they assume equal living rights), I'd probably be paying $3 a day in rent!
In any case, like the black ant invasion of aught seven, these insects are not going down without a fight. More and more of them are seeking safe haven in my bedroom, which is so not cool. Unlike the black ants, however, they are little more than a nuisance (unless one finds them in their breakfast). As I tried to wash thousands of ants from my box of granola bars last year, they tried to advance my arm, biting along the way. Thankfully, the ants are defeated and the larvae are being subdued, but the ordeals are still gross-tastic.
___________________________________________________________________
Seminarians are great at answering their own questions in class, without even asking the question in the first place. There should be a ten words or less policy on question-asking. It is remarkable how many times a student will ask "Does X remind you of Y?" with X being the lecture material and Y being an unknown point of comparison that then must be expounded upon in order for the professor to make some sort of intelligible comment. What a scam! If ever a seminary professor in such cases, I will walk over to said student, drop a fresh Abe Lincoln on his desk, thank him for his instruction of the class, and tell him that I will be writing his course evaluation. It reminds me of a recent preaching class where a critic not only made his critique but explained how he would have handled the passage differently.
Said one well-known young professor at a sister-seminary, "It's funny how often seminarians compare the size of their book cases while more normal men will just whip it out." To my fellow seminarians: put the bookcase away--no one cares about the size nor want to peruse the shelves. Go eat a Big Mac, find a girlfriend and take her to a PG-13 movie, and for God's sake get some sun!
Dan: Night night. I'll see you in dreamland.
Steve: Umm...Dan...I don't think I care to talk to you anymore.
Dan: I'll see you in 15 minutes.
Steve: Dan, I'm not sure we should put a time frame-
Dan: I'll go get ready.
With exasperation, I went into my room and slammed the door--clearly at a loss for words.
____________________________________________________________________
Today was D-Day +1 in my fight against the larvae in our house food pantry. It has not been pretty. The warfare was preempted by the presumption of said larvae (and consequently, moth-like things) to occupy a place in our pantry and not pay rent. A few moths fluttering around the house is no problem, but when I pay a buttload of money each month, they sure as heck should not be attaching their eggs to my chocolate bars and packets of oatmeal. Imagine if each of these assorted larvae and moth-things paid rent--divided equally (as they assume equal living rights), I'd probably be paying $3 a day in rent!
In any case, like the black ant invasion of aught seven, these insects are not going down without a fight. More and more of them are seeking safe haven in my bedroom, which is so not cool. Unlike the black ants, however, they are little more than a nuisance (unless one finds them in their breakfast). As I tried to wash thousands of ants from my box of granola bars last year, they tried to advance my arm, biting along the way. Thankfully, the ants are defeated and the larvae are being subdued, but the ordeals are still gross-tastic.
___________________________________________________________________
Seminarians are great at answering their own questions in class, without even asking the question in the first place. There should be a ten words or less policy on question-asking. It is remarkable how many times a student will ask "Does X remind you of Y?" with X being the lecture material and Y being an unknown point of comparison that then must be expounded upon in order for the professor to make some sort of intelligible comment. What a scam! If ever a seminary professor in such cases, I will walk over to said student, drop a fresh Abe Lincoln on his desk, thank him for his instruction of the class, and tell him that I will be writing his course evaluation. It reminds me of a recent preaching class where a critic not only made his critique but explained how he would have handled the passage differently.
Said one well-known young professor at a sister-seminary, "It's funny how often seminarians compare the size of their book cases while more normal men will just whip it out." To my fellow seminarians: put the bookcase away--no one cares about the size nor want to peruse the shelves. Go eat a Big Mac, find a girlfriend and take her to a PG-13 movie, and for God's sake get some sun!
Sunday, March 30, 2008
A Prison Letter
At the recent funeral of a beloved saint, a friend of mine at my home church gave me a poem that he wrote in prison many years ago:
"Hope Fulfilled"
If you are down or feeling blue,
Open the word, it was written for you.
The promises of God, they are all there,
Sealed with an oath, which He did swear.
In truth and honor, love flows out,
Speaking to my heart, as loud as a shout.
His word is alive, with feeling I read,
As each promise, speaks to my need.
So with gladness and joy, by faith He said,
To believe on My word, in your heart and head.
All that are called and given to Me,
Not on will be lost, just wait and see!
The day is coming, with a trumpet from above,
When all in Christ will rise, by the power of
His love.
Lonny Beamer
12-3-95
When he handed me this poem, Lonny's eyes were filled with tears as he said farewell (with 700 others!) to a woman of the Lord who had welcomed an ex-convict into the Church with open arms. She was one of the few to whom he had ever personally given this poem (though a Christian group published it for a now-defunct organization).
There is no dark corner of human existence or the human heart that can remain hidden to God when He has elected to lavish His love upon such objects. We who are known by Christ are such objects.
7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.
-Psalm 139
Monday, March 24, 2008
Christianity and Communism: Mutually Exclusive?
In the book of Daniel, chapter 3, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered all people (including the Jewish exiles) in his land to bow down to a 90 foot tall golden statue of himself. Three men refused to bow the knee, provoking the king's anger and wrath. They defended themselves in this way:
16 Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. 17 If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. 18 But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."
While the Church is never called into the realm of politics, she often finds herself opposed to the State when the State assumes the prerogatives of a spiritual entity and becomes idolatrous. Whenever the State demands that the Christian bend the knee in a way contrary to God's Word, the Christian replies that he/she will not fear death to the point of forsaking the will and worship of God.
Communism, like fascism, has provided a stark example of this principle at work in the past century. Unlike socialism, which requires a more penetrating analysis in order to appreciate its evil as a system, communism demands a simple choice: worship the State as God or perish. Soviet communism knew as much as it coerced churches into becoming state-run institutions or face extinction. China currently employs the same strategy. Either a church registers with the government and becomes beholden to State prerogatives, or it faces persecution and annihilation. Communism cannot tolerate a competitor for individual devotion and allegiance.
In the recent crackdown in Tibet, this principle is again aptly demonstrated. Tibetan Buddhists may not be Christians, but their religion demands a devotion apart from that offered to the State. Like the Falun Gong cult in previous years, their punishment for such double-mindedness is found in persecution and repression.
Communism is a self-idolatrous political cult that by definition (evil and need defined in materialist terms; salvation by government aid) is aligned as a competitor to Christianity. As citizens (though not as Christians) peoples of the free world must vigorously oppose this tyrannical system and the atrocities it afflicts on those who do not bow the knee.
16 Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. 17 If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. 18 But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."
While the Church is never called into the realm of politics, she often finds herself opposed to the State when the State assumes the prerogatives of a spiritual entity and becomes idolatrous. Whenever the State demands that the Christian bend the knee in a way contrary to God's Word, the Christian replies that he/she will not fear death to the point of forsaking the will and worship of God.
Communism, like fascism, has provided a stark example of this principle at work in the past century. Unlike socialism, which requires a more penetrating analysis in order to appreciate its evil as a system, communism demands a simple choice: worship the State as God or perish. Soviet communism knew as much as it coerced churches into becoming state-run institutions or face extinction. China currently employs the same strategy. Either a church registers with the government and becomes beholden to State prerogatives, or it faces persecution and annihilation. Communism cannot tolerate a competitor for individual devotion and allegiance.
In the recent crackdown in Tibet, this principle is again aptly demonstrated. Tibetan Buddhists may not be Christians, but their religion demands a devotion apart from that offered to the State. Like the Falun Gong cult in previous years, their punishment for such double-mindedness is found in persecution and repression.
Communism is a self-idolatrous political cult that by definition (evil and need defined in materialist terms; salvation by government aid) is aligned as a competitor to Christianity. As citizens (though not as Christians) peoples of the free world must vigorously oppose this tyrannical system and the atrocities it afflicts on those who do not bow the knee.
Friday, March 14, 2008
A Foretaste of the Pastorate
As of Sunday, I will have preached three sermons in five days. The first was for class on Wednesday; the second was for the chapel service this morning; the third will be my normal Sunday morning sermon. The preaching opportunity this morning opened up last-minute (really, last night) and I was called upon to preach in a desperate situation. As a result of these sermons, other important obligations have not been attended to this week.
Tomorrow--my last opportunity for solid academic production before Break--will largely be occupied by a wedding, sadly followed by a memorial service. In one day, I will have the opportunity to welcome a new Christian marriage and to bid farewell to a godly, beloved saint.
This type of week used to overwhelm me. I would look at all I had hoped to accomplish and shake my head in frustration. Alas, this is the life of a pastor. Aside from his essential commitments, the pastor is made subject to a myriad of events and circumstances unbeknownst to all but God. While the elders of a church must guard the pastor--especially his time with his family--the pastor's whole life in essence is a drink offering to be poured out upon the altar of ministering to Christ's Church.
Thus, I sit here reflecting upon a week of "should but couldn't" tasks and lift my chin high. I am at the service of my King, and I better start remembering that while the day is still young.
Tomorrow--my last opportunity for solid academic production before Break--will largely be occupied by a wedding, sadly followed by a memorial service. In one day, I will have the opportunity to welcome a new Christian marriage and to bid farewell to a godly, beloved saint.
This type of week used to overwhelm me. I would look at all I had hoped to accomplish and shake my head in frustration. Alas, this is the life of a pastor. Aside from his essential commitments, the pastor is made subject to a myriad of events and circumstances unbeknownst to all but God. While the elders of a church must guard the pastor--especially his time with his family--the pastor's whole life in essence is a drink offering to be poured out upon the altar of ministering to Christ's Church.
Thus, I sit here reflecting upon a week of "should but couldn't" tasks and lift my chin high. I am at the service of my King, and I better start remembering that while the day is still young.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Two Symptoms; One Disease
Two very interesting stories have broken in the past two days: 1) Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) was sexually-involved with a prostitute for the better part of a year, and 2) One in four teenage girls (age 14-19) have some form of sexually-transmitted disease. These stories are both interesting and incredibly sad. The image of the squeaky-clean politician has long been forgotten, and even those self-identified as moral crusaders are often exposed as the greatest of hypocrites. In addition, the old picture of "Daddy's little girl" with its connotation of virtue and modesty has been replaced by a quite-disgusting picture of moral license.
Underlying such promiscuity and infidelity lies irresponsibility of the most fundamental sort and a flawed philosophy of humanity. The irresponsibility is exhibited in a lack of personal commitment, parental guidance, self-respect, and a general exploitation by the educational system. Children are not often talk basic values of right and wrong, and even when they are, often lack the desire to put their virtuous upbringing into personal practice. In an educational system where morality lacks any true foundation and is often treated as a matter of self-interest, virtue becomes denigrated even further. In addition, self-respect (and a general adolescent culture of depression) undermines self-respect, which can only become more despised after promiscuous acts.
Beneath these various issues of responsibility lies a flawed philosophy of humanity: ontological dualism. Particularly popular (but not self-consciously identified) in the present culture is the mind/body dualism, in which one's mind and body are treated as two separate entities. This dualism is aptly displayed in the movie "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," when the evil Sheriff of Nottingham tried to rape Maid Marion. As he tried to commit his heinous act, she cried out "You might have my body, but it's not me! It's not me!" While good for movie fodder, that line is not true at all. A person is both mind and body. This is evidenced in the total coordination between mind and body in the person, and the division created by such a dualism leads to the labeling of certain types (i.e. the mentally handicapped) as "less than human." If a teenager's body is not made distinctly valuable through a complete view of individual personhood, they are likely to treat it a Platonic "prison house of the soul" rather than something with real value.
Yet the disease underlying the initially-stated symptoms and their contributing factors is the simple matter of sin. Sin affects every part of humanity and the created order and manifests itself in various forms. In the present day, sin is a taboo and its logical implications avoided. Thus, the deeper questions must be asked. Why are teenagers extraordinarily promiscuous? Why do they not take themselves and life more seriously? Why do they not respect their bodies and treat other bodies as means to an end? Why do they avoid asking these deep questions?
To the final question: Perhaps it is because the hardest of questions belie even harder answers.
Underlying such promiscuity and infidelity lies irresponsibility of the most fundamental sort and a flawed philosophy of humanity. The irresponsibility is exhibited in a lack of personal commitment, parental guidance, self-respect, and a general exploitation by the educational system. Children are not often talk basic values of right and wrong, and even when they are, often lack the desire to put their virtuous upbringing into personal practice. In an educational system where morality lacks any true foundation and is often treated as a matter of self-interest, virtue becomes denigrated even further. In addition, self-respect (and a general adolescent culture of depression) undermines self-respect, which can only become more despised after promiscuous acts.
Beneath these various issues of responsibility lies a flawed philosophy of humanity: ontological dualism. Particularly popular (but not self-consciously identified) in the present culture is the mind/body dualism, in which one's mind and body are treated as two separate entities. This dualism is aptly displayed in the movie "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," when the evil Sheriff of Nottingham tried to rape Maid Marion. As he tried to commit his heinous act, she cried out "You might have my body, but it's not me! It's not me!" While good for movie fodder, that line is not true at all. A person is both mind and body. This is evidenced in the total coordination between mind and body in the person, and the division created by such a dualism leads to the labeling of certain types (i.e. the mentally handicapped) as "less than human." If a teenager's body is not made distinctly valuable through a complete view of individual personhood, they are likely to treat it a Platonic "prison house of the soul" rather than something with real value.
Yet the disease underlying the initially-stated symptoms and their contributing factors is the simple matter of sin. Sin affects every part of humanity and the created order and manifests itself in various forms. In the present day, sin is a taboo and its logical implications avoided. Thus, the deeper questions must be asked. Why are teenagers extraordinarily promiscuous? Why do they not take themselves and life more seriously? Why do they not respect their bodies and treat other bodies as means to an end? Why do they avoid asking these deep questions?
To the final question: Perhaps it is because the hardest of questions belie even harder answers.
Monday, March 10, 2008
A Whitewashed Tomb in Rome
Jesus Christ took pity upon sinners, but also in a certain sense hated the Pharisees and what they stood for. They had turned their religion into legalism; God's Word into a text that needed thousands of additional rules to guard against sin; the Law as a ladder to righteousness; sin as those outward acts that violated the Law or the additional rules. This manipulation of the True, Revealed Religion infuriated Jesus, and He condemned it at every point. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus informed the masses that sin infects the internal man as well as the external deeds. In fact, he who hates is guilty of murder. He who lusts, adultery.
Perhaps Jesus' most pointed words came in Matthew 23:27--"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean." Paul, the last apostle of Jesus, took this zeal for the majesty of God and His law upon his own lips. When the Judaizers followed Paul around from city to city, telling the new Christian babes that they also needed to be circumcised and abide by certain customs as well as following Christ, Paul thundered "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal. 5:12). This language seems shocking to the weak-kneed, teary-eyed Church in the present day, but the Lord and His appointed apostles didn't take the manipulation of the Gospel lightly--and neither should the present Church.
In the present measure of the "Pope" to add to the list of "mortal" sins in order to increase the general awareness of sin and compel more people into confession, one finds another example of Pharisaism at its worst. This man takes upon himself the role of apostle, though that line ended with Paul, and thus feels the liberty to take from or add to God's Holy Word, against the specific prohibition of such treachery against the King in the final chapter of Scripture. This measure will work against this man's aim in this case, as such a hierarchy of sins and surrounding rules serve merely to make the self-righteous more content in their sin and the dregs of society more lethargic in their hopelessness. Is God's law to be used in such a way as to provide a means for salvation and sin-avoidance?
1) It would be futile to argue that the Mosaic Law did not abide by a works principle (Gal. 3:6-12). What was the purpose of this principle though? In Galatians 3:8, Paul makes clear that faith was always required for salvation; in 3:10, he shows that all live by the law live under its curse.
2) That works principle was never meant for salvation (Gal. 3:15-29). The Law given to Moses didn't set aside the gracious Promise already given to Abraham (3:17), but was rather a written tutor, pointing the way to Christ (3:24--the phrase "put in charge" refers to a pedagogue, or teach, in the Greek). It fulfilled this purpose by driving man to his knees. Instead of being a staircase to salvation, it was an unattainable standard. Working in cooperation with the Promise of Christ, it exposed the need for Christ.
3) The Law for the people of old was a basic or elementary principle (4:3) and incomplete apart from Christ. The people of old eventually perverted the pedagogical purpose of the Law and made it into a slave-driver, thus making them slaves to something that was not God (4:8). It would thus seem ridiculous that anyone would return to the Law when it was never meant to lead anywhere but Christ (4:9). The Law apart from its fulfillment becomes mere paganism with its vacuous religion and hollow hopes.
4) Christ took the curse of the Law upon Himself, inheriting the blessing that came through perfect fulfillment for His people (Gal. 4:4-5). Christ was born with full humanity and under the full dominion of the law (v.4) in order to salvage/redeem humans born under the full weight of the law (v.5).
5) As the Law has been fulfilled in Christ, it is impossible to return it as a mode of religion (Gal. 5:3-4). All who seek salvation by the Law becomes its debtor (v.3), and thus demonstrate separation from Christ and grace (v.4). The Law, in a certain sense, has become obsolete (at least as it guides one to salvation) and brings only condemnation apart from Christ. Why would anyone stand before the judgment seat of God without Christ the Mediator? He bore the great hammer-stroke of justice so His people would not have to and be damned.
The man assuming the position of Christ over the Church sits upon a throne of lies. He advocates measures that would beautify an ugly humanity, thus making them more complacent as judgment nears. Not only is this unbiblical, ungodly, and outright heresy--it is an inhumane travesty that must be fought with every bit of sweat and tears that Christians can muster--knowing the beauty of calling men to God, rather than calling men "God."
Perhaps Jesus' most pointed words came in Matthew 23:27--"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean." Paul, the last apostle of Jesus, took this zeal for the majesty of God and His law upon his own lips. When the Judaizers followed Paul around from city to city, telling the new Christian babes that they also needed to be circumcised and abide by certain customs as well as following Christ, Paul thundered "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal. 5:12). This language seems shocking to the weak-kneed, teary-eyed Church in the present day, but the Lord and His appointed apostles didn't take the manipulation of the Gospel lightly--and neither should the present Church.
In the present measure of the "Pope" to add to the list of "mortal" sins in order to increase the general awareness of sin and compel more people into confession, one finds another example of Pharisaism at its worst. This man takes upon himself the role of apostle, though that line ended with Paul, and thus feels the liberty to take from or add to God's Holy Word, against the specific prohibition of such treachery against the King in the final chapter of Scripture. This measure will work against this man's aim in this case, as such a hierarchy of sins and surrounding rules serve merely to make the self-righteous more content in their sin and the dregs of society more lethargic in their hopelessness. Is God's law to be used in such a way as to provide a means for salvation and sin-avoidance?
1) It would be futile to argue that the Mosaic Law did not abide by a works principle (Gal. 3:6-12). What was the purpose of this principle though? In Galatians 3:8, Paul makes clear that faith was always required for salvation; in 3:10, he shows that all live by the law live under its curse.
2) That works principle was never meant for salvation (Gal. 3:15-29). The Law given to Moses didn't set aside the gracious Promise already given to Abraham (3:17), but was rather a written tutor, pointing the way to Christ (3:24--the phrase "put in charge" refers to a pedagogue, or teach, in the Greek). It fulfilled this purpose by driving man to his knees. Instead of being a staircase to salvation, it was an unattainable standard. Working in cooperation with the Promise of Christ, it exposed the need for Christ.
3) The Law for the people of old was a basic or elementary principle (4:3) and incomplete apart from Christ. The people of old eventually perverted the pedagogical purpose of the Law and made it into a slave-driver, thus making them slaves to something that was not God (4:8). It would thus seem ridiculous that anyone would return to the Law when it was never meant to lead anywhere but Christ (4:9). The Law apart from its fulfillment becomes mere paganism with its vacuous religion and hollow hopes.
4) Christ took the curse of the Law upon Himself, inheriting the blessing that came through perfect fulfillment for His people (Gal. 4:4-5). Christ was born with full humanity and under the full dominion of the law (v.4) in order to salvage/redeem humans born under the full weight of the law (v.5).
5) As the Law has been fulfilled in Christ, it is impossible to return it as a mode of religion (Gal. 5:3-4). All who seek salvation by the Law becomes its debtor (v.3), and thus demonstrate separation from Christ and grace (v.4). The Law, in a certain sense, has become obsolete (at least as it guides one to salvation) and brings only condemnation apart from Christ. Why would anyone stand before the judgment seat of God without Christ the Mediator? He bore the great hammer-stroke of justice so His people would not have to and be damned.
The man assuming the position of Christ over the Church sits upon a throne of lies. He advocates measures that would beautify an ugly humanity, thus making them more complacent as judgment nears. Not only is this unbiblical, ungodly, and outright heresy--it is an inhumane travesty that must be fought with every bit of sweat and tears that Christians can muster--knowing the beauty of calling men to God, rather than calling men "God."
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Dealing with Death
I walked into my associate pastor's office a while ago to collect my completed internship forms. We spoke warmly of my time at New Life--my real Church home. As that conversation slowly dissipated, I broached a new topic: "Kevin, how do pastors deal with death? I grieve so much over the loss of the church family members, and I don't know how it will ever get easier."
Of course, at the forefront of my thoughts was Sandra Wagner--a woman who virtually has defined the concept of a godly woman for me. Kevin told me that he has not had too much experience with this in his few years of pastoring, but he knew what I had in mind--"This one...it really hurts." Our head pastor, with choked-up voice, led the congregation in prayer this past Sunday, and apparently there was not a dry eye in the house. The people who know Sandra have blinked back tears all week. It hurts so much.
When I first came to New Life in 2005, I quickly fell in love with the Wagner family. Coming from a spiritually-broken family in a culture of spiritually-broken families, I marveled at this family-encapsulated testament to God's covenantal faithfulness. They would sit together--the happily-married (of some 50 years), Dan and Sandra, and their three kids and each of their spouses, and a host of little grandkids. God really blesses the generations of His people.
Sandra also epitomizes the "godly woman" to me. Within the Church, she participated, prayed, and produced. It is those women--those stereotypical prayer warriors--who make the Church whole. Ministries seem incomplete without their labors of love; days seem incomplete without their encouragement. When the individual sinner is unable to lift both feeble hands in prayer to God Almighty, their persistent prayers lift them in a symbolic way.
Contrast the covenantal blessings of our God and the godliness of His servant, Sandra, with the ugly spectre of death. It is no wonder that Jesus wept and raged at the death of Lazarus. Sure, resurrection awaits, but the beauty of God's creation seems utterly wasted under the temporal reign of death. This is NOT the way it is supposed to be. And every person knows how very out of place death is to us. It is expected, but it is not natural. The whole creation groans under the weight of this knowledge--waiting for the eternal relief that comes with Christ. Thus we labor forth in the valley of the shadow of death, knowing that on that distant hill, light breaks.
Of course, at the forefront of my thoughts was Sandra Wagner--a woman who virtually has defined the concept of a godly woman for me. Kevin told me that he has not had too much experience with this in his few years of pastoring, but he knew what I had in mind--"This one...it really hurts." Our head pastor, with choked-up voice, led the congregation in prayer this past Sunday, and apparently there was not a dry eye in the house. The people who know Sandra have blinked back tears all week. It hurts so much.
When I first came to New Life in 2005, I quickly fell in love with the Wagner family. Coming from a spiritually-broken family in a culture of spiritually-broken families, I marveled at this family-encapsulated testament to God's covenantal faithfulness. They would sit together--the happily-married (of some 50 years), Dan and Sandra, and their three kids and each of their spouses, and a host of little grandkids. God really blesses the generations of His people.
Sandra also epitomizes the "godly woman" to me. Within the Church, she participated, prayed, and produced. It is those women--those stereotypical prayer warriors--who make the Church whole. Ministries seem incomplete without their labors of love; days seem incomplete without their encouragement. When the individual sinner is unable to lift both feeble hands in prayer to God Almighty, their persistent prayers lift them in a symbolic way.
Contrast the covenantal blessings of our God and the godliness of His servant, Sandra, with the ugly spectre of death. It is no wonder that Jesus wept and raged at the death of Lazarus. Sure, resurrection awaits, but the beauty of God's creation seems utterly wasted under the temporal reign of death. This is NOT the way it is supposed to be. And every person knows how very out of place death is to us. It is expected, but it is not natural. The whole creation groans under the weight of this knowledge--waiting for the eternal relief that comes with Christ. Thus we labor forth in the valley of the shadow of death, knowing that on that distant hill, light breaks.
Romans 8:28-39
28 And we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him--who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his son, that he might be the firstborn of many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. 31 What then shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32 He who did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that--was raised to life, sits at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written, "For your sake we face death all day long. We are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."
37 No! In all these things we are more than conquerers through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, angels nor demons, present nor future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Beautiful in so many ways.
32 He who did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that--was raised to life, sits at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written, "For your sake we face death all day long. We are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."
37 No! In all these things we are more than conquerers through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, angels nor demons, present nor future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Beautiful in so many ways.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Where, O death, is thy sting?
Earlier this year, my church was saddened to learn of the loss of Maria Hougesen. This lady was a prayer warrior and constant encouragement. Though wheelchair bound and often in pain, she would always want to offer fellow congregants (like myself) a word of encouragement and remind them that she was praying for them. In her frailty, the brutality of a fallen world was fully exposed and the resurrection of the body became more than an abstract doctrine. She now sings and dances amongst the angels.
And now my church steadies herself for the loss of another mighty woman of prayer. Sandra Wagner, wife of some 50 years to the Westminster librarian, Dan Wagner, is in the last stage of her fight against cancer and race of life. Sandra and Dan are the most admirable of people--married for 50 years and still full of compassion, tenderness, and love to each other and to all others within their reach. Their three children are all married and have children--they go to the same church as Sandra and Dan. Three generations of Wagners sitting in one place always proved emblematic of God's covenantal faithfulness.
Sandra was a regular member of the church choir, and helped to anchor the alto section. In practices, she was always ready with a prayer request for a grandchild or homeless friend. It was a bit shocking one evening to hear her ask for prayer for upcoming tests. The tests came and the cancer was revealed. Chemotherapy started, the handkerchief was donned, and the body started to be sapped of strength. In about a year's time, the suspicion of cancer has evolved into an inevitable demise.
When one looks upon a child, he sees the image of the child's parents--particularly the mother. A responsible child is a product of a mother's loving discipline; a faith-borne child of God is a product of a Christian mother's power of love and nurture. This is said, not to undermine God's sovereignty, but to recognize that His sovereignty in caring for covenantal children is often conducted and displayed through Christian women. Through these women, God builds and blesses his Church. As was true with Maria, Sandra has children who walk with the Lord.
Death is both the great leveler and divider of humanity. On the one hand, as the writer of Ecclesiastes notes, no amount of wisdom, wealth, or work will make anyone less mortal. Death comes and robs all of their earthly possessions. On the other hand, death finds itself robbed of its power for the Christian. Instead of ending whatever vestiges of peace are attained in this world and ushering a person into the hellish confines of an eternity apart from God, death is used by God to usher the Christian into eternal life. Even death is His servant! It is the final sanctifying stage for the person born anew in Christ Jesus, in which the agonies of child birth gives way to the beauty of seeing the heavenly lights for the first time.
And now my church steadies herself for the loss of another mighty woman of prayer. Sandra Wagner, wife of some 50 years to the Westminster librarian, Dan Wagner, is in the last stage of her fight against cancer and race of life. Sandra and Dan are the most admirable of people--married for 50 years and still full of compassion, tenderness, and love to each other and to all others within their reach. Their three children are all married and have children--they go to the same church as Sandra and Dan. Three generations of Wagners sitting in one place always proved emblematic of God's covenantal faithfulness.
Sandra was a regular member of the church choir, and helped to anchor the alto section. In practices, she was always ready with a prayer request for a grandchild or homeless friend. It was a bit shocking one evening to hear her ask for prayer for upcoming tests. The tests came and the cancer was revealed. Chemotherapy started, the handkerchief was donned, and the body started to be sapped of strength. In about a year's time, the suspicion of cancer has evolved into an inevitable demise.
When one looks upon a child, he sees the image of the child's parents--particularly the mother. A responsible child is a product of a mother's loving discipline; a faith-borne child of God is a product of a Christian mother's power of love and nurture. This is said, not to undermine God's sovereignty, but to recognize that His sovereignty in caring for covenantal children is often conducted and displayed through Christian women. Through these women, God builds and blesses his Church. As was true with Maria, Sandra has children who walk with the Lord.
Death is both the great leveler and divider of humanity. On the one hand, as the writer of Ecclesiastes notes, no amount of wisdom, wealth, or work will make anyone less mortal. Death comes and robs all of their earthly possessions. On the other hand, death finds itself robbed of its power for the Christian. Instead of ending whatever vestiges of peace are attained in this world and ushering a person into the hellish confines of an eternity apart from God, death is used by God to usher the Christian into eternal life. Even death is His servant! It is the final sanctifying stage for the person born anew in Christ Jesus, in which the agonies of child birth gives way to the beauty of seeing the heavenly lights for the first time.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Equalist Paradigm
The role of human governance seems to be approached from two different angles--one collectivist and the other opportunist. The collectivist approach draws upon utilitarianism, in which the end of the "greater good" justifies whichever means are deemed necessary for implementation of such an end. This approach gained momentum 20th century America and naturally leads to a socialist or communist system of government. In this approach, individual value and freedom are denigrated for the sake of maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
The opportunist approach, on the other hand, draws upon no greater good than that offered to each individual. Opportunity is exalted above all other values, and naturally follows a sort of social Darwinism in which the stronger rise to the top while the weaker are crushed. This approach was prominent at points in 19th century America, and followed to its logical extreme, produces fascism in the mold of Hitler. In its lesser form, it may be seen in an unrestrained capitalism.
Both biblical and natural principles militate against each approach. The City of Man, as erected in Genesis 4, is given the task of just governance with the limitation of not encroaching upon the prerogatives or rights of Church (in Old Testament seed form), family (of which the city arises), or individual. In Romans 13, the City is given a renewed mandate to bear the sword of justice.
The Declaration of Independence, informed by a plethora of influences, declared certain rights to be inalienable: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that there is no guarantee of liberty in a vacuum, apart from the others; neither is there a guarantee of happiness in itself.
With risk of being foolish for the sake of innovation, I would like to propose the "Equalist Paradigm" as the biblical and natural view of ideal human governance. This paradigm is an expression of the just pursuit of equal opportunity. The individual and institution are each allowed semi-absolute freedom to pursue their desired end, as long as it doesn't encroach upon the rights of other individuals and institutions. The goal is never equality or opportunity in a vacuum. Both are idolatrous virtues of different eras. The sword given the state is for justice, not for benevolence or favoritism; leveling the field or obliterating the weak.
In the collectivist approach, individuals and institutions are given value solely in their relation to the state. The political system of pure socialism highlights the evil in this approach. In the socialist scheme, the state takes upon herself the properties of the Church and ultimately seeks to vanquish the Church as her strategic competitor. Individuals are not viewed as inherently valuable and are not allowed to pursue their own end (say, glorifying God), but are as useful and valuable as needed by the state--then disposable.
In the opportunist approach, strong individuals and institutions are given absolute value, thus relativizing those individuals and institutions that are weaker. This system inevitably leads to social Darwinism and fascism. If the absolute value of the strong is threatened or contradicted, those with relative value are diminished or destroyed. As with the collectivist approach, the power of the sword is abused and manipulated in this system.
All this to say--governmental philosophies, propositions, and policies must be carefully scrutinized. There is no inherent right to equal results--do some policies aim for that? What are the risks of such policies? There is no inherent right to unrestrained opportunity (as it comes to impact others)--do some policies aim for that? What are the risks of such policies? God laid the groundwork for such questions when He implemented the state, and the the Founding Fathers considered such questions as they founded the American state. Are those questions still prevalent today? The answer to that question is likely negative, which is horrifying.
The opportunist approach, on the other hand, draws upon no greater good than that offered to each individual. Opportunity is exalted above all other values, and naturally follows a sort of social Darwinism in which the stronger rise to the top while the weaker are crushed. This approach was prominent at points in 19th century America, and followed to its logical extreme, produces fascism in the mold of Hitler. In its lesser form, it may be seen in an unrestrained capitalism.
Both biblical and natural principles militate against each approach. The City of Man, as erected in Genesis 4, is given the task of just governance with the limitation of not encroaching upon the prerogatives or rights of Church (in Old Testament seed form), family (of which the city arises), or individual. In Romans 13, the City is given a renewed mandate to bear the sword of justice.
The Declaration of Independence, informed by a plethora of influences, declared certain rights to be inalienable: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that there is no guarantee of liberty in a vacuum, apart from the others; neither is there a guarantee of happiness in itself.
With risk of being foolish for the sake of innovation, I would like to propose the "Equalist Paradigm" as the biblical and natural view of ideal human governance. This paradigm is an expression of the just pursuit of equal opportunity. The individual and institution are each allowed semi-absolute freedom to pursue their desired end, as long as it doesn't encroach upon the rights of other individuals and institutions. The goal is never equality or opportunity in a vacuum. Both are idolatrous virtues of different eras. The sword given the state is for justice, not for benevolence or favoritism; leveling the field or obliterating the weak.
In the collectivist approach, individuals and institutions are given value solely in their relation to the state. The political system of pure socialism highlights the evil in this approach. In the socialist scheme, the state takes upon herself the properties of the Church and ultimately seeks to vanquish the Church as her strategic competitor. Individuals are not viewed as inherently valuable and are not allowed to pursue their own end (say, glorifying God), but are as useful and valuable as needed by the state--then disposable.
In the opportunist approach, strong individuals and institutions are given absolute value, thus relativizing those individuals and institutions that are weaker. This system inevitably leads to social Darwinism and fascism. If the absolute value of the strong is threatened or contradicted, those with relative value are diminished or destroyed. As with the collectivist approach, the power of the sword is abused and manipulated in this system.
All this to say--governmental philosophies, propositions, and policies must be carefully scrutinized. There is no inherent right to equal results--do some policies aim for that? What are the risks of such policies? There is no inherent right to unrestrained opportunity (as it comes to impact others)--do some policies aim for that? What are the risks of such policies? God laid the groundwork for such questions when He implemented the state, and the the Founding Fathers considered such questions as they founded the American state. Are those questions still prevalent today? The answer to that question is likely negative, which is horrifying.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
William F. Buckley (1925-2008)
In the middle of the twentieth century, freedom-lovers in America found their hope on the verge of extinction. The modernist malaise threatened to sweep away the freedom of individuals, families, businesses, and the Church in its murky gray tide. The editors of National Review called this "the inexorable collectivist tide." When William F. Buckley launched the National Review in 1955 at age 29, he said that he hoped to "stand athwart history, yelling 'stop'!" Many had gotten lost in the modern utopian dream without questioning the premises it stood upon or the means with which it was trying to reach its idyllic end.
The conservative political ideology, though claiming the mantle of tradition, is relatively young. Early in the twentieth century, political philosophers like Russell Kirk and Frank Meyer, as well as German economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek, ushered in the intellectual seeds of which the conservative ideology would grow. These men represented the philosophical wave. Later, economist Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley made compelling public cases for the conservative ideology. They were the leaders of the popular wave. Finally, after Barry Goldwater's earlier loss in the race for President, Ronald Reagan swept into office in 1980. This marked the beginning of the successful political wave, also represented in the "Contract with America" in 1994 and the subsequent takeover of Congress by Republicans.
But of all these men, a compelling case could be made for Buckley as the most pivotal figure. He took the theories to the press, and using his incredible intellect and wit, used the press to tailor public opinion and usher in the conservative political age. The evils of socialism and its tyranny over all natural freedoms endowed to man, family, and Church has been delayed from its "inevitable" triumph over the American "experiment". If in the coming decades an overbearing government becomes the caretaker of human hearts and souls, it will do so only because the brilliant Buckley is no longer able to "stand athwart history." If Americans are wise and grateful for their freedoms, they will gladly make his legacy their continuing cause.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Doctrine Divides?
One of the most delightful of slogans to proclaim as a hip, young Christian is that "doctrine divides." If only individual denominations stopped being so nit-picky on matters of doctrine, then the consequent unity would streamline the power of the Church in the world and enable the Kingdom of God to really start growing!
The power of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution on the American mind is incredible. It is from these documents that American governance is maintained and a degree of identity is gained. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" initiated the document that brought vitality to this once-subjugated colony. In a treatise describing the perceived nature of humanity and human governance, life was brought to a new nation. Even so, that life lacked governance. Thus, the U.S. Constitution provided the rule by which Americans were to live. They united and continue to unite under its proclamations, and even moderate attempts to amend it are often squashed. The life of America is found in her Declaration of Independence, and her unity and identity is found in her Constitution.
Is there perhaps some indirect correlation between these documents with much more ancient ones? In no way was America ever a Christian nation, but did she draw her inspiration for cohesive documents from the ancient models of Holy Scripture and the creeds and confessions. It is these documents, the former God-breathed and the latter the expression of collective Church wisdom, that Christians find their unity and identity. In the Bible, one finds life in the very Word of God. The Bible, in all of its doctrines, brings to life and animates the people of God is the most fundamental sense. Upon this foundation, the creeds and confessions of the Church emphatically declare their allegiance with one voice, and thus the Church is given a systematized rule of law derived from Scripture.
Drawing this all together, those who seek to undermine the doctrinal core of Christianity are really emptying Christianity of its content and eroding the foundation of the people they hope to unite and equip. They are merely trading one unity--that of a house upon a solid foundation, for another--that of an amorphous blob with no support, identity, or direction. It is from God's Word primarily, and the Church's collected reflection secondarily, that the people of God are truly the people of God. Why do Americans understand this principle so much better than Christians? Perhaps common grace is much more palatable than the grace which offers true hope, even to many Christians.
The power of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution on the American mind is incredible. It is from these documents that American governance is maintained and a degree of identity is gained. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" initiated the document that brought vitality to this once-subjugated colony. In a treatise describing the perceived nature of humanity and human governance, life was brought to a new nation. Even so, that life lacked governance. Thus, the U.S. Constitution provided the rule by which Americans were to live. They united and continue to unite under its proclamations, and even moderate attempts to amend it are often squashed. The life of America is found in her Declaration of Independence, and her unity and identity is found in her Constitution.
Is there perhaps some indirect correlation between these documents with much more ancient ones? In no way was America ever a Christian nation, but did she draw her inspiration for cohesive documents from the ancient models of Holy Scripture and the creeds and confessions. It is these documents, the former God-breathed and the latter the expression of collective Church wisdom, that Christians find their unity and identity. In the Bible, one finds life in the very Word of God. The Bible, in all of its doctrines, brings to life and animates the people of God is the most fundamental sense. Upon this foundation, the creeds and confessions of the Church emphatically declare their allegiance with one voice, and thus the Church is given a systematized rule of law derived from Scripture.
Drawing this all together, those who seek to undermine the doctrinal core of Christianity are really emptying Christianity of its content and eroding the foundation of the people they hope to unite and equip. They are merely trading one unity--that of a house upon a solid foundation, for another--that of an amorphous blob with no support, identity, or direction. It is from God's Word primarily, and the Church's collected reflection secondarily, that the people of God are truly the people of God. Why do Americans understand this principle so much better than Christians? Perhaps common grace is much more palatable than the grace which offers true hope, even to many Christians.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Black Coffee and Pain
On most mornings, I like my coffee black. And pain...I like pain. When I drink alcohol, I opt for shots rather than mixed drinks or beer because I'd rather down my poison in one manly gulp than reflect between dainty sips on why masculinity as so often associated with the disgusting and distasteful. I often get mad at men who call fouls when playing a sport, because they seem like weenies to me. If one feels like he got hit too hard on the last play, he'll have the opportunity to dish it out in return sooner or later.
These are not objective observations, hence the first-person narratival format. They do provide a keen insight into my own mind, and perhaps the mind of others as well. I am sick of the mundane; the normal; the mediocre. Yet somehow I am still Reformed. Yes...the same worldview that believes God's primary means of grace to be those "ordinary" elements of the Word and sacraments and somehow attracts an inordinate number of spectacle-clad nerds...that is the worldview of this edgy extremist.
The world often bores me, so I turn it into an adventure. Power and pleasure make for hollow pursuits, and only the understanding of history offered in the Bible is compelling in the least. I must always be the hero in the final throes of life, and my damsel must exhibit distress per the stereotype. "Weird" and "quirky" become my two favorite (though bland) adjectives, as they innately describe those things and people that are set apart in my estimation.
ADD overtakes me at every turn--in the classroom, church, and conversation. Even when the subject matter in these things is compelling, I always simultaneously partake of the experience and scan the horizon for some grand overarching metanarrative that imbues life and individual experiences with greater meaning. My favorite mental term growing up was "suddenly," and I would attach that term to my inner-monologue throughout the day--most days--so as to make that next step more exciting.
And now I have the most wonderful of jobs and the most wonderful of ladies. My job is the ministry of the Word--where I get to speak on God's behalf to His people every Sunday. God divinely opens and closes hearts through my humble messengering, and that thought is invigorating. When a church drop-out dropped-in to my event this past Friday night, I cornered him and told him that I would always be accessible to him, though he was complete stranger. He was at church this morning. I like people who view church as something more than a routine.
My girlfriend--here called "L"--is the most wonderfully-weird person I know. She is additionally wonderful to accept my bizarre adjective with the positive connotations with which it is infused. She is a mystery that the mind cannot fully comprehend--a sillouette in the lighted doorway. She makes conversation an extraordinary experience, for her quirkiness fills out that empty space often residing alongside the normal, dreary activities of life.
The two greatest things I know--the power of God in His Word and the power of love--are such because they fill out the empty space. In each (though the latter is certainly subordinate to the former), words have power and meaning. Abstractions and ideals are personified. Each provides its own backdrop to the primary storyline at the forefront. Both project the human heart beyond the plane of normalcy to that of progressive revelation (to borrow a friend's recent term)--one as a window into the Divine plan and the other as a mirror. They suggest that there is more to life then the bland and boring--and much more than that offered even by black coffee and pain.
These are not objective observations, hence the first-person narratival format. They do provide a keen insight into my own mind, and perhaps the mind of others as well. I am sick of the mundane; the normal; the mediocre. Yet somehow I am still Reformed. Yes...the same worldview that believes God's primary means of grace to be those "ordinary" elements of the Word and sacraments and somehow attracts an inordinate number of spectacle-clad nerds...that is the worldview of this edgy extremist.
The world often bores me, so I turn it into an adventure. Power and pleasure make for hollow pursuits, and only the understanding of history offered in the Bible is compelling in the least. I must always be the hero in the final throes of life, and my damsel must exhibit distress per the stereotype. "Weird" and "quirky" become my two favorite (though bland) adjectives, as they innately describe those things and people that are set apart in my estimation.
ADD overtakes me at every turn--in the classroom, church, and conversation. Even when the subject matter in these things is compelling, I always simultaneously partake of the experience and scan the horizon for some grand overarching metanarrative that imbues life and individual experiences with greater meaning. My favorite mental term growing up was "suddenly," and I would attach that term to my inner-monologue throughout the day--most days--so as to make that next step more exciting.
And now I have the most wonderful of jobs and the most wonderful of ladies. My job is the ministry of the Word--where I get to speak on God's behalf to His people every Sunday. God divinely opens and closes hearts through my humble messengering, and that thought is invigorating. When a church drop-out dropped-in to my event this past Friday night, I cornered him and told him that I would always be accessible to him, though he was complete stranger. He was at church this morning. I like people who view church as something more than a routine.
My girlfriend--here called "L"--is the most wonderfully-weird person I know. She is additionally wonderful to accept my bizarre adjective with the positive connotations with which it is infused. She is a mystery that the mind cannot fully comprehend--a sillouette in the lighted doorway. She makes conversation an extraordinary experience, for her quirkiness fills out that empty space often residing alongside the normal, dreary activities of life.
The two greatest things I know--the power of God in His Word and the power of love--are such because they fill out the empty space. In each (though the latter is certainly subordinate to the former), words have power and meaning. Abstractions and ideals are personified. Each provides its own backdrop to the primary storyline at the forefront. Both project the human heart beyond the plane of normalcy to that of progressive revelation (to borrow a friend's recent term)--one as a window into the Divine plan and the other as a mirror. They suggest that there is more to life then the bland and boring--and much more than that offered even by black coffee and pain.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The World's Longest (but Helpful) Post
God and Human Knowledge--Stephen Roberts
An Essay Prepared for Josophat Mwale Theological Institute, Based on a Lecture Given on 20-06-07
Why should we talk about human knowledge in relation to theology? Is not human knowledge more of a philosophical concept? Yes it is, and that is why we must speak of it. In a certain sense, philosophy precedes theology. First of all, when we speak of God, we do not speak as mindless beings who merely create our own reality. We speak as those who are confident in their ability to make a claim about truth. Second, we must know why we believe what we believe. Thus, we are told in 1 Peter 3:15 “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” If we don’t establish why we believe something, no one will really care what it is that we believe.
These initial comments may still seem a bit abstract, so we shall talk about it on a more practical level. Let us examine these three statements:
I think that Jesus Christ is Lord.
I feel that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Jesus Christ is Lord.
Which of these three statements do you find to be the most compelling? In other words, if you were a non-Christian and somebody came to you to share the Gospel, which one of these statements would you find most effective? We would all agree that the final statement is the best, for it demonstrates a certainty in the heart of the person who shares such a statement. It isn’t presented as a matter of opinion, but of truth.
When I was in Malawi last summer, I had the opportunity to share the Gospel with some families in the small village of Dzuwa, north of Lilongwe. At one home, my friend asked a family if they any hope of heaven after death, and the wife immediately responded, “No, because I am a sinner.” By God’s grace, this family all came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ that day. Notice that this woman did not say “I think” or “I feel” with regard to her sin, but “I am a sinner.” It was much easier for us to share a certain hope to one who had a certain conviction of sin. Do you see why it is important to know why you believe what you believe? If you don’t know why—your faith has no foundation or claim to truth.
If the importance of this discussion as not been made clear yet, let me put it in the strongest terms: If you present the Gospel as something that you think to be logical, or feel to meaningful, you may win converts—but not to Christianity. You are only calling them to believe something as logical or meaningful, not something that is true. The problem today is that many people share the hope that they have, but not the reason for that hope as 1 Peter 3:15 calls us to do. What is the reason for our hope, and how are we able to share that reason?
Let us look first at two terms that might seem a bit intimidating, but will quickly become understandable: archetypal and ectypal knowledge. Does that first word bear a resemblance to any words you know? How about the term architect? An architect is one who draws plans for how something is to be created. For every building that you see, you know that there first was a set of blueprints that outlined how the building was supposed to be built. With that in mind, when you think of an archetype, you should think of that original plan—the perfect model that is later copied. An ectype, on the other hand, is the copy of that plan. Likewise, when you speak of archetypal knowledge, you are speaking of the knowledge of the architect of this world: God. When you speak of ectypal knowledge, you are speaking of the knowledge of those created in image: man.
This understanding of knowledge leaves us with several problems that must be resolved. First, the ectypal knowledge given to man in Creation has become corrupted by sin. As a result, the only we can have as human beings is that which condemns us and leaves us without excuse (Rom. 1). Second, if we are left only with this corrupted knowledge, is it possible for us to know anything as true?
These questions have plagued man throughout history, and have evoked various responses from different philosophers. Perhaps the most important philosopher, and the one we shall discuss briefly here, is Plato. Plato believed there to be a ladder extending from the perfect form (God) and the copies (man). As the unity and spirit of this perfect form deteriorates into diversity and matter, it loses its beauty and purity. As you can see, Plato viewed a distinction between the archetype (God) and ectype (man), but he did not view the distinction as absolute. By that I mean that Plato did not believe God and man to be fundamentally different in essence, but only different by degree. The difference between God and man was qualitative, not quantitative.
As Christians, we thoroughly disagree with Plato’s model. Although God created us in His image, we can never be like God. This desire to be like God actually led to the first sin by our parents in the Garden of Eden. It was God who created man out of the dust; It was Satan who told created man that he could be like God. Instead, Christians maintain that there is an absolute distinction between the Creator and the creature. There is no ladder, but only an inseparable gulf.
From the time of Plato until now, most philosophers have used his ladder as the fundamental model for human knowledge. On the one hand, you had those who believed they could climb Plato’s ladder. For example, “realists” believed that human beings could climb Plato’s ladder and know reality absolutely. In later days, two types of realism emerged: rationalism and mysticism. Rationalists believed that the human intellect could conquer all knowledge and know things as God knows them. Mystics believed that through meditation, the human mind could ascend to God and see the truths that normally lay hidden. You are likely familiar with this latter group, as many here who engage in tribal witchcraft believe that they can gain access to the things of God through their substances and rituals.
On the other hand, you had those who believed in Plato’s ladder, but didn’t think it was possible to climb it. Many of these were called “nominalists”, and they believed that it was not possible to know reality beyond the names we give to things. In contrast to the realists, who believed that a human could know exactly what a “tree” is and everything about that tree, the nominalists believed that “tree” is only a name invented by man, and that there is nothing we can know of the reality of a tree. In other words, those who tried to climb Plato’s ladder through human history believed that man could have the same knowledge as God, while those who thought the ladder to be impossible to climb consequently thought that human beings could have no true knowledge.
This type of dilemma still confronts us all over the world in our day. In recent centuries, “modernism” has replaced realism as an attempt to know absolute truth. Modernists believe that truths can be proven without a doubt—for example, 1+1=2. Likewise, “postmodernism” has replaced nominalism as an attempt to destroy any possibility of knowing absolute truth. According to the postmodernist, all things we believe to be reality are simply matters of opinion. You may say the sky is blue, and I may say it is white, and neither of us is able to tell the other that he is wrong.
So where does Christian faith fit amongst these two opposing lines of thought? The modernist will ridicule your faith because he doesn’t believe that your faith can be proven. Of course, his standard for proof is in many ways a matter of opinion as well. The postmodernist will be largely apathetic about your faith. To him, your faith is simply a matter of opinion, and everybody has opinions, and all opinions are equally good, so why pay special attention to yours? In other words, who cares?
Both the modernist and postmodernist follow the thinking of a famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant, when they think about faith. In order to protect faith from the scrutiny of other philosophers, Kant created a special island of insanity where faith could live on its own terms without being subjected to the tests and rigors of science. As a result, the modernists considered their case closed because faith could not be proven, and later, postmodernists simply ignored the island of faith while creating their own islands of opinion.
We of course don’t subscribe to this fundamental distinction between faith and knowledge. Christian belief isn’t a mere matter of opinion, but a knowledge of something to be fact. Thus, when the inspired writers of God’s Word and of the historic creeds of the faith wrote “I believe” or “we believe”, they were not stating an opinion but an assertion of something they knew to be true.
So what exactly can Christians claim to be true? Let us use the Trinity as our example of a proper understanding of Christian knowledge. Are we able to completely explain the Trinity? Not at all! We do not have archetypal knowledge—we cannot explain what God is, or know His thoughts. As Romans 11:34 declares: “Who has known the mind of the Lord?”
In the same way, are we left without any knowledge of the Trinity whatsoever? Again—not at all. We are left merely left with ectypal knowledge; we are still able to make certain statements about the Trinity. Deuteronomy 29:29 tells us that the secret things belong to the Lord, but the revealed things belong to man. So we are left with these “revealed things” to give us knowledge, but what are these things exactly?
Let us give the answer through what Christians would describe as the Doctrine of Analogy. When we talk about an analogy, we are talking about something that is compared to something else in order to communicate a truth. When I tell you that a boy is like a man, I am telling you that a little boy bears some resemblance to a grown man, but is not exactly like that grown man. That should make perfect sense to all of us who have been both little boys at one time and grown men now.
In the same way, the Lord provides analogies to us in Scripture so that we may understand certain things as truth. When God inspired David in Psalm 23 to write “the Lord is my shepherd,” He was giving us an analogy so that we may understand something about Him. David was not saying that God walks around heaven in bare feet with a cane, but that God is like the shepherds we see in the way He cares for us. We are not able to understand how exactly God cares for us, so He tells us that it is like the shepherd we see in the fields (but certainly infinitely better!). In the same way, when the first epistle of John says that “God is love,” we understand that God in some way demonstrates love like we do, but does so perfectly whereas our love is flawed.
In conclusion, Christians can know truth, but not absolutely. Remember that “absolute truth” is not a Christian concept, but a modernist concept. We can never know things as God knows them, because we are not God. We must avoid that devilish temptation to claim that knowledge. At the same time, we are not left with the hopeless despair of those who can know nothing. In the whole of the Holy Bible, God speaks to man analogously so that we can understand something about God, ourselves, and grace. Calvin calls God’s Word “baby talk,” because God must reduce the majesty of His language in order that sinful minds may comprehend His Word. He must speak to us as a father speaks to his baby. Let us praise God for revealing Himself to us in His Word, so that we might know things with certainty—most importantly, the things that bring about our salvation from sin and death.
Helpful Resources:
Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof
Reformed Dogmatics V.1: Prolegomena by Herman Bavinck
Christianity and Eschatology by Michael Horton
Lord and Servant by Michael Horton
The Gospel in a Pluralist Society by Leslie Newbigin
The Sovereign God by James Montgomery Boice
Institutes of Christian Religion by John Calvin
Westminster Confession of Faith; Heidelberg Catechism
An Essay Prepared for Josophat Mwale Theological Institute, Based on a Lecture Given on 20-06-07
Why should we talk about human knowledge in relation to theology? Is not human knowledge more of a philosophical concept? Yes it is, and that is why we must speak of it. In a certain sense, philosophy precedes theology. First of all, when we speak of God, we do not speak as mindless beings who merely create our own reality. We speak as those who are confident in their ability to make a claim about truth. Second, we must know why we believe what we believe. Thus, we are told in 1 Peter 3:15 “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” If we don’t establish why we believe something, no one will really care what it is that we believe.
These initial comments may still seem a bit abstract, so we shall talk about it on a more practical level. Let us examine these three statements:
I think that Jesus Christ is Lord.
I feel that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Jesus Christ is Lord.
Which of these three statements do you find to be the most compelling? In other words, if you were a non-Christian and somebody came to you to share the Gospel, which one of these statements would you find most effective? We would all agree that the final statement is the best, for it demonstrates a certainty in the heart of the person who shares such a statement. It isn’t presented as a matter of opinion, but of truth.
When I was in Malawi last summer, I had the opportunity to share the Gospel with some families in the small village of Dzuwa, north of Lilongwe. At one home, my friend asked a family if they any hope of heaven after death, and the wife immediately responded, “No, because I am a sinner.” By God’s grace, this family all came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ that day. Notice that this woman did not say “I think” or “I feel” with regard to her sin, but “I am a sinner.” It was much easier for us to share a certain hope to one who had a certain conviction of sin. Do you see why it is important to know why you believe what you believe? If you don’t know why—your faith has no foundation or claim to truth.
If the importance of this discussion as not been made clear yet, let me put it in the strongest terms: If you present the Gospel as something that you think to be logical, or feel to meaningful, you may win converts—but not to Christianity. You are only calling them to believe something as logical or meaningful, not something that is true. The problem today is that many people share the hope that they have, but not the reason for that hope as 1 Peter 3:15 calls us to do. What is the reason for our hope, and how are we able to share that reason?
Let us look first at two terms that might seem a bit intimidating, but will quickly become understandable: archetypal and ectypal knowledge. Does that first word bear a resemblance to any words you know? How about the term architect? An architect is one who draws plans for how something is to be created. For every building that you see, you know that there first was a set of blueprints that outlined how the building was supposed to be built. With that in mind, when you think of an archetype, you should think of that original plan—the perfect model that is later copied. An ectype, on the other hand, is the copy of that plan. Likewise, when you speak of archetypal knowledge, you are speaking of the knowledge of the architect of this world: God. When you speak of ectypal knowledge, you are speaking of the knowledge of those created in image: man.
This understanding of knowledge leaves us with several problems that must be resolved. First, the ectypal knowledge given to man in Creation has become corrupted by sin. As a result, the only we can have as human beings is that which condemns us and leaves us without excuse (Rom. 1). Second, if we are left only with this corrupted knowledge, is it possible for us to know anything as true?
These questions have plagued man throughout history, and have evoked various responses from different philosophers. Perhaps the most important philosopher, and the one we shall discuss briefly here, is Plato. Plato believed there to be a ladder extending from the perfect form (God) and the copies (man). As the unity and spirit of this perfect form deteriorates into diversity and matter, it loses its beauty and purity. As you can see, Plato viewed a distinction between the archetype (God) and ectype (man), but he did not view the distinction as absolute. By that I mean that Plato did not believe God and man to be fundamentally different in essence, but only different by degree. The difference between God and man was qualitative, not quantitative.
As Christians, we thoroughly disagree with Plato’s model. Although God created us in His image, we can never be like God. This desire to be like God actually led to the first sin by our parents in the Garden of Eden. It was God who created man out of the dust; It was Satan who told created man that he could be like God. Instead, Christians maintain that there is an absolute distinction between the Creator and the creature. There is no ladder, but only an inseparable gulf.
From the time of Plato until now, most philosophers have used his ladder as the fundamental model for human knowledge. On the one hand, you had those who believed they could climb Plato’s ladder. For example, “realists” believed that human beings could climb Plato’s ladder and know reality absolutely. In later days, two types of realism emerged: rationalism and mysticism. Rationalists believed that the human intellect could conquer all knowledge and know things as God knows them. Mystics believed that through meditation, the human mind could ascend to God and see the truths that normally lay hidden. You are likely familiar with this latter group, as many here who engage in tribal witchcraft believe that they can gain access to the things of God through their substances and rituals.
On the other hand, you had those who believed in Plato’s ladder, but didn’t think it was possible to climb it. Many of these were called “nominalists”, and they believed that it was not possible to know reality beyond the names we give to things. In contrast to the realists, who believed that a human could know exactly what a “tree” is and everything about that tree, the nominalists believed that “tree” is only a name invented by man, and that there is nothing we can know of the reality of a tree. In other words, those who tried to climb Plato’s ladder through human history believed that man could have the same knowledge as God, while those who thought the ladder to be impossible to climb consequently thought that human beings could have no true knowledge.
This type of dilemma still confronts us all over the world in our day. In recent centuries, “modernism” has replaced realism as an attempt to know absolute truth. Modernists believe that truths can be proven without a doubt—for example, 1+1=2. Likewise, “postmodernism” has replaced nominalism as an attempt to destroy any possibility of knowing absolute truth. According to the postmodernist, all things we believe to be reality are simply matters of opinion. You may say the sky is blue, and I may say it is white, and neither of us is able to tell the other that he is wrong.
So where does Christian faith fit amongst these two opposing lines of thought? The modernist will ridicule your faith because he doesn’t believe that your faith can be proven. Of course, his standard for proof is in many ways a matter of opinion as well. The postmodernist will be largely apathetic about your faith. To him, your faith is simply a matter of opinion, and everybody has opinions, and all opinions are equally good, so why pay special attention to yours? In other words, who cares?
Both the modernist and postmodernist follow the thinking of a famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant, when they think about faith. In order to protect faith from the scrutiny of other philosophers, Kant created a special island of insanity where faith could live on its own terms without being subjected to the tests and rigors of science. As a result, the modernists considered their case closed because faith could not be proven, and later, postmodernists simply ignored the island of faith while creating their own islands of opinion.
We of course don’t subscribe to this fundamental distinction between faith and knowledge. Christian belief isn’t a mere matter of opinion, but a knowledge of something to be fact. Thus, when the inspired writers of God’s Word and of the historic creeds of the faith wrote “I believe” or “we believe”, they were not stating an opinion but an assertion of something they knew to be true.
So what exactly can Christians claim to be true? Let us use the Trinity as our example of a proper understanding of Christian knowledge. Are we able to completely explain the Trinity? Not at all! We do not have archetypal knowledge—we cannot explain what God is, or know His thoughts. As Romans 11:34 declares: “Who has known the mind of the Lord?”
In the same way, are we left without any knowledge of the Trinity whatsoever? Again—not at all. We are left merely left with ectypal knowledge; we are still able to make certain statements about the Trinity. Deuteronomy 29:29 tells us that the secret things belong to the Lord, but the revealed things belong to man. So we are left with these “revealed things” to give us knowledge, but what are these things exactly?
Let us give the answer through what Christians would describe as the Doctrine of Analogy. When we talk about an analogy, we are talking about something that is compared to something else in order to communicate a truth. When I tell you that a boy is like a man, I am telling you that a little boy bears some resemblance to a grown man, but is not exactly like that grown man. That should make perfect sense to all of us who have been both little boys at one time and grown men now.
In the same way, the Lord provides analogies to us in Scripture so that we may understand certain things as truth. When God inspired David in Psalm 23 to write “the Lord is my shepherd,” He was giving us an analogy so that we may understand something about Him. David was not saying that God walks around heaven in bare feet with a cane, but that God is like the shepherds we see in the way He cares for us. We are not able to understand how exactly God cares for us, so He tells us that it is like the shepherd we see in the fields (but certainly infinitely better!). In the same way, when the first epistle of John says that “God is love,” we understand that God in some way demonstrates love like we do, but does so perfectly whereas our love is flawed.
In conclusion, Christians can know truth, but not absolutely. Remember that “absolute truth” is not a Christian concept, but a modernist concept. We can never know things as God knows them, because we are not God. We must avoid that devilish temptation to claim that knowledge. At the same time, we are not left with the hopeless despair of those who can know nothing. In the whole of the Holy Bible, God speaks to man analogously so that we can understand something about God, ourselves, and grace. Calvin calls God’s Word “baby talk,” because God must reduce the majesty of His language in order that sinful minds may comprehend His Word. He must speak to us as a father speaks to his baby. Let us praise God for revealing Himself to us in His Word, so that we might know things with certainty—most importantly, the things that bring about our salvation from sin and death.
Helpful Resources:
Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof
Reformed Dogmatics V.1: Prolegomena by Herman Bavinck
Christianity and Eschatology by Michael Horton
Lord and Servant by Michael Horton
The Gospel in a Pluralist Society by Leslie Newbigin
The Sovereign God by James Montgomery Boice
Institutes of Christian Religion by John Calvin
Westminster Confession of Faith; Heidelberg Catechism
Friday, February 22, 2008
TULIP
Adding a brief addendum to the previous post--Calvinism is the branch of Christianity which stresses God's sovereignty over all things, man's utter inability, and the ensuing need for the salvation which must necessarily be wholly provided by God. While most definitions of Calvinism are quite insufficient, the Canons of Dordt--a Dutch Confession of Faith--outlined five broad points of Calvinism with the acronym TULIP.
Before diving into the meaning of TULIP, it should be noted that like most points of Christian orthodoxy, TULIP came in response to the heretical views Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian of the late 16th and early 17th century. His followers produced the "Great Remonstrance." (as shown below)
"The Great Remonstrance published in 1610 by the Arminian clergy codified Arminius's beliefs into five major points:
Rejection of the doctrine of election
Rejection of predestination
Rejection of the belief that Christ died for the elect alone
Rejection of the belief in irresistible grace
Assertion of the belief that saints could fall from grace."
(taken from http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/armin.htm)
Thus, the five points of TULIP found in the Canons of Dordt came in direct response to this assault upon the Gospel. The following is a brief introduction to the points of TULIP:
Total Depravity: Humanity is utterly sinful and incapable of anything meritorious in God's sight. Humans are fundamentally broken, and though the Image of God is not totally lost in any person, every part of man and his work is skewed and tainted. Thus, humanity is not only in need of help when it comes to eternal life, but must be revived from the dead.
Unconditional Election: Election refers to God's choosing of a people for Himself, and this is what God does when it comes to salvation. He elects (or predestines) certain people for salvation from the beginning of time. This is great news for Christians, who know the power of sin over an enslaved humanity, because it places salvation entirely in the hands of the only One with the power to bring life.
Limited Atonement: This is often the hardest point to swallow for Christians, though it is true nonetheless. Jesus Christ did not come for all people--He came for His people. He died for those whom God elected from the beginning of time to save (John 3:16--For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever would believe in Him might have eternal life). Is it fair the God would create people without allowing them the opportunity for eternal life? (I used to struggle mightily with that question.) Yet what mercy it took to save some! It also is not like people theoretically lack the opportunity for salvation--the call of Christ is heard round the world. Many will never be given the faith that will overcome their obstinacy and rebellion, however. (For more on this, a coming post will be dedicated to the matter of reprobation.)
Irresistible Grace: While the call of Christ is heard 'round the world, the call is only effectual for some. By effectual, or irresistible, what is meant is that this call for those whom God has chosen is absolutely undeniable. One may resist with all of his or her might, but one cannot fight off the love lavished by God upon His people.
Perseverance of the Saints: When someone truly comes to saving faith in Christ by God's grace, they in no way will ever be able to relinquish that saving faith. As one youth pastor in southern California notes, with today's connotations pertaining to perseverance, preservation would be a better word to use. One is never able to fall away from grace. It is impossible. Christ is the author and perfecter of a Christian's salvation--what He has started, He will finish.
So if God is entirely in control of salvation as with all other things, where does this leave the Christian in his or her impetus to share the Gospel? That question must wait until another post, but until then, remember another product of the Dutch Confessions: guilt-->grace-->gratitude.
Before diving into the meaning of TULIP, it should be noted that like most points of Christian orthodoxy, TULIP came in response to the heretical views Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian of the late 16th and early 17th century. His followers produced the "Great Remonstrance." (as shown below)
"The Great Remonstrance published in 1610 by the Arminian clergy codified Arminius's beliefs into five major points:
Rejection of the doctrine of election
Rejection of predestination
Rejection of the belief that Christ died for the elect alone
Rejection of the belief in irresistible grace
Assertion of the belief that saints could fall from grace."
(taken from http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/armin.htm)
Thus, the five points of TULIP found in the Canons of Dordt came in direct response to this assault upon the Gospel. The following is a brief introduction to the points of TULIP:
Total Depravity: Humanity is utterly sinful and incapable of anything meritorious in God's sight. Humans are fundamentally broken, and though the Image of God is not totally lost in any person, every part of man and his work is skewed and tainted. Thus, humanity is not only in need of help when it comes to eternal life, but must be revived from the dead.
Unconditional Election: Election refers to God's choosing of a people for Himself, and this is what God does when it comes to salvation. He elects (or predestines) certain people for salvation from the beginning of time. This is great news for Christians, who know the power of sin over an enslaved humanity, because it places salvation entirely in the hands of the only One with the power to bring life.
Limited Atonement: This is often the hardest point to swallow for Christians, though it is true nonetheless. Jesus Christ did not come for all people--He came for His people. He died for those whom God elected from the beginning of time to save (John 3:16--For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever would believe in Him might have eternal life). Is it fair the God would create people without allowing them the opportunity for eternal life? (I used to struggle mightily with that question.) Yet what mercy it took to save some! It also is not like people theoretically lack the opportunity for salvation--the call of Christ is heard round the world. Many will never be given the faith that will overcome their obstinacy and rebellion, however. (For more on this, a coming post will be dedicated to the matter of reprobation.)
Irresistible Grace: While the call of Christ is heard 'round the world, the call is only effectual for some. By effectual, or irresistible, what is meant is that this call for those whom God has chosen is absolutely undeniable. One may resist with all of his or her might, but one cannot fight off the love lavished by God upon His people.
Perseverance of the Saints: When someone truly comes to saving faith in Christ by God's grace, they in no way will ever be able to relinquish that saving faith. As one youth pastor in southern California notes, with today's connotations pertaining to perseverance, preservation would be a better word to use. One is never able to fall away from grace. It is impossible. Christ is the author and perfecter of a Christian's salvation--what He has started, He will finish.
So if God is entirely in control of salvation as with all other things, where does this leave the Christian in his or her impetus to share the Gospel? That question must wait until another post, but until then, remember another product of the Dutch Confessions: guilt-->grace-->gratitude.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What Does it Mean to be "Reformed?"
George Marsden, a historian of the highest rank, wrote an article entitled "Reformed and American" which sought to define "Reformed" in historical context. In that article, "Reformed" was used to describe three movements (which often overlap): doctrinalistic, pietistic, and culturalistic. While such historical studies can be quite helpful, they fail in two regards: 1) historical trends tend to describe terms much more effectively than they define them, and 2) the implication that a word can only be defined along such lines involves a certain degree of unwarranted cynicism.
The first point can be demonstrated quite easily by applying Marsden's standard to the term "Christianity." This term has meant very different things to different people spanning the globe and two thousand years of church history. The doctrinalist may think Christianity to be nothing more than a sophisticated worldview; the pietist, a moral way of life; the culturalist, a social program. Should any of these groups be considered a part of that unique redemptive religion known as Christianity? In the present day and age, there are many nominal "Christians" who label themselves as such because it is part of their culture. Should they be included in that definition of Christianity because they include themselves in the label?
Absolutely not. Christianity, according to the true Christian, is the one true religion revealed in God's Word which offers the one true hope in the one true Savior who in life and death opened the way of salvation for sinners. This definition would be considered static and objective by the true Christian. The term cannot be effectively applied to a State, culture, or way of life. To do so does violence to the meaning of the term.
The second point can be demonstrated on simple philosophical terms: If, a) a term or fact can have no objective meaning and b) can only be described in different ways by different people of different ages, then c) the way of cynical relativism and baseless skepticism is inevitable. J. Gresham Machen made this point in a different form over and over again against those adherents of Liberalism, who claimed the label of Christian, using the pragmatist argument that doctrine (facts) is merely an expression of each generation's experience. This wrong-headed logic has since extended beyond the bounds of the Church (where it did incredible damage) and spread its sickly cynicism to society-at-large. The appeal to experience is no real appeal at all.
Before this post gets bogged down in negative argumentation, a positive presentation of what Reformed means will be offered. To begin with, Reformed, as it originated in the Reformation, was used to describe the theology derived from Scripture, particularly espoused by John Calvin. This understanding of "Reformed theology" was soon cemented in the Dutch Confessions (Three Forms) and the non-continental Confessions (Westminster). Thus, three "C's" will be proferred in order to provide an accurate understanding of historical Reformed theology.
Calvinism. This primarily refers to the core beliefs of Reformed theology. One of the best expressions of Calvinism was the Reformation "solas" (Latin=only). Sola Scriptura holds that God's Word was the sole authority of the Christian for doctrine and life. Solus Christus holds that Christ is the sole mediator of salvation. Sola Gratia holds that God's grace alone can rescue sinners from death. Sola Fide holds that faith is the sole instrument through which salvation may be attained (as opposed to works in any part). Soli Deo Gloria holds that the glory of God is the sole motive and purpose of human life. These five solas stood opposed at every point to Roman Catholicism and Arminianism, both of which exalted man and denigrated God.
Confessional. Reformed theology is by nature Confessional, as the historic confessions best describe the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures. It is not merely a belief in predestination or God's sovereignty, but an entire worldview under subjection to God's Word and the confessions that present Its truths systematically.
Covenantal. Finally, Reformed theology is inherently covenantal, in that it considers God's relationship with man to always be conducted through a covenant. Thus, throughout the Scriptures God lovingly binds Himself to His people, declaring "I will be your God and you will be my people." All truth of God is revealed and mediated to man through this covenantal relationship. The eternal binding of this Covenant of Grace is of course found in the perfect life and atoning death of Christ for God's elect.
In addition to all of this, Reformed theology does not claim to be one competitor among many or simply one interpretation of Scripture, but claims to be the proper and faithful understanding of Scripture. In an age in which any claim to exclusive truth is viewed as hostile and arrogant, such a claim comes under frequent attack. Yet, if one is truly gripped by profound truths of the Gospel as they come to light in Calvinism, the confessions, and the covenants, then one is thrusted into incredible awe, wonder, and humility. Out of those truths come the piety and desire to engage the culture that is spoken of by Marsden. As Machen once remarked, Christianity rightly-understood is the "religion of the broken-hearted."
The first point can be demonstrated quite easily by applying Marsden's standard to the term "Christianity." This term has meant very different things to different people spanning the globe and two thousand years of church history. The doctrinalist may think Christianity to be nothing more than a sophisticated worldview; the pietist, a moral way of life; the culturalist, a social program. Should any of these groups be considered a part of that unique redemptive religion known as Christianity? In the present day and age, there are many nominal "Christians" who label themselves as such because it is part of their culture. Should they be included in that definition of Christianity because they include themselves in the label?
Absolutely not. Christianity, according to the true Christian, is the one true religion revealed in God's Word which offers the one true hope in the one true Savior who in life and death opened the way of salvation for sinners. This definition would be considered static and objective by the true Christian. The term cannot be effectively applied to a State, culture, or way of life. To do so does violence to the meaning of the term.
The second point can be demonstrated on simple philosophical terms: If, a) a term or fact can have no objective meaning and b) can only be described in different ways by different people of different ages, then c) the way of cynical relativism and baseless skepticism is inevitable. J. Gresham Machen made this point in a different form over and over again against those adherents of Liberalism, who claimed the label of Christian, using the pragmatist argument that doctrine (facts) is merely an expression of each generation's experience. This wrong-headed logic has since extended beyond the bounds of the Church (where it did incredible damage) and spread its sickly cynicism to society-at-large. The appeal to experience is no real appeal at all.
Before this post gets bogged down in negative argumentation, a positive presentation of what Reformed means will be offered. To begin with, Reformed, as it originated in the Reformation, was used to describe the theology derived from Scripture, particularly espoused by John Calvin. This understanding of "Reformed theology" was soon cemented in the Dutch Confessions (Three Forms) and the non-continental Confessions (Westminster). Thus, three "C's" will be proferred in order to provide an accurate understanding of historical Reformed theology.
Calvinism. This primarily refers to the core beliefs of Reformed theology. One of the best expressions of Calvinism was the Reformation "solas" (Latin=only). Sola Scriptura holds that God's Word was the sole authority of the Christian for doctrine and life. Solus Christus holds that Christ is the sole mediator of salvation. Sola Gratia holds that God's grace alone can rescue sinners from death. Sola Fide holds that faith is the sole instrument through which salvation may be attained (as opposed to works in any part). Soli Deo Gloria holds that the glory of God is the sole motive and purpose of human life. These five solas stood opposed at every point to Roman Catholicism and Arminianism, both of which exalted man and denigrated God.
Confessional. Reformed theology is by nature Confessional, as the historic confessions best describe the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures. It is not merely a belief in predestination or God's sovereignty, but an entire worldview under subjection to God's Word and the confessions that present Its truths systematically.
Covenantal. Finally, Reformed theology is inherently covenantal, in that it considers God's relationship with man to always be conducted through a covenant. Thus, throughout the Scriptures God lovingly binds Himself to His people, declaring "I will be your God and you will be my people." All truth of God is revealed and mediated to man through this covenantal relationship. The eternal binding of this Covenant of Grace is of course found in the perfect life and atoning death of Christ for God's elect.
In addition to all of this, Reformed theology does not claim to be one competitor among many or simply one interpretation of Scripture, but claims to be the proper and faithful understanding of Scripture. In an age in which any claim to exclusive truth is viewed as hostile and arrogant, such a claim comes under frequent attack. Yet, if one is truly gripped by profound truths of the Gospel as they come to light in Calvinism, the confessions, and the covenants, then one is thrusted into incredible awe, wonder, and humility. Out of those truths come the piety and desire to engage the culture that is spoken of by Marsden. As Machen once remarked, Christianity rightly-understood is the "religion of the broken-hearted."
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Delight of (a Certain Type of) Decadence
You might be considered old-fashioned if you assert that the most sexy clothing worn by the opposite sex is their winter garb. What do mittens, a stocking cap, and a scarf have to do with "sexy?" Old-fashioned fogies like yourself might retort that there is mystery in modesty, and that such mystery unlocks true beauty. How is that possible, especially for the physical beauty that depends so heavily upon sight? Well, a scrooge of clothing etiquette like yourself would reply that mystery opens the way for power, pursuit, and privilege.
In an age that virtually coerces the masses into sheer buttnakedism, an individual shows remarkable power in showing the ability to veil beauty and reveal it as one's discretion. The "right to choose" gains new meaning in this sense. The pursuit of women by men is a static feature of human relationships, but the extent of that pursuit will always be a variable. When a woman's top resembles a double-barreled water balloon launcher, about to be pulled back and let go, she makes the pursuit way too easy. As people guard their hearts and only allow their emotional vulnerability to slowly expand over time, so they must guard their bodies and only allow physical vulnerability to slowly expand over time. In prolonging the typical pursuit, romantic relationships gain a degree of privilege. The male, in his state of delayed gratification, comes to share in the female's respect for her own body and regains his own humanity in learning to care for the heart as well. The female, likewise, comes to appreciate the effort of a male to restrain his physical impulses for her sake. In keeping the proverbial princess in her tower, the male learns how to proceed with valor for the sake of his beloved and the female learns how to wait with patience for the sake of her beloved.
The power of mystery was largely lost in a 20th century modernist culture that devalued the human individual. Evil socialist impulses robbed people of their dignity and made them cogs in the societal machine. Conversely, the reigning capitalist paradigm, applied to human beings, made them as valuable as the social market dictated. Consequently, human beings were worth as much as their weight in butts, boobies, and ding dongs. In addition, the vacuous theories of Darwinism and social utilitarianism turned humans into animals and made them as valuable as the social and sexual "utilities" they offered.
Hence, the following description of certain women by Evelyn Waugh in his book The Loved One (from the 1940's) is incredibly refreshing:
"She was the standard product. A man could leave such a girl in a delicatessen shop in New York, fly three thousand miles and find her again in the cigar stall at San Francisco, just as he would find his favourite comic strip in the local paper; and she would croon the same words to him in moments of endearment and express the same views and preferences in moments of social discourse. She was convenient; but Dennis came of an earlier civilization with sharper needs. He sought the intangible, the veiled face in the fog, the silhouette at the lighted doorway, the secret graces of a body which hid itself under formal velvet. He did not covet the spoils of this rich continent, the sprawling limbs of the swimming-pool, the wide-open painted eyes and mouths under arc-lamps. But the girl who now entered was unique. Not indefinably; the appropriate distinguishing epithet leapt to Dennis's mind the moment he saw her: sole Eve in a bustling hygienic Eden, this girl was a decadent."
In an age that virtually coerces the masses into sheer buttnakedism, an individual shows remarkable power in showing the ability to veil beauty and reveal it as one's discretion. The "right to choose" gains new meaning in this sense. The pursuit of women by men is a static feature of human relationships, but the extent of that pursuit will always be a variable. When a woman's top resembles a double-barreled water balloon launcher, about to be pulled back and let go, she makes the pursuit way too easy. As people guard their hearts and only allow their emotional vulnerability to slowly expand over time, so they must guard their bodies and only allow physical vulnerability to slowly expand over time. In prolonging the typical pursuit, romantic relationships gain a degree of privilege. The male, in his state of delayed gratification, comes to share in the female's respect for her own body and regains his own humanity in learning to care for the heart as well. The female, likewise, comes to appreciate the effort of a male to restrain his physical impulses for her sake. In keeping the proverbial princess in her tower, the male learns how to proceed with valor for the sake of his beloved and the female learns how to wait with patience for the sake of her beloved.
The power of mystery was largely lost in a 20th century modernist culture that devalued the human individual. Evil socialist impulses robbed people of their dignity and made them cogs in the societal machine. Conversely, the reigning capitalist paradigm, applied to human beings, made them as valuable as the social market dictated. Consequently, human beings were worth as much as their weight in butts, boobies, and ding dongs. In addition, the vacuous theories of Darwinism and social utilitarianism turned humans into animals and made them as valuable as the social and sexual "utilities" they offered.
Hence, the following description of certain women by Evelyn Waugh in his book The Loved One (from the 1940's) is incredibly refreshing:
"She was the standard product. A man could leave such a girl in a delicatessen shop in New York, fly three thousand miles and find her again in the cigar stall at San Francisco, just as he would find his favourite comic strip in the local paper; and she would croon the same words to him in moments of endearment and express the same views and preferences in moments of social discourse. She was convenient; but Dennis came of an earlier civilization with sharper needs. He sought the intangible, the veiled face in the fog, the silhouette at the lighted doorway, the secret graces of a body which hid itself under formal velvet. He did not covet the spoils of this rich continent, the sprawling limbs of the swimming-pool, the wide-open painted eyes and mouths under arc-lamps. But the girl who now entered was unique. Not indefinably; the appropriate distinguishing epithet leapt to Dennis's mind the moment he saw her: sole Eve in a bustling hygienic Eden, this girl was a decadent."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)