I have just started reading A Grief Observed by C.S. Lewis, a short portrait of his searing pain in the aftermath of the death of his wife. The utter agony he describes reminds me of a trend that friends of mine have pointed out amongst old couples in their churches: when the wife dies first, the husband dies soon after. Even if this trend is largely anecdotal, I think it speaks to a truth that Lewis alludes to as well: A man's life is a heartbeat; his wife is the heart.
The female poet in Song of Songs notes that her love is worth more than "all the wealth in his house" (8:7), for she is not just another woman for the wealthy king, but (in her words) "my vineyard is mine to give" (8:12). She knows that wealth and power may still lack love. As N'Sync once sung, "For the girl who has everything, I give you love." Decades before, the Beatles sang a similar theme, "Money can't buy you love." While this principle applies to both man and woman, I cannot help but think the love of a godly woman is more valuable.
The writer of Proverbs expresses a similar regard for the value of a wife: "A wife of noble character is her husband's crown (12:4). He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord (18:22). A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies (31:10)." A wife is a husbands crown, a sign of the Lord's favor, and invaluable. More importantly, she is his heart. Unless specifically called to singlehood, a man's heart and love is wasted in this world when not lavished upon a woman. It is the most true and pure expression of Christ's love for His Church.
It is only a woman who can unlock this part of a man. Without her, a man often feels wasted. People often remark that if a man is the head of a marriage, then the woman is the neck. When not used as just a witty line, this can express some valuable truths: even as a man leads his marriage with love and humility, he is dependent upon the support offered by his wife. But what is the neck but the pipeline between the head and heart? If the heart stops beating, everything else becomes useless. A wife offers a love that becomes life for her husband and nurtures life in her children. Without that love, for all intensive purposes, a man is dead or in mourning.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Five Fearless Political Predictions
One of the best portions of the old Sports Illustrated NFL Preview issues was the "Five Fearless Predictions" given by one of their experts. Extravagant claims were made, exciting the sports fan's imagination. If any of those predictions were fulfilled, the expert would receive due praise. In that light, I am making several predictions for this coming election cycle, just to put myself "on the record," so to speak.
1) African-American voters will become more disillusioned with the Democratic Party than they have in decades as a result of the racially-tinged comments made by the Clintons. As a result, they may become slightly more receptive to Republican overtures if Hillary is the nominee.
2) If Barack Obama takes the Democratic nomination, he will handily win the Presidency, as a historic shift in the "evangelical" vote propels him by a significant margin. The largest Republican voting has been trending toward more liberal positions, theological and political, and will rally behind a charismatic Obama with his profession of faith in Jesus Christ. They may even give him close to 50% of their vote.
3) Hillary Clinton, presuming she will be the Democratic nominee, will do more than ever to alienate male voters, as the vindictive spirit and crocodile tears which make her sympathetic to liberal women will appear to men as emotional manipulation, gender-based hate-mongering, and blatantly sexist. Men can be offended by such a posture--just ask Barack Obama.
4) The nomination of Mike Huckabee, likely as a VP candidate if anything, would help hasten the political demise of the so-called Religious Right. His suave, charismatic, stump-speech persona may play well to religious conservatives, but it will also undermine his credibility amongst more mainstream voters. In addition, his nomination would provide Democrats and Independents the opportunity of a lifetime to mortally wound the Religious Right political movement.
And the most audacious of predictions...(drum roll please)
5) Assuming the Hillary Clinton and John McCain win their parties' respective nominations, the McCain camp will make under-the-table overtures to Barack Obama to run as McCain's VP on a split ticket. McCain is rumored to have made similar overtures to John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama may covet the opportunity to become the first African-American VP. If he runs with McCain, that may very well happen, even against the establishment-endorsed campaign of the mighty Hillary.
1) African-American voters will become more disillusioned with the Democratic Party than they have in decades as a result of the racially-tinged comments made by the Clintons. As a result, they may become slightly more receptive to Republican overtures if Hillary is the nominee.
2) If Barack Obama takes the Democratic nomination, he will handily win the Presidency, as a historic shift in the "evangelical" vote propels him by a significant margin. The largest Republican voting has been trending toward more liberal positions, theological and political, and will rally behind a charismatic Obama with his profession of faith in Jesus Christ. They may even give him close to 50% of their vote.
3) Hillary Clinton, presuming she will be the Democratic nominee, will do more than ever to alienate male voters, as the vindictive spirit and crocodile tears which make her sympathetic to liberal women will appear to men as emotional manipulation, gender-based hate-mongering, and blatantly sexist. Men can be offended by such a posture--just ask Barack Obama.
4) The nomination of Mike Huckabee, likely as a VP candidate if anything, would help hasten the political demise of the so-called Religious Right. His suave, charismatic, stump-speech persona may play well to religious conservatives, but it will also undermine his credibility amongst more mainstream voters. In addition, his nomination would provide Democrats and Independents the opportunity of a lifetime to mortally wound the Religious Right political movement.
And the most audacious of predictions...(drum roll please)
5) Assuming the Hillary Clinton and John McCain win their parties' respective nominations, the McCain camp will make under-the-table overtures to Barack Obama to run as McCain's VP on a split ticket. McCain is rumored to have made similar overtures to John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama may covet the opportunity to become the first African-American VP. If he runs with McCain, that may very well happen, even against the establishment-endorsed campaign of the mighty Hillary.
Monday, January 28, 2008
A Few Essential Christian Books
Many Christians go in search of books that help them grow holistically deeper in the faith. By holistically deeper, I mean a depth that is measured in more than simple piety. People are realizing perhaps more and more that while books by C.S. Lewis and Rick Warren may nature the Christian mind and heart, respectively, they don't root the Christian in his or her tradition and historic formulations. Enough said on that point...
1) The Bible--This may seem like common sense, but there are better and worse Bibles out there. For one, "The Message" by Eugene Peterson is not a Bible, but a paraphrase, and should never be used as more than a supplement. It is not God-breathed. I would also not suggest the King James Version, as its old-English colloquialisms are becoming more difficult to understand in the modern vernacular. It also doesn't draw directly from the ancient Greek and Hebrew as other contemporary translations do, and thus lacks the valuable proximity to the original autographs. I personally prefer the ESV, but also love the NIV and preach from the latter.
2) The Confessions--The most important works for the Christian after Holy Scripture are the historic confessions. For all Christians, this includes the ancient texts like the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. For those who align themselves with one of the two great branches of the Reformation (outside of Lutheranism)--Dutch Reformed or Presbyterian--that would also include the Three Forms of Unity or Westminster Confession of Faith, respectively. For Reformed Baptists, it would be the London Confession from the mid-nineteenth century, though I am not sure of its title.
3) Systematic Theology by Berkhof--There are three editions of this comprehensive systematic work by deceased Calvin Seminary professor, Louis Berkhof. They are each different sizes, appealing to people of different levels of spiritual maturity. Other great systematic works exist by other past figures, such as Bavinck, and more contemporary theologians, such as Horton.
4) Institutes by John Calvin--Calvin is the father of the Presbyterian/Reformed wing of the Reformation and his Institutes provide a tremendous intellectual grounding to the faith. His commentaries on Scripture are also unparalleled in many respects. Works by other figures of the orthodox past, such as Augustine and Luther, are also very profitable.
5) Christianity and Liberalism (1923) by Machen--Out of the ashes of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy of the 1920's came an enduring classic which pitted Christian orthodoxy against paganistic counterfeits within the Church. In a time in which the line was drawn between "conservative" and "liberal," Machen reminded the Church that there was still a historic line called "confessional," which traced its roots through the Reformation to the Holy Scriptures and early Church Fathers. Through Machen, there still exists this historic, confessional movement in the form of three denominations--OPC, PCA, and EPC, and many seminaries--Westminster Philadelphia, Westminster California, Covenant Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary. This book has also been life-changing for countless thousands, including yours truly, in reminding us what Christianity is all about.
1) The Bible--This may seem like common sense, but there are better and worse Bibles out there. For one, "The Message" by Eugene Peterson is not a Bible, but a paraphrase, and should never be used as more than a supplement. It is not God-breathed. I would also not suggest the King James Version, as its old-English colloquialisms are becoming more difficult to understand in the modern vernacular. It also doesn't draw directly from the ancient Greek and Hebrew as other contemporary translations do, and thus lacks the valuable proximity to the original autographs. I personally prefer the ESV, but also love the NIV and preach from the latter.
2) The Confessions--The most important works for the Christian after Holy Scripture are the historic confessions. For all Christians, this includes the ancient texts like the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. For those who align themselves with one of the two great branches of the Reformation (outside of Lutheranism)--Dutch Reformed or Presbyterian--that would also include the Three Forms of Unity or Westminster Confession of Faith, respectively. For Reformed Baptists, it would be the London Confession from the mid-nineteenth century, though I am not sure of its title.
3) Systematic Theology by Berkhof--There are three editions of this comprehensive systematic work by deceased Calvin Seminary professor, Louis Berkhof. They are each different sizes, appealing to people of different levels of spiritual maturity. Other great systematic works exist by other past figures, such as Bavinck, and more contemporary theologians, such as Horton.
4) Institutes by John Calvin--Calvin is the father of the Presbyterian/Reformed wing of the Reformation and his Institutes provide a tremendous intellectual grounding to the faith. His commentaries on Scripture are also unparalleled in many respects. Works by other figures of the orthodox past, such as Augustine and Luther, are also very profitable.
5) Christianity and Liberalism (1923) by Machen--Out of the ashes of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy of the 1920's came an enduring classic which pitted Christian orthodoxy against paganistic counterfeits within the Church. In a time in which the line was drawn between "conservative" and "liberal," Machen reminded the Church that there was still a historic line called "confessional," which traced its roots through the Reformation to the Holy Scriptures and early Church Fathers. Through Machen, there still exists this historic, confessional movement in the form of three denominations--OPC, PCA, and EPC, and many seminaries--Westminster Philadelphia, Westminster California, Covenant Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary. This book has also been life-changing for countless thousands, including yours truly, in reminding us what Christianity is all about.
A League of Sinners
The Church may be spoken of in two senses: Visible and Invisible. The visible Church is the current collection of people visibly gathered in Christian churches each Sunday, made up of both believers and unbelievers. The invisible Church is the collection of believers worldwide--those whose faith and hope are permanently affixed to Christ. In order to guard the purity and unity of the Church in each of these manifestations, Reformed Christians have often spoken of the "spirituality" of the Church. This refers to exclusively redemptive message of salvation from sin in Christ which belongs to the Church, as opposed to the social and political aims of the State. The last (incredibly long) entry was an attempt to promote the spirituality of the Church in the perpetual age of simultaneous advance and decline in a sinful world.
That said, my good friend at Calvin Seminary was very helpful in his response and I would like to interact with a few of his thoughts. First, I am thankful for his critique. In an age in which potential disagreements are swept under the rug in order to "dialogue," his clear and forthright response is refreshing. Second, all of his points are apropos and many indicate ways in which I could have been more clear in my writing, leaving only a small remainder in which there might actually be some disagreement.
With regard to agreeable points, let me list a few: We have both had friends who struggled with homosexuality, and several of them in college were mutual friends. The conduct of many "conservative" Christians toward people with this struggle has and continues to be morally repugnant. People who struggle with homosexuality are confused and ashamed, likely feeling the same type of disgust and stigmatization that pornography-addicts feel. They needs Christians in their lives who speak clearly and love abundantly. These people are often failed on both counts. The saddest case in recent memory is that of a recent graduate at Calvin College who at one point fought against his temptation, yet later capitulated because, I believe, he lacked people who spoke clearly and loved abundantly. This case still grieves me greatly, and provoked my sharp rebuke of those theological obscurantists in positions of power at Calvin. We should not be fighting for homosexuality or against homosexuals, but should fight with people who struggle in this regard against that which afflicts them.
I also join my good friend in expressing pride in a denomination that takes the time to deal with such an issue. There seems to be two dueling approaches amongst denominations of various stripes: either doctrinal clarity or social methodology. In my circles, doctrinal stances are clearly marked, but possibilities of engagement are often neglected. That is one of the reasons why I visited Mars Hill Church in Seattle, which does well at both. In other circles, particularly Mainline (PCUSA, United Methodist, etc.), engagement is refined into an art while being bereft of standards of truth. In engaging the issue and the people, the CRC is setting a fine precedent for other denominations. This courage and thoughtfulness also marks my friend's blog on the issue. Their ability to ask the tough question about a natural (though fallen) homosexual orientation is one that will require careful consideration in years to come.
Finally, my friend offered a sterling reminder to be careful in my remarks concerning the origin of sin. I incorporated the Romans 1 language of God giving sinners over to the consequences of their sin, but did not clearly remark that God is by no means the author of sin. This "giving over" is explicitly a just punishment and not an arbitrary afflicting--man rebelled against God by worshipping the created order, so God allowed for his sin to be revealed in all its perversity. God is the judge, not the author of sin.
Now by way of contrast and reaffirmation of my original point in this entry, the doctrine of the spirituality of the Church dictates that the Church remember its primary mission of proclaiming redemption from sin (always accompanied by pious acts) and its sole authority for faith and practice: the Holy Bible. That was my critique of certain sectors of the Church in my last entry--that in the most recent age of transitory values and scientific studies, the Church should resist establishing its center in anything but the Word. The abuse of this center has ruined several formerly prestigious denominations in the past century, and threatens to overwhelm many more. This warning is not only aimed at denominations that are perhaps accommodating too much to "progressive" values and norms, but also especially at the larger conservative evangelical movement which often roots its knee-jerk hostility toward people who struggle with homosexuality with an array of their own reports--biological and sociological (just go to the website of Family Research Council).
In my friend's last response, he asks if people may adopt the "homosexual" label as they do the "alcoholic" or "adulterer" label in order to more clearly identify the struggle and resists its many perils. That point has merit and is well-received. I would make what I believe to be a more helpful approach, however: that we all adopt the "sinner" label. Labels often have the power to establish one's inward and outward identity. They also play into the hands of those who love to stigmatize certain sins according to a self-revelatory hierarchy. When we all incorporate the label "sinner," we find ourselves on the same level ground at the foot of the cross.
The Church is a league of sinners--sinners who have been redeemed by the blood of the God-man. When the Church remembers the totality and pervasiveness of sin in all human hearts, she will again function as that subservient beacon of light to a world enshrouded by darkness. In that day, sinners will wince under the power of God's conviction as those who experience the pain of peroxide in a wound, rather than the salt normally administered by self-righteous individuals. In that day, sinners of all stripes will find healing in the wings of Christ's Church.
May God hasten the coming of the new heavens and earth, where the reign of sin and tears is replaced by the Kingdom of Christ. Until that day, may the Church remain faithful to her calling as Christ's body on earth and never forsake the very Word of God given her.
That said, my good friend at Calvin Seminary was very helpful in his response and I would like to interact with a few of his thoughts. First, I am thankful for his critique. In an age in which potential disagreements are swept under the rug in order to "dialogue," his clear and forthright response is refreshing. Second, all of his points are apropos and many indicate ways in which I could have been more clear in my writing, leaving only a small remainder in which there might actually be some disagreement.
With regard to agreeable points, let me list a few: We have both had friends who struggled with homosexuality, and several of them in college were mutual friends. The conduct of many "conservative" Christians toward people with this struggle has and continues to be morally repugnant. People who struggle with homosexuality are confused and ashamed, likely feeling the same type of disgust and stigmatization that pornography-addicts feel. They needs Christians in their lives who speak clearly and love abundantly. These people are often failed on both counts. The saddest case in recent memory is that of a recent graduate at Calvin College who at one point fought against his temptation, yet later capitulated because, I believe, he lacked people who spoke clearly and loved abundantly. This case still grieves me greatly, and provoked my sharp rebuke of those theological obscurantists in positions of power at Calvin. We should not be fighting for homosexuality or against homosexuals, but should fight with people who struggle in this regard against that which afflicts them.
I also join my good friend in expressing pride in a denomination that takes the time to deal with such an issue. There seems to be two dueling approaches amongst denominations of various stripes: either doctrinal clarity or social methodology. In my circles, doctrinal stances are clearly marked, but possibilities of engagement are often neglected. That is one of the reasons why I visited Mars Hill Church in Seattle, which does well at both. In other circles, particularly Mainline (PCUSA, United Methodist, etc.), engagement is refined into an art while being bereft of standards of truth. In engaging the issue and the people, the CRC is setting a fine precedent for other denominations. This courage and thoughtfulness also marks my friend's blog on the issue. Their ability to ask the tough question about a natural (though fallen) homosexual orientation is one that will require careful consideration in years to come.
Finally, my friend offered a sterling reminder to be careful in my remarks concerning the origin of sin. I incorporated the Romans 1 language of God giving sinners over to the consequences of their sin, but did not clearly remark that God is by no means the author of sin. This "giving over" is explicitly a just punishment and not an arbitrary afflicting--man rebelled against God by worshipping the created order, so God allowed for his sin to be revealed in all its perversity. God is the judge, not the author of sin.
Now by way of contrast and reaffirmation of my original point in this entry, the doctrine of the spirituality of the Church dictates that the Church remember its primary mission of proclaiming redemption from sin (always accompanied by pious acts) and its sole authority for faith and practice: the Holy Bible. That was my critique of certain sectors of the Church in my last entry--that in the most recent age of transitory values and scientific studies, the Church should resist establishing its center in anything but the Word. The abuse of this center has ruined several formerly prestigious denominations in the past century, and threatens to overwhelm many more. This warning is not only aimed at denominations that are perhaps accommodating too much to "progressive" values and norms, but also especially at the larger conservative evangelical movement which often roots its knee-jerk hostility toward people who struggle with homosexuality with an array of their own reports--biological and sociological (just go to the website of Family Research Council).
In my friend's last response, he asks if people may adopt the "homosexual" label as they do the "alcoholic" or "adulterer" label in order to more clearly identify the struggle and resists its many perils. That point has merit and is well-received. I would make what I believe to be a more helpful approach, however: that we all adopt the "sinner" label. Labels often have the power to establish one's inward and outward identity. They also play into the hands of those who love to stigmatize certain sins according to a self-revelatory hierarchy. When we all incorporate the label "sinner," we find ourselves on the same level ground at the foot of the cross.
The Church is a league of sinners--sinners who have been redeemed by the blood of the God-man. When the Church remembers the totality and pervasiveness of sin in all human hearts, she will again function as that subservient beacon of light to a world enshrouded by darkness. In that day, sinners will wince under the power of God's conviction as those who experience the pain of peroxide in a wound, rather than the salt normally administered by self-righteous individuals. In that day, sinners of all stripes will find healing in the wings of Christ's Church.
May God hasten the coming of the new heavens and earth, where the reign of sin and tears is replaced by the Kingdom of Christ. Until that day, may the Church remain faithful to her calling as Christ's body on earth and never forsake the very Word of God given her.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Will the Center Hold?
Turning and turning in the widening gyre/The falcon cannot hear the falconer/Things fall apart; the center cannot hold/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world/The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere/The ceremony of innocence is drowned/The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.--from "The Second Coming" by William Butler Yates (1919)
A common cliche in contemporary political, social, and religious circles is the question: Will the center hold? Although ignorant in the "finer things" of historic literature, I cannot help but hear the echoes of Yates poem in the current conservative-christian cry of impending doom due to the forsaking of our nations "Christian" heritage. In direct contrast to that sentiment one reads from Brian McLaren, the Church's own Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde (civil demeanor/theological monstrosity), the optimistic refrain that "there is some kind of pull back to the center," by which he means a quest for new-found unity amongst the disillusioned. Amongst Christians of various sorts then, one finds both hopeless pessimism and baseless optimism.
This contrast can be seen in Yates' day as well. His poem was a year removed from the Allied victory in WWI--the effect of which was to inflate American pride and optimism to soaring new heights. At the same time, a mind-numbing modernism was settling upon American intelligence and morality. More and more, the answer to the question "What is right?" came in the form of "whatever is most useful to the end of unity and prosperity."
The dualism likewise appeared after WWII. Allied troops had just defeated the most insatiably blood-thirsty regime in the history of mankind, only to find Europe subsequently partitioned by an "Iron Curtain," to borrow Churchill's term. On one side of that curtain, freedom reigned; on the other side, a monster that would soon supplant Hitler as history's great villain as between 40 and 100 million people were wiped out in less than a century. This new division was probably less disturbing for the deeply-reflective types than the knowledge the same naturalistic-materialist philosophy (Darwinism) that gave rise to the evils of Soviet and (later) Chinese communism was shared by the democratic West. Mengele's machines of inhumanity and torture were shut down in Germany, only to be replaced by gulags in the Soviet Union and abortion clinics in the West.
Many thought America to either be on the verge of collapse or salvation in 1967, according to a recent article by former British MP, Jonathan Aikman. In that year, communism was seen to be spreading its evil tentacles across the world and flower power was lifting America's hippies to new drug-induced highs. As in the time of post-WWI optimism and the post-WWII "baby boom," this perceived time of radical alteration was little more than a blip on the historical radar screen. Optimistic dreams were deferred and pessimistic fears were alleviated.
That leads us back to the contrasting outlooks on the present day. Science since the days of Darwin has attempted to maintain an objective neutrality in its analyses, aiming to descriptive rather than prescriptive. Following Kant's contrast between objective "facts" and subjective, non-scientific "values," science has arrogantly but judiciously maintained that line and focused upon its own perceived prerogatives. We now live in a day of the pseudo-sciences of so-called "social science," however. Psychology has blurred the line between the chemical sciences and social sciences, combining description and prescription. The most phony of sciences, sociology and my own political science ("politicology?"), study "people" and "trends" and try to prescribe "innovative" new ideas to accommodate the changes in society.
In his fascinating recent blog on Dumbledore's sexual "declosetization" (my term), my very good future-pastor friend noted his denomination's view of homosexuality. He rightly pointed out that people who struggle with homosexuality have their admirable qualities like everyone else and should be more highly regarded and loved by Christians. Here here! Apparently, some circles in that denomination have officially endorsed a "study" that declares approximately 2-3% of people are born homosexual and another 3% are born bisexual. While I would agree with many of my friend's conclusions, I must emphatically state that the Church must never ground its theology in anything but God's Word. I am not accusing my friend of turning his back on God's Word (he certainly would strive not to), but critiquing the use of such a study by the Church in this manner. Not only is this proper grounding in the Word the biblical and historic precedent of the Church, but also takes into consideration the wonderful critiques of postmodernity pertaining to the strongly-subjective nature of science. General revelation provides the human eye and mind with many things, but when it comes to theology and faith, it only provides enough to condemn (Rom. 1).
Speaking of Romans 1, that passage draws the earlier historical-philosophical discussion together with the preceding paragraph. Romans 1 describes how God gave man over to the consequences of his rebellious idolatry, the prime example of which is homosexuality. It is not grounded in Creation, but in the Fall. The people who struggle with it are entitled to respect as they are part of the created order, but the thorn with which they're afflicted is part of the distortion of that created order. It is not just the sinful action that matters, but also the fundamental distortion of God's created bond between man and wife that occurs when people adopt or succumb to a homosexual "orientation." Such a distortion is Paul's key illustration in Romans 1 concerning how ridiculous mankind is now made to look for his idolatry of the created order.
This example, in turn, provides a key to the philosophy of this age, termed by many as "postmodernism" but drifting toward the recapitulation of ancient Rome that many term "neo-paganism." Whereas modernism was a quest for economic and political unity built on the assumption of human goodness, neo-paganistic-postmodernity is a quest for spiritual unity based on the assumption that "all is one" (otherwise termed "monism"). With such an assumption and such a quest, this new philosophy seeks to obliterate the lines drawn by God in His natural law given to all of man, such as that between man and woman, mankind and animal and nature, and right and wrong.
I am becoming less of the stereotypical Republican by the day, and reject the "Religious Right's" desire to impose Christless "Christian" values on the institution of the State. The State is not the moralistic Christian's means to a theocratic end. Nonetheless, the purity of the Church is at stake when Scriptural foundations are loosened in the name of such scientific studies* (the asterisk denotes my contempt for many such studies and puts them on a level with Barry Bonds' home run record). This is why much of the Mainline denominations are spiritually-hollow civil organizations proclaiming vague notions of "peace" and "tolerance" instead of the Gospel.
Who knows where exactly the "center" is for the United States? Whatever and wherever it is, it has held fast thus far in our nation's history through God's common grace. Only let us not confuse this murky center with the biblical core of the Christian faith. The Church is united around this core, and her historical confessions and creeds speak to it proudly. Our aim should not be the Christianization of America, but the loving defense of the purity and unity of the Church. In pursuing such an aim by God's grace, a true, holy love will be made so manifest that the penchant for demonizing select sins over others will be but a memory.
A common cliche in contemporary political, social, and religious circles is the question: Will the center hold? Although ignorant in the "finer things" of historic literature, I cannot help but hear the echoes of Yates poem in the current conservative-christian cry of impending doom due to the forsaking of our nations "Christian" heritage. In direct contrast to that sentiment one reads from Brian McLaren, the Church's own Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde (civil demeanor/theological monstrosity), the optimistic refrain that "there is some kind of pull back to the center," by which he means a quest for new-found unity amongst the disillusioned. Amongst Christians of various sorts then, one finds both hopeless pessimism and baseless optimism.
This contrast can be seen in Yates' day as well. His poem was a year removed from the Allied victory in WWI--the effect of which was to inflate American pride and optimism to soaring new heights. At the same time, a mind-numbing modernism was settling upon American intelligence and morality. More and more, the answer to the question "What is right?" came in the form of "whatever is most useful to the end of unity and prosperity."
The dualism likewise appeared after WWII. Allied troops had just defeated the most insatiably blood-thirsty regime in the history of mankind, only to find Europe subsequently partitioned by an "Iron Curtain," to borrow Churchill's term. On one side of that curtain, freedom reigned; on the other side, a monster that would soon supplant Hitler as history's great villain as between 40 and 100 million people were wiped out in less than a century. This new division was probably less disturbing for the deeply-reflective types than the knowledge the same naturalistic-materialist philosophy (Darwinism) that gave rise to the evils of Soviet and (later) Chinese communism was shared by the democratic West. Mengele's machines of inhumanity and torture were shut down in Germany, only to be replaced by gulags in the Soviet Union and abortion clinics in the West.
Many thought America to either be on the verge of collapse or salvation in 1967, according to a recent article by former British MP, Jonathan Aikman. In that year, communism was seen to be spreading its evil tentacles across the world and flower power was lifting America's hippies to new drug-induced highs. As in the time of post-WWI optimism and the post-WWII "baby boom," this perceived time of radical alteration was little more than a blip on the historical radar screen. Optimistic dreams were deferred and pessimistic fears were alleviated.
That leads us back to the contrasting outlooks on the present day. Science since the days of Darwin has attempted to maintain an objective neutrality in its analyses, aiming to descriptive rather than prescriptive. Following Kant's contrast between objective "facts" and subjective, non-scientific "values," science has arrogantly but judiciously maintained that line and focused upon its own perceived prerogatives. We now live in a day of the pseudo-sciences of so-called "social science," however. Psychology has blurred the line between the chemical sciences and social sciences, combining description and prescription. The most phony of sciences, sociology and my own political science ("politicology?"), study "people" and "trends" and try to prescribe "innovative" new ideas to accommodate the changes in society.
In his fascinating recent blog on Dumbledore's sexual "declosetization" (my term), my very good future-pastor friend noted his denomination's view of homosexuality. He rightly pointed out that people who struggle with homosexuality have their admirable qualities like everyone else and should be more highly regarded and loved by Christians. Here here! Apparently, some circles in that denomination have officially endorsed a "study" that declares approximately 2-3% of people are born homosexual and another 3% are born bisexual. While I would agree with many of my friend's conclusions, I must emphatically state that the Church must never ground its theology in anything but God's Word. I am not accusing my friend of turning his back on God's Word (he certainly would strive not to), but critiquing the use of such a study by the Church in this manner. Not only is this proper grounding in the Word the biblical and historic precedent of the Church, but also takes into consideration the wonderful critiques of postmodernity pertaining to the strongly-subjective nature of science. General revelation provides the human eye and mind with many things, but when it comes to theology and faith, it only provides enough to condemn (Rom. 1).
Speaking of Romans 1, that passage draws the earlier historical-philosophical discussion together with the preceding paragraph. Romans 1 describes how God gave man over to the consequences of his rebellious idolatry, the prime example of which is homosexuality. It is not grounded in Creation, but in the Fall. The people who struggle with it are entitled to respect as they are part of the created order, but the thorn with which they're afflicted is part of the distortion of that created order. It is not just the sinful action that matters, but also the fundamental distortion of God's created bond between man and wife that occurs when people adopt or succumb to a homosexual "orientation." Such a distortion is Paul's key illustration in Romans 1 concerning how ridiculous mankind is now made to look for his idolatry of the created order.
This example, in turn, provides a key to the philosophy of this age, termed by many as "postmodernism" but drifting toward the recapitulation of ancient Rome that many term "neo-paganism." Whereas modernism was a quest for economic and political unity built on the assumption of human goodness, neo-paganistic-postmodernity is a quest for spiritual unity based on the assumption that "all is one" (otherwise termed "monism"). With such an assumption and such a quest, this new philosophy seeks to obliterate the lines drawn by God in His natural law given to all of man, such as that between man and woman, mankind and animal and nature, and right and wrong.
I am becoming less of the stereotypical Republican by the day, and reject the "Religious Right's" desire to impose Christless "Christian" values on the institution of the State. The State is not the moralistic Christian's means to a theocratic end. Nonetheless, the purity of the Church is at stake when Scriptural foundations are loosened in the name of such scientific studies* (the asterisk denotes my contempt for many such studies and puts them on a level with Barry Bonds' home run record). This is why much of the Mainline denominations are spiritually-hollow civil organizations proclaiming vague notions of "peace" and "tolerance" instead of the Gospel.
Who knows where exactly the "center" is for the United States? Whatever and wherever it is, it has held fast thus far in our nation's history through God's common grace. Only let us not confuse this murky center with the biblical core of the Christian faith. The Church is united around this core, and her historical confessions and creeds speak to it proudly. Our aim should not be the Christianization of America, but the loving defense of the purity and unity of the Church. In pursuing such an aim by God's grace, a true, holy love will be made so manifest that the penchant for demonizing select sins over others will be but a memory.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Power of Personal Interest Stories
In an episode of The Simpsons, entitled "Girly Edition," Lisa and Bart host a student-based news program called "Kids Newz." Lisa accidentally calls her brother an idiot while the camera is still live, which prompts her brother to try to one-up her. He does so by learning the art of the "personal interest story." The most memorable line given by his teacher, anchor Kent Brockman, is that the value of such stories is found in their ability "to pull heartstrings and cloud minds." Lisa attempts to expose the thin intellectual veneer to Bart's sappy sentimentality, but is voted town by the TV execs because she lacks Bart's "pizazz."
As always, The Simpsons provides brilliant satire of the contemporary social and political scene. Long ago, the American People discarded the objective news story with limited bias of Kronkite for the more subjective and sentimental reporting of Rather. In the same way, one politician's vague generalities concerning American needs has been necessarily supplanted by another's specific anecdotes of one American's needs. The same holds for Christianity, where "rags-to-riches" testimonies become a more popular medium for communicating the Gospel than actually sharing the Gospel accounts in the Word.
Lisa Simpson makes a piercing critique of such an approach. After doing an interest story on a war veteran, Bart makes a pitch for a day honoring such veterans, to which Lisa responds "That's why we have Veteran's Day!" When Bart responds that one may not be enough, Lisa again rejoins "That's why there's also Memorial Day!" Bart's last line of defense..."Maybe there should be three. That's Kids Newz. Cut!"
In order to buy into the power of the personal interest story, people are often asked to suspend the traditional skepticism that such ploys lack substance. Everybody loves to hear a tear-jerking story of "Mary Stewart", a 27 year old single mother of four beautiful children who sacrifices her evening dinner for her kids' morning breakfast and sells her winter clothing for their school books. To speak into the aftermath of such a story seems almost criminal. Instead, people bask in the angel-like glow of the next political savior. One is not allowed to ask what policies or trends led to poor Mary's downfall, or what policies or trends can be expected to lift her from the ashes and how they will accomplish such a feat. The cynic might also be motivated to ask "If Mary has so touched your heart, why do you not do anything to help her yourself?"
Contemporary society honors celebrities and causes over real philanthropy and substance. A quintessential example of this fact is found in John Edwards. He pleads the case of the poor to sympathetic supporters, while also living in a sprawling mansion with a cadre of servants. The true postmodern hates such hypocrisy. These stories should not be a means to an end, but their alteration should be the end pursued through more substantial means. For news reporting, this means honesty; for politicians, this means wise policies; for Christians, this means doctrinal consistency and pious practice.
The best Christian testimonies are not the dramatic ones, but the ones that focus upon Christ, whose objective work resulted in the subjective changes that come now--most importantly, eternal life. The quest for meaning doesn't result in truth; the knowledge of Truth imbues life with meaning. As Lisa Simpson would say, "Pizazz? What is that?"
As always, The Simpsons provides brilliant satire of the contemporary social and political scene. Long ago, the American People discarded the objective news story with limited bias of Kronkite for the more subjective and sentimental reporting of Rather. In the same way, one politician's vague generalities concerning American needs has been necessarily supplanted by another's specific anecdotes of one American's needs. The same holds for Christianity, where "rags-to-riches" testimonies become a more popular medium for communicating the Gospel than actually sharing the Gospel accounts in the Word.
Lisa Simpson makes a piercing critique of such an approach. After doing an interest story on a war veteran, Bart makes a pitch for a day honoring such veterans, to which Lisa responds "That's why we have Veteran's Day!" When Bart responds that one may not be enough, Lisa again rejoins "That's why there's also Memorial Day!" Bart's last line of defense..."Maybe there should be three. That's Kids Newz. Cut!"
In order to buy into the power of the personal interest story, people are often asked to suspend the traditional skepticism that such ploys lack substance. Everybody loves to hear a tear-jerking story of "Mary Stewart", a 27 year old single mother of four beautiful children who sacrifices her evening dinner for her kids' morning breakfast and sells her winter clothing for their school books. To speak into the aftermath of such a story seems almost criminal. Instead, people bask in the angel-like glow of the next political savior. One is not allowed to ask what policies or trends led to poor Mary's downfall, or what policies or trends can be expected to lift her from the ashes and how they will accomplish such a feat. The cynic might also be motivated to ask "If Mary has so touched your heart, why do you not do anything to help her yourself?"
Contemporary society honors celebrities and causes over real philanthropy and substance. A quintessential example of this fact is found in John Edwards. He pleads the case of the poor to sympathetic supporters, while also living in a sprawling mansion with a cadre of servants. The true postmodern hates such hypocrisy. These stories should not be a means to an end, but their alteration should be the end pursued through more substantial means. For news reporting, this means honesty; for politicians, this means wise policies; for Christians, this means doctrinal consistency and pious practice.
The best Christian testimonies are not the dramatic ones, but the ones that focus upon Christ, whose objective work resulted in the subjective changes that come now--most importantly, eternal life. The quest for meaning doesn't result in truth; the knowledge of Truth imbues life with meaning. As Lisa Simpson would say, "Pizazz? What is that?"
Friday, January 25, 2008
Book Project
Tentative Title: Under the Sun
How does one make sense of the death of a family member in Iraq? This question reigns supreme for the Johnston family, who lost youngest son, Bobby, in the conflict. The pain threatens to tear the family apart, especially Bobby's older brother, Jamie. Only through rejecting the easy answers proferred up by a superficial society and asking the right questions can Jamie hope to find meaning in his brother's death.
The first draft for this book is about 80% completed and is intentionally not a Christian book. It looks at life through the lens of a non-Christian and includes much of the family dysfunction and social perversity that is common in East Coast suburbia.
How does one make sense of the death of a family member in Iraq? This question reigns supreme for the Johnston family, who lost youngest son, Bobby, in the conflict. The pain threatens to tear the family apart, especially Bobby's older brother, Jamie. Only through rejecting the easy answers proferred up by a superficial society and asking the right questions can Jamie hope to find meaning in his brother's death.
The first draft for this book is about 80% completed and is intentionally not a Christian book. It looks at life through the lens of a non-Christian and includes much of the family dysfunction and social perversity that is common in East Coast suburbia.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Musings on "Love"
What if love is like faith? This is the question I posed to a small group of fellow volunteers with my local youth group. I was explaining to them how ridiculous I thought it was that people felt constrained by social norms in relationships (see past entry--"Oppressed by Social Norms"). How can one trust conventional social wisdom when it speaks through a hundred competing voices and ultimately doesn't affect the likelihood of divorce? Christians share the same statistical averages with secularists of various stripes.
"So what do you guys think of countries like mine that still have arranged marriages?" asked Don, a Japanese-American father of 7. I was astonished that the three younger people (myself included) were not totally averse to the idea in theory. It reminded me of the words of an Prof. Scipione, former professor in Biblical Counseling at Westminster California, who used to tell students to "just find someone and get married." Both Don and Scip were alluding to something more profound than simple, shocking comments: Love may be very different than most every way our society has construed it, even amongst Christians. These allusions provoked my thought at the outset of this posting:
What if love is like faith? According to Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." In the original Greek, "being sure" is drawn from a term that also has an objective sense of the "reality/substance" of what we hope for. In addition, "certain" has the more objective sense of "evidence" of what we do not see. It was by this objective faith, with subjective effects, that the Old Testament saints "received testimony" of Christ (better understanding of "received commendation" in v.2). All of this to show that faith is not simply a subjective sense of trust, but an objective link attaching the Christian to the saving work of Christ by the Holy Spirit. This is why we know that it is impossible to lose faith or salvation--it is not really ours to lose.
In the same way, could love also be understood in this sense? In Genesis, God made Adam and Eve "one flesh," which presupposes the most intimate of bonds. This bond was created prior to the Fall, which means that within that coming together, love should be assumed as well. Throughout the book of Song of Songs, the most beautiful picture of romantic love, there is a continual presentation of the power of love over the heart, but at the climax of the book, there is something much deeper presented:
8:6 Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for love is strong as death, jealousy is fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the LORD. 7 Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If a man offered for love all the wealth of his house, he would be utterly despised.
The Holy Spirit is described as the seal of our salvation, because He gives us the assurance that our salvation is real and fixed. In the same way, the female in Song of Songs wants her love to be pictured as a seal, because it is real and fixed. As death is inescapable, so is love. It is a flame of the Lord, and can never be overwhelmed or extinguished. Love is not a transitory possession, and is thus worth more than all of one's accumulated wealth.
In the book of Hosea, God tells Hosea to continue to pursue his wife, though she prostitutes herself. Why? Because it symbolizes God's unconditional love for His people. This love finds its ultimate expression in the cross, where the God-man offered His righteousness to God on our behalf and took our sin upon himself. That saving work by the Lord then becomes the ground for the commands in Ephesians 5 for wives to submit to their husbands as the Church submits herself to the Lord and for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.
Just as faith is a saving bond created by the Lord and is unable to be severed, so love is a bond grounded in the love of the Lord and cannot be relinquished. Forget about all of this talk about "falling in love" by sentimental dreamers and "falling out of love" by jaded divorcees. Love is much greater than such notions. Its purposes are several-fold: To offer to man and wife the most profound and godly bond this side of heaven; to point man and wife and the watching world to the great love of Almighty God for His people; to match the sin of a spouse with the overflowing effects of love in Hosea-like fashion.
So as people spend years sorting out whether or not they are "in" love through all sorts of erroneous rubrics, they fall deeper and deeper into self-deception. Taking it with a grain of salt, here is my conclusion: Love is objectively the bond between man and wife and subjectively the realization and commitment to that bond. This by no means destroys the romance or excitement of love, for this definition gives rise to the aforementioned purposes of love, which in turn can change the world.
"So what do you guys think of countries like mine that still have arranged marriages?" asked Don, a Japanese-American father of 7. I was astonished that the three younger people (myself included) were not totally averse to the idea in theory. It reminded me of the words of an Prof. Scipione, former professor in Biblical Counseling at Westminster California, who used to tell students to "just find someone and get married." Both Don and Scip were alluding to something more profound than simple, shocking comments: Love may be very different than most every way our society has construed it, even amongst Christians. These allusions provoked my thought at the outset of this posting:
What if love is like faith? According to Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." In the original Greek, "being sure" is drawn from a term that also has an objective sense of the "reality/substance" of what we hope for. In addition, "certain" has the more objective sense of "evidence" of what we do not see. It was by this objective faith, with subjective effects, that the Old Testament saints "received testimony" of Christ (better understanding of "received commendation" in v.2). All of this to show that faith is not simply a subjective sense of trust, but an objective link attaching the Christian to the saving work of Christ by the Holy Spirit. This is why we know that it is impossible to lose faith or salvation--it is not really ours to lose.
In the same way, could love also be understood in this sense? In Genesis, God made Adam and Eve "one flesh," which presupposes the most intimate of bonds. This bond was created prior to the Fall, which means that within that coming together, love should be assumed as well. Throughout the book of Song of Songs, the most beautiful picture of romantic love, there is a continual presentation of the power of love over the heart, but at the climax of the book, there is something much deeper presented:
8:6 Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for love is strong as death, jealousy is fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the LORD. 7 Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If a man offered for love all the wealth of his house, he would be utterly despised.
The Holy Spirit is described as the seal of our salvation, because He gives us the assurance that our salvation is real and fixed. In the same way, the female in Song of Songs wants her love to be pictured as a seal, because it is real and fixed. As death is inescapable, so is love. It is a flame of the Lord, and can never be overwhelmed or extinguished. Love is not a transitory possession, and is thus worth more than all of one's accumulated wealth.
In the book of Hosea, God tells Hosea to continue to pursue his wife, though she prostitutes herself. Why? Because it symbolizes God's unconditional love for His people. This love finds its ultimate expression in the cross, where the God-man offered His righteousness to God on our behalf and took our sin upon himself. That saving work by the Lord then becomes the ground for the commands in Ephesians 5 for wives to submit to their husbands as the Church submits herself to the Lord and for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.
Just as faith is a saving bond created by the Lord and is unable to be severed, so love is a bond grounded in the love of the Lord and cannot be relinquished. Forget about all of this talk about "falling in love" by sentimental dreamers and "falling out of love" by jaded divorcees. Love is much greater than such notions. Its purposes are several-fold: To offer to man and wife the most profound and godly bond this side of heaven; to point man and wife and the watching world to the great love of Almighty God for His people; to match the sin of a spouse with the overflowing effects of love in Hosea-like fashion.
So as people spend years sorting out whether or not they are "in" love through all sorts of erroneous rubrics, they fall deeper and deeper into self-deception. Taking it with a grain of salt, here is my conclusion: Love is objectively the bond between man and wife and subjectively the realization and commitment to that bond. This by no means destroys the romance or excitement of love, for this definition gives rise to the aforementioned purposes of love, which in turn can change the world.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
An Unhealthy Addiction to Government
The United States and in particular its national government is very different than it was just a century ago. In 1908, the bureaucracy was not nearly as expansive (New Deal in late '20's), the Department of Education was simply a pipe dream for some, Social Security and Medicare were unheard of (LBJ's Great Society in the '60's), and there was not even a federal tax being levied (established in 1913). At that time, the progressive-modernist impulse was just beginning to take root on a national scale, as diversity began being traded for unity, creativity for efficiency, and liberty for power.
In that day, parents would decide when their children would begin to work and what type of education their children would receive. The purpose of government according to many in that day was found in its restraint of those things that would infringe upon the prerogatives of individuals and families. As the modernist impulse began to overrun all competing ideologies, many valid counter-arguments were raised: The government cannot possibly raise children as well as families, nor does it have the prerogative to determine their paths. Unity comes at the cost of individuality and unique potential, as all are driven to the common denominator necessary for such unity. Efficiency brought power, but it made human beings into cogs of the societal machine, treating them only as means to a governmentally-ordained end. This view of human value in functional terms would inevitable cause a devaluation of life and create significant moral dilemmas. In addition, as power was sought above all things, the common good would inevitable be set aside for the "greater good."
As a result, power and wealth came to America as never to any society preceding her. We traded our birthright of liberty for the warm porridge of wealth and initially found ourselves satisfied. But what now? We have our Brave New World, with its entertainment-induced apathy to the reality of the world around us, each fulfilling our societally-imposed function. Some might think such a statement ludicrous as we live in a time of unparalleled opportunity to pursue any career path, but we must think more deeply. We must receive a certain type of education through the 12th grade, either through public schools or governmentally-monitored private/home schooling. The curriculum is always ordered in such a way as to program robots with certain basic facts, without asking questions concerning origin, morality, or purpose. In order to translate this "education" into productive labor as adults, people must commit their lives to given careers that consumes two lives and allows child-rearing by means of entertainment and "education."
Uncle Sam has gone from guardian to godfather as the family lives at the mercy of the almighty State. To criticize is to blaspheme and bite the idolatrous hand that feeds us. In all of this, we have made our choice: a hollow, vacuous wealth and a world of illusions. Is this not your choice? Then why do we each cringe at the thought of losing any of this power in order to regain a fraction of our old liberty? Security and prosperity have become our gods.
In that day, parents would decide when their children would begin to work and what type of education their children would receive. The purpose of government according to many in that day was found in its restraint of those things that would infringe upon the prerogatives of individuals and families. As the modernist impulse began to overrun all competing ideologies, many valid counter-arguments were raised: The government cannot possibly raise children as well as families, nor does it have the prerogative to determine their paths. Unity comes at the cost of individuality and unique potential, as all are driven to the common denominator necessary for such unity. Efficiency brought power, but it made human beings into cogs of the societal machine, treating them only as means to a governmentally-ordained end. This view of human value in functional terms would inevitable cause a devaluation of life and create significant moral dilemmas. In addition, as power was sought above all things, the common good would inevitable be set aside for the "greater good."
As a result, power and wealth came to America as never to any society preceding her. We traded our birthright of liberty for the warm porridge of wealth and initially found ourselves satisfied. But what now? We have our Brave New World, with its entertainment-induced apathy to the reality of the world around us, each fulfilling our societally-imposed function. Some might think such a statement ludicrous as we live in a time of unparalleled opportunity to pursue any career path, but we must think more deeply. We must receive a certain type of education through the 12th grade, either through public schools or governmentally-monitored private/home schooling. The curriculum is always ordered in such a way as to program robots with certain basic facts, without asking questions concerning origin, morality, or purpose. In order to translate this "education" into productive labor as adults, people must commit their lives to given careers that consumes two lives and allows child-rearing by means of entertainment and "education."
Uncle Sam has gone from guardian to godfather as the family lives at the mercy of the almighty State. To criticize is to blaspheme and bite the idolatrous hand that feeds us. In all of this, we have made our choice: a hollow, vacuous wealth and a world of illusions. Is this not your choice? Then why do we each cringe at the thought of losing any of this power in order to regain a fraction of our old liberty? Security and prosperity have become our gods.
Monday, January 21, 2008
A Mountaintop Prophecy
J. Gresham Machen, a 20th century Reformer if ever there was one, was not only a superb theologian but also an avid environmentalist. In both the realm of theology and the realm of nature, he witnessed the horrible ravages of modernism. While modernism brought unprecedented efficiency and wealth to the West, it also brought the decline of the intellect, moral vacuity, and the loss of purpose. Both Christianity and the environment were laid on the altar of human progress. As Machen in his later years reflected upon the ravaging of Christian orthodoxy and unspoiled environmental beauty, he recalled one of his many trips through the Eastern Alps:
"Then there is something else about that view from the Matterhorn. I felt it partly at least as I stood there, and I wonder whether you can feel it with me. It is this. You are standing there not in any ordinary coutnry, but in the very midst of Europe, looking out from its very center. Germany just beyond where you can see to the northeast, Italy to the south, France beyond those snows of Mont Blanc. There, in that glorious round spread out before you, that land of Europe, humanity has put forth its best. There it has struggled; there it has fallen; there it has looked upward to God. The history of the race seems to pass before you in an instant of time concentrated in that fairest of all the lands of earth. You think of the great men whose memories you love, the men who have struggled there in those countries below you, who have struggled for light and freedom, struggled for beauty, struggled above all for God's Word. And then you think of the present and its decadence and slavery, and you desire to weep. It is a pathetic thing to contemplate the history of mankind." (Hart, Collected Works, 435)
Machen was one of those great men, standing upon the mountainous legacies of the Apostle Paul, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. He was the man called by God to stand athwart a lethal threat to the Church and cry "Stop!" Try as he did, the heartlands were ravaged by economic progress and the hearts of sinners were ravages by a ruinous belief in human goodness. Yet, through this man, God sustained the Presbyterian Church in the US, now in the small denominations known as the OPC, PCA, and EPC, as well as through numerous seminaries, such as Westminster Philadelphia, Westminster California, Covenant Seminary, and Reformed Theological Seminary. Modernism lies on the trashheap of history, and Christ's Church stands once again upon the ashes of a major world movements, living out the promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against God's Church.
The aforementioned memory of Machen was written in the twilight of his life, 1933. Just a few years later, thugs in Italy began to terrorize the populace and secret forces would shattered windows in Germany. The tanks of Hitler, fueled by a Darwinistic view of a hierarchy of human value and ongoing historical progression, rolled over the illusory hopes of a naive generation. Machen once noted that the ideas of one generation would move armies in the next. He grieved over the looming war that would follow the end of his life, but it took tanks to remind humanity that peace is borne upon the back of human sacrifice and to remind Christians that are hopes are borne upon the back of our Messiah.
"Then there is something else about that view from the Matterhorn. I felt it partly at least as I stood there, and I wonder whether you can feel it with me. It is this. You are standing there not in any ordinary coutnry, but in the very midst of Europe, looking out from its very center. Germany just beyond where you can see to the northeast, Italy to the south, France beyond those snows of Mont Blanc. There, in that glorious round spread out before you, that land of Europe, humanity has put forth its best. There it has struggled; there it has fallen; there it has looked upward to God. The history of the race seems to pass before you in an instant of time concentrated in that fairest of all the lands of earth. You think of the great men whose memories you love, the men who have struggled there in those countries below you, who have struggled for light and freedom, struggled for beauty, struggled above all for God's Word. And then you think of the present and its decadence and slavery, and you desire to weep. It is a pathetic thing to contemplate the history of mankind." (Hart, Collected Works, 435)
Machen was one of those great men, standing upon the mountainous legacies of the Apostle Paul, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. He was the man called by God to stand athwart a lethal threat to the Church and cry "Stop!" Try as he did, the heartlands were ravaged by economic progress and the hearts of sinners were ravages by a ruinous belief in human goodness. Yet, through this man, God sustained the Presbyterian Church in the US, now in the small denominations known as the OPC, PCA, and EPC, as well as through numerous seminaries, such as Westminster Philadelphia, Westminster California, Covenant Seminary, and Reformed Theological Seminary. Modernism lies on the trashheap of history, and Christ's Church stands once again upon the ashes of a major world movements, living out the promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against God's Church.
The aforementioned memory of Machen was written in the twilight of his life, 1933. Just a few years later, thugs in Italy began to terrorize the populace and secret forces would shattered windows in Germany. The tanks of Hitler, fueled by a Darwinistic view of a hierarchy of human value and ongoing historical progression, rolled over the illusory hopes of a naive generation. Machen once noted that the ideas of one generation would move armies in the next. He grieved over the looming war that would follow the end of his life, but it took tanks to remind humanity that peace is borne upon the back of human sacrifice and to remind Christians that are hopes are borne upon the back of our Messiah.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
A Top-notch Testimony
1 Timothy 1:15-16--Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy, so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe and have eternal life.
I used to engage in the worst type of evangelism--sharing with people a false immediate happiness and doing so in a self-serving manner. I would approach someone with a giant grin, declaring "Hey friend, Christ has changed my life and He can change yours as well." That person would consequently look at my life to verify the Gospel and would come away sorely disappointed. If I was able to maintain the facade, that person would reject the Gospel because they thought it inaccessible by "normal" people. As was most often the case, the facade would fade and I would blatantly sin, thus confirming the horrible stereotype of Christian hypocrisy.
Paul provided Timothy with a wonderful testimony to be held close to Timothy's heart and tongue. The Gospel is not a mere description of the effects of Christ on someone's life--it is the proclamation of the objective work of Christ. Christ came into the world, taking full humanity upon His full deity. That is the fact of His person. The bridge to us comes in His mission: to save sinners. That was the purpose of His coming--not to introduce a higher sense of morality or pattern to live by or to eliminate the injustice of Jewish "racism"--but to free sinners from the reign of death by His atoning work. It is at that point that Paul finally includes himself in the testimony and mention that he is the worst of sinners--the most needy for God's grace. Our story is not that of pain and hardship being redeemed into hope and purpose. We still sin and suffer in this world! The story of Paul is our story--that through Christ's work, sinners are saved from the power of sin and sting of death.
What is the purpose of God's redemption of weak-kneed and feeble-tongued sinners? Through sinners, God's great glory is truly made manifest. When one is bereft of pride in their own accomplishment and abilities, they attest to the great grace of Christ that would make weak instruments the carriers of the greatest news ever known to mankind. It is this type of testimony that woos other sinners as well, because if God can be patient with someone as wicked as I am, then He can surely have that patience for others. Not only is this "display" compelling for sinners, but it also a clear testimony to God's glory.
We always want praise for the work that God does in us, as if we accomplished it ourselves. What a great moment it would be if someone approached me and said "Man, you suck. That God of yours must be pretty great to make a pansy like you something to be used."
I used to engage in the worst type of evangelism--sharing with people a false immediate happiness and doing so in a self-serving manner. I would approach someone with a giant grin, declaring "Hey friend, Christ has changed my life and He can change yours as well." That person would consequently look at my life to verify the Gospel and would come away sorely disappointed. If I was able to maintain the facade, that person would reject the Gospel because they thought it inaccessible by "normal" people. As was most often the case, the facade would fade and I would blatantly sin, thus confirming the horrible stereotype of Christian hypocrisy.
Paul provided Timothy with a wonderful testimony to be held close to Timothy's heart and tongue. The Gospel is not a mere description of the effects of Christ on someone's life--it is the proclamation of the objective work of Christ. Christ came into the world, taking full humanity upon His full deity. That is the fact of His person. The bridge to us comes in His mission: to save sinners. That was the purpose of His coming--not to introduce a higher sense of morality or pattern to live by or to eliminate the injustice of Jewish "racism"--but to free sinners from the reign of death by His atoning work. It is at that point that Paul finally includes himself in the testimony and mention that he is the worst of sinners--the most needy for God's grace. Our story is not that of pain and hardship being redeemed into hope and purpose. We still sin and suffer in this world! The story of Paul is our story--that through Christ's work, sinners are saved from the power of sin and sting of death.
What is the purpose of God's redemption of weak-kneed and feeble-tongued sinners? Through sinners, God's great glory is truly made manifest. When one is bereft of pride in their own accomplishment and abilities, they attest to the great grace of Christ that would make weak instruments the carriers of the greatest news ever known to mankind. It is this type of testimony that woos other sinners as well, because if God can be patient with someone as wicked as I am, then He can surely have that patience for others. Not only is this "display" compelling for sinners, but it also a clear testimony to God's glory.
We always want praise for the work that God does in us, as if we accomplished it ourselves. What a great moment it would be if someone approached me and said "Man, you suck. That God of yours must be pretty great to make a pansy like you something to be used."
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Our Sovereign God
Everybody loves God's love. All other attributes are often ignored so that what is often viewed as the supreme attribute--love--may be used to define God. To boldly proclaim God's love is not a bad thing by any means, for "God is love" (1 John) and embodies love in a way that no human can even imagine. The measure of His love in Christ is a feat that no human could even attempt to replicate. When we imagine love, however, we often self-project our finite view of it onto God. We remake His love in our image, rather than letting God's love speak on its own terms through Christ.
Instead of drawing God down to our level in order to make Him seem closer and more real to us (which He has already done in Christ and continues to do in His Spirit), let us meditate upon another wonderful attribute: His sovereignty. This is not an attribute that can be used to superficially draw God close to us--rather, it does the exact opposite. It places Him far away from us in a role which we can never replicate. By virtue of God's sovereignty (total control over all things), man is proven to be the exact opposite--absolutely helpless and unable to control any part of his life. That does not mean that man is left without responsibility, but even that responsibility is governed by God.
So why talk about sovereignty instead of love? In order to answer that question, let us ask another question: Do we simply want a God who is with us in our daily ordeals and suffering, or a God who is over them? So often, we draw God so close to us in a contrived sort of way that we neuter His character and render Him helpless before the ravages of a world under the temporary dominion of sin. In an age that has firmly rejected the unfathomable optimism of the 20th century and come to terms with the reality of sin and suffering, God's sovereignty offers hope. In the sovereign God who rules through His Word, we find a God who stands over evil; who sent His own Son to bear His just judgment and wrath over evil; who has thus provided a hope that transcends the realms of all that is decaying and dead.
We need a God who stands over the great human problem and offers the quintessential Solution, and that is exactly the God we have. The world will be justly judged and convicted for its sin, but for those who have faith in the Person and work of Christ, the judgment has already been meted out once and for all on a Roman cross. That is not only love, but a sovereign love.
Instead of drawing God down to our level in order to make Him seem closer and more real to us (which He has already done in Christ and continues to do in His Spirit), let us meditate upon another wonderful attribute: His sovereignty. This is not an attribute that can be used to superficially draw God close to us--rather, it does the exact opposite. It places Him far away from us in a role which we can never replicate. By virtue of God's sovereignty (total control over all things), man is proven to be the exact opposite--absolutely helpless and unable to control any part of his life. That does not mean that man is left without responsibility, but even that responsibility is governed by God.
So why talk about sovereignty instead of love? In order to answer that question, let us ask another question: Do we simply want a God who is with us in our daily ordeals and suffering, or a God who is over them? So often, we draw God so close to us in a contrived sort of way that we neuter His character and render Him helpless before the ravages of a world under the temporary dominion of sin. In an age that has firmly rejected the unfathomable optimism of the 20th century and come to terms with the reality of sin and suffering, God's sovereignty offers hope. In the sovereign God who rules through His Word, we find a God who stands over evil; who sent His own Son to bear His just judgment and wrath over evil; who has thus provided a hope that transcends the realms of all that is decaying and dead.
We need a God who stands over the great human problem and offers the quintessential Solution, and that is exactly the God we have. The world will be justly judged and convicted for its sin, but for those who have faith in the Person and work of Christ, the judgment has already been meted out once and for all on a Roman cross. That is not only love, but a sovereign love.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Biblical Preaching?
A great majority of preaching today is not preaching in the true sense of proclaiming God's Word to His people, but is instead an opportunity to offer inspiring speeches on personal morality or political causes. Even in many conservative pulpits that lift high the Word of God as the Word of God, the great Message of salvation from sin in Christ is neglected in favor of "messages" that use the Bible as a means to a moral end.
Now, I don't want to promote a hyper-critical approach to evaluating sermons, as everybody wrongly fancies themselves as an expert. The Word always stands over its hearers, rather than vice-versa. All the same, there are several basic elements that should be demanded of every sermon:
1) God, the Creator, as One who created all things but is entirely distinct from all created things. He is neither part of the creation nor unknown to it, but has revealed Himself to His creation through His Word. Not every word of this has to be spelled out, but people must know that God is not only Creator, but judge, and that He is in control of all things, including salvation. As a holy God, His standard for salvation is perfection.
2) Man, created in the image of God, but absolutely sinful and unable to meet God's standard for salvation. The law does nothing for salvation, but does condemn man and reveal his total depravity. The only hope for sinful man lies in a gracious historical act by God...
3) Christ, eternally God, became fully man as well when He entered human history and existence. He then lived a life of perfect obedience in fulfillment of God's law (and meeting His standard), and then died on a cross, taking upon Himself our sin and giving to us His perfection. Thus, we are not only forgiven, but counted as righteous.
Too often in contemporary sermons, sin and Christ are both left out of sermons. Both the disease and cure are callously kept from the sinners in the pews, leaving them without hope or purpose. All of these elements can also be found within any passage in Scripture. As Christ told the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, all of the Scriptures point to Him.
Brothers and Sisters, whenever the Gospel of salvation from sin through Christ is missing from the pulpit, a true sermon is missing as well and God's people are being neglected and abused. Using the Bible is not enough, but using it as God intended is what blesses His people and brings glory to His Name.
Now, I don't want to promote a hyper-critical approach to evaluating sermons, as everybody wrongly fancies themselves as an expert. The Word always stands over its hearers, rather than vice-versa. All the same, there are several basic elements that should be demanded of every sermon:
1) God, the Creator, as One who created all things but is entirely distinct from all created things. He is neither part of the creation nor unknown to it, but has revealed Himself to His creation through His Word. Not every word of this has to be spelled out, but people must know that God is not only Creator, but judge, and that He is in control of all things, including salvation. As a holy God, His standard for salvation is perfection.
2) Man, created in the image of God, but absolutely sinful and unable to meet God's standard for salvation. The law does nothing for salvation, but does condemn man and reveal his total depravity. The only hope for sinful man lies in a gracious historical act by God...
3) Christ, eternally God, became fully man as well when He entered human history and existence. He then lived a life of perfect obedience in fulfillment of God's law (and meeting His standard), and then died on a cross, taking upon Himself our sin and giving to us His perfection. Thus, we are not only forgiven, but counted as righteous.
Too often in contemporary sermons, sin and Christ are both left out of sermons. Both the disease and cure are callously kept from the sinners in the pews, leaving them without hope or purpose. All of these elements can also be found within any passage in Scripture. As Christ told the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, all of the Scriptures point to Him.
Brothers and Sisters, whenever the Gospel of salvation from sin through Christ is missing from the pulpit, a true sermon is missing as well and God's people are being neglected and abused. Using the Bible is not enough, but using it as God intended is what blesses His people and brings glory to His Name.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
What Good is a Shell?
A commercial once asked "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop?" The cartoon owl would start to count the licks before peremptorily chomping through the remainder of the fruity exterior. Thus, the answer was "The world may never know."
But what would happen if one bought a Tootsie Pop, only to find a hollow center? That is what is happening to the younger generation of Christians. In a recent US News cover story, "A Return to Tradition," the return of many young Jews and Christians to ancient practices is highlighted.
"More substantial than a trend but less organized than a movement, it has to do more with how people practice their religion than with what they believe, though people caught up in this change often find that their beliefs are influenced, if not subtly altered, by the changes in their practice. Put simply, the development is a return to tradition and orthodoxy, to past practices, observances, and customary ways of worshipping. But it is not simply a return to the past--at least in all cases. Even while drawing on deep traditional resources, many participants are creating something new within the old forms." (p. 44)
In the earlier twentieth century, the modernist worldview took hold in the Christian Church, propagating the lie that doctrine is an expression of the Christian life and thus necessarily changes with each passing generation. That view absolutely undermined the Christian Church in the West. People saw Jesus as a moral example instead of a Savior from sin, and developed truth out of their experiences in following this "moral man." The diminishing body of orthodox believers across denominational lines vigorously argued against this theological atrocity, reminding the confused Church that the Christian life has always sprung out of doctrine; practice out of belief.
Thus, the "subtle alteration" of beliefs brought amongst young Christians by a return to traditional practices cannot be considered substantive. As Sean Michael Lucas noted in his introduction to his book "On Being Presbyterian," the lack of a fixed identity in the present, postmodern age leads to a continual shape-shifting of individuals who constantly alter beliefs and practices. The "subtle alteration" is just another example of a temporal fluctuation in belief.
So does this new trend exhibit a "return to tradition and orthodoxy?" To the former, yes; to the latter, no. Those disparate answers spell trouble for this next pseudo-movement. A return to true Christian tradition means a return to orthodoxy: a submission to God's supreme historical revelation in the Scriptures and an alignment with the historic creeds and confessions of the Church. That type of tradition has a core--it is a history of life springing from doctrine. That is not what is currently happening. Postmodernism rejects traditional orthodoxy and its claims over the human mind and heart because of modernist abuses of "truth" and "reason." After generations were wiped out in concentration camps and gulags in the name of "truth" and "reason," the generations that followed became weary and fearful of any such claims.
The present generation craves a generic tradition because it precedes the age of "might makes right" modernism. The symbolism and rituals of previous ages provide a rallying point for community without exploitation, as opposed to the machine of economic efficiency. Quoting Brian McLaren in the article: "Protestantism has been in a centrifugal pattern for so long, with each group spinning away from the others, but now there is some kind of pull back to the center." The fact that the words come McLaren should already be dissuasive, but his explanation is unsatisfactory as well. The centrifugal pattern has resulted from the Church treating Christianity as a means to an end, neglecting its Gospel truth in favor of political power and social influence. It sought to unite itself last century in order to wield the greatest influence, but lost its soul.
A new quest for unity around a false "center" of changing generational expression will simply result in a forthcoming Big Bang of diminishing hopes and bonds. A return to traditional symbolism is meaningless if not accompanied by the symbols' corresponding realities. The taste of grape or orange will be pleasant until the inevitable bite, when the promised tootsie roll is exposed as a hollow nothingness and a new era of despair sets in.
Friday, January 11, 2008
A Revelatory Pig Head
Those small, semi-classic novels assigned in high school English courses are often more rich in insights concerning the deeper things of life than college textbooks. Aldous Huxley, author of A Brave New World, presents a more thoughtful analysis in the political, social, psychological, and philosophical realms than most of the prominent "experts" in these fields. Perhaps his brilliance came with the realization that these disciplines don't own their fields, but are beholden to them. He also lived in a day in which subjects were not so specialized as to place them in a vacuum.
Another brilliant masterpiece is William Golding's Lord of the Flies. Golding asks the incredibly prodding and difficult question of what human beings, still in the pre-adolescent "age of innocence," would do if stranded on an island and left to their own moral and intellectual reserves. In their adventure, the children are constantly fearful of an unknown monster, but late in the novel, one small boy receives a revelation from a skewered pig's head:
"Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill!" said the head. For a moment or two the forest and all the other dimly appreciated places echoed with the parody of laughter. "You knew, didn't you? I'm part of you? Close, close, close!" (p. 130)
The copyright of this book is 1954, thus placing its writing soon after World War Two. Prior to that war, Europe joined the US in embracing an optimistic view of human nature and potential. With the rise of science, higher education, and greater international connectivity, the West brimmed with optimism at the thought that it could create heaven on earth. World War Two revealed to Europe that such optimism was unfounded and delusional; it took Vietnam to bring that home to the U.S. Thus, Golding was a man of his time, realizing that evil was not an exterior force--something social or political--but infected all things, including the individual human heart.
Another brilliant masterpiece is William Golding's Lord of the Flies. Golding asks the incredibly prodding and difficult question of what human beings, still in the pre-adolescent "age of innocence," would do if stranded on an island and left to their own moral and intellectual reserves. In their adventure, the children are constantly fearful of an unknown monster, but late in the novel, one small boy receives a revelation from a skewered pig's head:
"Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill!" said the head. For a moment or two the forest and all the other dimly appreciated places echoed with the parody of laughter. "You knew, didn't you? I'm part of you? Close, close, close!" (p. 130)
The copyright of this book is 1954, thus placing its writing soon after World War Two. Prior to that war, Europe joined the US in embracing an optimistic view of human nature and potential. With the rise of science, higher education, and greater international connectivity, the West brimmed with optimism at the thought that it could create heaven on earth. World War Two revealed to Europe that such optimism was unfounded and delusional; it took Vietnam to bring that home to the U.S. Thus, Golding was a man of his time, realizing that evil was not an exterior force--something social or political--but infected all things, including the individual human heart.
Christian Unity
Dr. Robert Godfrey's "Reformed Dream:"
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=EmailComp&var2=123&var3=authorbio&var4=AutRes&var5=70
Every day provides another opportunity to contrast the Truth of Christianity as God has revealed it in His Word with The Lie, which is the human endeavor to worship the created order instead of its Creator. This opportunity should be constantly seized, as God constantly reveals how His Truth in best understood in contrast to The Lie. All human effort, whether intellectual, emotional, or spiritual, is part of a worldwide rebellion against the King that has persisted since the Fall in the Garden of Eden. Only when the whole person is transformed by the saving knowledge of the Gospel of Christ is one free to ascertain the Truth and abide in its glory.
With each passing day comes another opportunity to contrast True Christianity with Relevant Christianity. True Christianity at minimum embraces God as a Creator who is wholly distinct from His Creation, a fallen mankind that is guilty of Adam's sin and is unable to escape the mire of sinfulness, and Jesus Christ--the God-man who is eternal, yet came into the world, taking upon Himself full humanity--who lived the life that we could not live and died the death that we could not bear so that His elect might be saved. Relevant Christianity compromises on any or all of the aforementioned facts, trading its purity for popularity. Thus, it is always appropriate to criticize a figure like Joel Osteen, who defines human need in terms of unfulfilled potential instead of sin and prescribes Christ as the Savior from failure rather than the Savior from sin.
Purity and fidelity to God demands that Christians take the two stands mentioned above, but there is certainly a place for Christian unity. Such a place is found in mutual adherence to Reformed Confessions. While True Christianity extends beyond Confessional Reformed congregations, significant doctrinal differences renders unity impossible between all true Christian bodies. One of the wonderful attributes of Westminster Seminary California is found in its ability to gather Reformed Christians of all stripes together for the sake of the Gospel. The Church and its seminaries need not compromise on God's Truth in order to be ecumenical. Rather, it should merely issue forth the cry of the Gospel with the utmost clarity, that all who share in the fellowship of the historic Confessions of Reformed Christianity might find new strength in renewed unity.
Strength is not found in numbers, for God's people have often found themselves to be the persecuted minority in the course of redemptive-history. In one of the darkest moments for God's people, the prophet Elijah thought himself to be the only true believer left. God encouraged him with the knowledge that there were still 7,000 who did not bend the knee to the idols of the world. In our day--one in which compromise and capitulation has been more common amongst Christians than courage--we could use the encouragement that amongst the broader Reformed community, we have our 7,000 by God's grace.
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=EmailComp&var2=123&var3=authorbio&var4=AutRes&var5=70
Every day provides another opportunity to contrast the Truth of Christianity as God has revealed it in His Word with The Lie, which is the human endeavor to worship the created order instead of its Creator. This opportunity should be constantly seized, as God constantly reveals how His Truth in best understood in contrast to The Lie. All human effort, whether intellectual, emotional, or spiritual, is part of a worldwide rebellion against the King that has persisted since the Fall in the Garden of Eden. Only when the whole person is transformed by the saving knowledge of the Gospel of Christ is one free to ascertain the Truth and abide in its glory.
With each passing day comes another opportunity to contrast True Christianity with Relevant Christianity. True Christianity at minimum embraces God as a Creator who is wholly distinct from His Creation, a fallen mankind that is guilty of Adam's sin and is unable to escape the mire of sinfulness, and Jesus Christ--the God-man who is eternal, yet came into the world, taking upon Himself full humanity--who lived the life that we could not live and died the death that we could not bear so that His elect might be saved. Relevant Christianity compromises on any or all of the aforementioned facts, trading its purity for popularity. Thus, it is always appropriate to criticize a figure like Joel Osteen, who defines human need in terms of unfulfilled potential instead of sin and prescribes Christ as the Savior from failure rather than the Savior from sin.
Purity and fidelity to God demands that Christians take the two stands mentioned above, but there is certainly a place for Christian unity. Such a place is found in mutual adherence to Reformed Confessions. While True Christianity extends beyond Confessional Reformed congregations, significant doctrinal differences renders unity impossible between all true Christian bodies. One of the wonderful attributes of Westminster Seminary California is found in its ability to gather Reformed Christians of all stripes together for the sake of the Gospel. The Church and its seminaries need not compromise on God's Truth in order to be ecumenical. Rather, it should merely issue forth the cry of the Gospel with the utmost clarity, that all who share in the fellowship of the historic Confessions of Reformed Christianity might find new strength in renewed unity.
Strength is not found in numbers, for God's people have often found themselves to be the persecuted minority in the course of redemptive-history. In one of the darkest moments for God's people, the prophet Elijah thought himself to be the only true believer left. God encouraged him with the knowledge that there were still 7,000 who did not bend the knee to the idols of the world. In our day--one in which compromise and capitulation has been more common amongst Christians than courage--we could use the encouragement that amongst the broader Reformed community, we have our 7,000 by God's grace.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
A Fun Field of Presidential Candidates
A cursory examination of the field of presidential candidates for those who desire their own sort of ideological pure-bred can prove quite disappointing. At least on the Republican side, ideological heterodoxy seems to be the greatest common denominator amongst the candidates. National Review made the telling (and humorous) observation that between Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, one finds one solid conservative--the former representing the fiscal end and the latter the social. Mitt Romney is a rather recent convert to conservatism and John McCain has always prided himself in being a political maverick. The most consistent conservative in the field is Fred Thompson, but he currently has about as much motivation as a high school student when distracted by Playstation 3.
Conservatives bemoan the lack of a new Reagan, but forget that controversy becomes a great refiner of sound principles. By most standards, the Republican Party finds itself in disarray and at times, outright failure. While many theories are set forth to explain the current pheonomenon, a case could be made for apathy caused by the uniformity of the majority being a causative factor. The current plurality of thought amongst Republican contenders may prove to be a godsend for conservative ideologues, as an authentic discussion of the issues must ensue. The Republican field has not been this exciting in years. All that remains lacking in this era of change is a Republican who doesn't fit the rich, old, white stereotype.
Conservatives bemoan the lack of a new Reagan, but forget that controversy becomes a great refiner of sound principles. By most standards, the Republican Party finds itself in disarray and at times, outright failure. While many theories are set forth to explain the current pheonomenon, a case could be made for apathy caused by the uniformity of the majority being a causative factor. The current plurality of thought amongst Republican contenders may prove to be a godsend for conservative ideologues, as an authentic discussion of the issues must ensue. The Republican field has not been this exciting in years. All that remains lacking in this era of change is a Republican who doesn't fit the rich, old, white stereotype.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Oppressed by Social Norms
Many people blame the incredible number of divorces on some universal social faux-pas of some sort or another. The religious right ascribes the blame to a declining moral consciousness, neglect of absolute truth, the school taking the place of the family in moral instruction, and the high number of cohabitating couples. For the more traditional and pragmatic, the issue is reduced to foolish and impatient young adults acting impetuously. The more hardened and cynical would claim that people view relationships in too idealistic of a light, thus rendering the reality a pure disappointment and inevitable failure.
There are certainly a plethora of potential pitfalls for the contemporary relationship, but must the given social wisdom dictate how such relationships are to proceed? The plurality of opinions is itself a great argument against accepting such "social wisdom." Not only is social wisdom an eclectic set of diverse opinions masquerading as wisdom, but it is also ill-informed and destructive. Wisdom that speaks simply from the common grace elements of social science ignores the more substantial (and necessary) pool of revealed Truth. It can describe the effects of total depravity as "social disorders" and "disturbing trends," but not diagnose the true disorder: a broken, sinful world.
Nor can it prescribe any real solutions, as it neglects the true problem. Not only is the reality of sin neglected, but so is the pervasiveness of sin understood. Even well-intentioned advice that is not rooted in God's revealed Truth is a mixed-bag of common grace wisdom and sin-infected worldliness. While common wisdom might prove helpful, it can also be destructive. This type of wisdom might commend an order for relational growth (which may be helpful), or it might suggest that couples live together or "test the waters" with other individuals (which are both obviously horrible options).
All of these considerations should be an impetus for rethinking the contemporary bevy of various relational approaches. Sin should be acknowledged, its remedy in Christ sought out, with Spirit-wrought godliness as the grateful response. God's Word and prayer should guide relationships, as well as wisdom from mature, older Christians. Social wisdom should be supplemental and carefully scrutinized. Beyond all else, it is important to be more discerning when it comes to relationships--and it starts with a biblical worldview.
There are certainly a plethora of potential pitfalls for the contemporary relationship, but must the given social wisdom dictate how such relationships are to proceed? The plurality of opinions is itself a great argument against accepting such "social wisdom." Not only is social wisdom an eclectic set of diverse opinions masquerading as wisdom, but it is also ill-informed and destructive. Wisdom that speaks simply from the common grace elements of social science ignores the more substantial (and necessary) pool of revealed Truth. It can describe the effects of total depravity as "social disorders" and "disturbing trends," but not diagnose the true disorder: a broken, sinful world.
Nor can it prescribe any real solutions, as it neglects the true problem. Not only is the reality of sin neglected, but so is the pervasiveness of sin understood. Even well-intentioned advice that is not rooted in God's revealed Truth is a mixed-bag of common grace wisdom and sin-infected worldliness. While common wisdom might prove helpful, it can also be destructive. This type of wisdom might commend an order for relational growth (which may be helpful), or it might suggest that couples live together or "test the waters" with other individuals (which are both obviously horrible options).
All of these considerations should be an impetus for rethinking the contemporary bevy of various relational approaches. Sin should be acknowledged, its remedy in Christ sought out, with Spirit-wrought godliness as the grateful response. God's Word and prayer should guide relationships, as well as wisdom from mature, older Christians. Social wisdom should be supplemental and carefully scrutinized. Beyond all else, it is important to be more discerning when it comes to relationships--and it starts with a biblical worldview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)