Thu - October 5, 2006
Quick Quote
A Spurgeon quote I saw on Middlebrow
and had to share
Fred Sanders, over at Middlebrow, today had an excellent post on the 56th Psalm. In looking
at notes from a number of great authors, and in defense of using commentaries,
he has a great quote from Spurgeon. I loved this snippet from
Spurgeon:
"It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.” (Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries, p. 11)."
Check out his whole post for more great insights.
"It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.” (Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries, p. 11)."
Check out his whole post for more great insights.
Posted at 11:05 PM | | Read More | | |
Sun - May 28, 2006
Natural Theology - Followup from Lewis
In reading the 4 Loves by C.S. Lewis,
I came across an interesting quote on natural theology
My reading group is currently reading through
C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves. Those of you playing along by looking at the right
side LibraryThing widget already know I'm reading it. It is a book that I have
previously attempted, but never enjoyed enough to finish. I was hoping, in
suggesting we read it, that the group setting would cause me to approach it with
a bit more diligence, and that the discussion might bring out more of the wisdom
contained in the book. I can't speak for the discussion yet, as we haven't had
our first meeting on this book, but I'm definitely enjoying the book this time
around. I don't quite know what it was that turned me off about it last time I
picked it up, but this time it seems much more interesting and
edifying.
To praise, or even review, the book is not the goal of this post, however. I came across a section where Lewis is talking about our love or appreciation of Nature, and what it can and cannot teach us. This section reflects a lot of what I was talking about in this post, responding to a post at Mere Orthodoxy. I thought it was worth posting some of Lewis' thoughts on the matter.
"If you take nature as a teacher, she will teach you only the lessons you had already decided to learn; this is only another way of saying that nature does not teach.... Overwhelming gaiety, insupportable grandeur, somber desolation are flung at you. Make what you can of them, if you must make at all. The only imperitave that nature utters is, 'Look. Listen. Attend.'"
Here we see Lewis echoing something that I had paraphrased from Luther - that we see God in nature, but not as He truly is. We seem to see both wonderful and terrible features at the same time - great euphoric highs, coupled tightly to devastating losses. It can tell us that there is most definitely a God greater than us, but it can't tell us that He is good or has provided for our salvation.
Here are a few other quotes in the same vein:
"Nature can't satisfy the desires she arouses nor answer theological questions nor sanctify us."
"We must learn our theology or philosophy elsewhere (not surprisingly, we often learn them from theologians and philosophers)."
"Nature will not verify any theological or metaphysical proposition (or not in the manner we are now considering); she will help show what it means. And not, on the Christian premises, by accident. The created glory may be expected to give us hints of the uncreated; for the one is derived from the other and in some fashion reflects it. In some fashion. But not perhaps in so direct and simple a fashion as we at first might suppose. For of course all the facts stressed by nature-lovers of the other school are facts too; there are worms in the belly as well as primroses in the wood. Try to reconcile them, or to show that they don't really need reconciliation, and you are turning from direct experience of nature - our present subject - to metaphysics or theodicy or something of that sort.... We have seen an image of glory. We must not try to find a direct path through it and beyond it to an increasing knowledge of God. The path peters out almost at once."
Again, the creation bears the marks of the Creator, but His image is veiled in it. Somehow we have to reconcile the beautiful ocean and the destructive hurricane, and we can't do that strictly from nature. As long as natural theology is simply bearing the standard of Romans 1 - that all men know in their heart there is a God because they live in His creation - then it is doing its job. When it begins to stray from that and try to teach us any attributes of God, it is prone to borrow its theology from somewhere other than nature. Or, as Lewis says, "clothe" its views learned elsewhere in what it sees in nature.
It turns out, however, that Lewis doesn't think that is a bad thing. In fact, he thinks that it is often quite profitable to learn the meaning of certain words in our theology from nature. As long as we understand this unidirectional dynamic - we learn our theology elsewhere, and nature gives it meaning - it is a very profitable endeavor.
"Many people - I am one myself - would never, but for what nature does to us, have had any context to put into the words we must use in confessing our faith. Nature never taught me that there exists a God of glory and of infinite majesty. I had to learn that in other ways. But nature gave the word 'glory' a meaning for me....I do not see how the 'fear' of God could have ever meant to me anything but the lowest prudential efforts to be safe, if I had never seen certain ominous ravines and unapproachable crags."
To praise, or even review, the book is not the goal of this post, however. I came across a section where Lewis is talking about our love or appreciation of Nature, and what it can and cannot teach us. This section reflects a lot of what I was talking about in this post, responding to a post at Mere Orthodoxy. I thought it was worth posting some of Lewis' thoughts on the matter.
"If you take nature as a teacher, she will teach you only the lessons you had already decided to learn; this is only another way of saying that nature does not teach.... Overwhelming gaiety, insupportable grandeur, somber desolation are flung at you. Make what you can of them, if you must make at all. The only imperitave that nature utters is, 'Look. Listen. Attend.'"
Here we see Lewis echoing something that I had paraphrased from Luther - that we see God in nature, but not as He truly is. We seem to see both wonderful and terrible features at the same time - great euphoric highs, coupled tightly to devastating losses. It can tell us that there is most definitely a God greater than us, but it can't tell us that He is good or has provided for our salvation.
Here are a few other quotes in the same vein:
"Nature can't satisfy the desires she arouses nor answer theological questions nor sanctify us."
"We must learn our theology or philosophy elsewhere (not surprisingly, we often learn them from theologians and philosophers)."
"Nature will not verify any theological or metaphysical proposition (or not in the manner we are now considering); she will help show what it means. And not, on the Christian premises, by accident. The created glory may be expected to give us hints of the uncreated; for the one is derived from the other and in some fashion reflects it. In some fashion. But not perhaps in so direct and simple a fashion as we at first might suppose. For of course all the facts stressed by nature-lovers of the other school are facts too; there are worms in the belly as well as primroses in the wood. Try to reconcile them, or to show that they don't really need reconciliation, and you are turning from direct experience of nature - our present subject - to metaphysics or theodicy or something of that sort.... We have seen an image of glory. We must not try to find a direct path through it and beyond it to an increasing knowledge of God. The path peters out almost at once."
Again, the creation bears the marks of the Creator, but His image is veiled in it. Somehow we have to reconcile the beautiful ocean and the destructive hurricane, and we can't do that strictly from nature. As long as natural theology is simply bearing the standard of Romans 1 - that all men know in their heart there is a God because they live in His creation - then it is doing its job. When it begins to stray from that and try to teach us any attributes of God, it is prone to borrow its theology from somewhere other than nature. Or, as Lewis says, "clothe" its views learned elsewhere in what it sees in nature.
It turns out, however, that Lewis doesn't think that is a bad thing. In fact, he thinks that it is often quite profitable to learn the meaning of certain words in our theology from nature. As long as we understand this unidirectional dynamic - we learn our theology elsewhere, and nature gives it meaning - it is a very profitable endeavor.
"Many people - I am one myself - would never, but for what nature does to us, have had any context to put into the words we must use in confessing our faith. Nature never taught me that there exists a God of glory and of infinite majesty. I had to learn that in other ways. But nature gave the word 'glory' a meaning for me....I do not see how the 'fear' of God could have ever meant to me anything but the lowest prudential efforts to be safe, if I had never seen certain ominous ravines and unapproachable crags."
Posted at 10:35 PM | | Read More | | |
Fri - March 24, 2006
Natural Theology
I respond to a post on Mere
Orthodoxy
This post is a response to a post from
Peregrine Ward over at MereOrthodoxy. I was going to leave it as a
comment, but I thought my readers might be interested and want to weigh in as
well. Sorry for quoting his whole post, but its nice and concise and I think he
makes his point well. His quote is in blue and then I respond
below:
I have met many theologians who are skeptical of or even hostile to what is commonly called natural theology–in short, the discipline that seeks what knowledge of God might be known apart from special revelation.
An objection to natural theology would run something like this: since the God of the gospel is a Trinity of Persons, and since no natural theologian claims this as a deliverance of his arguments, the god revealed through natural theology is not the God of the gospel and hence not God at all.
This criticism is completely off base. It argues from from principles that the natural theologian, ex hypothesi, does not accept. Natural theology proceeds by reason alone, aided by the best that the sciences and metaphysics have to offer.Special revelation has no jurisdiction over natural theology, and where scripture does refer to it, natural theology is quite obviously affirmed (Romans 1:19-21), contra Barth.
As Aquinas pointed out, there can be several ways of approaching the same conclusion. Arguing that God is good is easy when your interlocutors are Jews or Muslims or Christians: refer them to the scripture you share. Arguing the same to atheists is more difficult: you must use the only authority you share, reason. If best reason points to a being who is the creator and sustainer of the universe, then fooey to the Barthians.
Luther weighed in on this as well. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but he said that investigating creation can be informative but not quite in the way you suggest. He says we indeed see God in the ocean, or in the providence of nature where things we need for survival are provided, like fire. But fire also burns, and people drown in the ocean. So the god we see revealed in nature appears harsh, with good standing alongside the bad in almost equal amounts. It is only when we see the Cross, which can only be revealed through Scripture, that we can know for sure that there truly is a God who is both just and good, and who loves us so immeasurably.
My take on it would be a bit of both - I agree with you that the God revealed in nature (and by reason, etc) can be the same God revealed by Scripture. I think that Romans 1 is absolutely a confirmation that many things about God can be known exclusively from nature. However, those things only reveal our condemnation, not the Cross. So while we are guilty based on nature alone, we cannot be saved apart from God's revelation in His Word, any more than we could be saved apart from The Word becoming flesh.
I would suspect, however, that the intention of natural theology is not to replace but to complement biblical and systematic theology. In this capacity, I would support natural theology because it is another means of learning truth about God (who did, after all, create reason and nature and declared them good). We just need to be conscious about the limits of such inquiry, and maintain our love for scripture over and above any other means of finding truth.
I have met many theologians who are skeptical of or even hostile to what is commonly called natural theology–in short, the discipline that seeks what knowledge of God might be known apart from special revelation.
An objection to natural theology would run something like this: since the God of the gospel is a Trinity of Persons, and since no natural theologian claims this as a deliverance of his arguments, the god revealed through natural theology is not the God of the gospel and hence not God at all.
This criticism is completely off base. It argues from from principles that the natural theologian, ex hypothesi, does not accept. Natural theology proceeds by reason alone, aided by the best that the sciences and metaphysics have to offer.Special revelation has no jurisdiction over natural theology, and where scripture does refer to it, natural theology is quite obviously affirmed (Romans 1:19-21), contra Barth.
As Aquinas pointed out, there can be several ways of approaching the same conclusion. Arguing that God is good is easy when your interlocutors are Jews or Muslims or Christians: refer them to the scripture you share. Arguing the same to atheists is more difficult: you must use the only authority you share, reason. If best reason points to a being who is the creator and sustainer of the universe, then fooey to the Barthians.
Luther weighed in on this as well. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but he said that investigating creation can be informative but not quite in the way you suggest. He says we indeed see God in the ocean, or in the providence of nature where things we need for survival are provided, like fire. But fire also burns, and people drown in the ocean. So the god we see revealed in nature appears harsh, with good standing alongside the bad in almost equal amounts. It is only when we see the Cross, which can only be revealed through Scripture, that we can know for sure that there truly is a God who is both just and good, and who loves us so immeasurably.
My take on it would be a bit of both - I agree with you that the God revealed in nature (and by reason, etc) can be the same God revealed by Scripture. I think that Romans 1 is absolutely a confirmation that many things about God can be known exclusively from nature. However, those things only reveal our condemnation, not the Cross. So while we are guilty based on nature alone, we cannot be saved apart from God's revelation in His Word, any more than we could be saved apart from The Word becoming flesh.
I would suspect, however, that the intention of natural theology is not to replace but to complement biblical and systematic theology. In this capacity, I would support natural theology because it is another means of learning truth about God (who did, after all, create reason and nature and declared them good). We just need to be conscious about the limits of such inquiry, and maintain our love for scripture over and above any other means of finding truth.
Posted at 12:58 PM | | Read More | | |
Sun - March 12, 2006
Class 2 on The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
My notes from my second class of
teaching on LWW
Today I continued teaching my class on The Lion,
The Witch and The Wardrobe - this time actually focusing in on specific aspects
of it in the Witch and Edmund. As I promised my class last week, I read the
entire book this week and found it just as enjoyable and magical as I always do.
In fact, I think there were a number of things that I saw clearly that I had not
noticed before, specifically because I was read with an eye to sin and the devil
in the Witch and Edmund. All of the Narnia books are of the rare type where you
can re-read them with a specific focus and find gold that you had not noticed
before even after having read them
repeatedly.
This week we focus on the Witch and Edmund, and how that relates to the devil, sin and the corruption of our nature. Here are the notes for this week's class. I'm actually a bit saddened that I won't be teaching the rest of the classes - I love the discipline that teaching whips me into that I would not otherwise possess, and I love the necessity of really thinking through the ideas I want to present. I am, however, definitely looking forward to the classes that will be coming up as my pastor Russ and my friend Aaron continue the other 4 weeks on this book.
This week we focus on the Witch and Edmund, and how that relates to the devil, sin and the corruption of our nature. Here are the notes for this week's class. I'm actually a bit saddened that I won't be teaching the rest of the classes - I love the discipline that teaching whips me into that I would not otherwise possess, and I love the necessity of really thinking through the ideas I want to present. I am, however, definitely looking forward to the classes that will be coming up as my pastor Russ and my friend Aaron continue the other 4 weeks on this book.
Posted at 02:53 PM | | Read More | | |
Mon - March 6, 2006
The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - Introduction, Overview and Apology
I'm co-teaching a class on Lewis' The
Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe at my church
I had the privilege this morning of teaching my
first class on The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe at my church. I am one of
the teachers in what will be a six week course, to which I am really looking
forward. I was scheduled to teach this week and next week, and then two other
teachers will pick it up and continue the class. As always, I like to post my
class notes up here - to make them easily available to anyone attending, to save
them for later, and to share them with those of you out there who can't make the
class. For the first class, I decided to do an overview and then do an apology
- borrowing some of the idea from Further Up and Further In, R.C. Sproul Jr's
great CD series on the whole Narnia
set.
Anyway, here's the outline for the first class.
Anyway, here's the outline for the first class.
Posted at 12:04 AM | | Read More | | |
Tue - February 14, 2006
Emergent Thinker Brian McLaren on Homosexuality
Did Brian McLaren actually commit the
one folly that he warns against in his post on homosexuality? And, of course, a
good Luther quote to clarify the matter
I would wager that some of my readers have heard
of the big ruckus Brian McLaren has caused with this post dealing with the question
of counseling someone asking a question about homosexuality being a sin, but I
would wager that probably more still haven't heard any of it and haven't the
foggiest idea who Brian McLaren is. Brian McLaren is one of the most notable
voices of the Emergent Church movement. While it is out of the scope of this
post to explain the Emergent Church (perhaps its out of anyone's scope to even
define it), it is generally considered to be a post-modern reaction to the
influence of modernism on Christian theology that stresses authenticity and
Christ-likeness ahead of normal protestant virtues such as systematic theology
or confessional statements. More can be found
on Wikipedia. For a very thorough roundup of the reactions in the
blogosphere, see Jollyblogger's excellent summary of what's
going on. A tip of the hat also goes to Joe Carter, who first pointed me to this
issue.
I have to agree with Jollyblogger first in commending McLaren for finding the "question behind the question." As the Bible says, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." (Proverbs 15:1) We should not answer too quickly, nor should we assume that someone's personal questions are synonymous with the political debates that take place. As McLaren himself rightly says, "Being "right" isn't enough. We also need to be wise. And loving. And patient." It is not enough to simply condemn a sin and move on - as my Pastor once called "lobbing hand grenades in the cultural war". We fire off our predetermined response and whatever ill effects follow must simply be the consequence of someone else's sin. We should, likewise, not be overly anxious to engage in cultural war on a personal level. How often do we lead conversations with secular friends who do not hold marriage in high enough regard with a condemnation of their sexual proclivities? Why single out homosexuals when we are so uncomfortable saying that divorce (frighteningly common amongst "evangelicals") is absolutely morally wrong?
The difficulty lies, however, in first being right. For McLaren to act as though no one in the church is able to take a biblical stance against homosexuality whilst maintaining the dignity and worth of homosexuals is just plain false - and perhaps belies an attempt to say that the only way of caring for homosexuals is to dismiss their behavior. There are plenty of pastors who do care for homosexuals and yet do not compromise the truth of God's word. Speaking the truth in love means that we do not avoid straight forward questions in an effort to love our way out of an uncomfortable conversation.
In addition, everyone seems to be overlooking his example. These were two people who wanted to be married and were asking if their homosexual fathers would be welcome at the wedding. Is there any church, aside from idiotic and easily dismissed hatred-mongers, that would turn away the father of the bride and groom from a wedding because of their sin? Would there be anyone left at the wedding? What about my parents who are divorced, would they not be allowed at my wedding? The answer to the question behind the question is of course your fathers will be welcome at the wedding - just don't ask us to marry them or to call sin virtue.
But my chief problem is with his suggestion of how to deal with this dilemma:
"Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they'll be admittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the "winds of doctrine" blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course."
What seems to me to be curiously missing from his suggestion is an overarching confidence in the Word of God as the final authority on the matter. He seems to be convinced that the Bible cannot possibly speak in certain terms on this issue - that the Word of God only imparts generic, nebulous, and esoteric truths so much that we must constantly remain in agony, working out our moral dilemmas. If the Bible says something clearly, must our knowledge of that be provisional? From his comments I get the general idea that he thinks true Christianity consists not in the infallible, revealed Word of God, but in some sort of innerworking of the Holy Spirit. Jollyblogger quotes Doug Wilson (please don't wince too hard, Josh ;) ) on this fact, and he says it accurately (though some of his approach in his post is a bit harsh):
"If someone were to ask me whether the Bible teaches that Jesus went to Capernaum, I would say yes, it does. I would not be in agony over the question. It is not the most important question, but it is clear. If someone were to ask if the apostle Paul taught that homosexual behavior (both male and female forms) is the dead end result of idolatry, I would say yes again. No agony in the exegesis whatever. There is only agony if you are lusting after respect from the world, which they will not give to you unless you are busy making plenty of room for their lusts"
But perhaps Luther has said it best. I came across this tonight in reading Bondage of the Will (Luther's scathing rebuke of Erasmus - who himself was very familiar with non-commital, culturally friendly half-doctrine).
"For when we show ourselves disposed to trifle even a little and cease to hold the sacred Scriptures in sufficient reverence, we are soon involved in impieties and overwhelmed with blasphemies."
It seems to me that McLaren's chief criticism of most evangelicals is that they would turn this person away on the first conversation and so tarnish their message that they would not be listened to again. But I have to say that McLaren, as a leading thinker in the Emerging Church, is dangerously close to committing the same sin of which he accuses others. If this were my first interaction with Emergent Christianity, I might very well conclude that they have an extremely low view of scripture and that they might be excising the modernism from Christianity just so they can be fluid enough to morph into what culture demands - so tarnishing the Emergent message that it would not be listened to again.
I have to agree with Jollyblogger first in commending McLaren for finding the "question behind the question." As the Bible says, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." (Proverbs 15:1) We should not answer too quickly, nor should we assume that someone's personal questions are synonymous with the political debates that take place. As McLaren himself rightly says, "Being "right" isn't enough. We also need to be wise. And loving. And patient." It is not enough to simply condemn a sin and move on - as my Pastor once called "lobbing hand grenades in the cultural war". We fire off our predetermined response and whatever ill effects follow must simply be the consequence of someone else's sin. We should, likewise, not be overly anxious to engage in cultural war on a personal level. How often do we lead conversations with secular friends who do not hold marriage in high enough regard with a condemnation of their sexual proclivities? Why single out homosexuals when we are so uncomfortable saying that divorce (frighteningly common amongst "evangelicals") is absolutely morally wrong?
The difficulty lies, however, in first being right. For McLaren to act as though no one in the church is able to take a biblical stance against homosexuality whilst maintaining the dignity and worth of homosexuals is just plain false - and perhaps belies an attempt to say that the only way of caring for homosexuals is to dismiss their behavior. There are plenty of pastors who do care for homosexuals and yet do not compromise the truth of God's word. Speaking the truth in love means that we do not avoid straight forward questions in an effort to love our way out of an uncomfortable conversation.
In addition, everyone seems to be overlooking his example. These were two people who wanted to be married and were asking if their homosexual fathers would be welcome at the wedding. Is there any church, aside from idiotic and easily dismissed hatred-mongers, that would turn away the father of the bride and groom from a wedding because of their sin? Would there be anyone left at the wedding? What about my parents who are divorced, would they not be allowed at my wedding? The answer to the question behind the question is of course your fathers will be welcome at the wedding - just don't ask us to marry them or to call sin virtue.
But my chief problem is with his suggestion of how to deal with this dilemma:
"Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they'll be admittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the "winds of doctrine" blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course."
What seems to me to be curiously missing from his suggestion is an overarching confidence in the Word of God as the final authority on the matter. He seems to be convinced that the Bible cannot possibly speak in certain terms on this issue - that the Word of God only imparts generic, nebulous, and esoteric truths so much that we must constantly remain in agony, working out our moral dilemmas. If the Bible says something clearly, must our knowledge of that be provisional? From his comments I get the general idea that he thinks true Christianity consists not in the infallible, revealed Word of God, but in some sort of innerworking of the Holy Spirit. Jollyblogger quotes Doug Wilson (please don't wince too hard, Josh ;) ) on this fact, and he says it accurately (though some of his approach in his post is a bit harsh):
"If someone were to ask me whether the Bible teaches that Jesus went to Capernaum, I would say yes, it does. I would not be in agony over the question. It is not the most important question, but it is clear. If someone were to ask if the apostle Paul taught that homosexual behavior (both male and female forms) is the dead end result of idolatry, I would say yes again. No agony in the exegesis whatever. There is only agony if you are lusting after respect from the world, which they will not give to you unless you are busy making plenty of room for their lusts"
But perhaps Luther has said it best. I came across this tonight in reading Bondage of the Will (Luther's scathing rebuke of Erasmus - who himself was very familiar with non-commital, culturally friendly half-doctrine).
"For when we show ourselves disposed to trifle even a little and cease to hold the sacred Scriptures in sufficient reverence, we are soon involved in impieties and overwhelmed with blasphemies."
It seems to me that McLaren's chief criticism of most evangelicals is that they would turn this person away on the first conversation and so tarnish their message that they would not be listened to again. But I have to say that McLaren, as a leading thinker in the Emerging Church, is dangerously close to committing the same sin of which he accuses others. If this were my first interaction with Emergent Christianity, I might very well conclude that they have an extremely low view of scripture and that they might be excising the modernism from Christianity just so they can be fluid enough to morph into what culture demands - so tarnishing the Emergent message that it would not be listened to again.
Posted at 11:31 AM | | Read More | | |
Sun - September 4, 2005
The political use of the Law
A post at A Firm Nail about looting in
New Orleans got me thinking about the political use of God's Law, and the
function of the state
A Firm Nail has an excellent post today on the
looting in New Orleans after the hurricane and
flood and what it really tells us of the evil lurking beneath the surface in all
of us. Like Lord of the Flies so adequately expounded, when the restraints of
societal order are removed, man is quick to show his true self. Nailman does an
excellent job showing us how the answer to this problem is the Gospel - our
realization of our own self-centered and awful wickedness ought to bring us to
our knees, to plead forgiveness from the God we have offended. We see this as
God's Law in action, showing us our need of Christ and driving us to the Gospel.
Theologians call this the theological use of the
law.
But in reading his post it got me thinking about the other use of the Law - the political use of the Law (some Lutherans and almost all Reformed/Calvinists hold to three uses of the law, and include the didactic use of the Law where the Law acts as a guide for Christians in how the might live more righteously). The political use of the Law is to restrain sin in this world, to act as a curb to the destructive force of sin in Mankind. It does this by acting as a curb in Man's heart - because he fears retribution - and it serves as a foundation for civil governments.
When George Forell, a great Lutheran author and professor at the University of Iowa, taught a class at my church he had some great insights into the Law. In describing the political use of the law and how it effects man's hearts he said "We see that everyone slows down when they see a police officer." Everyone, no matter how wicked, does not want to deal with the consequences of that evil and so the Law is able to curb their hearts through fear of retribution. It won't make us righteous, because God's Law demands more than public or civil obedience, but it will keep us from being as awful as we would desire.
I've heard many Calvinists explain the difference between Total Depravity and Utter Depravity in defending the first of the five points of Calvin. Utter depravity means that we do nothing but sin and that we sin as much as we possibly could. Total depravity does not claim this, but simply that sin touches the totality of our being. In other words, while it is true that there is no part of our soul that is not infected with sin, it is also true that we could be more sinful than we are. Part of the reason for this is God's merciful restraint of us through the political use of the Law.
Forell also pointed out that, while we tend to think of God's Law as only a function of His justice, God's Law is actually an act of His grace as well. Left to his own devices, man would simply destroy himself in sin. Look for a few minutes at the scene in New Orleans and then multiply it a hundredfold to see where Man would be with no restraints whatsoever - in that state, Man couldn't produce anything worthwhile, and he'd be lucky if he lived for even a short period. But God in his grace works through the restraining power of the Law, and holds the world together long enough for Christ to come to earth and redeem us. In His grace, He still restrains evil in this manner, not wanting any to perish and knowing that there are still lost sheep out there that He will gather to Himself.
The other way in which the political use restrains Man's sin is by acting as a foundation for civil law and order. God has placed the sword in the hand of government, in order that they might protect us from each other by punishing those who do evil - "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. " (Romans 13:4). We see this in action in New Orleans - order is restored gradually by the state sending in troops. Brave National Guardsmen, Army personnel and others will come into distressed, riotous areas and restore order, because they have the power to take the lives of people who refuse to restrain themselves and thus endanger others.
It is a scary thing indeed to see exactly what happens when the curtain is pulled back on man's nature. As Nailman suggests, this ought to make us pull back the curtain of our own soul and realize that beneath the surface of our own civil righteousness lie deep wells of spiritual unrighteousness. Let us also take the time to thank God for His merciful restraint of that sin through the administration of the political use of the Law.
But in reading his post it got me thinking about the other use of the Law - the political use of the Law (some Lutherans and almost all Reformed/Calvinists hold to three uses of the law, and include the didactic use of the Law where the Law acts as a guide for Christians in how the might live more righteously). The political use of the Law is to restrain sin in this world, to act as a curb to the destructive force of sin in Mankind. It does this by acting as a curb in Man's heart - because he fears retribution - and it serves as a foundation for civil governments.
When George Forell, a great Lutheran author and professor at the University of Iowa, taught a class at my church he had some great insights into the Law. In describing the political use of the law and how it effects man's hearts he said "We see that everyone slows down when they see a police officer." Everyone, no matter how wicked, does not want to deal with the consequences of that evil and so the Law is able to curb their hearts through fear of retribution. It won't make us righteous, because God's Law demands more than public or civil obedience, but it will keep us from being as awful as we would desire.
I've heard many Calvinists explain the difference between Total Depravity and Utter Depravity in defending the first of the five points of Calvin. Utter depravity means that we do nothing but sin and that we sin as much as we possibly could. Total depravity does not claim this, but simply that sin touches the totality of our being. In other words, while it is true that there is no part of our soul that is not infected with sin, it is also true that we could be more sinful than we are. Part of the reason for this is God's merciful restraint of us through the political use of the Law.
Forell also pointed out that, while we tend to think of God's Law as only a function of His justice, God's Law is actually an act of His grace as well. Left to his own devices, man would simply destroy himself in sin. Look for a few minutes at the scene in New Orleans and then multiply it a hundredfold to see where Man would be with no restraints whatsoever - in that state, Man couldn't produce anything worthwhile, and he'd be lucky if he lived for even a short period. But God in his grace works through the restraining power of the Law, and holds the world together long enough for Christ to come to earth and redeem us. In His grace, He still restrains evil in this manner, not wanting any to perish and knowing that there are still lost sheep out there that He will gather to Himself.
The other way in which the political use restrains Man's sin is by acting as a foundation for civil law and order. God has placed the sword in the hand of government, in order that they might protect us from each other by punishing those who do evil - "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. " (Romans 13:4). We see this in action in New Orleans - order is restored gradually by the state sending in troops. Brave National Guardsmen, Army personnel and others will come into distressed, riotous areas and restore order, because they have the power to take the lives of people who refuse to restrain themselves and thus endanger others.
It is a scary thing indeed to see exactly what happens when the curtain is pulled back on man's nature. As Nailman suggests, this ought to make us pull back the curtain of our own soul and realize that beneath the surface of our own civil righteousness lie deep wells of spiritual unrighteousness. Let us also take the time to thank God for His merciful restraint of that sin through the administration of the political use of the Law.
Posted at 01:21 AM | | Read More | | |
Fri - April 22, 2005
A Snake Lifted Up
Some thoughts on Numbers 21 - the
snake being lifted up to cure the Israelites from snakebites - inspired by a
post by David of A Physicist's Perspective
David of A Physicist's Perspective had some excellent thoughts on Numbers 21. In case
you don't remember the passage offhand, here's a quick
snippet:
Numbers 21:4-9 :
4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5 And the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.” 6 Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze [1] serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
David did a good job explaining the foreshadowing of Christ in this passage and the "foolishness" of the Cross to those who are perishing, as well as the tight connection between repentance and salvation. As is often the case with David, his post got me thinking as well, and I noticed a few things in this passage that I had not seen before.
The first thing that I noticed was the difference between what the people asked for, and what they received. Notice they asked "that he take away the serpents from us.", and yet God gives them a way to be healed from the venom of the serpents. Salvation is not what we want, but what we need. We would love to receive salvation from our current problems, deliverance from difficulty and a life of lazy ease. But these are not what we need, and our Heavenly Father, knowing our real needs, gives us Christ. It reminds me that the Jews would love to have had a Christ that would have saved them from the tyranny of Rome, so much that some missed the glorious Christ that would save all people from the tyranny of death itself.
It also shows us how our repentance can flow out of a fearful recognition of God's wrath. Sometimes this is a bad practice - we cry out to God only because we are in a bad situation, and promise to behave differently simply because we want to get out of it rather than out of any real remorse. I know I'm guilty of this many times over - "Oh God, if you'll save me from this I'll never do X again." But here it seems that the Israelites actually did recognize the evil in their sin. It was God's wrath that revealed their error to them, but they did confess their error.
Another important thing it shows is that salvation doesn't remove temporary set backs or make us some kind of super-saint who doesn't sin any longer. They were not rid of the snakes, they were cured of the snakebites. This implies that the snakes continued to keep on biting them. Perhaps the Israelites were led to a deeper faith in God by the snakes, as it is hard to ignore being repeatedly bitten. It may have humbled them as well, as each time you are bitten it forces you to acknowledge you will die from the venom, and look to and trust in the sign that God has offered.
This is an allusion to the persistence of our sin. When we become Christians, we are not freed immediately from any sin in our lives. Like the snakes that tormented the Israelites, our sin keeps coming back to bite us. But what God has done in salvation is to remove the sting of sin - namely, that sin no longer condemns us before God. Our sin, like the venom of the snake, meant that we would surely die. As Christians, we will die, but the sting of death and sin has been removed - we will not stand condemned, but rather enter Heaven rejoicing in the grace of God. Those sins that remain in our lives also humble us as well, as every time we realize our sin, it forces us to acknowledge our need of Christ, and bids us to return our gaze to the Cross and trust in His finished work.
1 Corinthians 15:54-58 :
54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
Let us turn our eyes to the Cross, and rejoice in the God has given us the victory over death. Amen.
Numbers 21:4-9 :
4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5 And the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.” 6 Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze [1] serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
David did a good job explaining the foreshadowing of Christ in this passage and the "foolishness" of the Cross to those who are perishing, as well as the tight connection between repentance and salvation. As is often the case with David, his post got me thinking as well, and I noticed a few things in this passage that I had not seen before.
The first thing that I noticed was the difference between what the people asked for, and what they received. Notice they asked "that he take away the serpents from us.", and yet God gives them a way to be healed from the venom of the serpents. Salvation is not what we want, but what we need. We would love to receive salvation from our current problems, deliverance from difficulty and a life of lazy ease. But these are not what we need, and our Heavenly Father, knowing our real needs, gives us Christ. It reminds me that the Jews would love to have had a Christ that would have saved them from the tyranny of Rome, so much that some missed the glorious Christ that would save all people from the tyranny of death itself.
It also shows us how our repentance can flow out of a fearful recognition of God's wrath. Sometimes this is a bad practice - we cry out to God only because we are in a bad situation, and promise to behave differently simply because we want to get out of it rather than out of any real remorse. I know I'm guilty of this many times over - "Oh God, if you'll save me from this I'll never do X again." But here it seems that the Israelites actually did recognize the evil in their sin. It was God's wrath that revealed their error to them, but they did confess their error.
Another important thing it shows is that salvation doesn't remove temporary set backs or make us some kind of super-saint who doesn't sin any longer. They were not rid of the snakes, they were cured of the snakebites. This implies that the snakes continued to keep on biting them. Perhaps the Israelites were led to a deeper faith in God by the snakes, as it is hard to ignore being repeatedly bitten. It may have humbled them as well, as each time you are bitten it forces you to acknowledge you will die from the venom, and look to and trust in the sign that God has offered.
This is an allusion to the persistence of our sin. When we become Christians, we are not freed immediately from any sin in our lives. Like the snakes that tormented the Israelites, our sin keeps coming back to bite us. But what God has done in salvation is to remove the sting of sin - namely, that sin no longer condemns us before God. Our sin, like the venom of the snake, meant that we would surely die. As Christians, we will die, but the sting of death and sin has been removed - we will not stand condemned, but rather enter Heaven rejoicing in the grace of God. Those sins that remain in our lives also humble us as well, as every time we realize our sin, it forces us to acknowledge our need of Christ, and bids us to return our gaze to the Cross and trust in His finished work.
1 Corinthians 15:54-58 :
54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
Let us turn our eyes to the Cross, and rejoice in the God has given us the victory over death. Amen.
Posted at 01:32 AM | | Read More | | |
Fri - March 25, 2005
Good Friday
I'll be speaking at church on Good
Friday, and thought I'd share my thoughts here as well - on the Centurion's
confession, "Truly this was a righteous man"
I've been asked by my pastor to speak at our Good
Friday service on Luke 23:44-49, the confession of the Centurion
that "truly this was a righteous man." At my church we usually have a Good
Friday service comprised by a couple little sermons on specific texts. This
will be my third time speaking at this service; in fact this
poem was inspired by my studying in preparation for speaking at the
Good Friday service two years ago. I thought that I would share my thoughts on
the passage with all of you as
well.
The confession of the Centurion is one of the many miraculous testimonies that accompany Christ's death. Matthew Henry notes that we should have expected that after Christ's life had produced so many miracles that his death would also be attended by miracles. If Christ had been snatched away in a fiery chariot like Elijah, that might have been miracle enough. But since He was dying a brutal, shameful death of a criminal, it was fitting that God testified to His divine glory in powerful ways.
Here, in our text from Luke we see first that the earth was darkened for three hours before Christ's death. An ominous reminder of the awful act being committed. The Son of God was dying, and here it seems almost as though the Earth itself cannot contain its grief, and must hide its eyes from the brutal acts taking place. It also illustrates the darkness that has fallen on Man - he is so blinded by sin that he kills the Son of God.
Next, the veil of the temple was torn in two - in Matthew it even specifies from top to bottom. The is the veil of the temple that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place. The Holy of Holies was where the Ark of the Covenant was kept, and where God was present. No one was allowed to even enter the veil, except the High Priest and even he was only to go in once a year after performing numerous ceremonial acts to purify himself. When the veil is torn it is God's testament to the finished work of Christ - the awful gulf that separates us from God had been crossed. Our sins no longer cast us outside the presence of God and we no longer need to be carefully protected from His wrath. Christ's death has won for us a full and complete atonement.
Lastly we come to the confession of the Centurion. If we are to understand this man's confession, we must first take a look at who the centurion was. His title as a centurion means he was a military leader, in charge of 100 men - "Cent" coming from the Latin word for 100 (e.g. per-cent, dollars and cents, etc). It is probable that he was the commander of the legion of men who actually carried out the crucifixions that day - in fact, he may have even been the highest ranking officer there. It is also very likely that he was part of the mocking Christ had received earlier (Luke 23:36) - if he was not the one mocking directly, it was likely one of the men under his command who was allowed (and most likely encouraged) to do so. This was not a man who was easily shaken, as his job as a soldier would have left him with quite a calloused heart.
He must have also been amazed that a man could cry out with such a loud voice right as he was on the edge of death. Crucifixion is an awful, defeating death that eventually kills its victims by suffocating them. He would have seen many proud young men crushed under the weight of the cross, their swagger and pride easily defeated by its might. Christ crying out with a loud voice signified that He willfully went to the Cross, that He had the power to lay down or take up His life, and that He was now willfully laying it down into the Father's hands. This act of power and will was not lost on the centurion, and led to his confession.
He was a Roman, and therefore a Gentile, ignorant of the law and the prophets which were being fulfilled before his eyes. Those who had been given the law, those who new the signs to look for, had overlooked the promised Christ. And yet here is a Gentile who recognizes that something was different about this man. Not only is he shaken by the miraculous events that unfolded before his eyes, but he, though a Gentile, is able to correctly comprehend what they meant - "Surely, this was a righteous man."
In fact, we see in similar recounts of the Centurion's confession (in Matthew 27:50-56, and Mark 15:33-41) his confession goes even further "Truly, this was the Son of God." It is interesting to note, as Matthew Henry does, that these are essentially the same thing - if Christ was truly a righteous man, then His testimony concerning Himself being the Son of God must be accepted. In the words of Henry, "How soon can God, by the power he has over men's consciences, alter their language, and fetch confessions of his truths, to his own glory, out of the mouths of those that have breathed nothing but threatenings, and slaughter, and blasphemies!"
May that same changing power of God grip all of your hearts as we examine Christ's death. I pray that we, like the centurion, will be given the boldness to confess the truth of Christ. Amen.
The confession of the Centurion is one of the many miraculous testimonies that accompany Christ's death. Matthew Henry notes that we should have expected that after Christ's life had produced so many miracles that his death would also be attended by miracles. If Christ had been snatched away in a fiery chariot like Elijah, that might have been miracle enough. But since He was dying a brutal, shameful death of a criminal, it was fitting that God testified to His divine glory in powerful ways.
Here, in our text from Luke we see first that the earth was darkened for three hours before Christ's death. An ominous reminder of the awful act being committed. The Son of God was dying, and here it seems almost as though the Earth itself cannot contain its grief, and must hide its eyes from the brutal acts taking place. It also illustrates the darkness that has fallen on Man - he is so blinded by sin that he kills the Son of God.
Next, the veil of the temple was torn in two - in Matthew it even specifies from top to bottom. The is the veil of the temple that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place. The Holy of Holies was where the Ark of the Covenant was kept, and where God was present. No one was allowed to even enter the veil, except the High Priest and even he was only to go in once a year after performing numerous ceremonial acts to purify himself. When the veil is torn it is God's testament to the finished work of Christ - the awful gulf that separates us from God had been crossed. Our sins no longer cast us outside the presence of God and we no longer need to be carefully protected from His wrath. Christ's death has won for us a full and complete atonement.
Lastly we come to the confession of the Centurion. If we are to understand this man's confession, we must first take a look at who the centurion was. His title as a centurion means he was a military leader, in charge of 100 men - "Cent" coming from the Latin word for 100 (e.g. per-cent, dollars and cents, etc). It is probable that he was the commander of the legion of men who actually carried out the crucifixions that day - in fact, he may have even been the highest ranking officer there. It is also very likely that he was part of the mocking Christ had received earlier (Luke 23:36) - if he was not the one mocking directly, it was likely one of the men under his command who was allowed (and most likely encouraged) to do so. This was not a man who was easily shaken, as his job as a soldier would have left him with quite a calloused heart.
He must have also been amazed that a man could cry out with such a loud voice right as he was on the edge of death. Crucifixion is an awful, defeating death that eventually kills its victims by suffocating them. He would have seen many proud young men crushed under the weight of the cross, their swagger and pride easily defeated by its might. Christ crying out with a loud voice signified that He willfully went to the Cross, that He had the power to lay down or take up His life, and that He was now willfully laying it down into the Father's hands. This act of power and will was not lost on the centurion, and led to his confession.
He was a Roman, and therefore a Gentile, ignorant of the law and the prophets which were being fulfilled before his eyes. Those who had been given the law, those who new the signs to look for, had overlooked the promised Christ. And yet here is a Gentile who recognizes that something was different about this man. Not only is he shaken by the miraculous events that unfolded before his eyes, but he, though a Gentile, is able to correctly comprehend what they meant - "Surely, this was a righteous man."
In fact, we see in similar recounts of the Centurion's confession (in Matthew 27:50-56, and Mark 15:33-41) his confession goes even further "Truly, this was the Son of God." It is interesting to note, as Matthew Henry does, that these are essentially the same thing - if Christ was truly a righteous man, then His testimony concerning Himself being the Son of God must be accepted. In the words of Henry, "How soon can God, by the power he has over men's consciences, alter their language, and fetch confessions of his truths, to his own glory, out of the mouths of those that have breathed nothing but threatenings, and slaughter, and blasphemies!"
May that same changing power of God grip all of your hearts as we examine Christ's death. I pray that we, like the centurion, will be given the boldness to confess the truth of Christ. Amen.
Posted at 07:45 PM | | Read More | | |
Thu - March 17, 2005
Ads on Christian radio
One ad in particular on Christian
radio bothers me a great deal - an ad for divorce attorneys
I really enjoy the Frank Pastore show. I had him
as a teacher in some extension courses on apologetics that Biola did a long time
ago and thought his class was one of the best I had taken. So I was excited to
learn that he would be on radio full time. I think his show started off a bit
slow and it almost fell off my radar, but I have to agree with Dr. Reynolds that
it has really jumped up to the next level. If you haven't listened to Pastore
lately, give him another listen.
There is one thing that really disturbs me, however. Every time I listen to him (which is often not more than half an hour because its on my drive) I hear an ad for a divorce attorney. This means this ad must play on KKLA quite a bit, as I only listen for brief periods. This is bothersome to me on many different levels.
First off, if Christian radio is listened to primarily (and I would think almost exclusively) by Christians, and yet this company still makes a good return on their advertising investment then the Church clearly has a problem with divorce. I know this is obvious to anyone who has observed culture for the last decade, but its still worth mentioning. If the Church has made divorce so readily available and is so complacent about it, how much worse will the rest of culture be? The homosexual marriage issue would probably not have nearly as much traction in the public mind if heterosexual marriages had not been so awful over the last decade or two. I've even heard that on some dating sites, its more desirable to be divorced than single - because you've already gotten your "starter marriage" out of the way, and its clear you are able to commit (though unsuccessfully).
Along the same lines, is there such a thing as a Christian divorce attorney? Christ Himself said "Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate." Furthermore, Paul handed down the command that we are not to take another Christian to secular courts. He instructed us that we should settle legal disputes within the Church instead. Therefore, how can a Christian attorney represent one Christian against another in court? For that matter, how can a Christian take another Christian to court in good conscience (and not just in divorce proceedings)?
Some people may counter this with the idea that even though it should never happen, what about the case where someone is outright leaving you and they are filing divorce papers against you? Certainly then one would need an attorney (seeing as you have to be in court anyway)? While that is true, this goes to my first point - how often does this happen in the Church that it is worthwhile for them to advertise on Christian radio? What we are talking about in this case is outright abandonment and it is inexcusable. The biblical model would be for the person to be excommunicated and for other churches to respect this - disallowing this person from ever attending church again until they had repented and been reconciled. The only acceptable biblical reasons for divorce are adultery, or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse - but divorce inside the Church is definitely not currently limited to these two reasons.
Which brings me to one of my biggest problems with the ads themselves - the content. It starts with a woman talking about her looming divorce - "Bob just served me divorce papers. I knew we had problems, but I didn't know it was this bad." This does seem to fit the case mentioned above, where a spouse is being abandoned by their spouse and has to represent themselves. But then the ad goes on to say "I've got to make sure me and the children are protected. There's the house, and Bob's retirement account..." This seems to me to be a clear cut endorsement of greed in divorce. She mentions the children, but only briefly as if to justify the real issue of splitting the finances. I guess it only makes sense - by the time attorneys are involved, everyone has lost concern for the children and they only thing left is to see who gets the lion's share of the lucre.
My main point in all of this is simply to say that we in the Church have a real, pervasive problem with divorce. We are extremely lenient on not only divorce but remarriage, which the Bible does not seem to endorse in any case (see Jesus' words on remarriage as adultery). Perhaps the best way of summing this up would be this - if I ran an ad for a church that marries same-sex couples, what do you think the response would be? Would it even make it on the air, or would the station refuse it? If it did make the air, wouldn't an endless stream of calls come in asking for it to be removed? And yet, this ad plays on KKLA every weekday during Pastore's show - the station clearly has no problems with it airing, and it doesn't seem that they get much complaint from their audience. We in the Church had better remove the log from our eye, or culture will be left with the splinters in theirs.
There is one thing that really disturbs me, however. Every time I listen to him (which is often not more than half an hour because its on my drive) I hear an ad for a divorce attorney. This means this ad must play on KKLA quite a bit, as I only listen for brief periods. This is bothersome to me on many different levels.
First off, if Christian radio is listened to primarily (and I would think almost exclusively) by Christians, and yet this company still makes a good return on their advertising investment then the Church clearly has a problem with divorce. I know this is obvious to anyone who has observed culture for the last decade, but its still worth mentioning. If the Church has made divorce so readily available and is so complacent about it, how much worse will the rest of culture be? The homosexual marriage issue would probably not have nearly as much traction in the public mind if heterosexual marriages had not been so awful over the last decade or two. I've even heard that on some dating sites, its more desirable to be divorced than single - because you've already gotten your "starter marriage" out of the way, and its clear you are able to commit (though unsuccessfully).
Along the same lines, is there such a thing as a Christian divorce attorney? Christ Himself said "Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate." Furthermore, Paul handed down the command that we are not to take another Christian to secular courts. He instructed us that we should settle legal disputes within the Church instead. Therefore, how can a Christian attorney represent one Christian against another in court? For that matter, how can a Christian take another Christian to court in good conscience (and not just in divorce proceedings)?
Some people may counter this with the idea that even though it should never happen, what about the case where someone is outright leaving you and they are filing divorce papers against you? Certainly then one would need an attorney (seeing as you have to be in court anyway)? While that is true, this goes to my first point - how often does this happen in the Church that it is worthwhile for them to advertise on Christian radio? What we are talking about in this case is outright abandonment and it is inexcusable. The biblical model would be for the person to be excommunicated and for other churches to respect this - disallowing this person from ever attending church again until they had repented and been reconciled. The only acceptable biblical reasons for divorce are adultery, or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse - but divorce inside the Church is definitely not currently limited to these two reasons.
Which brings me to one of my biggest problems with the ads themselves - the content. It starts with a woman talking about her looming divorce - "Bob just served me divorce papers. I knew we had problems, but I didn't know it was this bad." This does seem to fit the case mentioned above, where a spouse is being abandoned by their spouse and has to represent themselves. But then the ad goes on to say "I've got to make sure me and the children are protected. There's the house, and Bob's retirement account..." This seems to me to be a clear cut endorsement of greed in divorce. She mentions the children, but only briefly as if to justify the real issue of splitting the finances. I guess it only makes sense - by the time attorneys are involved, everyone has lost concern for the children and they only thing left is to see who gets the lion's share of the lucre.
My main point in all of this is simply to say that we in the Church have a real, pervasive problem with divorce. We are extremely lenient on not only divorce but remarriage, which the Bible does not seem to endorse in any case (see Jesus' words on remarriage as adultery). Perhaps the best way of summing this up would be this - if I ran an ad for a church that marries same-sex couples, what do you think the response would be? Would it even make it on the air, or would the station refuse it? If it did make the air, wouldn't an endless stream of calls come in asking for it to be removed? And yet, this ad plays on KKLA every weekday during Pastore's show - the station clearly has no problems with it airing, and it doesn't seem that they get much complaint from their audience. We in the Church had better remove the log from our eye, or culture will be left with the splinters in theirs.
Posted at 02:17 PM | | Read More | | |
Mon - March 7, 2005
Win free books
Challies is giving away books - sign
up here for your chance
H/T to David of A Physicist's Perspective for this story. Tim
Challies of Challies.com is giving away free books. I've
heard good things about Grudem's Systematic Theology but I've never read it.
The other book I haven't heard of, but it looks very interesting. Click the image to
enter:
Since he asked that only people interested in actually reading the books enter, I will actually commit to reading both books and posting reviews on them here. Speaking of which, I'd actually like to start doing more of that with some of the other books I've been reading - stay tuned for that. Oh, and the Armstrong Williams disclosure - by using my link you give me an extra entry into the contest, so please use my link.
Since he asked that only people interested in actually reading the books enter, I will actually commit to reading both books and posting reviews on them here. Speaking of which, I'd actually like to start doing more of that with some of the other books I've been reading - stay tuned for that. Oh, and the Armstrong Williams disclosure - by using my link you give me an extra entry into the contest, so please use my link.
Posted at 08:25 PM | | Read More | | |
Questions on Veith
A good friend raised some excellent
questions on what Lutherans believe, which I would like to answer in a series of
posts
A good friend of Janet's and mine recently read
Veith's Spirituality of the Cross. She had a few
excellent questions after reading it and sent us an email with them. Since I
would be typing the response in an email anyway, I thought I would just post my
answers here in a series of posts - to share with all of you, and perhaps start
a discussion on any of these.
Here's her first question: The author talks about corporate confession and absolution, and he mentions in the appendix that some Lutheran church do private confession and absolution. Do you believe that any sins are forgiven at the moment of corporate absolution which were previously unforgiven in the life of a Christian?
The simple answer is no, Lutherans do not believe that confession is necessary to remove sins. The background (which I know my friend knows, but some of you may not) of this question has to do with the Catholic understanding of sin and confession that the Reformation ran up against. I'll do my best to summarize the views as I remember them.
Catholics believed there are two types of sins - mortal sins and venial sins. Mortal sins immediately condemn your soul to hell. You will go to hell unless you confess these to a priest and complete your penance - if you die in the middle of a murder, for instance, you go to hell. Venial sins are sins which harm your soul, but do not condemn you. They would be stains on your soul which you would need to work off in purgatory, but you wouldn't be lost in hell with no hope of exit. So when Catholics do private confession, they are essentially beginning the process of working their sins off. You tell a priest what you did, he tells you what you must do for penance, and then you're forgiven if you do your penance.
Essentially this means that for Catholics, their salvation is always in jeopardy. The moment you sin, you've gone back to a status of being guilty, and you'll remain there until you get to confess that sin and perform your penance for it. You're never more than one sin away from hell.
Luther came along and said that essentially there is only one type of sin - mortal sin. All sin condemns your soul to hell, and no amount of penance will wash it off. Even if you could wash it off, you'd dirty yourself right back up before you got very far - before Luther came to understand justification, he used to spend hours in the confessional, confessing every last little wayward thought or deed he had done, only to leave the confessional and think "that was a good confession I just had" and immediately run back inside to confess his pride over what a good confession he had. It was this obsession with his own sin that led him deeper into the Bible to find the real remedy for sin - Christ's death on the cross. By faith in Christ's atoning work, we are credited his righteousness and therefore are forgiven all of our sin. This is what is called "the happy exchange" - we give to Christ all of our sin and Christ gives us His righteousness. This exchange does not occur for only a set of confessed sin, but rather all of our sin. By faith in Christ's work we are truly forgiven of our sins and made right in God's eyes because of Christ's righteousness.
So why do we still have confession and absolution in our services? Even more to the point, why would we ever retain private confession and absolution if that was part of the Catholic process where we supposedly worked off our sin?
The answer also lies in Luther's obsession with his own sin. He understood that the Good News of the Gospel sounds too good to be true and our hearts are often troubled. We wonder, can it really be that God has forgiven my sins (especially this really big thing that I've hid from everyone else)? For burdened hearts who fear their sin is too great to be forgiven, it can be a great help to be able to speak to a pastor and tell them the sin with which they have struggled. To have another person, especially one who has been called and ordained, listen to their sin and then pronounce to them the forgiveness that Christ won for them on the Cross can be a powerful reminder of God's grace. The truth is they are no more forgiven than they were before they talked with the pastor, but their sin no longer weighs on their conscience. We should also be clear that the pastor himself does not forgive sins - he simply proclaims the forgiveness that Christ has given to this person.
Corporate confession serves the same function. We don't believe that by showing up on Sunday morning and reading our confession out loud together and hearing our pastor proclaim Christ's forgiveness we are forgiven of sins that were previously not forgiven. Rather, it serves the purpose of reminding the members of the church - first of their own sins, and then of Christ's forgiveness. In a way its a verbal enactment of the happy exchange - we are confessing that we have nothing to offer Christ but our sins, and the pastor is proclaiming that Christ has not only taken our sins from us, but He has also given us His righteousness.
Here's her first question: The author talks about corporate confession and absolution, and he mentions in the appendix that some Lutheran church do private confession and absolution. Do you believe that any sins are forgiven at the moment of corporate absolution which were previously unforgiven in the life of a Christian?
The simple answer is no, Lutherans do not believe that confession is necessary to remove sins. The background (which I know my friend knows, but some of you may not) of this question has to do with the Catholic understanding of sin and confession that the Reformation ran up against. I'll do my best to summarize the views as I remember them.
Catholics believed there are two types of sins - mortal sins and venial sins. Mortal sins immediately condemn your soul to hell. You will go to hell unless you confess these to a priest and complete your penance - if you die in the middle of a murder, for instance, you go to hell. Venial sins are sins which harm your soul, but do not condemn you. They would be stains on your soul which you would need to work off in purgatory, but you wouldn't be lost in hell with no hope of exit. So when Catholics do private confession, they are essentially beginning the process of working their sins off. You tell a priest what you did, he tells you what you must do for penance, and then you're forgiven if you do your penance.
Essentially this means that for Catholics, their salvation is always in jeopardy. The moment you sin, you've gone back to a status of being guilty, and you'll remain there until you get to confess that sin and perform your penance for it. You're never more than one sin away from hell.
Luther came along and said that essentially there is only one type of sin - mortal sin. All sin condemns your soul to hell, and no amount of penance will wash it off. Even if you could wash it off, you'd dirty yourself right back up before you got very far - before Luther came to understand justification, he used to spend hours in the confessional, confessing every last little wayward thought or deed he had done, only to leave the confessional and think "that was a good confession I just had" and immediately run back inside to confess his pride over what a good confession he had. It was this obsession with his own sin that led him deeper into the Bible to find the real remedy for sin - Christ's death on the cross. By faith in Christ's atoning work, we are credited his righteousness and therefore are forgiven all of our sin. This is what is called "the happy exchange" - we give to Christ all of our sin and Christ gives us His righteousness. This exchange does not occur for only a set of confessed sin, but rather all of our sin. By faith in Christ's work we are truly forgiven of our sins and made right in God's eyes because of Christ's righteousness.
So why do we still have confession and absolution in our services? Even more to the point, why would we ever retain private confession and absolution if that was part of the Catholic process where we supposedly worked off our sin?
The answer also lies in Luther's obsession with his own sin. He understood that the Good News of the Gospel sounds too good to be true and our hearts are often troubled. We wonder, can it really be that God has forgiven my sins (especially this really big thing that I've hid from everyone else)? For burdened hearts who fear their sin is too great to be forgiven, it can be a great help to be able to speak to a pastor and tell them the sin with which they have struggled. To have another person, especially one who has been called and ordained, listen to their sin and then pronounce to them the forgiveness that Christ won for them on the Cross can be a powerful reminder of God's grace. The truth is they are no more forgiven than they were before they talked with the pastor, but their sin no longer weighs on their conscience. We should also be clear that the pastor himself does not forgive sins - he simply proclaims the forgiveness that Christ has given to this person.
Corporate confession serves the same function. We don't believe that by showing up on Sunday morning and reading our confession out loud together and hearing our pastor proclaim Christ's forgiveness we are forgiven of sins that were previously not forgiven. Rather, it serves the purpose of reminding the members of the church - first of their own sins, and then of Christ's forgiveness. In a way its a verbal enactment of the happy exchange - we are confessing that we have nothing to offer Christ but our sins, and the pastor is proclaiming that Christ has not only taken our sins from us, but He has also given us His righteousness.
Posted at 02:12 AM | | Read More | | |
Wed - February 16, 2005
Death
God in His grace is transforming my fear
of death into reverence for the One who has triumphed over it. My thoughts on a
post by Dr. Reynolds, and a great poem by Donne.
Dr. Reynolds had such a good post today - on
perhaps THE most important topic - that I just had to stop my busy day and take
time to post. Take the time and read his post first, I'll be here when you get
back. He addresses the inescapable nature of Death, and what a daunting and
terrible picture it paints for the secularist. But this is not the Death of the
Christian, for we have a King who conquered even Death.
Dr. Reynolds touches on this briefly:
"Hope is a Christian virtue. Only the great monotheistic religions can believe in the face of death. Christianity does not avoid death for it contains a God who dies. "
Death is that one awesome thing that Man cannot ignore. It is perhaps the clearest vision of God's transcendence. What is the one thing we will never overcome, no matter how advanced we may become? The fact that we are finite, with a definite beginning and a definite end (at least to this life). God has neither beginning nor end, and speaking of death and God in the same sentence seems to be doomed to confusion.
And yet, what did the God who can never taste death do? He subjected Himself to become a man, to put on our flesh and our nature, and to subject Himself not only to death, but a cruel, painful death of shame and disgrace on a cross. In doing so, He proves Himself to be powerful in the chief weakness of Man. He confronts the very thing that we can never escape, and neither avoiding nor ignoring death, conquers it. How great a God is this? How thoroughly does He deserve our trust?
God in His grace is transforming my fear of death into reverence for the One who has triumphed over it. Thanks be to God that He has conquered death, and shall lead me to conquer fear of it through trust in Him. I know its the second time this week I've quoted John Donne, but this is one of my favorite of his poems and so apropos:
Death, Be Not Proud
by John Donne
DEATH be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so,
For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better then thy stroake; why swell'st thou then;
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.
Dr. Reynolds touches on this briefly:
"Hope is a Christian virtue. Only the great monotheistic religions can believe in the face of death. Christianity does not avoid death for it contains a God who dies. "
Death is that one awesome thing that Man cannot ignore. It is perhaps the clearest vision of God's transcendence. What is the one thing we will never overcome, no matter how advanced we may become? The fact that we are finite, with a definite beginning and a definite end (at least to this life). God has neither beginning nor end, and speaking of death and God in the same sentence seems to be doomed to confusion.
And yet, what did the God who can never taste death do? He subjected Himself to become a man, to put on our flesh and our nature, and to subject Himself not only to death, but a cruel, painful death of shame and disgrace on a cross. In doing so, He proves Himself to be powerful in the chief weakness of Man. He confronts the very thing that we can never escape, and neither avoiding nor ignoring death, conquers it. How great a God is this? How thoroughly does He deserve our trust?
God in His grace is transforming my fear of death into reverence for the One who has triumphed over it. Thanks be to God that He has conquered death, and shall lead me to conquer fear of it through trust in Him. I know its the second time this week I've quoted John Donne, but this is one of my favorite of his poems and so apropos:
Death, Be Not Proud
by John Donne
DEATH be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so,
For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better then thy stroake; why swell'st thou then;
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.
Posted at 08:58 PM | | Read More | | |
Thu - February 3, 2005
A response to the ELCA's taskforce on sexuality
My pastor's response to the ELCA's
task force
For those that don't know, the ELCA (my denom)
has been "studying" the issue of sexuality and specifically, whether or not it
should ordain open, practicing homosexuals and bless same sex marriages. The
taskforce that the ELCA created has posted their response, and my pastor (the
same one you've
been praying
for, thank you) wrote a response that I thought was worth posting.
Here's his
response:
A Response to the Recommendations from the ELCA’s Taskforce on Studies of Sexuality
On January 13, 2004 the ELCA’s task force released three recommendations for the study of sexuality. It is important to note that these recommendations are only recommendations and do not represent the current position by the ELCA. These recommendations instead will be considered at the ELCA gathering this summer. If you would like to view the report in its entirety you can find it on the web at: http://www.elcawebstatus.org/tfreport.pdf
Below is my response to these recommendations.
Why the Pilgrims came to America
Why did the Pilgrims come to America? In grade school we learned that the Pilgrims came to America because of religious persecution. But that is only half the answer. The pilgrims left England because of persecution. However, they did not come straight to America. Instead they moved to Holland, where they received much freedom and tolerance. But soon they found this tolerance to be just as threatening. As Professor Stan Gaede explains, “The Puritans found Dutch tolerance just as threatening as the intolerance of England had been. For it too imperiled the truth – this time not by coercion, but by the poisoning effects of a polluted soil” (p. 79).
Why would the Pilgrims leave a place where they had so much freedom? The answer is simple, namely, they valued truth! Truth was not just a hunch or an opinion. Rather, truth was something worth living, dying, and suffering for. The Puritans suffered in England because they could not practice their faith. The Pilgrims suffered in Holland, because the atmosphere “polluted” their faith. And so the Pilgrims came to America.
We could learn a thing or two from the Pilgrims. Currently the ELCA is in a place where truth does not mean much. The values of a pluralistic society have infiltrated the Church causing the virtue of tolerance to reign supreme. You can even see its affects all throughout report and recommendations made by the ELCA taskforce. For instance, the report begins by saying that they do not want “winners or losers.” Now, I understand their sentiment, however, it is a little naïve. Whenever we discuss truth there will be a right answer and subsequently a wrong answer. And thus there will be “winners and losers.” Now, I understand the taskforce is trying to stop a war within the church, but that is why we need to settle the issue so that we can move on to ministering to those affected.
Second, the report did not reflect the work of the congregations who took time to study the issue. If you read the end of the report (p. 32), you will see that 57% of the people opposed the ordination of practicing homosexuals; 22% favored the ordination of practicing homosexuals; 17% were undecided; and 3% wanted a third option. Now, of these four positions the taskforce decided to go with the last. They recommend a local option and thus chose the position held by only 3%. This is troubling because it appears that the taskforce has no connection with the members of the ELCA.
Third, the recommendation of a “local option” is not practical. In our current structure a pastor holds the office of Bishop for a term of seven years (with a max of two terms). Now, under this current recommendation the Bishop decides whether or not to allow practicing homosexuals to pastor congregations within the synod. My question is what will happen if the next Bishop has a different stance. Will a synod remove ten of its pastors? Will a synod be willing to lose its’ churches? Or is the taskforce hoping that by then the local option will become the denominations option?
Finally, and maybe the worst of all, for a study that promised to be grounded in the Word of God, this recommendation is entirely too nebulous. In fact it appeared that the taskforce lifted one’s conscience over the Word of God (see page 11). Again this is problematic in a pluralistic church because our consciences will differ. That is why we need the Word of God to be authoritative and normative to our faith and life. Whenever we move away from the Word of God we move into trouble. The Pilgrims understood this and so they set sail to America for the hope of protecting themselves and their children. It is my hope that we would be willing to move and to fight and to speak out not only for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren.
I want to end on a bright note. Our Lord has said that the gates of Hell will not prevail over the Church. Why? Because the Lord is faithful to his bride! The Holy Spirit will lead his people into faith and truth. We as Christians must be assured that even these recommendations will be used by God to purify and strengthen and impassion and embolden and enliven His church. “For all things work for the good to those who love God and are called according to His purposes” (Romans 8:28). And so as your pastor I encourage you to continue to read God’s Word. I encourage you to attend the adult study on “The Bible and Homosexuality” occurring Sunday mornings. And I encourage you to pray for the Christian Church, the ELCA, and for Reformation Lutheran Church!
Because tolerance is not always a virtue,
Pastor Russell Lackey
A Response to the Recommendations from the ELCA’s Taskforce on Studies of Sexuality
On January 13, 2004 the ELCA’s task force released three recommendations for the study of sexuality. It is important to note that these recommendations are only recommendations and do not represent the current position by the ELCA. These recommendations instead will be considered at the ELCA gathering this summer. If you would like to view the report in its entirety you can find it on the web at: http://www.elcawebstatus.org/tfreport.pdf
Below is my response to these recommendations.
Why the Pilgrims came to America
Why did the Pilgrims come to America? In grade school we learned that the Pilgrims came to America because of religious persecution. But that is only half the answer. The pilgrims left England because of persecution. However, they did not come straight to America. Instead they moved to Holland, where they received much freedom and tolerance. But soon they found this tolerance to be just as threatening. As Professor Stan Gaede explains, “The Puritans found Dutch tolerance just as threatening as the intolerance of England had been. For it too imperiled the truth – this time not by coercion, but by the poisoning effects of a polluted soil” (p. 79).
Why would the Pilgrims leave a place where they had so much freedom? The answer is simple, namely, they valued truth! Truth was not just a hunch or an opinion. Rather, truth was something worth living, dying, and suffering for. The Puritans suffered in England because they could not practice their faith. The Pilgrims suffered in Holland, because the atmosphere “polluted” their faith. And so the Pilgrims came to America.
We could learn a thing or two from the Pilgrims. Currently the ELCA is in a place where truth does not mean much. The values of a pluralistic society have infiltrated the Church causing the virtue of tolerance to reign supreme. You can even see its affects all throughout report and recommendations made by the ELCA taskforce. For instance, the report begins by saying that they do not want “winners or losers.” Now, I understand their sentiment, however, it is a little naïve. Whenever we discuss truth there will be a right answer and subsequently a wrong answer. And thus there will be “winners and losers.” Now, I understand the taskforce is trying to stop a war within the church, but that is why we need to settle the issue so that we can move on to ministering to those affected.
Second, the report did not reflect the work of the congregations who took time to study the issue. If you read the end of the report (p. 32), you will see that 57% of the people opposed the ordination of practicing homosexuals; 22% favored the ordination of practicing homosexuals; 17% were undecided; and 3% wanted a third option. Now, of these four positions the taskforce decided to go with the last. They recommend a local option and thus chose the position held by only 3%. This is troubling because it appears that the taskforce has no connection with the members of the ELCA.
Third, the recommendation of a “local option” is not practical. In our current structure a pastor holds the office of Bishop for a term of seven years (with a max of two terms). Now, under this current recommendation the Bishop decides whether or not to allow practicing homosexuals to pastor congregations within the synod. My question is what will happen if the next Bishop has a different stance. Will a synod remove ten of its pastors? Will a synod be willing to lose its’ churches? Or is the taskforce hoping that by then the local option will become the denominations option?
Finally, and maybe the worst of all, for a study that promised to be grounded in the Word of God, this recommendation is entirely too nebulous. In fact it appeared that the taskforce lifted one’s conscience over the Word of God (see page 11). Again this is problematic in a pluralistic church because our consciences will differ. That is why we need the Word of God to be authoritative and normative to our faith and life. Whenever we move away from the Word of God we move into trouble. The Pilgrims understood this and so they set sail to America for the hope of protecting themselves and their children. It is my hope that we would be willing to move and to fight and to speak out not only for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren.
I want to end on a bright note. Our Lord has said that the gates of Hell will not prevail over the Church. Why? Because the Lord is faithful to his bride! The Holy Spirit will lead his people into faith and truth. We as Christians must be assured that even these recommendations will be used by God to purify and strengthen and impassion and embolden and enliven His church. “For all things work for the good to those who love God and are called according to His purposes” (Romans 8:28). And so as your pastor I encourage you to continue to read God’s Word. I encourage you to attend the adult study on “The Bible and Homosexuality” occurring Sunday mornings. And I encourage you to pray for the Christian Church, the ELCA, and for Reformation Lutheran Church!
Because tolerance is not always a virtue,
Pastor Russell Lackey
Posted at 06:31 PM | | Read More | | |
Sun - January 30, 2005
Praise God for food
Some thoughts on how food shows us the
beauty and graciousness of our Creator
Tonight, for my wife's birthday (I love you Jan -
Happy birthday), we went out to a VERY nice restaurant - the Anaheim
Whitehouse. I have some
thoughts specifically on the restaurant and how great it is, but it
made me think more about what food, and specifically our enjoyment of food, says
about our Creator.
The first observation is that eating need not be inherently pleasurable. In an evolutionary model, one would think that perhaps something as essential to our survival as food has evolved into being pleasurable in order to spur the species on to doing more of it. Yet there are plenty of activities that are necessary for our survival that do not require our enjoyment. Breathing for instance, is an incredibly necessary function, and yet we don't feel elated whenever we take a breath. Conversely, there is no survival value in music or other arts, and yet they are immensely pleasurable activities.
Furthermore, there is quite a lot more to good food than simply taste or the pleasure of eating. When you go to a great restaurant like we did tonight, you are not simply enjoying the taste of something in your mouth. It is carefully prepared to be a visual work of art, with wonderful textures in your mouth and delectable taste, and is presented in a carefully decorated room by a friendly and polite staff. Seems like an awfully large amount of pomp and circumstance for something that is essentially no more valuable to my survival than some nuked bowl of Campbell's I ate while watching TV in my boxers.
Of course, this doesn't really measure up to being a bonafide argument against evolution. There's nothing in this that says that food can't be pleasurable in an evolutionary model. But the only real way to explain it is to say its just a fluke, or that there really isn't any difference between great food in a restaurant and food we choke down just to stay alive. And I guess thats my whole point in this. Some look at great food and say I know its no different, but I just like it. Some will say its a fluke, but they enjoy it anyway. I'm thankful that when I eat great food, I can praise the God who made food wonderful because He is wonderful, who gave us a foretaste of His goodness which we will enjoy with Him forever. Praise God for food.
The first observation is that eating need not be inherently pleasurable. In an evolutionary model, one would think that perhaps something as essential to our survival as food has evolved into being pleasurable in order to spur the species on to doing more of it. Yet there are plenty of activities that are necessary for our survival that do not require our enjoyment. Breathing for instance, is an incredibly necessary function, and yet we don't feel elated whenever we take a breath. Conversely, there is no survival value in music or other arts, and yet they are immensely pleasurable activities.
Furthermore, there is quite a lot more to good food than simply taste or the pleasure of eating. When you go to a great restaurant like we did tonight, you are not simply enjoying the taste of something in your mouth. It is carefully prepared to be a visual work of art, with wonderful textures in your mouth and delectable taste, and is presented in a carefully decorated room by a friendly and polite staff. Seems like an awfully large amount of pomp and circumstance for something that is essentially no more valuable to my survival than some nuked bowl of Campbell's I ate while watching TV in my boxers.
Of course, this doesn't really measure up to being a bonafide argument against evolution. There's nothing in this that says that food can't be pleasurable in an evolutionary model. But the only real way to explain it is to say its just a fluke, or that there really isn't any difference between great food in a restaurant and food we choke down just to stay alive. And I guess thats my whole point in this. Some look at great food and say I know its no different, but I just like it. Some will say its a fluke, but they enjoy it anyway. I'm thankful that when I eat great food, I can praise the God who made food wonderful because He is wonderful, who gave us a foretaste of His goodness which we will enjoy with Him forever. Praise God for food.
Posted at 01:05 AM | | Read More | | |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Highlighted posts
Blogs of interest
The Moviegoer
Anesthetic Smoke
Scots Wha Hae!
Applied Semiotics
Odelay!
A Firm Nail
Eidos : Dr. John Mark Reynolds
Mere Orthodoxy
A Voice in the Wilderness
Jollyblogger
Squiblog
Beyond the Rim
ESV Bible blog
Anesthetic Smoke
Scots Wha Hae!
Applied Semiotics
Odelay!
A Firm Nail
Eidos : Dr. John Mark Reynolds
Mere Orthodoxy
A Voice in the Wilderness
Jollyblogger
Squiblog
Beyond the Rim
ESV Bible blog
Brought to you by
The Church Directory
Counters provided by
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: May 05, 2007 09:04 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: May 05, 2007 09:04 AM
Search
The Tip Jar
Counter provided by
Brought to you by
