Redemptive Thoughts

Monday Morning Devotions

2012-02-06T00:01:00.000-08:00

Is. 58:10- "If you extend your soul to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted soul, then your light shall dawn in the darkness, and your darkness as the noonday."

Essential elements of the gospel message have been tragically separated in our day. As western culture modernized, the pace of life rapidly increased. The Church responded by withdrawing from engaging the world, by retreating within itself. The Church exclusively focused upon orthodox doctrine and personal purity. Some Christians realized that a third vital element of the gospel message was being ignored: the alleviation of the burdens of those on the bottom rung of society. Soon this missing element of the gospel message became for some the sole message, giving birth to the humanistic message of “the social gospel.” The social gospel was not concerned with doctrine or holiness. It's only concern was meeting the physical needs of the poor. The message of the Church experienced a two, or sometimes, three way split: dead orthodoxy, a private holiness, and a secular humanitarianism. No wonder the Church is viewed as irrelevant by the world around us. Our task is to unify these elements of the gospel message, revitalizing these elements as they are put in their proper order. What order am I referring to? Doctrine comes first, for all holiness and Christian mission originates with correct doctrine. Our view of God will determine our eternal destiny. It is correct doctrine which first teaches us concerning the holiness of God. It is correct doctrine which teaches us who Jesus is. It is correct doctrine that allows the lost to know just who it is they are to have faith in and who it is they are to bow down to as Lord. Correct doctrine allows us to distinguish between true and false spiritual experiences. If holiness is loving God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, we could not love Him so without correct doctrine telling us who He is. After all, we cannot love whom we do not know. Holiness originates from doctrine, and from holiness comes what John Wesley termed “social holiness.” Our love of God leads us to love those whom the world esteems the least. We seek to deliver the vulnerable from conditions and habits that oppress them, not only helping them better themselves, but making them disciples of Christ as well. Social holiness is one of the Church’s greatest instruments in transforming societies and individuals. By ignoring this important element of the gospel message, the Church has lost much of its prophetic voice. Isaiah 58 conclusively demonstrates this. All of Israel’s religious exercises meant nothing because injustice ruled the land. “…in the day of your fast you find pleasure, and exploit all your laborers. Indeed you fast for strife and debate, and strike with the fist of your wickedness. You will not fast as you do this day, to make your voice heard on high.” (v. 3-4). What is the proper fast according to God? “Is this not the fast I have chosen: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the heavy burden, to let the oppressed go free, and that you break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out; when you see the naked, that you cover him, and not hide yourself from your own flesh?” (v. 6-7). Those who practice social holiness allow the image of God in them to be seen by all: “Then your light shall shine forth like the morning, your healing will spring forth speedily, and your righteousness will go before you; the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am’…” (v. 8-9). This verse speaks of our witness for God being seen by all. But there is a condition if this promise is to be fulfilled: “…If you take away the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger, and the speaking of wickedness…” (v. 9). If social holiness is practiced from a pure heart, our message will be complete, we will reach a completeness of soul that doctrine and private piety alone does not give (v. 10-12). The Lord speaks of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of rest. But the Israelites turned it into a time to pursue their own pleasures, pleasures that kept others in bondage. Repentance would have brought true rest to the Israelites, and the promises of God’s Word would have been experienced in their lives.

All scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

Monday Morning Devotions

2012-01-30T00:01:00.000-08:00

Ps. 40:4- "Blessed is that manwho makes the Lord his trust, and does not respect the proud,nor as such turn aside to lies."

This verse, written by David, appears within the context of other verses praising God for what He, God, has done for David. David states that what God has done for Him is evidence not only of His existence, but of His nature as well. God is a loving God whose love has been directed toward his servant David. God brought David victory over Goliath. He delivered David from Saul’s deadly jealousy. He protected David from all his battlefield enemies as well as all those who plotted against his life. During these dangerous years, David sought God’s deliverance not only because he feared for his life, but so God would not be dishonored before all God’s enemies. Samuel had anointed David as King. The anointing was a promise in itself that if David remained faithful, God would establish David’s throne. For David to die at the hands of his enemies would send the message that David’s God was not God. David writes in this Psalm, “Be pleased, O Lord, to deliver me; O lord, make haste to help me! Let them be ashamed and brought to mutual confusion who seek to destroy my life…But I am poor and needy; yet the Lord thinks upon me. You are my help and deliverer; do not delay, O my God” (v. 13, 14, 17). David knew that God’s deliverance would refute the lies about God which was at the heart of the pagan belief system and which were secretly believed by many in the nation of Israel, that God was just like all the gods the pagans worshipped, that God had no love for Man and cared nothing for those who worshipped Him. “Let them be ashamed and brought to mutual confusion who seek to destroy my life…Let them be confounded because of their shame, who say to me, ‘Aha, Aha!’ [In other words, your God cannot and will not deliver you]” (v. 14,15). While David was in the midst of his trials, he did not neglect to praise God: “I have proclaimed the good news of righteousness in the great assembly; indeed I do not restrain my lips, O Lord, You Yourself know” (v. 9). By praising God for his own deliverance, David was imploring his people to trust God as much as he did. And David’s words convey the same message to all those who follow Jesus Christ today. Our trust in Jesus Christ today is to result in a witness to the world that we are not the result of blind chance, but that God created the universe and is still is actively engaged in it acting in behalf of those who trust in Him. And those who would tell us different will be confounded just as David’s enemies were. That is, if we allow ourselves to develop our own history, our own relationship, with the living God. For if we refuse to move beyond intellectual assent to God’s existence, if we refuse to trust Him in the midst of our adversity, then God will not deliver us from all that besets us. Those who refuse to allow God opportunities to demonstrate His power on their behalf will become what David warned us not to become, the proud and those who turn aside to lies.

All verses from the NKJV.

Newt Gingrich: Forgiveness Is Not the Same As Trust

2012-01-27T14:34:00.000-08:00

When the subject of Newt Gingrich’s private personal conduct is the subject of a blog post, there is always someone who writes in the comment section that Christians are supposed to be forgiving and not consider this aspect of Gingrich’s life when judging his fitness to occupy the Oval Office. Gingrich himself assures voters that he knows what he did was sinful and asked God to forgive him. He also states that now that he is older and is now a grandfather, we can trust him to behave differently. A Christian friend asks why this is even an issue. After all, we are voting for President, not the pastor of a Church. Newt Gingrich’s ability to defeat President Obama is the only thing that matters, these people say.

Those who say we need to be forgiving in regard to Gingrich’s conduct fail to make an important distinction. They fail to distinguish between forgiveness and trust. Yes, Gingrich must be forgiven, but forgiveness and trust is not the same thing. If a person embezzles money, they must be forgiven. Yet they could never be placed in a position of trust involving money ever again. Suppose a person is found to have abused a child and is truly repentant. The Church must practice forgiveness toward that person, yet that person could never be trusted to be involved in any ministry involving children. Yes, Gingrich is older and is now a grandfather, but he was in his fifties and a father when he cheated on his second wife. Not long ago he blamed his conduct on the pressure of fighting for the people in the public arena when he was Speaker of the House. How would he act in the pressure cooker called the Presidency?

Even if we can be reasonably sure that Newt Gingrich would not repeat his behavior if he were elected President, does his past behavior serve as an indicator of how he will conduct himself as a candidate and as President? When responding to John King’s question concerning his second wife’s assertion that Gingrich wanted his second marriage to be an open marriage, Gingrich stated that friends knowledgeable of the situation could rebut the allegation. Well, yesterday we found out that the friends Gingrich was referring to were his two daughters from his first marriage. This comment reveals his capacity to play fast and loose with the truth when he thinks the moment calls for it. This does not bode well as the campaign goes forward. It should make anyone considering voting for Gingrich to wonder if he will make any more such misleading comments that will raise doubts in voter’s minds. When he was having the affair while married to wife number two, Gingrich blasted Clinton and the Democrats for what he called “Woody Allen family values.” Now he says that he wasn’t critical of Clinton for his sexual misconduct, he was only critical of Clinton for lying about it under oath. How will such serial hypocrisy go down with voters? How would he be able to maintain trust as President? There is a strong possibility that President Clinton knew of Gingrich’s affair and used it as leverage in his dealings with Gingrich concerning his impeachment. If true, is there anything else in his past that would make him vulnerable to blackmail if he were elected President? Gingrich supporters might downplay these questions. “Just look at the applause Newt received from the audience for his response to John King’s question. They gave him a standing ovation. It was that response that won Newt the South Carolina primary.” Yes, but that room was full of Republicans who hate the press. Who is to say that the rest of the country will react the same way when the question comes up again, when Gingrich will be asked by a lone reporter with no friendly audience present? When the allegations against Herman Cain first appeared in the press, Cain raised more campaign dollars in the following days than he had received previously. But eventually, as the allegations grew, the support for Cain dwindled. The same fate could await Gingrich. I want Obama defeated just as much as any other true conservative. With so much at stake, including the question of who will appoint the next Supreme Court justices who will decide whether Roe v. Wade will be overturned, Newt Gingrich is too much of a risk to be the candidate opposing Obama.

When Clinton ran for office, the message from liberals was that one’s private life had no bearing on whether one was fit to hold public office. When Clinton’s affair with an intern was made public, secular and Christian conservatives felt vindicated, that the affair proved what Samuel Adams said was true: “The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.” Newt Gingrich won the majority of Evangelical votes in the South Carolina primary. If Evangelicals say that Gingrich’s past should not be a factor in evaluating his fitness for the presidency, if they maintain that beating Obama is so important that the private life of Obama’s general election opponent does not matter, then Evangelicals will be labeled as hypocrites. The label will stick because the label will be true. Such conduct by Evangelicals will give the Church a black eye, and will further erode the Church’s witness to a lost world. Some will reject the Gospel because they will see Christians as hypocrites. When Christians preach holiness, these people will see Christians as not concerned with souls, but as those with a political agenda. And we may get leaders that we conservative evangelicals oppose, but God thinks we deserve.

I'm Back!

2012-01-18T18:38:00.000-08:00

I am going to resume posting on a regular basis again. I have been on a blogger hiatus since March, posting old material occasionally. I still haven't finished either of the two Wesley projects that I felt necessitated a hiatus. My interest was lagging over the past few months, but has been renewed over the past month. I had run out of original ideas; recently I started to fill a notebook with new, original drafts. As this is an election year, a good deal more political material will appear. If politics isn't your thing, there will be plenty of other material that I hope sparks your interest. I don't specialize in subject matter. I dabble in many subjects and am an expert in none. ("I" appears ten times in this short paragraph. That isn't good.)

Obedience: The Path To Certainty

2012-01-02T16:12:00.000-08:00

Clovis Chappell, a well-known Methodist preacher of a by-gone era, concluded a sermon entitled "A Christmas Miracle" with this important truth:

“But these, to the unbeliever, are only evidences. Evidences, however helpful, are not enough. The faith of Jesus as a living presence may become a conviction of the mind; but before we call him Lord, something else is needed. We must obey him. This is the road to certainty, and the only road. In so saying, I am not stating something that is unique. How do we know that honey is sweet? Only by tasting it. How do we know the thrill of love? Only by loving. How do we come to say, “My Lord and my God”? Only by obeying. “If anyone,” said Jesus, “is willing to do His will, he shall know.”

Rick Santorum: The Right Standard Bearer

2011-12-27T13:19:00.000-08:00

It is truly unthinkable that as conservatives decide who should be their standard bearer to unseat President Obama, they have ignored the one candidate who has all the virtues they look for in a conservative candidate: Rick Santorum. No one can question his commitment to the principles of Federalism which mandates a government of limited powers, the necessity of defending our national interests, the reigning in of government spending and the reduction of taxes to spur economic growth, and most important of all, the protection of the unborn and the strengthening of the Family. Indeed, Santorum has nothing in his record he needs to explain away, as Mitt Romney does with Romney-care. Romney derives much of his support from those who say the only issue of importance in this election is the economy and government spending. Romney does have business experience, but Santorum has a record of accomplishment in reducing government. He was one of the authors and primary sponsors of welfare reform in the 90’s which vastly reduced the size of welfare rolls and mandated that welfare recipients seek employment. He is well versed in foreign policy and defense matters and has been the only Republican candidate consistently speaking on such matters such as the danger of

Iran

acquiring nuclear weapons. When Bill Clinton lost reelection as governor of Arkansas, he re-branded himself as a moderately conservative candidate. Santorum has not altered what he stands for despite losing his Senate seat in 2006. Like everyone else, Santorum understands the importance of the economy in the next election, as well as the issue of repealing Obama-care. Yet he has neither moderated his stand on social issues nor swept social issues under the rug. This is in contrast to Romney who highlighted social issues in 2008 but has ignored them this election. The media would like to ignore a candidate who brings social issues to the forefront; this is why Santorum is asked so few questions on anything in the debates. Yet there are many Republicans who would like to see Santorum and candidates like him marginalized. These Republicans see issues such as abortion and marriage as distractions in any election. They maintain that social issues are so divisive that they lose elections for Republicans. These Republicans look upon social conservatives as unreliable partners in a coalition with those mainly concerned with economic and foreign policy. Yet experience has shown that social conservatives like Santorum remain active, reliable partners in the Conservative coalition while those who would wish social issue conservatives would just go away cannot be trusted to stick to their guns. They are the ones who seek compromise with the left. Not only is Santorum a reliable conservative, he can articulate conservative principles extremely well. Romney is also articulate; we just don’t know if what he articulates today is a reliable guide to how he would govern tomorrow. Michelle Bauchman is also a reliable conservative and would be a good president. Yet she has not demonstrated any ability to move beyond slogans and clichés in articulating her positions. All the Republican candidates are able to make the case against liberalism and the Obama record. But only Santorum has the imagination and rhetorical ability to articulate a conservative case that is not just a denunciation of Obama’s record but a positive vision people will want to vote for. That was the difference between a Reagan and a Goldwater; this is the difference between Santorum and the other Republican candidates. But this is not the only difference. Santorum understands the nature of our system of government and its foundations better than the rest of the Republican field. While his support for the Tenth Amendment is just as strong as any other candidate’s, the Tenth Amendment for Santorum is not the foundation of our republican form of government. The rights of all mankind declared in the Declaration of Independence, which come from God, limit what individual states can do. States can not do whatever they want to. They cannot violate the inalienable rights of anyone, nor can they violate the principles of God’s laws. This is the answer to those who use the Tenth Amendment as justification for allowing states to legalize same-sex marriage within their borders. This understanding of the Tenth Amendment far superior to Ron Paul’s libertarian philosophy. As all the other anti-Romney candidates have risen and fallen in the polls, its time to take a look at Santorum. With his conservative credentials and personal attributes, conservatives should be at peace nominating him as the conservative standard bearer. With such a standard bearer as Rick Santorum, the conservative message will not fail to elect conservatives to Congress and make the current occupant of the White House a one term President.

Handel's "Israel In Egypt" : A Recording From 1888!

2011-12-24T20:14:00.000-08:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IsraelInEgypt18880629.ogg

This is a recording of Handel's "Israel in Egypt" performed in concert at London's Crystal Palace on June 29, 1888 at 2:00 p.m. The orchestra consisted of over 500 and the chorus was made up of over 4,000 voices. All of the singers are gone, but we can still hear their voices! It sounds as if heavenly messengers are somewhere shrouded in mystery beckoning their listeners to the throne of God. Merry Christmas!

Best Of The Web 2011

2011-12-12T12:15:00.000-08:00

12/6 marked the 5th anniversary of Redmptive Thoughts. Normally I would take this time to reflect on what I have written throughout the year, but I have taken a blogging sabatical which has lasted a lot longer than intended. Consequently, I have written very little. Within the next few months I will return to blogging. In the meantime, I will bring to your attention those internet articles which succeeded in capturing my attention in 2011.

The Arrest: Illness Unbidden : Douglass Groothius utilizes the metephor of an arrest by a totalitarian state to create a profound picture of what illness does to human beings and those closest to them. Then he ties this to Christ's sufferings. From Groothius' blog Chronic Illness, Christian Faith, and Other Laments.

Avoidance--A Christian Problem: "Those whose lives are ruled by fear ironically avoid what is necessary to remove it." Ben Witherington speaks of how fear not only ruins lives but also prevents us from admonishing those we love when they need admonishment. From Witherington's Bible and Culture blog.

1.1 Cheers For Pat Robertson: The one good thing that happens when Pat Robertson makes a statement that embarrasses the Church is that the statement often provokes thoughtful responses from deeper thinkers. Robertson's statement that a husband would be justified in divorcing a wife suffering from alzheimers provoked this outstanding response from Russell D. Moore. From Christianity Today's blog.

Arminians Shooting Themselves In The Foot: William Watson Birch's analysis of the reaction of SOME Arminians to Rob Bell's "Love Wins." From his The Arminian blog. See also Roy Ingle's Five Dangers Facing Classical Arminians from his Reformed Arminian blog.

Why The Missional Movement Will Fail, Part 1 and Part 2: The Missional Movement will fail because it has so focused on evangelism that it has neglected the Church's role of discipleship. From Michael Breen's blog.

Did Youth Ministry Create The Emerging Church? Part 1 and Part 2: The roots of both the Emergent Church and the Megachurch are to be found in Youth Ministries. Does this make Youth Ministry as has been practiced by the Evangelical Church a threat the Church's theology, ecclesiology, and relationships among its members? By Skye Jethani of the Out of Ur blog.

Sniffing Glue: A Childhood In Christian Pop: Written by a woman who grew up in a Christian home but has since left the Christian faith. She explains how contempory Christian worship led her to abandon the Church.

Heresy Is Heresy, Not A Lithmus Test For Gospel Preaching: Jason B. Hood warns against opening up oneself to the charge of antinomianism in preaching grace. The charge should not be regarded as a badge of honor, as some within Calvinist circles consider it. From Christianity Today's blog. Also from that same source: In Praise of Confidence by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway. Doubt is celebrated in some Christian circles. Is this a good thing?

Bad, Mr. Huckabbe, Bad Our political and cultural elites condemn Christians who critique Islam while ignoring the treatment Christians and other religious minorities receive in Isamic countries. Should we be surprised? From John Mark Reynolds at The Scriptorium.

The death of Steve Jobs inspired thousands of meditations upon the meaning of his life. Here are three: The Apotheosis of Steve Jobs by Gene Veith (Have we turned Steve Jobs into a secular saint?), Al Mohler writes of how the secular world will remember Jobs and how Christians should evaluate his life, and in Jobs, Dubya, and Leadership, James K.A. Smith points out the similarities in the leadership styles of Jobs and George W. Bush. Smith notes how critics who criticize Bush's leadership style praise Jobs for the very same traits.

Two other posts by Douglass Groothius caught my attention: What is a Library? and Banning Laptops in the Classroom. Both deal with how internet technology has diminished our sense of place and the learning process. Both are from Groothius' other blog The Constructive Crumudgeon.

Can A Christian Work In The Marketing Field? by Roger E. Olson.

The Guided And The Misguided: The moral history of Soap Operas by Martha Bayles published on the Claremont Institute's website.

Mitt, Mormonism, And Me

2011-10-28T12:21:00.000-07:00

I voted for Mitt Romney in the 2008 Illinois primary. I did not think then, or now, that his Mormonism has any bearing on his ability to be President. Also, he was the only acceptable candidate left among the Republicans. I was not about to vote for McCain to be the Republican nominee. McCain seemed to wake up every morning asking himself how he could undermine conservatives and endear himself to the liberal media. In that sense, Romney is not like McCain. Romney does not seem to have an axe to grind against conservatives. But he is a political weathervane. He has no core principles that define who he is, but changes his public positions whenever it suits him. But I am not going to dwell on the wisdom, or lack of, in choosing Romney to be the nominee to challenge President Obama. Enough has been and will be written on that subject to allow conservatives to make an informed choice.

My attention has been drawn to the renewed debate concerning Mormonism’s status within the Christian community. Mormons, in claiming that they constitute the only true Church since the days of the Apostles, claim that they are Christ followers. I have seen some Christians on blog sites state, along with Mormons, that what Mormons believe concerning the Triune nature of God has no bearing on whether they follow Jesus Christ. It is their actions that determine whether they are or are not Christ followers. If they strive to love their neighbors and evangelize, then what they believe concerning the divinity of Jesus will not affect their standing with God. After all, they reason, one doesn’t need to possess a perfect understanding of historic Christian orthodoxy concerning the Trinity to be saved.

It is true that a perfect understanding of the Trinity is not a requirement for salvation. No one had witnessed to me before I was saved and I had read very little of the Bible before I had become a disciple of Christ. The first time I had ever heard the Trinity mentioned was at an Intervarsity meeting when I had been a Christian for only a few months. The speaker asked that all who were Trinitarians to raise their hands. When I saw everyone else raise their hands, I raised mine too. After all, I didn’t want to appear to be a heretic. Later I had heard that a mark of a cult was a denial of the Triune nature of God. At that time I trusted those Christians I fellowshiped with implicitly; if they told me God’s nature was Triune, I believed them. One day a member of a cult called The Way came to the Bible study I attended. He argued with my Christian friends concerning the Trinity’s biblical basis. The debate was cordial until the cultist declared, “You all are a bunch of weaklings!” Realizing his true self had momentarily been revealed, he sheepishly continued, “You didn’t hear that.” That scene caused me to be wary of anyone who denied the Trinity. Throughout my first three years as a Christian, I gave intellectual assent to the Trinity. But one day as I was reading through Mark’s Gospel, I read Mark 2: 6-7 in a new way. In the account of the paralytic being lowered down through the roof by his friends, verse five reads, “When Jesus saw their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’” The scribes reacted in verses 6-7: “Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, ‘Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” As I read these verses, it struck me that the scribes were right; only God can forgive sins. And that in forgiving the paralytic, Jesus was indeed revealing His own divinity. From that time on, my intellectual assent had become an increasingly sure and certain knowledge produced by the work of the Holy Spirit in me. So, what’s the difference between a person like me who had no understanding of the Trinity at the beginning of my Christian walk and a Mormon who denies its very existence? When the Holy Spirit revealed to me the Triune nature of God, I did not resist what I knew to be true, where Mormons continually resist the knowledge of the truth. To paraphrase Julian of Norwich, a nun from the Middle Ages, if we are truly children of God, we might not possess an intellectual understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, but deep in our spirit, we will know its true.

Many Emergent Church spokesmen assert that it’s not what we believe about Jesus that is important, but what we do for Him. Doctrine must take a backseat to experience. Common ground for Mormons and Emergents: how unexpected! The Apostle John, labeled by some as the Apostle of love, wrote concerning those who deny Christ’s divinity: “Many deceivers who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God, whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.” (2Jn. 7-11)

What is there about Romney that attracts some religious conservatives? Some favor Romney out of pure pragmatism; they think Romney is the only candidate that could beat President Obama. In their desire to win, they back a candidate whose message is primarily focused on economic rather than social issues. Many conservative pundits are Catholic and some Catholics have an affinity for Mormonism because they are attracted to the liturgical nature of Mormon worship. Catholics charge Protestants with schism in breaking with Rome, cutting themselves off from the historic Church which originated with the Apostles (so they claim), and introducing a dangerous individualism into the Church’s relationship to God. Yet they have an affinity for a religion that has its origins in 1820’s New York state which claims it was initially revealed to one man, Joseph Smith. It appears that liturgy has a greater priority over orthodox doctrine for some.

As I wrote above, I don’t think Romney’s Mormonism has any bearing on his ability to be President. If he is the Republican nominee, I will certainly vote for him against Obama. Yet, as I wrote when Romney ran in 2008, a Mormon President may very likely pose a challenge to the Church in America. Pressure within and without the Church will be mounted against Evangelicals to treat Mormons as members of Christ’s Church. Would this pressure be applied to Evangelicals involved in the fight against abortion and same sex marriage? Would Evangelicals be silent concerning Mormonism’s heretical nature just to have a voice in a Romney administration concerning social isses? Would Evangelicals who refuse to compromise on historic orthodox doctrine be ostracized by those within the Church whose first priority would be to support a President they agreed with politically? The media would certainly use Mormonism to drive a wedge between Evangelicals and other political conservatives. These issues, not Romney’s ability to serve as President, is what is at stake for the Church in America if there is to be a Romney Presidency.

(All scripture quotations from the NIV)

On Reading Jane Austen

2011-09-20T12:07:00.000-07:00

Over Christmas I reread Mansfield Park by Jane Austen. A family friend bought the Guthrie's a video production of the novel by the BBC. (The 1983 version, not the the awful version of a couple years ago, and certainly not the movie!) It is rare that I read works of fiction more than once, but I wanted to see how faithful the video was to the book. Very few of my Christian friends share my taste in literature. In fact, some of them think that Jane Austen is in the same catagory as the paperback romances one can find at Wal Mart. Watching movies made of her novels does not change their minds. Because Austen's plots involve one or more love stories, the whole story is dismissed as "just a love story." To this I ask, "Is Romeo and Juliet just a love story because it concerns a doomed romance? Are the novels of Dickens just detective fiction because crime is at the center of many of them? Is Braveheart just an action flick?"

In Austens lifetime (1775-1817), a new movement, Romanticism, brought changes to all aspects of life. In Romanticism, the importance of one's feelings were given priority over all things which restain them, whether those restraints were social convention, wisdom, family obligation or religion. While the movement is long since dead, its influence continued after the movement's demise. (One can argue that the Nazi view of the German "superman" had its origions in this movement, as well as the introduction of eastern religions into western philosophy.) While Austen did not reject all forms of Romanticism, and she offered no systematic criticism of it, she can be considered one of Romanticism's first public critics. Two of her six novels stand out in this regard: Sense and Sensibility and Mansfield Park. In Sense and Sensibility, we do not just have a contrast between two sisters as to how they secure marriage partners. What we have here is an unfavorable contrast between two ways of life. Marianne Dashwood is the symbol of one who has totally absorbed Romantic ways of thought and behavior. Her feelings rule her life. To her, those who don't give feelings first priority, like her sister Elinor, are repressed, less than human. Marianne fears she will never marry because she can never find a man spectacular enough for her. When she finds such a man, Willoughby, he turns out to be bad. When Willoughby makes fun of another character, Colonel Brandon, solely because of Brandon's goodness, Marianne is swept up in the same type of thinking regarding her fellow mortals. Mariannes world view is embraced in one of England's greatest Romantic novels, Charlotte Brontee's Jane Eyre. In this novel, Evangelical Christianity is portrayed as an enemy of the emotions and therefore an enemy of true human happiness and fulfillment. The hero of a Romantic novel is usually handsome, but if not, is striking in appearence and spectacularly interesting. Not so in Jane Austen's world. The love interest of Elinor Dashwood is socially awkward and not of a passionate nature. In a Jane Austin novel, the men most likely to appeal to the Romantic imagination turn out to be bad, some very bad. The good men are those who do not invite curiousity at first glance, but further aquaintence reveals their true characters and their superior qualities as men. It is no wonder Charlotte Brontee hated Austen's novels.

In the Penguin Classics edition of Mansfield Park, Tony Tanner's introduction contrasts the two world views very well: "We are also made aware of the conflict between the joys of personality and the rigors of principle. We are shown the need to distingish between what is 'sweet' and what is 'sound', between what is 'pleasant' and what is 'prudent.' "Duty' of course is very important, but supperadded to it there must be 'delicacy.' And, a harder lesson perhaps, we are shown that the delightfulness of 'wit' (and who enjoyed that more than Jane Austen?) is trivial compared with the soberness of wisdom." Tanner quotes a letter written by Austen: "Wisdom is better than wit, & in the long run will certainly have the laugh on her side." In addition, Mansfield Park teaches us that life must be lived within limits; to live a life severed of all obligation to others is to deny the reality of life. This truth is still valid even if one's world of obligation includes people who are cruel and evil, as Tanner points out in his introduction. The fascination of the "new" is attributed to a society that has cast off its moorings, which includes its Christian heritage. The increasing restlessness of England's inhabitants at this time was one of Romanticism's results that Austen viewed with suspicion.

I do not think it possible that a Christian's world views can be totally unaffected by his or her culture. That being the case, it is profitable to highlight those works which can affect thinking for the good. In the world of novels, Jane Austen is a good place to start.

(First published in 3/07)

"Beholding The Glory: The Incarnation And The Arts" Edited By Jeremy Begbie

2011-08-29T11:50:00.000-07:00

"Beholding The Glory: The Incarnation and the Arts," edited by Jeremy Begbie, was textbook for a Church Worship class taught at Wesley Biblical Seminary. I audited the class and did not read much of the assigned texts, including this one. To tell the truth, I was expecting to dislike this book, but reading it was truly an unexpected treat. I had expected it to be filled with pretentious language by writers intent on impressing their collegues. And there was some. But despite this, there was much good theology stated in plain but creative ways.

The book consists of eight essays which attempt to explain how theology (the Incarnation and the Trinity in particular) can be explored through various artistic mediums. Each essay deals with one kind of art form: poetry, literature, music, etc. All essays but one (the exception being the one on sculpture) were good. And even if some of them did not totally succeed in its aim(such as the essay on dance), the time spent with them is worthwhile.

The best essay is the last, written by the editor, Jeremy Begbie. In his essay Begbie confronts the difficulty some have in dealing with the Incarnation. One of the difficulties is that man tries to think of the Incarnation strictly in visual terms. The problem can be stated this way: "How can Divinity and Humanity co-exist together in the same space? Wouldn't the Divine nature swollow up the human?" Yet space need not be have to be conceived visually. When one plays a key on a piano, while the source of the sound can be known, the sound can occupy the entire room. No matter which way you face, you can hear the sound of the key being played. Now, if we play two keys at one time, we hear both distinct sounds at the same time. They occupy the same space, as it were, yet both keys remain distinct. If you want to use this explanation to deal with the Trinity, add a third note. All three notes remain individually distinct while inhabiting the same space. By rethinking what we mean by the concept of space, some who have had difficulties with the Incarnation and the Trinity can come to a new understanding of them both.

(This review, which has been slightly edited, originally appeared on 5/26/07.)

"Worship, Community, And The Triune God Of Grace" By James B. Torrance

2011-08-16T14:54:00.000-07:00

(This review origionally appeared in three parts, 8/7/07, 8/11/07, and 8/17/07.)

The Torrance brothers, Thomas and James, are highly regarded by some of the professors at Wesley Biblical Seminary. So when I saw Worship, Community, and the Triune God of Grace by James Torrance in a bookstore, I knew I had to buy it. The book has only four short chapters, yet the style and content are such that these chapters take two or three readings before what Torrance is saying can be grasped. The time spent is well worth the effort, and not just for the purpose of grasping the book's message. I have already used some of its insights to teach with positive effect. This experience will be shared further on.

Torrance reminds us that Jesus is not only the center of our worship; Jesus is the leader of our worship. Many Christians would reply "Well, of course He is the leader of our worship, as He is the leader of all that we do." Yet this assertion is often undermined by our actual practice. More often than not, Christians act upon the attitude that in worship, the only two parties involved are themselves and God. An individual Christian may express this attitude in this manner: "Its just God and me! No priest or ritual can dictate to me how I worship God." Yet if this is the case, doesn't the initiative then rest with us as to how we respond to God in worship? Is man in the driver's seat as to the content of worship? Will not our "experience" take center stage, while the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit recede in importance? Torrance correctly points out that this is not worship as God intended it to be.

Jesus Christ is not only our savior and healer and soon coming King. He is our High Priest. It is through the Son that we approach the Father. When we approach Christ, it is Christ Himself who intercedes on our behalf. When we boldly approach the throne of grace, it is Christ Himself who leads the way. When we continually abide in Christ, we share in Christ's own communion with the Father. These truths should fundamentally alter our individualistic view of our worship of God. Here is how Torrance explains the issue of our relationship to God and worship: "It is he (Jesus) who leads our worship, bears our sorrows on his heart and intercedes for us, presenting us to the Father in himself as God's dear children, and uniting us with himself in his life in the spirit. To reduce worship to this two-dimensional thing-God and ourselves, today-is to imply that God throws us back upon ourselves to make our response. It ignores the fact that God has already provided for us the response which alone is acceptable to him-the offering made for the whole human race in the life, obedience and passion of Jesus Christ. But is this not to lose the comfort and the peace of the gospel, as well as the secret of true Christian prayer? The gift of sharing in the intercessions of Christ is that when we do not know how to pray as we ought, the Spirit makes intercession for us. Whatever else our faith is, it is a response to a response already made for us and continually being made for us in Christ, the pioneer of our faith. (pages 29-30) Torrance goes on to define true, Trinitarian worship as "...the gift of participating through the Spirit in the incarnate Son's communion with the Father." (p. 30) The unique relationship between the Father and the Son is at the center of our worship. Christ has union and communion with the Father through the Spirit, presenting Himself in our humanity through the Holy Spirit on our behalf. By the same Holy Spirit Christ enables us to participate in His life of worship and communion with the Father. Furthermore, we are drawn by the Holy Spirit into Christ's mission to the world that He received from the Father.

In terms of public worship, Torrance focuses on two sacraments that allow us to participate in Christ's own worship of the Father. In baptism, Torrance reminds us that just because we have chosen to be baptized, that does not make us the primary agents or actors. Christ is the primary agent in baptism. He is our "leitourgos", our high priest, whose vicarious atoning sacrifice for our sins cleanses us and sanctifies us so that He may present us to the Father. "Baptism in water is a sign in the first instance, not of anything in us, but of Christ in the Spirit. It is not my faith which cleanses but Christ by the Spirit-the Christ in whom I believe." (Torrance, p. 79-80) "Christ is the agent in baptism and he baptizes us into a life of sonship, of service, of dying and rising with him in newness of life (Rom. 6). He baptizes us into that life of communion for which we were created in the image of the triune God, to be co-lovers (condiligentes)." (Torrance, p.79) In communion, it is not an offering that we have made that is of utmost importance. What is most important is that Christ's offering on our behalf is brought back to our remembrance. And as we participate in communion, we are drawn to the Father and the Son and to each other. And our faith is nourished until Christ's return. This is a foretaste of what worship will be like when we are actually in the Father's presence in Heaven.

According to Torrance, what kind of communion are we drawn into through baptism and communion? We are drawn into Christ's own intercession for humanity. In corporate worship we become the royal priesthood referred to by Peter. As members of this priesthood, we bear the sorrows and cares of this world in our hearts as our high priest, Christ Jesus, does. Communion also performs a work of memory in us. "This work of memory, of realizing our participation and fellowship in the suffering of Christ, is the work of the Holy Spirit. He brings these things to our remembrance and interprets to us the meaning of the events. We remember Christ-yet it is not so much we who remind ourselves of these events, but Jesus Christ, who brings his passion to our remembrance through the Holy Spirit, as our ever-living and ever-present Lord, who in his own person, is our memorial in the presence of the Father. In other words, our memorial is the earthly counterpart of the heavenly memorial. Christ, in constituting himself as our memorial before the Father, by his Spirit, lifts us up as we present our memorials before God. So the Lord's Supper, like the Passover, is a memorial to us, but also a memorial before God." (Torrance, p. 86)

The final chapter of Torrance's book is called "Gender, Sexuality and the Trinity." Not only was I impressed with what Torrance was conveying in this chapter, I have been able to use Torrance's insights in ministry with good results. Torrance points out that behind much radical feminist theology and its hostility to the fatherhood of God are the personal experiences of many feminists. The relationship between these feminists and their earthly fathers were often not only bad, but abusive, the fathers being the abusers. Torrance rejects the notion that we must redefine God and the Bible in terms of gender so that we can discern female traits in God. Torrance instead urges us to speak of God in terms of the Father. Yet he strongly cautions us not to interpret the fatherhood of God in terms of any earthly model of fatherhood. Instead, we should view fatherhood in the model of the relationship between Jesus and His Father. '...we are meant to interpret our humanity, our male-female relations, in light of the Trinity. God is love. Love always implies communion between persons, and that is what we see supremely in God. The Father loves the Son in the communion of the Spirit. The Son loves the Father in the communion of the Spirit in their continual mutual "indwelling"...The Spirit is the bond of communication between the Father and the Son and between God and ourselves. The Spirit is God giving God's self in love. The Father and the Son and the Spirit are equally God...But there is differentiation within God-personal distinctions in the Godhead. There is unity, diversity and perfect harmony. It is this triune God who has being-in-communion, in love, who has created us as male and female in that image to be "co-lovers"...to share in the triune love and to love one another in...unity." (Torrance, p. 104-105) As males and females, we find our identities and fulfilment in Christ. We look to Him to know what it is to be in the image of God.

I have been able to apply Torrance's teaching in prison ministry. Most, if not all the men you encounter in prison ministry, had bad fathers, if they knew their fathers at all. Their relationship with their fathers can make it difficult for them to understand God not only as their Father, but as their merciful and loving Father. In Rantoul, IL., I taught men who had been released from prison. I taught them that to see Jesus is to see the Father. Jesus reflected the Father in His mercy, compassion and servanthood. I pointed them to the example of Jesus washing the feet of the disciples the night of His betrayal. Jesus used this as an example of how His disciples were to relate to one another. Then in the next few chapters Jesus stated that to see Him was to see the Father. His disciples were meant to apply the example of servanthood to the Trinitarian relationship that Jesus brought to their attention that night. This caused the men in the group to gain a truer vision of God as Father. Before, they had no models of fatherhood with which to understand God as Father. But now they have the correct model, Jesus Christ himself. In Jesus, they have a picture of how to relate to others. They have a model of God the Father as a servant, not as a tyrant.

Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

2011-08-09T08:49:00.000-07:00

Click here to watch Ben Stein's documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" in its entirety. "Expelled" documents the campaign by the evolutionary vanguard in the scientific community to silence those who are advocates for, or who simply want a fair hearing for, Intelligent Design. The film was released in 05/08. My review of it was challenged by someone who cited the National Center for Science Education's (NCSE)website, "Expelled Exposed" , to refute the movie's message. I studied Expelled Exposed carefully and in 10/08 published an eight part refutation of the NCSE's refutation, entitled "Exposing Expelled Exposed." Those articles can be found in the links section of this blog. Those articles will remain in the links section despite the Expelled Exposed website being no longer available. (The official website for Expelled is also no longer available.) "Exposing Expelled Exposed" remains the most researched project to appear on this blog.

Sola Smorgasbord: Tim Keller And Theistic Evolution. Part VI, Conclusion. "The Universal Acid"

2011-07-07T15:08:00.000-07:00

(Originally published on 5/31/10)

Recently, on the Christianity Today Magazine Blog, I made the following observation: belief in Evolution is almost universal in Europe, while in the U.S., disbelief in Evolution is greater than belief in Evolution. The Church in Europe is pretty much dead. The Church in the U.S., despite its problems, is much more healthy. Yet theistic evolutionists warn us that if the Church does not make peace with Darwinian Evolution, the Church faces a mass exodus of young people. Francis Collins predicts this in "The Language of God." Bruce Watke stated that failure to embrace Evolution could lead to the world viewing the Church as a cult. (See above link) Where Scripture and Evolutionary dogma conflict, Christians are told they must accept the pronouncements of the later over the former. So says Collins, so says other theistic evolutionists. Redeemer Presbyterian Church pastor Tim Keller wrote "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Lay People," which appears on Collins' Biologos website, for the purpose of convincing Christians to accept the importance of evolutionary biological processes so reconciliation can be made between Biblical faith and belief in Evolution.

Keller thinks that failure to reconcile the two causes conflict for Christians and for those interested in embracing the Christian faith.

On the conflict for Christians: "Many believers in western culture see the medical and technological advances achieved through science and are grateful for them. They have a very positive view of science. How then, can they reconcile what science seems to tell them about evolution with their traditional theological beliefs?" (Keller, p. 1) This reminds me of a passage in Francis Collins' "The Language of God," one of the most ridiculous passages I have ever read: "This potential sythesis of the scientific and spiritual worldviews is assumed by many in modern times to be an impossibility, rather like trying to force the two poles of a magnet together into the same spot. Despite that impression, however, many Americans seem interested in incorporating the validity of both of these worldviews into their daily lives. Recent polls confirm that 93 percent of Americans profess some form of belief in God; yet most of them drive cars, use electricity, and pay attention to weather reports, apparently assuming that the science undergirding these phenomena is generally trustworthy."

On the conflict for those exploring Chrisitanity: "They may be drawn to many things about the Christian faith, but they say, 'I don't see how I can believe the Bible if that means I have to reject science.' " (Keller, p. 1)

Lets look at the second conflict first.

No one can deny that belief in Evolution has kept many a person from coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. Intellectual doubts definitely play a role in keeping people from becoming believers, whether these doubts center on Evolution, the authenticity of Scripture, or the question of evil in the world. Without diminishing the importance of intellectual doubts about the Gospel, Scripture gives us the reason most people reject the Gospel: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godless and wickedness of men who supress the truth by their wickedness..." (Rom 1: 18). "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness instead of the light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (Jn. 3: 19-20) The determitive issue whether one becomes a disciple is repentance. Note that when Paul preached to the Athenians, his message was radically different from his other discourses recorded in Acts. But Paul still stressed their need for repentance. (Acts 17: 30-31) Many an intellectual doubt concerning the Gospel is a mask, conscious or unconscious, hiding the real reason for not becoming a disciple. The real reason is not wanting to repent. I have seen people whose intellectual doubts have been effectively dealt with. At first they seem earnest when expressing their doubts, but when their questions are answered, they become sheepish in their refusal to repent of their sins. They act like they have been caught. Many who profess faith after their intellects have been satisfied fail to repent. Often intellectual doubts are a sign the person is bound by fear of what others think of them. Does Keller try to guide these people to repentance on this point when he counsels them concerning their doubts? When I read "The Reason for God" perhaps I'll find my answer.

As for Christians, is the conflict among them as widespread as Keller leads us to believe? As noted earlier, disbelief in Evolution exceeds belief in Evolution in the U.S. Those who disbelieve include non-Christians as well as Christians. The U.S. is without a doubt a very materialistic country. Both Christians and non-Christians reap the consequences of science and technology's negative aspects and profit from their positive ones. It appears that a great many Evangelicals partake of the fruits of science and technology without thinking they need to ask themselves how they can do so without accepting Evolutionary dogma. And as noted earlier, the American Church is far more healthy than the European Church. Reinhold Niebuhr, not one of my favorite theologions, in his book "Pious and Secular America," observes how materialistic the U.S. is while being a far more spiritual country than many other western nations. There is no doubt that many Christians have doubts prompted by Evolution. Keller thinks he has the answer for such people. But in fact, he is creating a smorgasbord of Christian and evolutionary dogma in which the evolutionary elements eventually eat away the Christian elements.

New Atheist Daniel Dennett refers to Evolution as "The Universal Acid." The term originates from his youthful fantasy of inventing a liquid so corrosive that it will eat through anything including the container that holds it. Everything it touches will be transformed. Dennett states that Evolution operates in the same way on all other world-views: "it eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view with much of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways." For those naive enough to think Biblical faith and belief in Evolution can be reconciled, they will have a rude awakening when they see the universal acid transform Biblical world-views into non-Biblical ones.

But the universal acid is just a theory developed by an atheist, theistic evolutionists will say. Lets just take a look at just how Evolution has transformed the view of life and reality in fields outside biology and how it impacts religious thinking. Physicist Lee Smolin has speculated that universes, including our own, are the offspring of black holes. Universes in turn reproduce through the black holes contained in them. The more black holes in a universe, the more offspring a universe produces. The new universes posses the same fundamental physical constants of the parent universes. The evolutionary concepts of mutation and differential reproduction are appied to cosmology. (This information found here) If Christians accept that Evolution was God's means of creating Man, why would they not accept an evolutionary model for the creation of the universe? Keller would still contend that the earth was specially created, but many would see that he is simply trying to fit the Christian account of creation into an evolutionary creation model. By accepting the evolutionary model for creation, the Christian consensus concerning the beginning of the universe would be pushed back to accomodate the birth of multiple universes. Over time, the application of evolutionary principles to cosmology removes God completely from the picture of creation.

The findings of neuroscience have been affected by the view that Man has no soul but is the product of the structure of the brain. According to neuroscientists even spiritual experiences are the product of brain structure. In fact, some believe that the birth of religion coincided with the growth of the size of Man's brain during Evolution. The increase in the brain's size allowed for the increased capacity to process language which was a necessary precurser to the development of religion. As Man evolved, his capacity for tool making forshadowed Man's ability to develop religious systems. Man was able to visualize the object without seeing it before it even existed. To understand the use of a tool requires an understanding of causality. The more complex a tool Man is capable of producing, the more sophistication Man posseses to develop religious systems. It is these religious systems that increase survival in the evolutionary process. These systems created communities that restrained selfish behavior. They restrained women to encourage them to choose long term male partners for procreation. The result was that women evolved into the more commited sex. (For sources, see here and here) Remember that in the Tim Keller/Derick Kinder model of creation, Man evolved until God chose one from the tool makers (homo faber) and implanted His image in him. Keller is willing to counsel using arguements rooted in non-Christian world views to convince people that Biblical faith and Evolution can be reconciled. Yet what is to stop the intellectually curious from exploring the roots of Keller's counsel? What is to stop them and those they will counsel, from concluding that since the religious nature in Man can be explained by neuroscience and genetics, then the Christian revelation is no revelation at all? What is to stop them from rejecting a God who reveals Himself and embrace all religious experiences as essentially the same, from the same source?

Implicit in Keller's model for counseling Christians on this issue is the presumed lack of further intellectual speculation on the part of those Keller counsels. Once Christians accept Keller's counsel that God used evolutionary biologiocal processes to create Man and Man's belief in Him, then all conflicts should supposedly cease. Yet what prevents those Keller counsels from working out the implications of Keller's counsel discussed in the paragraphs above? The only ones that can be counted on not to work out these implications are those whose trust in their pastor's counsel is absolute, non-thinkers who need to be told what to think. If Keller counsels that our belief in God may be rooted in genetics, what is to stop people from concluding we are just robots programmed by genes and this is the entire explanation of who we are? Keller believes that an attitude that rejects that Evolution is a rival world-view of the Christian world-view would prevent such such conclusions. All we need is an attitude. In his attempt to reconcile the Biblical account of creation with the universal acid of Evolution, Tim Keller has no clue what he's playing with.

All Scripture quotations taken from the NIV.

Sola Smorgasbord: Tim Keller And Theistic Evolution. Part V: Congregational Confusion On A Scale Previously Unimagined.

2011-06-30T11:44:00.000-07:00

(Originally published 5/27/10)

Protestants adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura states that the Bible alone is the sole authority for matters of Christian living and doctrine. Calvinists, Arminians, Wesleyan-Arminians and Pentecostals uphold this doctrine. Tim Keller's attempt to reconcile Biblical faith and Evolution in his article "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Lay People", which appears on Francis Collins' Biologos website, undermines Sola Scriptura. His Biblical exegesis ignores relevant scriptures that must be taken into consideration in determining whether or not Genesis 1 is to be read literally. Such scriptures include Heb 4:3-4, Mark 10:6 and I Cor 15:47. He also ignores the meaning of key terms such as the meaning of light in Gen. 1:3 and lights in Gen. 1:14. His views that Adam was the product of Evolution while Eve was the result of special creation, his promotion of the "God gene," that Man's belief in God may be genetic in origin, these Keller admits are just models of how the Christian faith can accomodate Darwinian Evolution. But Keller insists that Christians must make such accomodations for the sake of accepting the importance of evolutionary biological processes. How does Keller characterize the refusal to make such accomodations? "This is not a sophisticated theological and philosophical move..." (Keller, p. 6) He speaks of this accomodation as if the contents of the Christian message are just a strategy to win people to the Christian side. And part of Keller's strategy to win people is to so read Scripture in such a way as to accomodate a theory that Darwin could not have formulated without rejecting the role of God as creator in the process of creation. (See Part III) He mixes Scripture and non-scriptural elements to make the accomodation neatly fit together. Hence the rational for the title of this series.

The irony is that some Calvinists believe that they own the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (from the little I know about Tim Keller, I would not include him in this category). Some Calvinist's believe that all other Christian theologies are Man-centered and result from a refusal to honor the authority of Scripture as the sole authority for life and doctrine. For instance, they criticize the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which states that truth can be arrived at by consulting Scripture first, and interpreting Scripture through tradition (what the Church has said in the past on a particular issue), reason and experience. Some Calvinists charge that the Quadrilateral, by consulting tradition, reason and experience, undermines the authority of Scripture. Yet many Calvinists have no problem when one of their own undermines the authority of Scripture by accomodating it to a world view rooted in the rejection of God as creator. On the Gospel Coalition website, which advances Reformed theology, Tim Keller recently published an article entitled "Sinned In A Literal Adam, Raised in a Literal Christ." It is a far shorter article than "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople", yet it repeats many of the points he makes in the longer article which have been discussed in this series. Some of the other members of the Gospel Coalition may disagree with Keller, but Keller appears to remain in good standing with the group. Some of the members of The Gospel Coalition, such as John Piper and Al Mohler, are also members of the The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals . According to Roger Olson, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals will not allow Methodists to become members. (See the comment section from this article on Olson's blog. Olson would disagree with my views of creation.) If certain well known Calvinists will not allow Arminians to join their group and persist in the fiction that their group represents the Evangelical wing of the Church, why are the writings of Keller which challenge the Biblical account of creation not responded to by Keller's fellow Calvinists. How can Calvinists continue to remain hypocritical?

Let's look at one further example of Keller's accomodation of Christian and non- Christian world views. Keller promotes a theory by Christian philosopher Peter van Inwagen. Keller quotes him on page 1: "Suppose that God exists and wants supernaturalistic belief to be a human universal, and sees (he would see this if it were true) that certain features would be useful for human beings to have-useful from an evolutionary point of view: conductive to survival and reproduction-would naturally have the consequence that supernaturalistic belief would be in due course a human universal. Why shouldn't he allow these features to be the cause of the thing he wants?-rather as the human designer of a vehicle might use the waste heat from its engine to keep its passengers warm."

Keller comments on this statement: "Even if science could prove that religious belief has a genetic component that we inherit from our ancestors, that finding is not incompatible with belief in the reality of God or even the truth of the Christian faith. There is no logical reason to preclude that God could have used evolution to predispose people to believe in God in general so that people would be able to consider true belief when they hear the Gospel preached." (Keller, p. 1)

So God used Evolution to predispose all of us to believe in God in general and be able to consider true belief when the Gospel is preached. If God indeed used Evolution for that purpose, it didn't work, did it? The vast majority of human beings have not had saving faith in Christ. As Christ Himself said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Mt. 7: 13-14) It is the created world surrounding Man that causes Man to first discern that there is a God, Paul tells us in Rom. 1:18-21. Yet even then Paul tells us that no one seeks God. (Rom 3: 11) Most of those we witness to do not accept the Gospel. Most of those who believe in God do not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, nor do they believe Jesus is the only path to God. Why would God root our belief in Him in natural phenomena subject to mutation? If Man inherited a "God gene" as Keller thinks we did, so that we would be predisposed to believe, then what God predetermined did not come to pass. Why should we put our faith in such a God who does not have the power to fulfill all His purposes? In Keller's zeal to accomodate Evolution and Christianity, he sows doubts concerning God's sovereignty and sabotages Christian assurance.

One last question. How does Keller reconcile his notion that we inherited this "God gene" with the Calvinist doctrine of predestination? This doctrine states that God predestined a certain few, the elect, to life with God while the rest of humanity is damned to a Christless eternity in hell? Whether one is a member of the elect or not, one cannot alter their own destiny. If that is the case, why would God implant a belief in Him in those He predestined to hell? Why would He predispose humanity to belief in Him if He has decreed that the vast majority of humanity through the centuries are not among the elect? Again,this is a slur on the character of God. How does Keller reconcile this with his Calvinist theology? How does those he counsel reconcile these contradictory beliefs? Or are they so confused by his counsel that doubts are sown in their minds concerning not only the authority of Scriptures but the very existence and character of God?

The conclusion to this series will appear in a few days.
All scripture quotations are from the NIV.

Sola Smorgasbord: Tim Keller And Theistic Evolution. Part IV: Adam And Eve: The Extreme Makeover Edition

2011-06-14T12:43:00.000-07:00

(Originally Published 5/25/10)

Tim Keller poses four questions that must be answered if one is to reconcile Biblical faith and belief in Evolution. We have dealt with the first two in previous posts. The final two Keller deals with simultaneously: is belief in Evolution compatible with a historical fall of a literal Adam and Eve and if these two world views are indeed compatible, when did sin and suffering enter God's creation? In Francis Collins' book, "The Language of God," he states that Adam and Eve are symbolic figures and his explanation of the introduction of sin into the world is vague at best. It is Collins' website Biologos where Kellers article "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople" appears. Keller's position is a marked improvement upon Collins'. Despite that, Keller's views on this subject fall short of sound Biblical interpretation.

Keller defends the historicity of Adam and Eve. Keller effectively debunks the notion that the Biblical account of creation is just one of many creation myths and that Genesis and other ancient stories were imaginary history. Keller quotes Egyptologist and Evangelical Christian Kenneth Kitchen: "The ancient Near East did not historicize myth (i.e. read it as imaginary 'history.') In fact, exactly the reverse is true--there was, rather, a trend to 'mythologize' history, to celebrate actual historical events and people in mythological terms..." (Keller, p. 8) Near Eastern 'myths' did not evolve over time into historical accounts, but the reverse, that historical events took on mythological elements. But they were still historical accounts and it is reasonable to interpret Genesis 2 and 3 as true historical accounts.

In Rom. 5:12, Paul writes of the Fall as a literal historical event and of Adam as an actual historical figure. If one holds to a non-literal view of Adam and the Fall, this has implications as to how one reads Scripture. Keller tells us "Those who don't believe in the Biblical account of the Fall and of Adam and Eve will tell themselves: 'Well, the Biblical authors were 'men of their time' and were wrong about something they were trying to teach readers' The obvious question they will ask is, 'how will we know which parts of the Bible to trust and which not?' " (Keller, p. 9) If Paul interpreted Genesis 2 and 3 literally, and he was wrong, then his theology of sin in Romans collapses. This would lead to the questioning of the reliability of all Scripture. "...I believe such a move (interpreting Genesis 2 and 3 non-literally) can be bad for the church as a whole" Keller writes, "and it certainly can lead to confusion on the part of laypeople." (Keller, p. 9) Without a literal historical Fall, there is no way to account for the introduction of sin into the human makeup. If we did not inherit the sin nature because Adam sinned, where did we obtain it? Keller asks, was it only by observing the bad example of others? Furthermore, he asks, "If some human beings began to turn away from God, why couldn't some human beings resist so that some groups would be less sinful than others?" (Keller, p. 10) Keller states that these explanations violate the Christian doctrine of original sin.

Keller is exactly right here. Yet the writings of Paul are not the only relevant New Testament texts to consider. Heb. 4: 3-4 and Mk. 10:6 are also important in determining how we interpret the creation account in Genesis. We have gone over this in Part II, but it bears repeating. Heb. 4: 3-4 speaks of the seventh day of creation as an actual historical event. If the seventh day did not really occur, then the promise given in Hebrews concerning a future Sabbath rest for the people of God is a promise based on a myth. If the writer of Hebrews interprets the account of the seventh day in Genesis 2 literally, then we must interpret the Genesis 1 account of the first six days literally. We cannot believe that day seven is a literal hisorical event while claiming days 1-6 to be a symbolic or theological interpretation of actual events depicted in Genesis 2. We will come to the observations concerning Mark 10:6 shortly.

Thus far, Keller and I are in agreement. Unfortunately, Keller presents a model of how we can reconcile the historicity of Adam and Eve and the development of Man through evolutionary biological processes. This model was first introduced by Derick Kinder. Keller's presentation of this model is bad Scriptual analysis and an affront to God's character.

Keller points us to the verses that he believes indicates that Adam was born through natural biological processes. He follows Kinder in pointing us to Job 10: 8-9: "Your hands shaped me and made me...Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again?" Obviously Job was born through natural biological processes despite his poetic description of his birth. The language in Job is similiar to the language used to describe Adam's creation in Genesis 2. Keller asks, with Kinder, if such similiarity could denote natural biological processes in Gen. 2:7, namely Evolution? Keller brings to our attention Bruce Watke's observation on Ps. 139:13 written by David: "For you created me in my inner most being, you knit me together in my mother's womb." This is figurative language for the normal process of human development that occurs during pregnancy. Therefore, according to Keller, the language of Genesis 2:7 may be figurative language for Adam's birth through natural biological processes.

Rev. Keller, we have a problem. The word "Adam is probably related to the verb 'adom, to be red, refering to the muddiness of man's complexion. Adamah, 'soil' or 'ground', may also be derived from this verb. Thus, Gen 2:7 says 'The Lord God formed 'adam from the dust of the adamah.' Paul sees Adam as earthman or earthy man in ICor. 15:47." (Word Wealth Note for Gen. 1: 26 from the "Spirit Filled Life Bible.") Yes, it is obvious that the language in Job 10 and Ps 139 is figurative. Yet in neither of these two verses can we observe the same linguistic dynamics we observe in the creation and naming of Adam. By naming the first man Adam, the Lord was linking him to the manner in which he was created, from the dust of the ground. Literally. Not through normal biological processes. Even more of a problem for Keller's thesis is Paul's statement in ICor 15:47: "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven." In the original Greek language Paul is telling us that the first man came out of the ground. Literally. ("The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key To The Greek new Testament", Cleon Rogers Jr. and Cleon Rogers III) Paul says here that Jesus literally came from heaven. Keller knows this to be literally true. Why in one verse would Paul use figurative language for the first half of the verse and straight forward historical prose for the second half? The entire verse is to be taken literally. And if Paul interprets Gen. 1:26 to say that Adam literally came from the earth, so should we. Keller himself tells us we must use the same standard of interpretation when interpreting the account of the Fall in Genesis 3 in the light of what Paul said in Rom. 5:12.

It doesn't get any better for the Keller/Kinder model. According to this model, lesser beings developed through evolutionary biological processes until one was ready to be the first of the new race of Man. God took one out of this group of homo faber (the maker of tools) and endowed him with the image of God. Then God created woman, Eve, through special creation. So the man was created through evolution, the woman through special creation. Keller tells us that the presense of evolved beings lower than Man explain the presense of those who would kill Cain for murdering Abel, a wife for Cain and inhabitants for Cain's city. Keller states that Gen 2:20 hints that Adam went in search of a wife. Among whom did he seek? Personally, I do not see that Adam went in search of a wife, but that no suitable helper could be found among the creatures God brought to Adam to name.

Where did Cain get his wife? Keller ignores Genesis 5:4: "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." If the human race began with a single pair, than marriage among Adam's children was unavoidable. Such examples are not unknown in Scripture. Abram married his half sister (Gen 20:12). Moses' father married his father's sister Jochebed (Ex. 6:20). At first, the sin of incest applied only to relations between parent and child. By the time of the Mosaic Law, it had been extended to cover relations among mothers, fathers, stepmothers, sisters, brothers, half brothers, half sisters, grand daughters, daughter-in-laws, son-in-laws, aunts, uncles and brothers' wives. "The genetic reasons for forbidding incest were not always an issue. Close inbreeding in ancient times was without serious or any genetic damage. Today, the risk of genetic damage is extremely high. Since the genetic possibilities of Adam and Eve were very good, there were no biological reasons for restricting marriages to the degree that it became necessary to do later." (This quote, as well as all the information in this paragraph come from "Hard Sayings of the Bible" edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch) Someone may object that this theory is just as speculative as Keller's thesis. That there were those who lived on earth who would want to kill Cain for murdering Abel could be explained if these were blood relatives of Abel. Speculative this explanation may be, yet it is based on the implications of the plain reading of the Biblical account of creation, not on an attempt to reconcile Biblical faith with a world view rooted in the rejection of a creator. (See Part III)

Then there is Mark 10:6. Jesus declares: "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." At the beginning of creation. There was no evolutionary development of Man because Man as we know him (without the sin nature) came into existence at the very beginning of creation. This proves that Jesus Himself read Genesis 1 as a literal historical account of the origins of Man.

Then there is the question of the introduction of sin and suffering into the world. Keller points us to to Gen. 1:2 which says that before God's creative acts the earth was formless, empty and filled with darkness. Keller tells us chaos reigned. Satan was present in the world as well. After God's creative acts, the earth was undeveloped. "Even before the Fall," Keller writes, "the world was not yet in the shape God wanted it to be." (Keller, p. 12) Why God chose to create the earth without form , or how long the earth remained without form is hidden from us. Yet in that state, the earth was in that state by the will of God. After the six days of creation, the earth's undeveloped status was still by God's design. And God called his creation "good." In both states, before and after creation, the earth was as God wanted it to be. It is apparent, though, that it was not God's will that the earth remain in either state. But while the earth was in either state, it was in a state of being with all the potential God had in mind for it. After creation, the earth was undeveloped, but God created it to be glorious under the domination of Man. A new born baby may not be as smart as a dog or a cat, yet it is the pinnicle of creation and all its potential to be what God wants him/her to be is already present in that new born (with the exception of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit). The state of the earth before or after the six days of creation in no way implies that sin and suffering were present on earth prior to the Fall. Yes, Satan was present, but he had no power until Adam and Eve disobeyed God's decree. They did not have to give in to temptation; it was not until they did so did that they become powerless against Satan. It was only after that that the earth has failed to reach its potential.

Evolution teaches that all life forms came into being through the survival of the fittest, a process involving death, violence and suffering. This notion is the main obstacle to reconciling Biblical faith with belief in Evolution. Keller knows this. "The process of evolution, however, understands violence, predation, and death to be the very engine of how life develops. If God brings about life through evolution, how do we reconcile that with the idea of a good God? The problem of evil seems to be worse for the believer in theistic evolution." (Keller, p. 2) While it is commendable for Keller to have acknowledged this issue (this issue didn't seem to trouble Collins in "The Language of God"), no where in his article does he answer the question. While at the end of his article he tries to make the case for evil being present in the world before the Fall, Keller makes no attempt to explain why God permitted this. To maintain that God not only created a world where sin and suffering existed, but that such suffering was the engine that He used to develop Man, is a slur upon God's character. God would not create a world in which the majority of living beings had to kill or be killed to survive. Perhaps Keller believes that God's loving care extends only to fully evolved Man and that those less evolved creatures he believes Adam evolved from did not suffer the anguish of the survival of the fittest. Whoever the people were whom Cain feared would kill him for murdering Abel, if they wanted revenge against Cain, then they must have had a sense of right and wrong, a sense of justice. Would God create such a race and them subject them to the law of the survival of the fittest? Would not such creatures ask why they had to kill or be killed, why a God whom Keller believes may have provided these creatures with the genetic capacity to believe in Him, would place them in such a cruel world? God would not have created such a world and then pronounce it "good." Yes, Keller believes that Genesis 1 is not to be read literally but is a poetic restatement of the actual events of creation recorded in Genesis 2. If this were the case, then the author and the God who inspired the Scriptures to be written would be lying by pronouncing such a world to be good. Keller is rightly concerned that to reject the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Fall would undermine the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture in the minds of believers. Yet Keller cannot see that to promote his views attempting to reconcile Biblical faith and belief in Evolution would have the same effect. There will be more concerning this point in Part VI.

Part VI? I originally wrote that this would be a five part series. I had intended to include how Keller's views violate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and contradicts the Calvinist theology he adheres to in this post. But that would make this article too long. So those topics will be covered in a seperate post. This will be a six part rather than a five part series.

All Scripture Quotations From the NIV.

Sola Smorgasbord: Tim Keller And Theistic Evolution. Part III: Kicking The Atheists Off Their Own Turf

2011-05-31T11:51:00.000-07:00

(Originally published on 5/16/10)

Tim Keller sees a problem. The problem is that there is an entrenched position among Evolutionists and Christians that Biblical faith and belief in Evolution are mutually exclusive. Those who hold this position conclude that if Man is the product of evolutionary biological processes, then every aspect of Man's soul is the product of genetic factors at work in natural selection. Most Evolutionists certainly believe this. Our capacity to love, act, our moral convictions, even our belief in God is rooted in our genetic makeup. These traits are present today because they helped our ancestors survive the process of Human Evolution. Keller quotes a prominent "New Atheist", Sam Harris. Harris says that humans have "no immortal soul, free will, [knowledge] of the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism..." (Keller, p. 5-6) Many Christians share the atheist view that if evolution is true, than Man's unique status as outlined in Scripture is an illusion, that Man is nothing more than a biological machine. The second question Keller addresses in his article "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Lay People," on p. 5-7, concerns this view of Christianity's and Evolution's mutual exclusiveness. How does Keller think we can overcome this hostility to Evolution among Christians? By convincing Christians that "Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a world view." (Keller, p. 5) Christians must abandon their conclusion that to believe in human evolutionary biological processes one must logically conclude that everything about Man is the result of natural selection. He quotes David Atkinson to make his point: "If evolution is...elevated to the status of a world-view of the way things are, then there is a direct conflict with biblical faith. But if 'evolution' remains at the level of a scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which--at the level of biology--God has gone about his creating process." (Keller, p. 6) Keller warns Christians that if we fail to make the distinction between evolution as a world view and evolution as a scientific biological process, then Christians will never grant the importance of evolutionary biological processes. We will never change our view of the world and God to accomodate the view that man is the product of evolution. That is what upsets Keller and to affect this accomodation is the purpose of writing this paper which appears on Francis Collin's Biologos website.

To accept Evolution as part of God's creative process, Keller would have Christians ignore the implications of the evolutionary model. But Darwin himself could not have developed his theory of evolution without taking God out of the picture. Here is a quote from Ernst Mayr's book "One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought":

"Darwin was unable to build on this foundation but rather started from the fundamental question that Lyell bequeathed to him, namely, how do new species originate? Although Lyell appealed to "intermediate" causes as the source of the new species, THE PROCESS WAS NEVERTHELESS A FORM OF SPECIAL CREATION. [Capitalization mine] 'Species may have been created in succession at such times and at such places as to enable them to multiply and endure for an appointed period and occupy an appointed space on the globe' (Lyell 1835, 3:99-100). For Lyell, each creation was a carefully planned event. The reason why Lyell, like Henslow, Sedgwick, and all the others of Darwin's scientific friends and correspondents in the middle of the 1830s, accepted the unalterable constancy of species was ultimately a philosophical one. The constancy of species--that is the inability of a species, once created, to change--was the one piece of the old dogma of a created world that remained inviolate after the concepts of the recency and constancy of the physical world had been abandoned.

"No genuine and testable theory of evolution could develop until the possibility was recognized that species have the capacity to change, to become transformed into new species, and multiply into several species. FOR DARWIN TO ACCEPT THIS POSSIBILITY REQUIRED A FUNDAMENTAL BREAK WITH LYELL'S THINKING..." [Capitalization mine] (Mayr, One Long Arguement, Harvard University Press, 1991, p. 17-18)

In other words, for Darwin to formulate his theories, he had to reject the belief in the work of a creator in the creation of species. Can any one who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ explain to me how the truth of man's origins could not be discovered without the rejection of an Intelligent Designer and that now we can reconcile Biblical creation with a theory thats development depended upon a rejection of God as creator? Darwin himself worked out the implications of his theory:

"Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the orthodox it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a clergyman...I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. This belief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete...The voyage of the Beagle has been by far the most important event in my life and has determined my whole career..." (From H. James Bix's introduction to Darwin's "Descent of Man.") If the development of Evolution required a rejection of God as creator, why does Keller think it strange that Christians should consider Biblical faith and evolution mutually exclusive?

New Atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are intolerant of Christian beliefs and would like to remove all religious discourse from the market place of ideas. Yet that in no way excludes the possibility that they have correctly worked out the implications of evolution for Man. Most evolutionists do not adhere to New Atheist rhetoric; in the case of Dawkins most evolutionists do not consider his views and rhetoric to be representative of the scientific community. Many consider his conduct to be harmful to their cause. Yet even most of these who believe Man's origins are in evolution take this belief a step forward to the position that genetics explains everything there is about Man, including Man's belief in God. For example, anthropologists view mankind and religious belief through the prism of evolution. In fact, this view of Man may be the next greatest challenge to faith in God and orthodox Christian belief. And Keller would have Christians who have worked out the same implications of evolution as the New Atheists ignore their own reasoning all for the sake of accepting the importance of evolutionary biological processes?

Not only does Keller want Christians to ignore their conclusions, he would ignore the obvious implications of his own arguements for the acceptance of evolution. On p.1 of his paper, Keller promotes the idea that there may be a genetic explanation for our belief in God. This genetic factor, called by some the "God gene," somehow supported our acestors' ability to survive and reproduce. God's purpose was to make belief in God universal among the human race. This will be dealt with in Part IV. I bring it up now to demonstrate the utter lack of logic in Keller's position. Keller wants us to seriously consider that our belief in God may be genetic, originating in evolutionary biological processes. But then, he wants us to reject the conclusion that if we have the God gene, then our belief in God, our moral convictions, are not the result of natural selection! If belief in God was genetic in origin, wouldn't it logically flow from that our moral convictions (tied to our belief in the Triune God), are genetic in origin? If belief originates in genetics, then belief is predetermined and not a response to the revelation of a loving and sovereign creator. If belief is genetic in origin, then why should Christians not conclude that the truth claims of any religion are as valid as any other?

Keller's description of those Christians who will not accept evolution as God's method of creation and his strategy for getting Christians to change their minds reveals an unfortunate attitude toward those he would counsel. This is what Keller writes concerning Christians who refuse to accept evolution: "Many Christian lay people resist all this and seek to hold on to some sense of human dignity by subscribing to 'fiat-creationism.' This is not a sophisticated theological and philosophical move; it is intuitive." (Keller, p. 6) This statement reveals some condesention on the part of Keller toward his readers. He is saying that to reject evolution is to be led by one's feelings rather than be guided by one's own intellectual reflection as well as a careful study of the scriptures. This is a subtle way of trying to make you think,"I don't want to be seen as uneducated and ignorant." Keller also appeals to reader gullibility. To remove any doubts Christians may have in accepting evolution, Keller tells his readers to make common cause with theistic evolutionists against the New Atheists. The New Atheists are trying to delegitimize any religious belief, so why not join with theistic evolutionists to thwart them and rescue evolution from its own implications, to rescue evolution from the exclusive intellectual ownership of the atheists, to kick the atheists off their own turf? This reminds me of the American Civil War. When war was seen to be unavoidable, some in the North sought to provoke a war with England to unify North and South. It seemed that these northerners had a low view of the public's IQ if they thought both northerners and southerners would fall for that. Keller seems to have a similiar view of his readers gullibility. Just remove Christian doubts over evolution by creating a new enemy, the New Atheists. And Keller wants us to see this as "a sophisticated theological and philosophical move?" What is Keller's estimate of the intelligence of the average Christian? It doesn't sound too high.

Sola Smorgasbord: Tim Keller And Theistic Evolution. Part II: WDJS (What Did Jesus Say?)

2011-05-24T11:03:00.000-07:00

(Originally published on 5/12/10)

Tim Keller's article, "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Lay People" appears on the Biologos website. Biologos was started by Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and current Director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins is a Christian who believes in the compatibility of Biblical faith and belief in Evolution. His book, "The Language of God" was reviewed on this blog. (See here, here and here) The aim of Biologos is to convince the Christian public that Evolution and the Christian faith are compatible. Keller's article seeks to demonstrate how a pastor could reconcile the two while engaging in pastoral counsel. He identifies four questions that one must answer to affect this reconciliation. This article will examine Keller's answer to the first question which appears on p. 3-5 of his article.

The first question Keller seeks to answer is how to interpret Genesis 1. Keller correctly points out that for Evolution and Biblical faith to be seen to be compatible, Genesis 1 cannot be interpreted literally. And if Genesis 1 cannot be interpreted literally, why interpret any other part of the Bible literally? Keller's answer: "The way to respect the authority of the Biblical writers is to take them as they want to be taken. Sometimes they want to be taken literally, sometimes they don't. We must listen to them, not impose our thinking and agenda on them." (Keller, p. 3) Keller expands upon this answer on p. 3-5.

In this answer, Keller identifies a key component of sound Biblical exegesis: what is the original intent of the author? How does the author wish to be understood? The answer, according to Keller, is to identify the genre the author employs to convey his message. Keller points to Judges 4 and 5 by way of illustration. Both chapters concern Israel's defeat of Sisera and his army. In chapter 4 the author employs historical prose narrative to chronicle this historical event. Chapter 5, Deborah's Song, contains verses such as this: "From the heavens the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera." This is evidence that the author was employing Hebrew poetry to explain the theological significance of the historical events described in chapter 4. These choices of genre indicate that the author intended chapter 4 to be read literally while chapter 5 was not. Keller points to Exodus 14 and 15 as another example illustrating similiar intent by a Biblical author. Exodus 14 is a straight forward historical account of the Red Sea crossing and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptions. Chaper 15 contains poetical language to convey the meaning of what happened in chapter 14. From these examples, Keller correctly identifies an important principle of Biblical interpretation: "...to assert that one part of scripture shouldn't be taken literally does not mean that no other parts should be either."(Keller, p. 3)

Keller maintains that these two examples serve as evidence that the author of Genesis intended Genesis 2 to be interpreted literally, but not chapter 1. Keller quotes Hebrew scholar Edward J. Young (who believes Genesis 1 is an historical account) as writing that Genesis 1 is written in "exalted, semi-poetical language." It describes a sucession of historical events characteristic of prose and does not feature a key element of Hebrew poetry, parallelism. Keller points to the use of refrains within this prose style which repeat themselves as they do in songs. "And God saw that it was good" is repeated seven times, as is "and it was so." "God said" and "let there be" appear ten times each. The author also employs poetic phrases not repeated anywhere else in Scripture as well as the phrase "beast of the field," a term usually reserved for poetic discourse. Keller comments: "Obviously, this is not the way someone writes in response to a simple request to tell what happened." (Keller, p. 4) Keller quotes scholar C. John Collins in labeling Genesis 1 "exalted prose narrative" which Collin's defines as a narrative making truth claims but in being labeled exalted it is understood that it is not to be interpreted literally.

Keller believes the strongest evidence that Genesis 1 is not to be interpreted literally is the order of creative acts in the first two chapters of Genesis. Gen 2:5 is proof, according to Keller, that God followed the natural order of creation. Keller reads this verse to say that God did not create vegetation before there was an atmosphere or rain, while he reads Genesis 1 as saying God did. In Genesis 1 God created light on the first day before there were any sources of light which were not created until the fourth day. But in chapter 1 vegetation appears on the third day. According to Keller, this is impossible because on the third day the sun was not yet created. If there was no sun, there was no atmosphere. No rain was possible on the third day either. Keller concludes that we cannot interpret both chapters as literal historical accounts because their orders of creation are not compatible. Since Genesis 2 provides a natural order of creation events, according to Keller, then we must interpret Genesis 2 literally while Genesis 1 is to be read as a theological statement concerning the actual events presented in chapter 2.

Keller is correct that just because one portion of scripture is not to be interpreted literally does not mean that no portion is to be interpreted literally. But is he correct that the scriptual evidence is clear that Genesis 1 was never meant to be interpreted literally? NO! Lets us examine why his assertions do not stand up to scrutiny.

Lets begin by examining the above mentioned chapters in Judges and Exodus. Judges 4 is a straight forward historical account of Israel's defeat of Sisera and his army. Chapter 5 is Deborah's Song commemorating that defeat. The Song indeed contains poetic language not to be read literally. The stars did not literally fight against Sisera. (v. 20) Yet chapter 5's poetic language refers to actual historical events. The language in verse 20 may be written in poetic language, but it refers to God acting on Israel's behalf, bringing about Sisera's defeat even before the two armies met. We know this because the Lord told Deborah to tell Barak that the Lord Himself will lure Sisera to the Kishon river and give Sisera and his army into Barak's hands. We read this in Judges 4:7, the straight forward historical account of the battle. While chapter 5 may be poetry, it still narrates historical events. Verses 6-9 speak of the conditions in Israels' villages and on its highways while Israel was dominated by Sisera's king, Jabin. Verses 13-18 identify which tribes of Israel fought and which ones hesitated. Again, this describes a true historical episode. Verses 19-23 contains poetic language, but it describes an actual historical battle. Verses 24-27 describe Jael's killing of Sisera with a tent peg in straight forward language. The genre may be poetry, but almost all the verses refer to actual history. Since the language may be poetry, that does not mean the historical events it describes did not actually happen, did it? Of course not.

We can make the same observation concerning Exodus 14 and 15. Exodus 14 is the historical account of God's delivering Israel from Egypt by parting the Red Sea. Chapter 15 is a poetic retelling of the same historical event. Moses speaks of God's right hand shattering Pharoh's army. (Ex 15:6) He writes that the waters were piled up by a blast from the Lord's nostrils. (Ex. 15:8) We know that God does not possess physical traits as we do, so we know the language used here is poetical. Yet the poetry describes the actual historical events described in chapter 14. Ex 15: 13-18 may be poetry, but it is declaring future historical events about how Israel will enter the Promised Land.

What we see in these two pairs of chapters is the coupling of two chapters where the first chapter describes actual historical events while the second chapter describes the same true events in poetic language. In the poetic recapitulations, very few verses actually speak of events that literally did not happen. From these very few verses in Judges 5 and Exodus 15, Keller wants us to conclude that the ENTIRE first chapter of Genesis was not chronicling actual historical events. THE ENTIRE CHAPTER! This is bad Biblical exegesis. To infer that from a very few verses in the midst of a poetic retelling of actual events that the writer of Genesis 1 did not want us to interpret it literally is to make a sweeping conclusion from too little evidence.

What about Keller's statement that the language of Genesis 1 is not written in the language of one responding to a simple request to write an account of what happened? From what evidence does Keller conclude that Genesis was written in response to a simple request to write an account of what happened? There is no evidence in scripture that Genesis was written because of such a request. The only scripture concerning why Moses wrote any account of God and Israel that I can find is Ex. 17:14 where God commands Moses to write an account of the defeat of the Amalekites. Because there is no evidence of such a simple request, we cannot conclude that the poetic language employed in Genesis 1 is evidence that the events it describes did not actually occur. After all, in Judges 4, the writer employs poetic language to symbolize a historical event: "After Ehud died, the Israelites once again did evil in the eyes of the Lord. SO THE LORD SOLD THEM INTO THE HANDS OF JABIN..." (Judges 4: 1-2, caps mine). Are we justified in reading all of Judges 4 non-literally because of its use of poetic symbolism? No. Neither is Keller justified in concluding that the events of Genesis 1 are non-historical because of the use of certain poetic phrases. Perhaps it was the intention of the author of Genesis 1 (Moses) to use language to emphasize that radical difference between God and the idols? Perhaps the author wanted to demonstrate how only God could create, how God was so powerful that all He had to do to create was to speak the word? This message was so at odds with the religious thoughts of Man that perhaps Moses employed poetic language to drive the lessons of history home? Perhaps prose was not adequate to the task?

Keller's evidence concerning the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, which he states is the strongest evidence there is for a non-literal reading of Genesis 1, does not withstand critical examination. It appears that vegetation was created on day three before the sun on day four. But we need to examine Gen. 1:1 and the Hebrew word used for "light." "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The phrase "heavens and earth" most likely means universe or cosmos and must be taken with the same sense it is used throughout the Bible (Joel 3: 15-16) which would include the sun, the moon and the stars. The whole of the universe, including the sun, the moon and the stars, were created on the first day, not the fourth. On the fourth day, the Hebrew does not read "Let there be lights" but "Let the lights in the expanse of the sky seperate." The lights already existed in the expanse (created on the second day) and on the fourth day they were given purpose by God's command: to seperate the day from the night and mark the seasons and years. In v.6, we read of the creation of the expanse between the waters. In the Hebrew syntax, it speaks of God creating the expanse where there was nothing previously. The syntax in v.14 concerning the lights suggests that the lights already existed but had not yet been seperated. Also, Gen. 2:6 informs us of streams that came up from underground to water the Earth. The conditions for an atmosphere were already in place for the vegetation to be created on the third day in Gen1: 11-13. (The information for this paragraph comes from the commentary on Genesis by John H. Sailhamer in the Expositors Bible Commentary, which I have on CD ROM.)

If we look closely at Gen. 1:11-13 (the third day) and Gen. 2:4-7, we see that these two verses are not two different accounts of the same aspect of creation. Gen. 1:11-13 speaks of the creation of vegetation: "...seed bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with the seed in it..." Gen. 2:4-7 speaks not of the creation of vegetation but the beginning of agriculture, the human tilling of the ground. No shrub of the field or plant of the field appeared before man could cultivate the vegetation already existing.

Keller is correct when he identifies the discerning of an author's original intent as a major ingredient of biblical interpretation. Yet this is not the only principle of Biblical interpretation. Nor is it the most important. There is the principle of interpretation which demands that we let Scripture interpret Scripture. Reading a Biblical passage within the context of the entirety of Scripture sheds light on that passage we would never have just by reading that passage alone. It also guards against unbalanced interpretations of Scripture. Jesus said to His opponents, " You diligently study the Scriptures (The Old Testament) because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me..." (Jn. 5:39) The Old Testament writers had their reasons for writing what they did, but they were not aware that their writings were speaking of God's Son, Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers. Therefore, the original intent of the Old Testament writers is not always the controling factor in Biblical interpretation of the Old Testament.

The author of Hebrews states this concerning the seventh day of creation: "...And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.' " (Heb. 4: 3-4) The author is quoting Gen 2:2, which speaks of God's rest on the seventh day. The author quotes Gen 2:2 in making the case that there will be a future Sabbath day of rest for the people of God. Without Gen. 2:2, his scriptural case for such a promise collapses. Gen. 2:2 is the evidence for a promise from God to his people. Obviously, the writer of Hebrews believed that Gen 2:2 chronicled a historical event, an event that actually happened. If the writer did not think so, he would be comforting God's people with a promise based on an event that did not happen. He would be giving a false comfort. Obviously the writer thought Gen 2:2 should be interpreted literally. And if a New Testament writer interprets Gen 2:2 literally, then according to the principle of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, so must we. If the verse chronicling the seventh day is to be literally interpreted, so are all the verses covering days one through six. After all, if the seventh day is an historical event, so are all the previous days.

Did Jesus have anything to say concerning a literal interpretation of Genesis 1? Yes. What did Jesus say? In Mark 10, in speaking of marriage, Jesus said, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION. Jesus tells us that Man and Woman appeared at the very beginning of creation, not after a period of human evolution. This agrees with the account of creation in Genesis 1. To interpret it otherwise would be untrue to the text of Scripture.

Part III will be posted soon.

All Scripture quotations are from the NIV.

Sola Smorgasbord: Tim Keller And Theistic Evolution. Part I: A Faith And Evolution Reconciliation?

2011-05-17T12:43:00.000-07:00

(First published on 5/9/10. This post has been edited from the original.)

Tim Keller is the pastor of The Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. While pastoring his own church, he has been influential in planting numerous churches in New York City. Most of these church-plants are not even of his own theological conviction. Of these 65 church-plants, only 10 are of Keller's denomination, The Presbyterian Church of America. The rest include Lutheren, Charismatic and Christian Missionary Alliance Churches. The largest church-plant is Southern Baptist. (For the source, see here) For this, Keller deserves enormous respect. I have heard some of Keller's apologetic sermons and found them profitable for their insights. Sometime this year or next, his book "The Reason for God" will be reviewed on this blog. Therefore, I was disappointed to discover that Keller has written an article which was published on Francis Collins' Biologos website entitled "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Lay People" which attempts to reconcile Biblical faith and belief in Evolution.

In his article, Keller states that the widespread conviction that Evolution and Biblical Christianity are mutually exclusive poses problems for Christians and those who are attracted to Christianity. According to Keller, many Christians cannot reconcile their gratitude toward modern science and what modern science tells them about Evolution with their theological beliefs. Those who are exploring the Christian faith have a different problem. Seekers may be drawn to the faith but ask, "I don't see how I can believe the Bible if that means I have to reject science." (Keller, p. 1)The merits concerning Keller's presentation of this conflict will be examined in part V of this series.

Keller maintains that the conflict for Christians and seekers can be resolved by demonstrating how Biblical faith and belief in Evolution can be reconciled. To affect this reconciliation, Keller attempts to answer four questions:

1. How can we interpret Genesis 1 as non-literal while honoring the authority of Scripture ?

2. How can we accept Evolution without adopting the views of the New Athiests such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris?

3. How do we reconcile the historicity of Adam and Eve, which is at the center of Paul's theology of human sin, with Evolution?

4. If God used evolutionary biological processes to produce Man, how do we account for the introduction of sin and violence into the world?

Keller's answers to all four questions fail to stand up to scrutiny.

Originally this series had been planned as a single article, however, realizing that the one article would have been too long, I have divided it into five parts. In the next three posts, I will examine how effective Keller's answers are to the four questions he poses. Part IV will evaluate a possible model Keller uses to explain how the Biblical account of creation could accomodate evolutionary biological processes. It is in part IV that the rational for the title of this series will be explained. For now it suffices to say that his model violates the doctrine of sola scriptura adhered to by Protestants. It is also in conflict with Calvinist theology, of which Keller is an adherant. Part V will examine whether the conflict between faith and belief in evolution for believers and seekers is as Keller portrays it to be and why the two cannot ultimately be reconciled.

Judging on past experience, when this blog has dealt with the topic of Evolution, I would advise anyone who would like to comment to read the new comment policy which can be found at the right hand side of the screen. I would also encourage you to read Keller's article linked to above. I do look forward to your responses.

No Title

2011-05-13T17:34:00.000-07:00

Last night I finished writing papers for the ordination process. Now I can move on to finishing two projects on Wesley which will appear on this blog in the future. In the meantime old articles will be reposted. In a few days the series "Sola Smorgasbord: Tim Keller and Theistic Evolution" will again appear.

David Wilkerson

2011-04-28T07:04:00.000-07:00

David Wilkerson is now with the Lord. He died in an auto accident in Texas.

New Post: Wesley Biblical Seminary Professors Discuss Hell And Prophecy

2011-04-23T18:32:00.000-07:00

I just finished all my reading for ordination; now I have papers to write.

Here are two interviews from The Matt Friedeman Show. Dr. Friedeman is Professor of Evangelism and Christian Education at Wesley Biblical Seminary (WBS). He hosts a weekday radio program. In this first interview, he discusses the topic of hell with Dr. Steve Blakemore, WBS Assistant Professor of Philosophy. (Originally seen on my friend John Phillip's Facebook page.) In a second interview, Dr. Friedeman also discusses hell as well as prophecy with former WBS Professor Dr. John N. Oswalt. Dr. Oswalt is now teaching at Asbury Theological Seminary.

This is my 350th post.

Doctrine Doesn't Take A Back Seat To Experience

2011-04-15T12:27:00.000-07:00

(Recently, I posted a short comment responding to someone named Zach, who believes that doctrine must take a back seat to experience in our knowledge of Christ. Zach made his comment on this post by Roger Olson. Zach's comment is #11, mine is #23. The following is a devotional piece from 9/20/10 which is a more detailed presentation of what I wrote in respose to Zach.)

1Jn. 2:25- "And this is the promise that He has promised us--eternal life."

Jesus said that Satan is a liar and the father of lies. (Jn. 8:44) Satan tells us many lies. But what is Satan's greatest lie? That Jesus is not the Son of God, that Jesus is not the Christ.

There is a difference between a created being and a begotten one. Man is a created being. When humans reproduce children, they beget children. Humans reproduce, or beget, of their own kind. None of us were begotten of the heavenly Father because we are not of the same kind as the Father. We were created by the Father out of material not of His own being, out of material He created out of nothing. Jesus is the Father's only begotten Son, He is of the same kind as the Father. Jesus and the Father are one. If Jesus is not the only begotten Son of the Father, then His sacrifice for our sins would have been for nothing. Only a perfect sacrifice would meet the demands of the Father's justice, and if Jesus was merely human, not the only begotten Son, then He would not be the perfect sacrifice, for He would be tainted by sin as well. If this were the case, Jesus would not be the Christ, the Messiah sent from the Father.

Those that deny that Jesus is the Christ, John calls anti Christ. (1Jn. 2:22) If we abide in the truth that Jesus is the Christ, which we heard from the beginning, then we abide in the Father and the Son. (v. 23-24) Today there are some who believe truth or doctrine is not as important as doing what Jesus did. Their favorite quotation is from St. Francis of Assisi: "Preach the Gospel at all times and if necessary use words." Yet if we abide in the truth, we abide in both the Father and the Son. Those who deny the doctrines concerning the Son do not have the Father. (v. 23) Abiding in both the Father and the Son qualifies us to receive the promise of eternal life. (v. 25)

We don't understand much concerning the Trinity; there is so much about it that is a mystery. Yet all who do put their faith in Christ are taught by the Holy Spirit that the doctrine of the Trinity is true. (v. 27) To abide in Christ is not only to seek to be Christian in action, but also to be truthful in knowing and teaching others who Christ really is. We cannot abide in His person without abiding in correct doctrine concerning Him. We cannot have the eternal life promised to us if we do not abide in correct doctrine.

(I would add that if we are ignorant of doctrine concerning Christ, then we cannot really place our faith in the person of Jesus Christ. Without correct doctrine concerning Christ's person, we would not know who we would be placing our faith in. I do not know Zach's views concerning the person of Christ, yet I felt it necessary to respond to his notion that doctrine takes a backseat to experience. I also wanted to refute the notion that his attitude qualifies as Wesleyan.)

Enoch Walked With God: A Sermon

2011-03-22T12:20:00.000-07:00

(This is the most read post, or the most continually read post, to appear on Redemptive Thoughts. This is according to Blogger stats. It was originally published on 4/20/07)

Genesis 5: 21-24. Those who have studied Wesleyan history have come across the name John Fletcher. Origionally from France, he was saved and served as a pastor in England in the 1700's. John Wesley thought so highly of him that he stipulated that if he, Wesley, were to die, Fletcher was to assume leadership of the Methodist movement. Fletcher was a bachelor most of his life. For many years he debated the wisdom of marriage, thinking the demands of being a husband and father may interfere with his walk with God. Then one day he was reading this text. His attention was fixed upon verse twenty-two: "After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters." Fletcher had before him a Biblical example of a man who not only married and had a family, but walked so close to God that the Lord took him unto Himself before Enoch died naturally. The example of Enoch shows all of us that there are no circumstances in life that can prevent us from living a holy life. Fletcher married his long time love interest and lived a short but happy life with her.

Can we walk with God as Enoch did? Can we pass down a Godly heritage to our families as Enoch did? Can we have a holy life without falling into the bondages of self-effort and legalism? Of course. Yet we must remember that there is one thing that is key as we do so. I'll mention that at the end.

Man can certainly pass down an un-godly heritage. Let's look at Adam's decendants briefly. When Adam and Eve sinned, they realized they were naked and were ashamed. The covered themselves with fig leaves and hid from God. (Gen. 3: 6-8) How different was Cain's reaction, after he killed Abel, when God asked him where Abel was. "I do not know" Cain told God. "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9) Cain had no shame. He lied to God and and tried to cover up the crime and showed disrespect in God's presence. A few generations later, we see Lamech not only killing a man, but bragging about it to his two wives. (Gen. 4: 19-24) In Genesis 3 and 4, we see the sin nature not only being passed down, but with each generation an increase a lack of shame before God and a decrease in the knowledge of who God is.

Not so with the sons of Seth, Adams son born after Cain killed Abel. I am sure Adam and Eve passed down a knowledge of who God is, and how their sin caused them to be expelled from the Garden of Eden. Geneis 4: 26 informs us that after Seth's son Enosh was born, man began to call upon the Lord. In these days men lived for hundreds of years. By my calculation (please inform me if I am wrong; math has never been my strongpoint) Adam lived until Noah was about sixty-one years of age. With these lifespans it can be seen how Adam, Seth, and family could pass down a Godly heritage as far as the generation of Noah. Enoch was in this family tree; so was Noah. Genesis 6:9 says of Noah that he was a just man, perfect in his generations and that he pleased God. Here we have before us scriptural evidence that we can not only walk holy before the Lord, but we can pass down a family heritage of being holy before God. (I am not saying that all members of a Godly family will choose to walk in God' s ways. I have not forgotten we have free-will.)

The New Testament calls us to be holy. I Pet 1:16 repeats the Old Testament command that we be holy because God is holy. Rom 8:1 points to the possibility that all who want to walk according to the Spirit can do so, if they want to repent of walking in the flesh. In I Cor 5:7 Paul exhorts us to "...purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you are truly unleavened..." This purging is not just a one time event, but to be done continuously. Repentence is for believers as well as those who are first coming to Jesus. We are called to be holy, and we are to pass down a heritage of living for God. But what is the key to all that we do? How can we walk as holy as Enoch walked? The key can be found in Heb. 11: 1-7. Verses five and six especially need to be focused upon: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him," for before he was taken away he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." It is faith that allows us to live holy before God. We often forget that while we are saved through faith, we are also sanctified through faith, not through our own efforts to live sinnlessly. And faith is the key to passing down a Godly heritage down through the generations. We can do everything right, yet if we don't act in faith, all our efforts to pass down our faith to the next generation will fail. Many who espouse holiness often fail to become truly sanctified because they forget that faith is the key. And so they live a lie before others, or come to the conclusion that holiness is not to be achieved in this lifetime. But not only does Scripture require us to be holy, Scripture shows us the way. And the way is through faith. (All Scripture quotations are from theNKJV.)

A Post Without Answers

2011-03-11T18:44:00.000-08:00

(In light of the earthquake in Japan, the fifth most powerful quake since we began recording such phenomena, I am reposting an article on the role of God in natural disasters. This was first posted on 2/16/10.)

Pat Robertson's remarks on the Haitian earthquake were well intentioned but justly censured by others. While the portrayal of his remarks as mean spirited is unfair, Robertson's remarks were certainly unsupported by a comprehensive examination of Scripture. They conveyed the message that the earthquake was the result of the sins of the Hatian people, that God was punishing them for practicing voodoo. These remarks have produced some very well thought out theological responses. I would like to analyze some of these responses and hopefully make an original contribution to the discussion.

The best response to Robertson's remarks I have seen is by Ben Witherington. He rightly points out that the scriptural evidence indicates that while God is the most important actor, God is not the only actor when it comes to human tragedies. God gave our first parents the choice to obey Him or not. They chose to disobey and that human choice is the first cause of all human suffering that follows. Throughout history men and women have made a conscious choice to exploit the weak and the powerless and Haiti's history is a sad chronicle of such free choices, whether the choices were made by foreign powers or by the Hatains themselves. Human failure is another factor in human tragedies; Witherington points to Three Mile Island as such an example.

To add to Witherington's arguement, Scripture also teaches us that Satan plays a role in human tragedies, including natural disasters. The natural disasters that destroyed Job's economic prosperity were caused by Satan, as were the sicknesses that came upon him. True, Satan did have God's permission to afflict Job, but God allowed Satan to be an independent actor nevertheless. When Jesus was asleep in the boat and His disciples feared they were going to drown, Jesus rebuked the wind and the sea. (Luke 8:24) While Scripture is silent as to the cause of the storm, it appears that the cause was not attributed to God's direct action. In Acts 11:19-27, God told the Church there was to be a famine and the Church responded by taking up a collection for the Church in Judea. But God did nothing to intervene to prevent the famine. We are not told whether the famine is the result of God's actions, Satan's or natural conditions.

Not only is the notion that all natural disasters are God's punishment for a nations sin unscriptural, the belief that those who perish in such disasters die as punishment for their own sins cannot be supported by Scripture either. The belief that all personal misfortune is punishment for sin has been around as long as Man has roamed the earth. This belief was the main thrust of the arguement advanced by Job's companions during his affliction. The death of Job's children, the loss of his property and health was the sign of God's displeasure at Job's sin known only to Job and God. If Job would confess his sin, God would forgive him and he would never be afflicted again because good people and those who repent never suffer such disasters. Only the wicked suffer such things. When protesting his innocence, Job states that he thought his blamelessness before the Lord would shield him from such afflictions. When God finally responds to both Job and his companions, God admonished Jobs' companions: "My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right..." (Job 42:7) God was angry because Job's companions had slandered His, God's, character. To similiarly contend that those who died in the Haitian earthquake died because God was punishing them for their individual sins also puts God's character and the Gospel in a bad light. Jesus teaches that the sun rises on the evil and the good and the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. (Mt. 5:45) The conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount demonstrates that both the wise and the foolish experience trials and afflictions. Many responded to Robertson by quoting Jesus' words concerning those who perished when the Tower of Siloam fell: "...do you think they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem?" (Lk. 13:4)

If it is faulty Biblical exegesis to attribute all natural disasters to God, are we correct in asserting that God plays no role at all in natural disasters? Some theologions believe so, or lean in that direction. Roger Olson wrote this after the collapse of the Minnesota bridge: "...But what if God limits himself so that much of what happens with the world is due to finitude and falleness? What if God is in charge but not in control?...God has said to a fallen sinful people, 'Ok, not my will then, but thine be done--for now...God is great but also good. In light of all the evil and innocent suffering in the world, he must have limited himself."

The most obvious response to this would be that the Old Testament is full of examples of God taking a direct hand in the conditions of the natural world and uses His power to reward or punish the conduct of a people (Dt. 11: 13-21). Hebrews tells us that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8); how could we expect God to act differently concerning his control over natural conditions? Those, such as Craig Blomberg, would point out that verses such as these pertain only to ancient Israel, not to ancient Israel's pagan neighbors or to any nation today. After all, the Promised Land was a land of milk and honey while the Canaanites lived there (My example, not Blomberg's). However, it can be argued that as the Old Testament is the record of God's dealing with His covenant people, it does not record how God dwelt with other nations. Consider the case of the ancient Greeks. Their gods had no ethical sensibilities. Yet from the time of Socrates on, the Greeks were increasingly disturbed by the lack of ethics among the gods they worshipped. God used this mindset to produce a receptiveness towards the Gospel throughout the Hellenistic world. If God could be working on the hearts and minds of other ancient peoples, then it is not far fetched to believe God would directly involve Himself with the natural conditions another nation lived under to acheive His own purposes. This is not an definite assertion by me, but a caution in going too far in the extreme opposite from Robertson's remarks. It is true, as Blomberg points out, that the New Testament does not concern itself as much as the Old Testament does about God's direction of the natural world. But that may be attributed to the fact that God's relation to the natural world was not as central to the purposes of the New Testament writers as it was to the writers of the Old. The New Testament does attribute to God a direct hand in the continuance of the Universe; Heb: 1:3 "...and upholding all things by the word of His power..." and Col: 1:17 "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist" are two scriptural examples. It is also true that not all Old Testament verses pertaining to God and Creation refer only to Israel. Verses such as Neh. 9: 6, speaks of God's continuing role in the entire natural world, not just the Promised Land. This should make us cautious in making blanket statements that God has had no hand in natural disasters such as Earthquakes or Tsunamis, even if the purpose behind such statements is to defend the character of God, as I believe Olson's article at least implies.

We also have to ask ourselves the source of our attitudes concerning how we believe a loving God would act. How have our attitudes been shaped by our Western sensibilities? The fact of the matter is that the view of God using natural disasters to punish a people for sin shapes the mindset by many a Christian in the Third World. In "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South", Philip Jenkins writes "If global South clergy express their faith that God will intervene to reward or punish contemporary states and societies, so do such high-profile American Christians as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell." (p. 6) I can guarrantee that many a Haitian Christian or Christians in other Third World countries believe that God uses natural conditions to reward and punish "contemporary states and societies." Are we going to be as quick to denounce these views of millions of believers as quickly as some have disavowed Robertson's remarks? Are we going to class these views as the cultural baggage of an uneducated population living in socities with more primitive views of the world? Would such a classification stem from greater Western discernment concerning the things of God, or would such classification be a form of Western condensation toward non-Western Churches? Those Christians in the Third World suffer from natural disasters, but they do not as a rule question the character of God who they believe had a hand in such events.

Then there is an issue that I have not seen anyone directly address. How can we reconcile statements such as Olson's that God limited Himself so that He has no direct role in natural disasters with God's grace, prevenient grace and the grace believers experience after salvation? Prevenient Grace is a theological term describing the actions of God in drawing us to Him prior to salvation. It is the will of God that none should perish but that all come to repentance (2Pet. 3:9). Prevenient Grace not only includes God's drawing people to Him, but it also includes God's grace in every aspect of our life before salvation. Paul included the Athenians when he proclaimed to them that in God we all live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). To state that God has no direct role in any natural disaster, that He takes no role in whether an individual lives or dies, cannot be reconciled to the doctrine of Prevenient Grace or to the grace of God subsequent to salvation. If it is in God that we all live and move and have our being, then this grace extends to the protection of all life from all hazards whatsoever. Many people testify that God spared their life from illness and accident before they came to Christ. My former pastor's father vowed to God that if He would spare his life on the battlefields of WWII, he would serve Him for the rest of his life (which he did). Are we to conclude that these people are theologically uninformed concerning their own experience? If God's grace operates in these pre-salvation experiences, why would He be not as directly involved in the lives about to experience earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes? And if God's grace operates in the lives of those who experience natural disasters, then it follows that God chooses that some will live and some will die. Am I saying that God saves the good and dooms the bad? Not at all. Both good and bad die according to God's purposes. And such purposes are beyond our discernment in this life.

Witnesses reported that after the Haitian earthquake, there was a silence that was broken by the praise to God by survivors grateful God had spared their lives. Are these people theologically uninformed? Are they incorrect in believing that God had a direct hand in sparing their lives? Surely there are those who came to Christ because they believed God had spared them. Did they repent of their sins and trust in Christ because of a theological mistake? Christ Himself declared that we are not to fear that which could kill the body but not the soul and that the very hairs of our head are numbered (Mt. 10: 28-31). While Jesus did not say we will never perish, does not this verse imply that God's grace is always with us? That through this grace God is intimately involved in all aspects of this world? How can we say that God's grace can be trusted even in the midst of natural disasters but God chooses not to have any control over these events? Such a view undermines our trust in the God and His promises toward us. Paul told the Philippians (and us) that God, who began a good work in us will bring that work to completion. Can we not say that God brought some through the quake to mold them into the kind of people God wants them to be, so they can perform specific works? If the answer is yes, then we must say that at least in some cases, God has a direct role in some natural disasters.

My purpose in posting this is not to dogmatically state the all natural disasters are God's punishment for sin or that God has no role in such disasters. I wanted to show that one cannot definately state God's purposes or the extent of His role in such disasters. I don't want to repeat the mistake of Job's companions, thereby misrepresenting God's character. Yet in defending the character of God, I would not want to diminish God's sovereignty. God's sovereignty is not the starting point for good theology, yet sometimes we who are not Calvinists are to quick to diminish its place in our view of God. Nor do I want to limit the grace of God by stating that God forgoes any role in natural disasters. This was a very difficult post to write since my position and my understanding of what others wrote on the subject underwent changes as I wrote.

Scripture quotations from the NJKV.

I was made aware of the Olson article through Kevin Jackson's blog

Temporary Exile

2011-03-03T12:02:00.000-08:00

I am going to take a break from posting new articles on this blog. Here are the reasons:

1. I am going through the Ordination process and I have books to read and papers to write. I hope to complete these by mid-April.
2. I have two blog projects that have been in limbo for a long time: one on Wesley's Plain Account of Christian Perfection and another on Wesley' Doctrine of Original Sin. I want to complete both of these projects before I move on with others.
3. I have not had the time to devote to my pastoral studies blog.

Other things have taken my time so that for awhile I have not been able to publish as frequently or with the quality I would like to see in what I publish. I hope this break will only last a few months. In the meantime, older articles from the past four years will be published. I still will be ready to have an exchange of comments on these older posts.

Fear And Loathing In The Evolutionary Vanguard: Intelligent Design Papers Published In Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals

2011-03-02T13:53:00.000-08:00

Opponents of Intelligent Design argue that ID has no scientific validity because it has not been the subject of peer-reviewed literature appearing in scientific publications. Three recent publications reveal that that argument has no truth to it.

Michael Behe has written a peer-reviewed paper appearing in the Quarterly Review of Biology entitled “Experimental Evolution, Loss of Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution.’” Its thesis is that “the most common adaptive changes seen…are due to the loss or modification of a preexisting molecular function.” (From Evolution News and Views via Uncommon Descent).

From Evolution News and Views via The ID Update: The International Journal of Molecular Sciences has published “The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity” by David Abel. Abel’s paper asks “If all life depends on genetic instructions, how was the first linear digital prescriptive genetic information generated by natural process?” While not a proponent of ID, his article does suggest that a positive argument for design is feasible. Here is another quote from Abel from the Evolution News and Views Article: “‘No known natural process exists that spontaneously writes meaningful or functional syntax. Only agents have been known to write meaningful and pragmatic syntax.’ He notes that the kind of ‘sophisticated formal function’ found in life ‘consistently requires regulation and control,’ but ‘control always emanates from choice, contingency and intentionality, not from spontaneous molecular chaos.” (I have slightly edited this quote to correct some errors in grammar.)

From William Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent: Dembski, George Montanez, Winston Ewert and Robert Marks have had a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Bio-Complexity. The title is “A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information.” Dembski provides the abstract on his blog which you can see here. (I could locate a link to George Montanez.)

These writers join the company of Stephen Meyer in having papers concerning ID published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Meyer’s paper, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (117 (2): 213-239. 2004). It was the publication of the Meyer paper that caused the controversy over the editor responsible for the Meyer paper being published, Richard Sternberg. Sternberg was working for the Smithsonian Institution and as editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The evolutionary vanguard of the scientific establishment, particularly the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), went ballistic over a paper from an ID proponent appearing in a respected scientific publication. The NCSE and some of Sternberg’s colleagues at the Smithsonian claimed that Sternberg allowed the Meyer paper to be published without the paper being subject to peer-review. An appendix to a report by the by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee of Government Reform vindicated Sternberg’s editorial procedures. The appendix contains written statements from the then president of the Biological Society of Washington affirming that the Meyer paper had been peer-reviewed. See the appendix here, scroll down to page 72. This controversy was featured in Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. See the introduction and Part I of my series of articles Exposing Expelled Exposed in the links section of this blog.

I once had an exchange with an ID opponent in the comment section of the Christianity Today Magazine blog. (See here.) This person stated that no paper supporting ID had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. When I referred him to the Meyer paper, he claimed that the paper had not been peer-reviewed. When I quoted from the appendix to the government report, he admitted his error. Then he demanded to know where the second paper supporting ID had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. At the time I could not answer him. (Also, after winning the argument, I decided to rest on my laurels.) Now if he would ask me again, I could answer him. I could answer him again if he would ask concerning the third and forth peer-reviewed papers as well. As the present trend indicates, I will soon be able to give an answer when he wants me to identify the fifth, the sixth, the tenth, the twentieth and the hundredth.

Tribute To Ronald Reagan: One Sentence Says It The Best

2011-02-15T12:56:00.000-08:00

Of all the tributes to Ronald Reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth, one sentence is the most profound: "Without this man, I would be somewhere in Siberia in chains." Former Estonian Prime Minister Mart Laar. From the Acton Power blog.

Wesley Biblical Seminary In The News

2011-02-12T13:19:00.000-08:00

A local paper in Jackson, MS has published an an interview with Dr. Sandra Richter, professor of Old Testament at Wesley Biblical Seminary. She discusses the similarities and differences of the Old and New Testaments, the need for Christians to connect with Biblical characters as real people rather than putting them on a pedestal, the need to understand the various cultural contexts in which scripture was written and the social message conveyed in the Old Testament. Dr. Richter also discusses her new book "The Epic of Eden." I first saw this interview at Ben Witheringtons blog.

Just What Is A "Theologism" And How Does It Earn A PG-13 Rating?

2011-02-11T16:44:00.000-08:00

Reading the local paper's movie reviews of what is currently playing, I came across the review for the new Anthony Hopkin's movie, The Rite. The review not only announces The Rite's rating, PG-13, but also why it earned such a rating. The elements determining The Rite's rating are as follows: violence, disturbing images, adult themes and theologisms.

Theologisms? Is there such a word? I consulted a few dictionaries and couldn't find the word in them. I googled the word and found a definition: a theology that assumes the inferiorty of science, philosophy, or other disciplines.

I haven't seen The Rite, but I do know that the plot concerns exorcisms in the Catholic Church. I could see a secular critic or ratings board listing criteria concerning exorcism as disturbing thematic material, but why theologisms? Furthermore, as the word is plural, is it not apparent that the ratings board must have spotted more than one theologi? What theologisms merit a PG-13 rating? What theologisms would disturb the sensitivities of young movie goers under the age of 13? Does the critic or the ratings board even know what the word theologism means? If so, is there a concern that a movie may influence young children to question whether science and philosphy are superior to theology in explaining the world we live in? My inquiring mind wants to know.

Friday Night Frozen Dinner And An Intellectual: Sin, Sanctification And Genetics

2011-02-08T13:51:00.000-08:00

For an explanation of the title “Friday Night Frozen Dinner and an Intellectual,” see here.

A couple weeks ago I posted a review of “Holiness and Human Nature” by Leon and Mildred Chambers. This book dealt with learning to discern between sin (an intentional violation of the known will of God) and infirmities (physical or emotional limitations found in all persons as a result of the Fall.) Infirmities are not sins, but can lead to sin. The element in sin that makes it sin is intent; the person deliberately rebels against God’s holy standards. The person’s behavior resulting from infirmities is not necessarily intentional rebellion against God, but can lead to sin if the person refuses to overcome these infirmities by the help of the Holy Spirit. “Holiness and Human Nature” is written from a Wesleyan theological perspective and its authors consider the overcoming of infirmities to be a vital element of sanctification. I decided to explore further by reading a paper concerning the relationship between genetic factors and sin and sanctification. This past New Year’s Eve, which was a Friday, before consuming an entire pizza slightly larger than a personal pan pizza (something I have never done before), I read an eleven page paper entitled “Possible Influence of Genetic Factors on Sin, Sanctification, and Theology” by Burton Webb, Professor of Biology at Indiana Wesleyan University, and Keith Drury, an Associate Professor of Religion at the same institution. This is how I spent my New Years Eve. I am one exciting guy.

Dr. Webb makes it clear that he is not a scientific reductionist; he does not believe genetics is the sole explanation for all human behavior. He affirms that humans possess free will and are responsible moral agents. He also believes that the Holy Spirit can transform anyone no matter what their genetic make up consists of. Yet he is aware of the fact that genetics is more of a factor in our choices and behaviors than we have previously realized. This awareness causes Dr. Webb to ask whether our genetic makeup causes us to sin. Do our genes carry material that influences us to violate the laws of God? Dr. Webb points us to studies that have linked genetic factors to certain addictive behaviors the Church has labeled as sinful. He cites one study conducted at the Indiana University School of Medicine that compared the genomic DNA of 2310 persons from families of alcoholics to 1238 persons from control families. This study demonstrated significant correlations between alcoholism and at least three clusters of genes: GABA receptors, ADH genes and the gene for the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor, M2. A mutation in a GABA receptor gene called a GABRA2 gene can cause an individual to be at significant risk of becoming an alcoholic. Some studies link genetic factors to the commission of crimes. Webb cites a study comparing crime rates of individuals with Huntington’s disease to unaffected relatives and those within the rest of the population. Those who carry the gene for Huntington’s disease were several times more likely to commit violent crime, seven times more likely to be arrested for drunk driving and twice as likely to commit any of the crimes that were studied. Schizophrenia, a mental disorder resulting from genetic make up, has also been found to be a factor in criminal behavior. Webb also mentions that certain genetic factors could be linked to homosexuality. While Webb acknowledges that none of these findings justify sweeping conclusions, Webb does see a pattern emerging from them: some sinful behavior may be rooted in specific genetic make ups.

Do these scientific findings mean that we are genetically programmed to sin? Can genetic factors predestine us to sin? Webb seems to indicate that the answer to this question need not be yes. He points out that the presence of a gene sequence is not the only factor that determines a trait. It is the EXPRESSION of that gene sequence that is most important in determining a trait. Webb identifies a concept not widely known outside of the field of biology called epigenetic change. The structure of a DNA molecule can undergo physical change due to interaction with the physical environment. Webb points to a study done on macaques. Macaques carrying a mutation in a specific serotonin transporter were more likely to experience anxiety and engage in antisocial behavior when raised with peers carrying similar mutations. When macaques with this same mutation were placed with family groups that reinforced good social skills and behavior, both their behavior and their DNA changed. In other words, nurture altered nature in a significant way. Webb states that there is a human orthologue (a term from genetics referring to one of two or more homologous gene sequences found in different species) to the macques gene. This leads Webb to ask whether epigenetic change in gene expression or gene regulation could be explained by the interaction of the body and spirit. Could God intervene to save a person from genetic predispositions by altering their genetic make up? Webb defers to Keith Drury concerning the theological aspects of this subject.

The opening paragraph of this article asks three theological questions these scientific findings raise. To what extent are persons culpable for sins that may be rooted in their genetic make up? Should the Church redefine its teachings on sin in light of these recent discoveries? Could genetic manipulation usher in “genetic sanctification?” The following is my contribution.

It may be true that the Church will have to explore the physical roots of human behavior to a greater extent in explaining the origins of particular sins. This exploration will lead to the question whether certain individuals are morally culpable for their behavior. If sin is the intentional violation of the known law of God, can behavior that has its roots in genetic predispositions be labeled as sin? From its beginnings, the Church has recognized that some people have no control over their actions and therefore are not culpable for their acts that in another person would be sin. Nemesius, an early Christian writer, describes involuntary acts in which blame does not attach to the persons who commit them:

“Involuntary acts are either those done under constraint or those done unknowingly. In the case of the former, the origination of the deed lies outside the doer. For the cause that constrains us to do such a deed is something alien to us, and is not ourselves. Therefore, what defines a constrained voluntary act, originating outside the doer, is that the person constrained contributed no impulse of his own towards it. The source of the impulse is therefore said to be the effective cause of the act.” (From Classical Pastoral Care, vol. 3, Pastoral Counsel, edited by Thomas Oden.)

Those who would state that the Church has to rewrite its theology of sin in light of recent genetic research are overstating the case. The Church’s theology of sin has always acknowledged that there are some cases where some people are not responsible for their actions and therefore, are not guilty of sin. It would be more accurate to state that the Church’s theology of sin is able to accommodate new discoveries concerning the relationship betweens Man’s physical make up and personal behavior. The Church is capable of adapting its theology to new data without having to jettison what it has taught concerning sin for centuries. While recognizing genetic factors do play a part in a person’s ability to act as a morally responsible agent, no scientific discoveries now or in the future require the Church to abandon its belief that what makes a sin sin is the voluntary nature of the act.

If we develop the capacity to altar behavior through genetic manipulation, can we bring about “genetic sanctification?” This is a question Keith Drury asks. The Church has always believed in physical healing. When someone seeks medical treatment and is cured, Christians generally praise God rather than medical science. Christians state that God has worked through medical science to heal the person. Why shouldn’t God be able to sanctify a person through genetic alteration? I would reply that genetic alterations resulting in behavior change would not result in sanctification. Genetic alteration would make a person capable of becoming a responsible moral agent, able to understand right and wrong and able to make choices whether to engage in or abstain from sin. Increased responsibility before God would be the result. If we love God, we will obey His commandments. Yet enhanced ability to obey is not the same as actual obedience. We must still choose to obey God’s commandments. Other motivations within our hearts may cause us to disobey; we may choose behavior that previously we had no choice but to engage in. Love focused upon God is not programable by genetic manipulation. If it were, then the relationship between human beings and God would not be a true mutual relationship motivated by love on both sides. Motivation is still an integral factor in sanctified behavior, even among those whose genetic make up is altered. If good behavior brought about by genetic alteration was involuntary, then we can not truthfully claim that sanctification has occurred because the good behavior was as involuntary as the previous bad behavior.

This post is of course does not cover Drury’s part of the article in sufficient depth. Some Christians may be uncomfortable making inquiries along these lines. But the Church must not find itself in a position of not being intellectually capable of honest, informed dialogue concerning the relationship between sin, sanctification and genetic make up. The greatest intellectual challenge to the Christian faith today comes from the field of neuroscience. (See my previous article here.) Many involved in this branch of science believe that DNA explains everything concerning human beings, including religious belief. Even some theistic evolutionists, such as Tim Keller, promote the idea that belief in God is rooted in our genetic make up. Neuroscientists would have us believe that we are nothing but pre-programmed robots. If Christians fail to grapple with the issue of genetic make up and its relationship with human behavior, then it will be as unprepared as the 19th century Church was to oppose the challenge to the Christian faith posed by Evolution.

The article by Burton Webb and Keith Drury originally appeared at Didache:Faithful Teaching, an online theological journal from the Nazarene Church.

The Church: Nobody Does It Better

2011-02-03T16:21:00.000-08:00

During Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, the one institution that stood out in contrast to all the incompetance demonstrated by the government's relief effort was the American Church. It was the Church that most effectively fed those displaced by the disaster. Advocates of big government assume that churches and Christian charities can match neither the resources or the expertise governments can provide to disaster victims. The Church's success, in contrast to the hapless performance of the Federal government after Katrina, should reveal such reasoning for what it is: wrong thinking and misleading propaganda.

The same lesson can be learned from relief efforts in Haiti after last year's catastophic earthquake. Much of the aid from secular humanitarian agencies waits in warehouses, not reaching those in need. But Christian Churches and charities need not look to governments and the U.N. for a model in assisting victims: they are the models the secular world needs to follow. Mark Hanlon, senior vice-president, USA, of Compassion International writes about how after the earthquake, their workers in Haiti were able to locate 98.8% of the 21,186 children under their care in Haiti. Their records on these children were probably unmatched by any Haitian government agencies. The children under the charity's care received food, shelter and couseling. Church's partnering with Compassion International were found to be more reliable food distribution centers than other venues. And this is in spite of the damage the earthquake did to Church facilities and the emotional trauma experienced by Church workers themselves. (Hanlon article reference from the Acton Power blog.) No doubt the same lessons are being learned in Australia as the Church ministers to victims of massive flooding. (From the Christianity Today Liveblog.)

And for those in need of medical care in normal times, informed patients should be more comfortable being cared for in Christian run hospitals. According to a study, Christian hospitals provide better quality medical care than non-Christians hospitals do. The Acton Power blog speculates about why this is so: " It may well be due, in part at least, to the comprehensive view of the human person informed by a religious, and specifically Christian, anthropology. That is, we are not simply physical beings, but exist with both material and spiritual aspects, body and soul." The study can be found here.

The Church In Harm's Way: Christian Persecution Around The World

2011-01-27T22:04:00.000-08:00

One of the rationales for the U.S. going to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq was to bring democracy to the Middle East. The citizens of both countries have been able to exercise their civil rights under governments established by the U.S. and its allies. Yet in both countries the minority Christian populations find themselves under attack and the Obama administration, like its predecessor, does not seem to be very concerned. Here is an interview of Mindy Belz, an editor at World Magazine, on Afghan Christians being jailed for their faith and facing the possibility of execution. (Running time: just over 10 minutes.) In Iraq, the Christian population has plummeted from 1.5 million before the invasion to under 700,000 today as Islamic radicals have targeted the Iraqi church with terroristic acts and many Christians have fled. In the 90's, the U.S. fought to protect European Muslims from ethnic cleansing. Our military has helped establish a government in Iraq that would include all the factions of the Muslim majority. Yet, according to Mindy Belz, if there was a coordinated attack upon Iraq's Christian minority that becomes a genocide, the U.S. has no plans to intervene. Read the article here from Gene Veith. From the Touchstone Magazine blog: after terrorist attacks against Christians in Egypt, who has mustered the courage to serve as human shields protecting Coptic Christians at their Christmas services? Egyptian Muslims. At least some people see Christians as worth protecting. And these brave Muslims have none of the resources available to our government to provide protection to Christians. All they have is themselves and they are willing to put their all on the line.

I did not know that like the Chinese government, the Iranian government allows state sanctioned Christian Churches to function under strict government supervision. And like Chinese Christians who desire to worship God without their government telling them how to do so, Iranian Christians have begun worshipping at House Churches. This past Christmas day, the Iranian government moved against the House Church movement, arresting 70 Christians. According to this article from World Magazine, this represents a major escalation in government suppression of Christian activity in Iran.

Chinese Christian lawyer and human rights activist Gao Zhisheng has defended the rights not only of Christians but of other religious groups as well, such as the Falun Gong. For this, he has been arrested by the Chinese government and undergone torture that even he cannot completely describe. His family and associates have also undergone incredible persecution. Here is an article from Christianity Today Liveblog which quotes a letter from Gao describing what he has endured. CT Liveblog also links to a forward to a book written by Gao describing the humanly unendurable persecution he, his family and his associates have undergone. If this article doesn't motivate you to pray for persecuted everywhere, your heart must indeed be very hard.

Speaking of China, Christianity Today posted an interview today with Republican Presidential candidate and self described Evangelical, former MN governor Tim Pawlenty. He was asked how he would deal with China's human rights abuses if he were elected. His response: China owns most of our debt so we had better pay our bills before we speak up for the persecuted. Here are his exact words:

"First of all, we should get our finances in order. China has so much leverage over us, and it's hard to tell off your banker. We've given them too much leverage over our economy, which diminishes our ability to speak with the right kind of moral authority and authority in general on other matters. We need to speak consistently about our values as a people, and that includes religious respect and the ability for people to worship freely. We've got to get our own house in order if we're going to be an effective voice on how other countries should change."

So Pawlenty thinks that bad fiscal policy makes it bad policy to speak for the persecuted? And that if one country has us over a barrel, we should remain silent concerning those being tortured by that country? Pawlenty's answer is just as contemptible as Obama's "paygrade" remark concerning abortion.

The government of Bhutan is a small country wedged between China and India. This Buddhist nation has a Christian minority of about 6,000 persons. The government is about to legalize Christianity, but like China and Iran, legalization comes with strings attached. Like China and Iran, only those Churches sanctioned by the state can legally worship. No doubt, the most devout Christians will secretly worship in House Churches, which will trigger government persecution. Will the U.S. speak out against such persecution? Not if we elect "conservative evangelical" Pawlenty to the White House. Bhutan's Christians will first have to wait for President Pawlenty to get our bills paid. The article linked to above is from the CT mag. blog.

Let's not think that persecution against Christians is entirely a non-western reality. While Christians are not thrown into jail for worshipping the Triune God (not yet), the secular state tries to make Christian worship a private matter in which the rights of Christian conscience do not affect public policy. Here are two articles on government attacks on the Home Schooling movement, one from the CT Liveblog concerning Germany, and one from World Net Daily concerning the U.S. (Thanks to a friend on Facebook for posting this link. I don't know if my friend wishes to be cited.)

Unity Through Holiness: Jesus' Prayer For The Church

2011-01-24T14:01:00.000-08:00

Jn. 17: 11, 20-23- "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to you. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are...I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given to them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."

It is human nature to be curious concerning the final moments of the life of a public figure. We are anxious to discover any clues as to what was uppermost on their minds as they came face to face with eternity. Sometimes they leave statements addressed to those they leave behind so we may know what their primary concern was for those remaining. Scripture contains many such farewell messages. In the Old Testament we have Deuteronomy, Moses' final address to Israel before Israel's entrance into the Promised Land.  The New Testament contains Pauls final letter to Timothy before Paul's expected execution (2Tim.) as well as Peter's farewell to those who had been under his pastoral care (2Pet.)

Jesus himself did not leave behind any written messages, but all four Gospels do contain written accounts of Jesus' last hours on earth with his disciples prior to his death on the Cross. In John's Gospel we have the historical account of Jesus' prayer for His Church. What was His overriding concern for disciples down through the ages as He was facing His death and resurrection? That his disciples would be one as He and the Father are one. The relationship between the Father and the Son is to be reflected in the relationship of disciples to each other while they are one in the Father and the Son. This unity, according to Jesus in the above verses, is to be the primary witness to the world that Jesus was indeed sent to earth by the Father. In Eph. 3, Paul wrote that the mystery of the ages that had been hidden but was revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and prophets was "that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel..." (Eph. 3:6) as Jewish believers in the Messiah. In Gal. 3:28, Paul declares that in Christ the division between Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free, had been done away with. The New Testament is filled with imagery illustrating the unity that is to prevail within the Church. In Jn. 10, Jesus pictures the Church as one flock following Him as the one true shepherd. In Ephesians, Paul declares the Church to be the family of God (Eph. 3:15) the dwelling place of the Spirit and the Bride of Christ (Eph 5). In 1Tim. 3:15, Paul refers to the Church as the House of the Living God. Peter refered to individual disciples as living stones being built into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood (1Pet. 2:5).

This unity was exhibited by the early Church. When the 120 were gathered on the day of Pentecost, they were of one accord (Acts 2:1). After Pentecost the disciples were of one accord as they worshiped and fellowshiped with one another (Acts 2: 46). But this unity did not consist of everyone being of the same opinion on all issues. In Acts 1 the disciples had to seek a replacement for Judas. Some wanted Joseph, others prefered Matthias. Matthias won by being chosen by lot. The issue was not permitted to cause division because all were in harmony in their desire to spread the gospel. At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), differences were discussed and a consensus reached instead of one faction imposing its will upon others. The early Church's unity did not sweep grievences under the rug. In Acts 6, Hellenistic Jews complained that the Jewish Christians native to Israel were neglecting the Hellenistic widows in the daily distribution of food. The Church recognized the problem instead of denying it and rebuking those who complained. The solution, which pleased all concerned, caused more souls to be added to the Church; even priests became obedient to the faith (Acts 6: 7). Who were these priests? They were the class of people most resistant to the gospel message, the ones Jesus reserved His harshest language for. Even priests became obedient to the faith. As Jesus Himself said in John 17, this unity would be the supreme witness to the fact that the Father had sent the Son.

The world is capable of unity as well. In Acts 7, when Stephen testified that he saw the heavens opened and Jesus standing at the right hand of God (v. 56), those who were about to stone him "...cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord..." (v. 57) The same word used for the disciples being of "one accord" is the same word used in Acts 7 refering to those who stoned Stephen. Lets not forget the most prominent example of men being of one accord in the Old Testament, the building of the Tower of Babel. God had to intervene or else, as God said, "...Indeed the people are one, and they all have one language...now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them." (Gen. 11: 6) Yes, the world is capable of unity. Jesus told His disciples that the world loves its own because its own are of the world. Today, the most powerful tool for the creation and maintenence of worldly unanimity of thought is the media. It is so powerful that it is Satan's greatest weapon to cause Christian youths to abandon holiness and the Faith altogether. It is only through Christian unity that disciples can be made and be trained to endure.

How is this unity achieved? In Rom. 12 and Eph. 4, Paul uses the unity of the human body as a picture of how unity should operate in the Church. These verses are usually commented on in terms of the spiritual gifts listed in them and how they are to be exercised harmoniously within the Church. Yet it is the context in which the verses listing spiritual gifts appear that one finds an answer to the question I have just asked. Lets take Rom. 12. The verses concerning spiritual gifts are Rom. 12: 4-8. But let's examine the verses that precede and follow this passage. Rom. 12: 1-3 reads, "I beseech you therefore, bretheren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. For I say, through the grace given to me, that everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith."  In the verses following Rom. 12: 4-8 we read, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion...If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peacefully with all men...Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Rom. 12: 9-16, 18,21) The key to Christian unity is our attitude and treatment of each other. One can find a similiar context in Eph. 4. A good biblical word for this kind of unity: holiness. Where holiness is absent in the Church, it will result in division: "For where there are envy and strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?" 1Cor 3:3. There can be no personal purity without the holiness which produces unity among brothers and sisters.  Not only will personal purity be impossible without holiness, but the entire Church will suffer division as well as backsliding among the redeemed as only a unified Church can encourage one another (Heb. 10:25).

Christian unity is to be fought for. Paul warns us, "Note those which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them." (Rom. 16:17) Yes, right doctrine does divide. But it appears that the doctrine the Apostles of the early Church taught did not consist solely of orthodox opinions, but also holiness in heart leading to Christian unity. In 19th century America, revivals were not sectarian, but reached beyond denominational boundries.  The Chinese Christian Brother Yun laments divisions within the Chinese Church fostered by Western Christians. The Underground Church in China had experienced biblical unity until certain Christian groups began sending partisan theological literature along with clandestine shipments of Bibles. Such activity has fostered division in the face of persecution by the Chinese government. If those sending this literature continue to do so with full knowledge of the divisions they cause, then this is evidence that no matter how theologically orthodox they are, they are not operating in the holiness that produces Christian unity, which is Jesus' will for His Church.

(All Scripture quotations are taken from the NKJV.)

Pro Life Articles Of Interest

2011-01-20T17:26:00.000-08:00

The New Abortion Strategy- Abortion advocates have a new strategy to facilitate widespread acceptance of abortion among the public. After Roe v. Wade, hospitals, which did 80% of abortions, got out of the abortion business and so the murder of the unborn is committed mostly at clinics. Planned Parenthood makes millions every year from performing abortions. Now much money is being spent by supporters of abortion to train physicians in medical schools to integrate abortion into their services as private physicians. The aim is to shift the scene of the crime from clinics to doctors' offices and back into hospitals. The aim is to convince the public that abortion is just as an important function of the family doctor as any other service the doctor performs; the aim is to make the acceptance of abortion mainstream. One who has donated much money to this effort is Warren Buffett. From Al Mohler's blog.

Coming Out of Planned Parenthood- Abortion has been big business for Planned Parenthood. In fact, the ideological origins of Planned Parenthood are in the Eugenics movement, a movement that grew out of Darwinian Evolution. The Eugenics movement viewed the physically and mentally challenged as a threat to the progress of the human race and sought ways to gradually eliminate their existance. Magaret Sanger was a disciple of the Eugenics movement and started Planned Parenthood as a means to further the goals of the movement. Abby Johnson, a 2008 Employee of the Year at a Planned Parenthood clinic, became so disturbed at what actually goes on at Planned Parenthood clinics that she resigned her position and joined the Pro Life movement. Here is a podcast of an interview she did detailing what she saw at these clinics and how Planned Parenthood tried to silence her. From the Touchstone Magazine blog.

The Power of an Image- The Family Research Council (FRC) blog posted a brief post concerning a new technique developed by French scientists to view the first few minutes of life. The FRC post features a video of the beginning of the life of a zebrafish from a one celled embryo to a 512 celled organism. The blog writer asks that if this is the beginning of life for a zebrafish beginning at the one celled stage, what does this say concerning the human embryo and the beginning of life. Here is a picture of a human embryo at ten weeks from the His Peace Upon Us blog.

Dr. James White And Dr. Steve Blakemore Debate: Calvinism v. Arminianism

2011-01-17T17:20:00.000-08:00

The only portion of the debate between Dr. James R. White and Dr. Steve Blakemore (a former professor of mine at Wesley Biblical Seminary) that has appeared online thus far is this 21 minute segment. It appears on Dr. White's Alpha and Omega site. The entire debate may be posted on Youtube at a later date. If this happens, I will link to it.

Sarah Palin's Response To Arizona Shooting

2011-01-12T12:43:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdPVZFs8Ua4

WBS Professor Debates Dr. James White

2011-01-10T16:54:00.000-08:00

Dr. Steve Blakemore, one of my former professors at Wesley Biblical Seminary, in Jackson, MS, will debate Dr. James White on the topic Calvinism v. Arminianism. The debate will be this Thursday at Grace Baptist Church across from Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson. If the audio is made available at the WBS site, or at Dr. Blakemore's site, I will link to it. If you are able to attend, you can register at the Grace Baptist Church website linked to above.

Christ The Redeemer

2011-01-09T16:28:00.000-08:00

A video artist has done an amazing job projecting a panoramic view of Rio de janeiro onto "The Christ The Redeemer" statue which overlooks the city. From Dr. Claude Mariottini's blog.

The Love Of God In The Midst Of Persecution

2011-01-01T13:44:00.000-08:00

Here is a video testimony of an 18 year old girl whose family has paid a great price for their Christian faith. From the Out of Ur blog. She spoke at the 2010 Lausanne Conference in Capetown, South Africa. In the Out of Ur comment section someone wrote that it should not be posted online and that the Lausanne website did not post it. I checked. That is incorrect. It is posted at that site, so I think it is all right if other Christians get a chance to see it as well.

Friday Night Frozen Dinner And An Intellectual: "Holiness And Human Nature" by Leon And Mildred Chambers

2010-12-29T12:51:00.000-08:00

(For an explanation of the title, "Friday Night Frozen Dinner and an Intellectual, see here.)

This year was the only the second time since 1999 that I could spend Thanksgiving with my parents in my hometown. The Friday after Thanksgiving, I dined at a Chinese resturaunt with my parents and one brother. When we got home, I read a 71 page book I had bought at seminary by Leon and Mildred Chambers entitled "Holiness and Human Nature." The Chambers' purpose in writing this is to make us aware of the differences between sins and infirmities.  The Chambers, as Wesleyans in theology, recognize that salvation and sanctification concerns the saving of people from all sin. Yet they recognize that individuals are still the products of their genetic heritage and family background. Family background, attitudes, patterns of thinking, emotional dispositions, preconceived ideas, habits, personal methods of problem solving, sets of values, all these can hinder saved and sanctified persons from fully reflecting the image of God. As the authors write: "Salvation, then, is from all sin. There is no promise that God will take away our normal human nature. We are what we are because of genetic inheritance and what we have learned. Salvation from sin does not change one's genetic inheritance nor erase what he has learned. Man and nature still suffer from the Fall." These negative effects of the Fall are infirmities, not sin. There is no promise of deliverence from them contained in scripture.  Yet they can lead to sin if saved men and women fail to mature.  When counseling, Chrisitans must learn to distinguish between sin and infirmities. Failure to do so can lead to lasting damage to Chrisitans needing to mature. It is this distinction between sin and infirmities that Paul makes in Phil. 3: 11-12 and 15. In verses 11-12, Paul writes: "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended by Christ Jesus."; he writes in verse 15: "Let us therefore, as many be perfect..." (I use the KJV here because it is correct in using the word "perfect" rather than "mature".) According to the Chambers, verses 11-12 are not refering to deliverence from all sin but the presence of infirmities in Paul's makeup. These infirmites are not sin, but Paul strives to overcome the limitations these infirmities place on spiritual growth. In verse 15, Paul is speaking of deliverence from all sin, or entire sanctification.  The Chambers identify two Chrisitian responses to the presence of infirmities that has caused damage to the health of the Church. One is to state that when one is delivered from sin, that one's basic humanity has been eradicated.  Those who promote this view treat the manifestation of infirmities as evidence that someone is not saved or has not yet been sanctified. The other damaging response has been to treat infirmities as evidence that we are not wholly delivered from sin until death and so Christians still must sin while they remain on earth.

The Chambers identify several infirmities that can be found in a Christian's makeup:

1. Erring in judgement: Perfection, as Wesleyans believe scripture speaks of it, is a perfection of motives, not the intellect. Also, one can behave wrongly without intending to rebel against God. The Chambers cite Peter's reluctance to associate with Gentiles in Acts 11. Once Peter knew that God wanted Peter to speak to Cornelius and his household, Peter obeyed without reservation.
2. Lack of harmony among the Spirit-filled: Paul and Barnabas' dispute over Mark was due to personality differences rather than whether one was Spirit-filled and the other not.
3. Lack of physical perfection which affects personalities and abilities.
4. Lack of perfection in one's works or discipline: In 2Tim. 1: 5-6, Paul compliments Timothy's spiritual heritage but then urges Timothy to stir up the gift he already has.  Our failure to be diligent in exercising our gifts should not produce despair as this failure can be remedied. Failure, or refusal to follow this advise, could lead to backsliding.
5.  Memories of past sins forgiven are not sins in themselves.  Yet we can allow these memories to entice us to sin.
6. Negative emotions such as hurt feelings, impatience, worry, anxiety: One must understand their motivation before their sinfulness can be determined. People differ in their emotional responses. When counseling, we must understand this or we will stumble in our understanding of perfect love. Emotions can lead to sin. If the emotions affect the Christian's faith to the point that he/she becomes rebellious, then his/her motives are no longer pure. Our goals are determined by our motives; when our motives are sinful, then sinful goals will be chosen.  The Chambers point to the example of Martha and Mary. Had Martha's intent been to publically humiliate Mary, then her reaction to Mary's not helping her would have been sin. Since this was not Martha's intent, Jesus treated Martha's behavior not as sin but as behavior rooted in an attitude which needed to be changed.
7. Biological drives: We are all subject to sensory stimualtion. However, seeking sinful sensory stimulation reflects what kind of persons we are.

The presense of infirmities does not signify that our spiritual growth must therefore be stunted, or non-existent. We are called to grow in grace. In other words, we are to be "...perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord." (2Cor. 7:1) When James wrote, "Confess your trespasses to one another, that you may be healed...", the word for trespass used here signified an offense, a stumbling or a false step. In other words, infirmities. This word from James is just one way to perfect holiness. The Chambers identify six other ways to overcome the power of infirmities in our lives:

1. Learn to walk with the Lord without being dependent upon others for strength.
2. Become stable; the authors write, "Christian stability is learned. The person who is stable in most other areas of his life is more apt to be able to be stable in his Christian life."
3. Learn how to relate to others in a Godly manner. This, the authors point out, will determine whether we have joy in our Church fellowship or not.
4. Develop a good conscience.
5. Develop sound attitudes. Attitudes are learned and are resistant to alteration. They are more the result of the emotions rather than of the intellect.
6. Develop responsible behavior patterns.

The authors warn that indifference to spiritual growth is contempt for the known will of God.

"Holiness and Human Nature" was published in 1975. It was revised from an earlier work entitled "Human Nature and Perfecting Holiness" published in 1972. Some of the psycological and medical evidence cited by the Chambers may or not be outdated. The only information I could find concerning the Chambers comes from the Forward to the book written by W.T. Purkiser. "Holiness and Human Nature" was published by Beacon Hill Press. The next "Friday Night Frozen Dinner and an Intellectual" will be an examination of sanctification and genetics.

The Best Of The Web 2010

2010-12-27T15:50:00.000-08:00

Here is a list of what I consider the best articles on the World Wide Web I came across in 2010:

http://www.worldchallenge.org/node/10122- David Wilkerson on the subtle trap that ensnares Christians so that they don't become all that God wants them to be.

http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/2010/07/to-pray-or-not-to-pray.html- Dr. Claude Mariottini on praying for Christopher Hitchens.

http://chronicillnessandchristianfaith.blogspot.com/2010/04/difficult-people.html- While this short poem by Dr. Doug Groothuis is written from the view point of the chronically ill, I found it helpful in dealing with healthy but difficult people.

http://www.rogereolson.com/2010/08/07/changing-the-subject-church-music/- Dr. Roger E. Olson believes the decline in exposure to hymnody has resulted in a decline in theological knowledge as well as knowledge of Biblical imagery.

http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2010/08/do-you-pray-for-lost.html- Roy Ingle points out that one test of our own salvation is whether we pray for the lost.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/november/27.40.html- The most balanced article I have seen on why young people leave the Church.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2010/01/haiti---a-case-study-for-theodicy.html- The most significant event this year was probably the earthquake in Haiti. While I am not in agreement with everything written in this article, I did find this these reflections on the event by Dr. Ben Witherington to be the the most theologically sound.

Something New Under The Sun: A Christmas Sermon

2010-12-21T15:56:00.000-08:00

(I wrote this sermon last year as part of a series on the scripture references that form the basis of Handel's"Messiah." When my pastor asked me to preach a few Sundays ago, I thought this would serve as the basis of the sermon. The sermon preached is very different from the original version appearing here. Soon the spoken sermon will be posted on my audio blog.)

God is in the business of doing new things. Yet there is a scripture passage that would seem to contradict this statement and the title of this message:

"...There is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it may be said, 'See, this is new'? It has already been in ancient times before us." (Eccl. 1: 9-10)

So says King Solomon, the author of Ecclesiastes. In speaking of the realm of human affairs, Solomon's statement is true.  Humanity's habits have changed very little, if at all. We can even say this statement is still true when we speak of heresy. Today we see a plethora of books by scholars and popular writers rejecting the triune nature of God, debunking the divinity of Jesus Christ. These writers claim that the Church was made up of many competing factions each proclaiming a different Gospel. They say that the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity prevailed because the orthodox faction had the power to crush all other competing versions of the Gospel. Jesus, say these writers, never claimed to be the Son of God; the doctrine of His divinity was forced upon the Church centuries after His death and the Biblical manuscripts were altered to reflect the triumphant orthodoxy. Much of the current literary output on this subject claims to be revolutionary, that these views have just surfaced recently. But these views have been around since the Church's beginning. John the Apostle wrote:

"By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.." (1Jn. 4: 2-3)

There is a familiar verse from the Old Testament, a promise many of us sing to the tune written by Handel in his oratorio, "The Messiah":

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Is. 9:6)

Isaiah continues in the seventh verse:

"Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order and establish it with judgement and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."

This promise describing the Messiah is older than the Church itself, nearly 650 years before the birth of Christ and nearly a thousand years before the Church's first written declaration concerning the Trinity. These two verses paint a wide-ranging picture of who Jesus is. And it is a picture of the Triune God; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Let's examine the names ascribed to Jesus in Is. 9:6. It should be no surprise that He is refered to as the Child, the Son, the Prince of Peace.  But look at the other names He is given: Lord of hosts, mighty God, Everlasting Father. Everlasting Father? These are names generally associated with the first person of the Trinity. Then there is the name Counselor. This is a title given to the Holy Spirit. The birth of the Child is the revelation of the Triune nature of God to the world. In the Child does all the fullness of God dwell. (Col. 1:19) These two verses from Isaiah contain a promise older than any heretical notion of Christ's identity. It was a promise of the manifestation of the Triune God made nearly a thousand years before the Church first articulated the doctrine of the Trinity.

God revealed Himself through the birth of a child. And when God revealed Himself through the birth of a baby, He truly did a new thing. True, we can speak of the Incarnation as an event that occured more than two thousand years ago. But when Jesus enters the heart of a new disciple when that disciple first truly believes (Eph. 1: 13), a new thing is done under the sun. You and I are so unique that when Christ comes to dwell in our hearts, Christ, who is still all that Is. 9: 6-7 tells us He is, the clothing of Christ within our flesh and the manifestation of Christ through us is truly a new thing that hapens every day around the world. There has never been, nor ever will be, another "you" or another "I" through whom Jesus lives out the Christian life as He dwells within us. As the Christmas season comes and goes, let us not forget that as we continue in our walk with God, the new thing done in us continues to unfold, so that that new thing is always happening in us. In our usual day-to day routines, this newness of Christ's work in us does not always seem apparent. That is why we need a season to celebrate the birth of Christ. We need to take time to thank Him, worship Him and wonder at the new thing He is doing in us.

(All Scripture quotations are from the NKJV)

Christmas Offerings Worth Your Time

2010-12-20T19:53:00.000-08:00

Dr. Ben Witherington interprets the Gospel account of Christ's birth in a way that is at odds with many of our traditional views. It appears that in the interest of veracity, some of our traditions are going to have to be jettisoned. This post originally appeared last December.

Also from last December, an Arabic Christmas Carol. The words link Christ the human being as God the creator of the universe. From the blog His Peace Upon Us. Running time: 7:31.

From this December, Dr. Roger E. Olson posted an Arminian Advent meditation at his blog entitled "For God So Loved The World...That He Coundn't Stay Away."

Michael Novak writes on how real human liberty is grounded in the Incarnation more than in any human ideology.

Many saw on the news or the internet the video of a choir performing the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's "Messiah" without warning at a busy food court at a mall. Is this a creative way to remind people about the real meaning of Christmas? Or do such exercises actually reenforce America's consumer mentality? James K. A. Smith thinks the later. Video of the performance plus Smith's comments can be found here. This is from Dr. Smith's Fors Clavigera blog.

Effective Compassion and Cross-Cultural Ministry

2010-12-19T17:19:00.000-08:00

The Acton Power blog recently posted an article on a well-intentioned ministry endeavor gone wrong. Sometime in the past, a group of Christians decided to minister to the poorest families somewhere in Appalachia. This group sought out who they believed to be the poorest families in the area and brought them Christmas gifts and food such as turkeys. Apparently this was done in a pubic way so that the community knew who received these gifts. One man testified that his father was so humiliated that his life was destroyed. It shamed him that his family was identified as the poorest in the community and believed that his ability to provide for his own family was denigrated.

The first lesson from this story concerns effective compassion. Effective compassion? Is there such a thing as ineffective compassion? Yes there is. The provision of needs without an incentive to change character habits that perpetuate poverty enslaves those who are seeking help. Forty-six years of the war on poverty and the failure of the welfare state should make this evident to all. Private Christian endeavors that fail to teach good character traits replicate the same failures. For nearly three years I participated in a monthly food give away at my home church. While recepients were asked if they wanted someone to pray for them, the ministry mainly consisted of people picking up a box of food. I witnessed no spiritual results in those who received food. To them, this ministry was nothing more than one more place to find needed food supplies. There was no other Christian involvement in these peoples lives. One of the meanings for the biblical word "charity" is "to suffer along side of." Before government took over the role of caregiving from the Church, American Christians involved themselves in the lives of those they ministered to. They made their charity a vehicle not only for meeting basic needs, but also the teaching of good character habits that lifted families out of the cycle of poverty that had enslaved their families for generations. Their success is chronicled in Marvin Olasky's "The Tragedy of American Compassion." The dropping off of food and leaving cannot be labeled as effective compassion despite the motivation for the act or how well it made those who performed this act feel good afterward. One person wrote in the comment section that charity is ineffective unless it necessitates those who want it to actively seek it. Charity should not be forced on those who do not want it. The person is correct here, yet he also states that charity should be impersonal. Another person replied that charity should have a human face attached. This would be in line with charity as suffering along side of someone else. When in seminary at Jackson, Ms., I heard of a ministry that fed thousands every year and after so many years produced only one person who gave their life to Jesus. A ministry that sought to forge character as well as meet needs may not result in many souls being saved, but this would have a greater impact as those who would be saved would be multiplied as those saved souls witnessed for Christ.

If one immerses oneself in modern missions literature, one will come across the term "cross-cultural ministry." Cross-cultural ministry reflects the recognition that when taking the Gospel to a different culture, one must do so in a manner that is culturally relevant for those Christians mean to reach. Christians in cross-cultural ministries must learn to present the Gospel in such a way that does not offend the sensibilities of individuals being witnessed to. For instance, western mass evangelistic methods have proven to be ineffective in spreading the Gospel in many third world nations. These nations can only be reached by Christians actually living among those they seek to reach.

This principle is no less relevant for communities in the United States as it is overseas. Had the Christians in this story made an effort to understand the Appalachians they sought to minister to, they might have been more sensible to the feelings of men such as the father whose life was destroyed. One person wrote in the comment section (in addition to some very extreme statements) that : "There is no shame in offering or accepting heart-felt charity from well-intentioned souls...He should have either refused the charity or just admitted they WERE the poorest in the community and be THANKFUL for such generosity. Truth is truth. No need to live in lies, please!" It is just such insensitivity that prevents the spread of the Gospel, here, or overseas. If such "honesty" exhibited by the Church of one culture translates into another culture as something that brings public shame in his or her community, then the Church, in the interest of spreading the Gospel in that culture, must seek to operate in an alternative mindset to reach those they are targeting. Otherwise, good intentions could result in destructive results for those whose eternal souls are at stake.

Elizebeth Edwards, Good Works and Eternal Rewards

2010-12-18T11:31:00.000-08:00

The Christianity Today Politics Blog recently ran a short post concerning the death of Elizebeth Edwards. Among her views concerning her religious beliefs quoted in the article was this:

"I appreciate other people's prayers for that [a cure for cancer], but I believe that we are given a set of guidelines, and that we are obligated to live our lives with a view to those guidelines. And I don't believe we should live our lives that way for some promise of eternal life, but because that's what's right. We should do these things because that's what's right."

One person wrote in the comments section responding to this quote:

"...And I agree with her there. We should live a certain way because it is right, not to earn any favors from God. It is right and it pleases God."

The following is an expanded version of my response at the CT Politics Blog:

It is true that we should love God more for who He is than just for the rewards of His mercy. Any good work that we do should be undertaken without mixed motives. But the quote from Elizebeth Edwards reveals the mistaken belief that to do a good work to please God is on the same level as doing good works to please men. Jesus warned us not to pray, give to the poor or fast to be seen by men. (Mt. 6: 1-3, 5, 16) But Jesus also commanded us to pray, give to the poor and fast in secret and the Father who sees in secret will reward us openly. (Mt. 6: 4, 6, 18) The rewards Jesus speaks of are not necessarily health and wealth or any other thing we may desire. (See here) The Father gave His Son so that our sins could be forgiven and so we can have fellowship with Him here on earth and for eternity in heaven. Not to be mindful of such rewards is to neglect the Father's will for each individual and the cost He paid to see that His purposes for us are fulfilled. Doing good works to please God is an inseperable part of pleasing God. Jesus told His disciples that if their righteousness did not exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees they would never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mt. 5: 20) Jesus told the rich young ruler, "...If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven..." (Mt. 19:21) Jesus pictured what righteous deeds look like in the parable of the sheep and the goats. (Mt. 25: 31-46) Those that minister to the vulnerable and despised ones are the righteous ones. They are the ones who receive eternal life. You might argue: "Wait a moment. In this parable, the sheep did not know that they were ministering to Christ by performing those good works. Doesn't this prove Elizebeth Edward's contention?" No. Jesus spoke this parable for our benefit so that we may be encouraged to do good deeds and receive eternal life. Paul commands us to walk worthy of God who calls us into His kingdom and glory. (1Thess. 2:12) If we are truly abiding in Christ, the indwelling Holy Spirit will guide us so that we engage in the works the Father and the Son want us to engage in. It is only by the Holy Spirit's guidance and empowerment that we can do what is truly right. It is right that we examine our motives. If we do good works that are inspired by the love of God and men that God Himself pours out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5), we can be sure that we are pleasing God and doing what is right. "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth...but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven...For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Mt. 6: 19-21)

All scripture quotes from the NKJV

Spasibo, Danke, Merci, Spasibi, Liels Paldies, Thank You

2010-12-06T19:09:00.000-08:00

Today marks the fourth anniversery of the beginning of this blogging enterprise. This year has exhibited two contradictory trends. This year has seen the least amount of posts while readership seems to have increased. This year my profile page records 375 viewings. Until recently this has been the only measurement of readership. Recently I added Blogger Stats to my dashboard, so now I have a better sense of how many readers this blog has had. According to my profile page, only 1,325 readers have viewed my profile page in four years. However, according to blogger stats, 3,463 people have actually read posts appearing here. I don't know who is reading them, but I do know from where. Majority readership, of course, is in the U.S. But a sizable number of people in Russia have been readers. Readers can also be found in Germany, Canada, France, Ukraine, the Netherlands, the U.K., India and Latvia. This is quite encouraging and has greatly eased my disappointment in the very few comments that appear here. This year has been a transitional year marked by many interuptions that have prevented me from publishing long planned articles. Hopefully this next year will see a return to greater productivity. Thanks to all, including the six official followers of Redemptive Thoughts, for giving some time to reading what appears here.

One reason for the lower output has been the amount of work that went into the writing of some of the articles. "A Post Without Answers" was a respose to prominent Christians' views concerning God's role in the Haitian earthquake. It was the hardest single article I ever wrote for this blog. As I was writing it, further reflection forced me to change my position on some aspects of the issue. I did a series on Tim Keller and Theistic Evolution entitled Sola Smorgasbord, the title refering to the fact that Keller is Reformed, that many in Reformed circles think they own the doctrine, and yet Keller himself mixes Christian and non-Christian thinking to an alarming extent to bring about a "reconciliation" between Biblical faith and Evolutionary thought. I had intended to write just one article on the subject, but one grew to seven, three of which are listed by Blogger Stats as the most read of any article appearing on this blog. These three are Part I: A Faith And Evolution Reconciliation?, Part II: WDJS (What Did Jesus Say?) and Part V: Congregational Confusion On A Scale Previously Unimagined. (To read the whole series, visit the May, 2010 archives.) The series on Dennis F. Kinlaws "Lets Start With Jesus: A New Way of Doing Theology" took more time than expected. The last in the series is also one of this blog's most read articles. One last article I would like to mention that had some readership is The Lab Rats Are Dead, an article on Obamacare. Some might think it to be a bit ridiculous, but I was quite pleased with it. Enough with this exercise of self promotion, until 12/6/11.

Monday Morning Devotions

2010-11-28T18:06:00.000-08:00

Lk. 1:79- "To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."

This is, of course, the final verse in Zacharias' prophecy concerning the cousin of John the Baptist, our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus, God the Son, is our light, our guide. But what are we guided through so that we can reach our final destination God the Father intends for us? The Lord guides us through the darkness that inhabits our own hearts. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? (Jer. 17:9) The Lord immediately answers this question: "I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind..." (Jer. 17:10) God the Holy Spirit, sent from both the Father and the Son, enters the hearts of believers to search our hearts and test our minds the very moment we truely believe. The indwelling Holy Spirit reveals to us what dwells in us that displeases our Lord. The Holy Spirit reveals things to us we have hidden from others and ourselves, even things we thought were innocent and beneficial, but are really unholy. The Holy Spirit teaches us to cooperate with Him so we may be transformed into the very image of God's Son Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit also teaches us the truths contained in God's Word (Jn. 16:13) which enables us to discern between good and evil. In this way, we are guided into the way of peace with God and with Man. And this way of peace is the road to our final destination, being in the presence of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.

(All scripture verses from the NKJV)

Monday Morning Devotions

2010-11-21T14:55:00.000-08:00

Mt. 12:37- "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Who says that a promise has to be comforting? A promise is simply a guarantee that a certain action will be undertaken in the future, or a continuing action will take place over a period of time, such as when couples marry, they promise to love each other till "death do we part." Older people can remember a time when one's word was one's bond; if one promised to do something, if the parties agreed with a handshake, the action was as good as done. Those of us who have faith in God know that God keeps His Word and He has given us promises upon promises concerning our soujourn on earth and our life with Him in heaven.

Yet not all God's promises are meant to comfort. Some are meant as a warning. In Mt. 12: 33-37, Jesus warned the Pharisees, and us today, that if our heart is not right, Godly words of praise and encouragement will not be a feature of our conversation. Those who speak words that are not a blessing to God and Man Jesus calls "a brood of vipers!" (v. 34) In this verse Jesus also calls them evil and those who are evil cannot speak good things. Then Jesus warns, "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgement. " (v. 36) Jesus is not just speaking of words actually cursing God or profanity or personal insults. He warns that every idle word will be judged. Idle. Useless to the hearer. If we focus on the trivial, distracting ourselves and others from the eternal, wasting precious time, we will give an account. If we don't learn to thank God in private, how can we witness for Him in public? If we don't meditate on God's goodness, how can we worship Him? How can we lift up the downcast? If we don't spend time in God's Word, how can we disciple others, rescuing them from wrong thinking and sinful attitudes and behaviors? How we spend time in private will be revealed in our public behavior. If we truly believe in Jesus, then our private moments will be dedicated to Him, and we will bear good fruit. (v. 35) And we will not fear God's judgement because He has promised good to those who obey Him. We know His word on this is sure. But we can also be assured that if we fail to produce good fruit, condemnation awaits. God's warnings imply the possibility of repentance and a different destiny. There is still time to become men and women of God, those who please God and edify others. Which promise, justification or condemnation, will you choose?

(All scripture quotations from the NKJV)

Remembering The Edmund Fitzgerald

2010-11-10T20:35:00.000-08:00

Here is a video listing those who lost their lives on the Edmund Fitzgerald 35 years ago today from Scott McKnight's Jesus Creed Blog.

Publications And Papers By Wesleyan Theologians

2010-11-10T20:24:00.000-08:00

This blog featured a series on Dennis Kinlaw's "Let's Start With Jesus: A New Way of Doing Theology", recently. Dr. Kinlaw has recently published "Lectures In Old Testament Theology: Yahweh is God Alone."
This book is based on classroom lectures given at Asbury Theological Seminary in 1993. Dr. Kinlaw is the past President of Asbury College as well as the founder and President of the Francis Asbury Society. Here is a brief review promoting Kinlaw's book from the Touchstone Magazine blog by James M. Kushiner.

Dr. Kinlaw's book was edited by Dr. John N. Oswalt. Dr. Oswalt was a professor at Wesley Biblical Seminary while I was a student there as well as my academic advisor. He is now at Asbury Theological Seminary. He took a one year sabbatical to edit Kinlaw's book. Here is a review of Dr. Oswalt's recent book "The Bible Among The Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?" from Scott McNights Jesus Creed blog.

Dr. Matt Friedeman, Professor of Evangelism and Christian Education at Wesley Biblical Seminary, has written "Discipleship In The Home." Dr. Friedeman has also co-written with Lisa Friedeman Ausley, "LifeChanging Bible Study-Practical Keys to a Deeper Understanding of the Word." Here is a review of the first book from philipmarianne.blogspot.com http://philipmarianne.blogspot.com/

Dr. Gary Cockerill, Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Wesley Biblical Seminary, will be presenting two papers at the Evangelical Theological Society. They are " 'Justification' or 'Perfection'? Salvation in the Letter to the Hebrews" and "More Than Paul: The Justification Debate and the Letter to the Hebrews." (Originally read in Brian Small's blog.) When I was at Wesley Biblical, Dr. Cockerill was head of the Hebrews Study Group at the ETS. I don't know if he still is. Whether he still is or not, that is quite an honor considering how the ETS is dominated by Calvinists.

Today I saw a video featuring Dr. Al Mohler and others promoting the "New Calvinism." In that video, Dr. Mohler states that serious Christians searching for a theological home can turn nowhere but to Reformed Theology. Dr. Mohler is one of the best Christian commentators when it comes to cultural issues, but this comment reveals either willful ignorance or arrogance concerning other theological traditions. I was planning on posting this article before I saw this video today. Yet the publications listed here go a long way in showing brother Mohler the error of his thinking.

Audio Impressions

2010-11-08T18:58:00.000-08:00

Here are links to stories 99% of blog readers would ignore:

A professor from All Souls College, Oxford, reads a portion of Ancient Babylonian language. He then explains how the language is reproduced. The professor is quite entertaining. Running time: 3:36.

Another individual reads the Epilogue to the Code of Hammurabi in the original Akkadian language in 53 seconds. This takes a much shorter time than one needs to read a provision of Congressional legislation. I am sure the original Akkadian language makes more sense.

I found both links through Dr. Claude Mariottini's blog.

Monday Morning Devotions

2010-11-07T14:49:00.000-08:00

Prov. 11:18- "The wicked man does deceptive work, but he who sows righteousness will have a sure reward."

"...he who sows righteousness will have a sure reward."

Is this passage a promise that all those who obey God's commands will materially prosper? NO! In fact, this passage, the preceding passages and the ones that follow, picture the wicked prospering materially in this world, while the righteous receive rewards of a far different and lasting character. In Prov. 11:16, we read that a gracious woman preserves her honor, but ruthless men retain riches. By "gracious," Solomon speaks of showing favor, being kindhearted to others. Those who exhibit this graciousness gain a character that is looked up to, trusted, respected. But ruthless men are only kind when it is to their advantage. Their only gain on earth is riches. A merciful man is at peace with God and man, while a cruel man "troubles his own flesh." (v. 17) The cruel man must always worry that his cruelty to others will cause his victims to strike back at him. He cannot allow himself to rest easy. The deception of the wicked man (v. 18) brings vexation to him because he lies to everyone and it becomes impossible to keep track of all his lies. Eventually, his dishonesty is exposed. The man who pursues evil subjects himself to the world's revenge, the pangs of conscience and a thousand worries. That is why Solomon warns us that such a life leads to death. (v. 19)

The righteous have no such worries but have an expectation of a "sure reward" (v. 18), a life of expectation of experienceing the goodness of God. (v. 19) "Those who are of a perverse heart are an abomination to the Lord, but the blameless in their ways are His delight." (v. 20) The wicked will eventually face judgement, but not only will the righteous be rewarded, the posterity of the righteous will share in these rewards. (v. 21) The righteous may not prosper materially, but their reward is eternal, their treasures are in heaven "where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal." (Mt. 6:20)

All scripture quotations from the NKJV.

Audio Impressions

2010-11-06T16:57:00.000-07:00

I'm finished with political posts on this blog for the time being. Now comes the task of listening to all the audio posts saved in my inbox since 5/09, starting with the James White/Michael Brown debate on Calvinism. The 2 part debate, each part less than 40 minutes each, was on Dr. Brown's radio program "The Line of Fire." The debate was cordial, as was the third episode (mostly) in which Calvinists called in to Dr. Brown's program. This was the first time I had heard Dr. White speak. He is a skilled debater, yet his arguement for Calvinist theology failed to live up to the principle both participants agreed to: good theolgy is always preceded by good Biblical exegesis. White's scriptural analysis was faulty concerning the scripture passages he used to present his case. For instance, he cited the example of God preventing Abimelech from sinning by having relations with Abraham's wife Sarah. (Gen. 20:1-7) White cited this as proof that human sin is not a choice but these choices are willed by God to further His purposes and bring Himself glory. As Brown points out, Abimelech did not know Sarah was married and so acted with a clear conscience. (v. 5-6) The passage also demonstrates that God gave Abimelech a clear choice whether to obey Him or not. (v.7) White stated that when the Old Testament High Priest made atonement for the people, he was only making atonement for Israel, not for the surrounding nations. White asks, "Does Jesus as our high priest make atonement for all, or only those that are His?" White believes that the Old Testament model of the High Priest is evidence for Limited Atonement. He fails to mention that the Law had provision for those who wished to join the nation of Israel if they chose to do so. Christ, our High Priest, has commanded us to pray for workers to gather in lost souls. Dr. Brown effectively answered White, yet I wish in part 1 that he emphasized the effect of the Fall on Man more when describing Man.

Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.

Linked from Kevin Jackson's Wesleyan Arminian blog.

Choices For Conservatives In 2012

2010-11-04T19:02:00.000-07:00

Now that the mid-term elections are over, the race for the Republican Presidential nomination begins in earnest. Who appears as the best choice at such an early date?

Many name Mitt Romney as the current front runner. Yet it is doubtful that he could gain the support of Tea Party conservatives. He may have valuable experience in the private sector, but his support for the Massachusettes health care plan which was enacted while he was governor should make conservatives think twice about supporting him. He was a Republican governor in a Democratic state; this caused him to compromise with the Democrat majority.  Has the experience solidified the habit of compromise in Romney so that he would cooperate with the Democrats in pushing their agenda if he were President? I would not be the only Conservative asking this question. If Romney were to get the nomination, conservative support may be lacking, which could lead to a Democrat victory in the general election. Romney was a more viable alternative in 2008. I voted for him in the primary; I was not about to vote for McCain. But this time around, nominating him may lead to a failure to regain the White House.

Mike Huckabee may cause damage to the conservative cause. I wouldn't label him as a conservative, but he could siphon off enough votes from a viable conservative candidate that could lead to a moderate winning the nomination. He himself has little chance of winning the nomination, but he could cause harmful division within conservative ranks. This is a greater danger if the Republicans fail to close their primaries to cross-over voters who want to sabotage the Republicans by saddling them with a nominee who can't win in the general election.

Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty is touted by some as a conservative with enough experience to get support from voters. However, he comes off as very shallow to me. He says he would run on his biography, how he rose from humble origins. Yet this seems to indicate that his view of the average voter is one who responds to impressions rather than content.  One lesson to heed from the mid-terms is that voters have become more concerned over a candidate's positions on issues rather than their impressions. I don't think Pawlenty will get any traction.

Neither will Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana, get any traction with his statements that Republicans should abandon social issues and concentrate solely on economics.

Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are rising stars, but it is probably too early in their careers for them to consider a 2012 run. I like Jindal, but I am not sure he could connect with people.

That leaves Sarah Palin. Yes, she has negatives, but I think she could overcome them, especially if she was running against an unpopular Democrat incumbent like Obama or Hillary Clinton. While she is sometimes inarticulate, so was Bush and that didn't stop him from winning. Yet she still has a rhetorical ability to advocate conservative policies so that she inspires as well as informs. I see no such ability among other possible contenders. At this point, the only viable candidate for the conservative voters who gave the Republicans control of the House of Representatives, is Palin. As for me, she is the only one I could trust to govern conservatively, not just in economic matters, but on social issues as well. The only person I could consider as a viable choice other than Palin is Rick Santorum, if he would choose to run.

Reagan Anniversary

2010-11-04T14:26:00.000-07:00

Today as I continue to recover from my experience as a poll worker on election day, I am taking time to take note that today is the 30th anniversary of a great day: the election of Ronald Reagan. So many think that the current economic slump is the worse economy since the Great Depression. Not so. Many are now too young to remember the double digit unemployment rate, the double digit inflation rate and the double digit interest rates of the Jimmy Carter years. Conventional wisdom at the time was that our problems were simply to big and the world too complex for any solution. Most Conservatives were convinced that the Soviet Union would win the Cold War. Many are simply too young to understand the pessimism that reigned in the U.S. prior to Reagan's election. They simply have no way of knowing just how much of a difference Reagan made. And he made that difference with a Republican Senate when more Republicans were moderate and the Democrats held the House. This should be a message of how Conservatism can defeat the Liberal establishment even in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Chris Christie has proved this in New Jersey. With the House now in Republican hands, lets hope the Republicans will not be lured into thinking Conservatism cannot win the day.

The Lab Rats Are Dead

2010-10-28T15:23:00.000-07:00

Lab rats. We all know what they are. They are those unfortunate creatures experimented upon for the benefit of saving human lives. Their purpose is to test whether treatments for diseases and injuries will be safe for humans. If these animals suffer adverse reactions to these treatments, then these treatments do not make it out of the laboratory.

There are other kinds of lab rats. Some have described the states as laboratories for possible Federal government policies. Take New Jersey, for instance. Governor Chris Christie managed to balance the state budget ahead of schedule in a heavily Democrat state. (See previous post.) This accomplishment will embolden many Conservatives to do the same in Washington D.C. But the Health Care system in the state of Massachusettes is another story. More people signed up than anticipated when the health care plan was enacted in 2007. This has caused the plan to be over budget since its inception. State approved health care providers, all not-for-profits, responded by increasing premiums to cover the rising costs. The state enacted cost containment measures, price controls, to keep premiums from rising. This has resulted in the insurance providers refusing to insure any more patients at the rates the state is demanding. All the while, those who are enrolled in the plan are mandated to deal only with state sanctioned insurance providers, so they are prohibited from switching to other insurance providers who cover less and thus charge less.

Yet the MS plan is the model touted by the Obama administration as to how the Federal Government should deal with health care. The problems the MS plan has produced will be super-sized by the Obama health care plan. James C. Capretta writes: " The risk of cost overruns is even higher at the federal level than in Massachusetts. The Congressional Budget Office projects just 17 million people will be getting subsidized insurance through the state-based exchanges in 2016. But the population with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line--roughly the group targeted for subsidized coverage--is more like 130 million people. CBO assumes the vast majority of low- and moderate-wage families will stay in job-based plans with no additional federal help. But what if they are wrong? Employers are already looking for ways to shed as much of their health care bill as they possibly can onto taxpayers. If 30 or even 50 million Americans end up in the exchanges, federal costs will soar." (From Kaiser Health News, via The Christian Science Monitor.)

As Capretta points out, the conduct of Obama's team indicates that they plan to deal with this nation wide in the same way MS is dealing with its plan's cost overruns: by putting caps on costs. The result nation wide will be the same as it has been in MS. Insurers will refuse to provide coverage which will in the end make access to treatment more restricted for Americans whom Obama wants to force to buy health insurance. All in the name of costs. (Mitt Romney's defense of the MS plan, enacted while he was governor of MS, should be reason enough not to support his Presidential run in 2012.)

Another model for Obama Care has been the British health care system. In Britain, only those of the higher income brackets have access to the private health care plans they choose. The rest of the population have no choice but to put their lives in the hands of the government bureaucracy. Recently, the British health care system has sought to cut patient access to medical care. Here is a partial list of these cuts as outlined an an article on the British news website Daily Telegraph, via Gene Veith's blog:

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.
* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.
* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.
* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.
* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.
* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.
* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

The article states later: "As well as sending more patients home to die...the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients would be given advice on 'self management' of their condition"

In America, the phrase for these savings is " cost cutting. " In Britain, the phrase is "efficiency savings." In any language, this means more people being denied the care that would be available in a market-based system. In any language, this means the state will determine who lives and who dies.

Animal Rights activists, such as PETA, equate all creatures as having equal worth as human beings. Sometimes they will sabotage laboratories to "rescue" the lab animals from being experimented upon. I hope that the newly elected conservatives will act as a sort of political-PETA, not only sabotaging but overturning Obama's health care "experiment." Because in Obama's health care experiment, THE LAB RATS R US. But the difference between Obama's experiment and actual laboratory experiments is that in Obama's experiment, when the lab rats die, the experiment is deemed a success!

(Mr. Guthrie has a pre-existing condition called type 2 diabetes. Yet he is unwilling for the country to be forced to pay for his treatment. Nor is he willing to empower a bureaucrat to, in the name of "cost cutting" or "efficiency savings", to strategerize his untimely demise.)

A Change Of Course

2010-10-27T09:17:00.000-07:00

Some readers of this blog know that I am politically conservative. Last year I made the decision to reduce the amount of politcal posts here. This year, only two short political posts, both concerning Sarah Palin, have appeared on this blog. (I am thinking of creating a seperate blog to write on politics and culture.) However, with less than a week before the election, this blog will feature a number of posts relating to the choices we as voters have before us. Here are some links to articles concerning the size and scope of government:

This article on Gov. Chris Christie of NJ includes a must see interview of him. Despite the fact that NJ is a Democrat state, Christie has balanced the state's budget ahead of schedule. His success will embolden other Conservative Republican governors to save their states from economic collapse. He is definitely a future Presidential possibility. (From the blog The Reformed Broker, via The Christian Science Monitor.) Britain's Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is proposing sweeping changes to reduce the national government and empower individuals and localities. (From The Washington Post, via Gene Veith.) Germany's Conservative government defied its socialist neighbors and our socialist President in its response to the financial crises. It resisted advice to spend government money and increase regulation of businesses. Germany's economy is now booming. (From the New York Times, via Veith.) In fact, Big Government has been a failure since the New Deal; the Hoover Dam being a case in point. (From the Ludwig von Mises Institute, via the Christian Science Monitor.)

Gene Veith describes why American Christians switched from Democrat to Republican over the past 40 years.

Science is supposed to be an unbiased discipline. Here is an article on how members of the scientific community, and their liberal patrons in government, play politics with stem cell research; how they promote embryonic stem cell research, which has showed little promise, while hiding the successes of adult stem cell research. (From The American Thinker, via the Family Research Council.)

Here is an article that should make Christian Consevatives wary of Libertarian influence in Conservative Circles. (From the Christian Science Monitor.)

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is ignoring Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's abuses of power. (From the Christian Science Monitor.)

Monday Morning Devotions

2010-10-24T20:48:00.000-07:00

Ps. 12: 3-4 "May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaks proud things, who have said "With our tongue we will prevail; our lips are our own; who is lord over us?"

"Our lips are our own..." Those who speak thus, according to David, speak deceit. They flatter their neigbors (v. 2) and boast about themselves. (v. 3) "They speak idly everyone with his neighbor..." (v. 2); the words they speak serve no useful purpose. Those who speak such things, and those who allow themselves to listen, waste valueable time. Such talk ends in oppressing the vulnerable (v. 5) and the Lord will bring judgement upon those who engage in it. (v. 5)

In this day we value our personal autonomy. Our very dignity as persons is tied to our supposed authority to decide our own destiny. We Americans fought a revolution on the principles of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Yet sinful men and women say, "My lips are my own." If God's Word tells us this is what the sinful think, then the truth must be the opposite. Our lips are not our own. We are not to speak deceit or flattery, to curse anyone made in the image of God. (James 3: 9-12) Instead of flattery, we are to speak words that build up, edify, that warn against sinful conduct and ungodly thinking. (Gal. 6: 1-2, IThess. 5:11, Jude 22-23) Yes, the Lord has given us the freedom to decide what we speak. But we are not free to exercise this freedom free from acountability to a holy God. Our words will bring upon ourselves either blessing or curses.

If our lips are not our own, does it not logically follow that our thoughts are not our own? Christ said, "...what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man...But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adultries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." (Mt. 15: 11, 18-19) If we are not free to speak what we like without being accountable to a holy God, and if what we speak is the result of what we think, then our own thought life is not our own either. The carnal person responds: "This threatens my very self identity, my very individuality, my dignity and worth as a person." The Christian must respond with a resounding "No!" In salvation and sanctification, we become more like our savior. As we spend time in Christ's presence, Christ transforms us into the person He wants us to be. We begin to think His thoughts and desire what He desires. We are then able to see our neighbor as Christ sees them so we no longer use our lips to flatter and deceive but to bless them. Our thought life is freed to think about God, Man and ourselves as God truly created us to do. We are free to produce fruit that pleases God and confirms to ourselves and others that we are indeed redeemed. You see, none of us are really free. We are slaves, either to God or to sin. (Rom. 6: 15-23) The only freedom we have is to choose our masters: the master of our lips, our thoughts, our very being.

All Scripture quotations from the NKJV

Monday Morning Devotions

2010-10-17T15:00:00.000-07:00

2Cor. 1: 11- "...you also helping together in prayer for us, that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf, for the gift granted to us through many."

It is right to refer to Paul as a giant of the Faith. Unfortunately, he is often portrayed as superhuman in his obedience to the Gospel, that he was so disciplined in his own strength to follow Christ that we could never repeat his example. This portrait of Paul is false. To gain an understanding of Paul and his life as a disciple, the first step is to know who it was who lived within Paul: Jesus Christ. Yes, Paul was a unique individual, but so am I and so are you. And in my case, and in yours, if you are a true believer in Christ, when we first believed, Christ took up residence in our hearts through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. (Eph. 1:13) It was not Paul that lived the Christian life in his own strength, but Christ living in Paul (Gal. 2:20) empowered Paul. This empowering was made possible by Paul's obedience to the Holy Spirit dwelling within him. And just as Christ lived on earth and conducted His earthly ministry in the power of the Spirit (Mk. 1: 9-11, Heb 9:14, Acts 1:2), so did Paul.

While both Christ and Paul operated in the power of the Holy Spirit, neither wanted to live and minister on earth without the prayer support of the disciples. Jesus desired that His disciples tarry with Him in the Garden of Gethsemene (Mt. 26:40). Paul was the same way. He and his fellow laborers were putting their lives on the line and at times it appeared that they would die for the sake of the Gospel (2Cor. 1: 8-9). God had brought them to this point so that Paul and his companions would not rely on their own strength but on "God who raises the dead..." (v. 9).  God delivered them from death. And by God's sovereign grace, God included the prayers of the Church as a means of saving Paul and his company.

You and I suffer in our Christian walk when we fail to pray for each other. God can still deliver us from crises, but if brothers and sisters in Christ fail to pray for each other, will we always emerge with the full character change God wanted to work in us by placing us in these situations?  Is it too much to claim that we will never be the persons God wants us to be without the prayer support of our brothers and sisters? Will those who fail to intercede for their bretheren also suffer loss? The answer to this last question is definitely yes. Paul told the Corinthians that his deliverance resulting from their prayers was an occasion for thanksgiving on the part of the Corinthians. (v. 11) They could thank God that Paul and his fellow workers were delivered from death. They could thank God that the Church and the world had living examples of men who trusted in God's grace rather than in worldly wisdom. (v. 12) All disciples are called to give an account of their faith to an unbelieving world. (1Pet. 3:15) Because the Corinthians were obedient, they could point to God's deliverance of Paul and his companions as irrefutable evidence that God is real and God delivers those who trust in Him.

The Corinthians also had the example of Paul's deliverance by God as a bulwark against doubt when they themselves might have gone through trials similiar to Paul's. But the Corinthians had these blessings because they prayed for Paul. When we fail to intercede for each other during our trials, we deny ourselves the blessing of witnessing deliverances by God that strengthen our faith. And so failure by the Church to intercede for those in need of prayer diminishes the strength of all who belong to Christ's body. But obedience in this matter blesses all, strengthening the weak so that they may stand, that the foundation of their faith may withstand trials.

Will you be obedient in this matter?  If you are, not only will those specifically prayed for will be strengthened, but yourself and the whole body of Christ will be blessed.

Scripture quotations from the NKJV.

Friday Night Frozen Dinner And An Intellectual: Edward Gilbreath's "Reconciliation Blog"

2010-10-09T19:23:00.000-07:00

(For an explanation of the title, "Friday Night Frozen Dinner and an Intellectual," see here.)

Over the past couple of Friday evenings I have been reading past articles from the "Reconciliation Blog" which is written by Edward Gilbreath, a former editor at Christianity Today. The reconciliation in "Reconciliation Blog" refers to the reconciliation of the races. Much Evangelical Christian writing on race and its relation to culture and politics has been pretty abysmal. Yet Gilbreath's posts on this blog are outstanding.  Very few writers are able to step into the shoes of others and understand them as well as Gilbreath. Gilbreath writes with the intention not to argue a position, but to promote understanding among people seperated not only by racism, but by perceptions of each other which perpetuates misunderstanding. From a 1/30/09 post , Gilbreath, who is African American, writes, "...there are many systemic issues related to the 'race' problem...Indeed, often times, the racial divide is a matter of perception, not racism." Now, when an African American writes that racism is not the only culprit that is responsible for the plight of black Americans, and that white Americans are not the only party in the racial divide who need to examine themselves, a white person such as myself is of course is appreciative. Yet, Gilbreath writes some things concerning how whites view race relations that need to be heeded if true racial reconciliation is to take place.

As Gilbreath himself understands, this country has made great progress in how African Americans are perceived and treated. Yet when whites are confronted with continuing hostility from the African American community, whites often respond with this attitude: "Things have improved so much for people of color in the U.S. The Civil Rights movement has ended discrimination and there is now so much more opportunity for people of all races. We know that whites oppressed other races in the past; why can't they get over it. Things have changed." Yes, things have changed. But white Americans are often unaware of the racism that African Americans still have to contend with.  Why is it that banks are more likely to approve a loan to a white couple than to a black couple? The same goes for loans made to white owned businesses verses those made to black owned businesses.  The 1/30/09 post linked to above refers to racial conflict in Paris, Texas. Blacks and whites met together to air their grievences in an open meeting. One issue concerned a white judge who had given a black teenager a long prison sentance for pushing someone. A few months before, the same judge had given a white teenager a very light sentance for arson. The judge, who attended the meeting denied that racism had a role in the plight of African Americans: "I think the black community in this town is suffering a great deal from poverty, broken homes, drugs...Because a large percentage of the black population is caught up in that, in their anguish they are perceiving they are the victims of discrimination. But white people are not the enemy. Poverty, illiteracy, drugs, absentee fathers-that is the enemy. Thats not racism. Thats the breakdown of a community." (From the post linked to above.) Gilbreath agrees that the judge's words contain a lot of truth. But then he immediately points out the systemic issues related to race that whites often ignore which I quoted above. In a 3/9/09 post, Gilbreath reminds us that "Though we've long since repudiated and attempted to move forward from our nations biggest failures on the matter of race, a lot of the residue of our failures continue to inform our personal and constitutional relationships today. To ignore that fact only hinders our efforts toward true progress and reconciliation." In another post, from 4/21/09, Gilbreath writes about how the progress we have made in race relations has led to new and even bigger boundries between black and white. He links to this article concerning white college students who put a noose in their window so African American students could see it. In the comment section of the article, white students write that they cannot see why the African American students should be upset.

Is it realistic for whites to expect that blacks should have completely gotten over past bitterness? In the article about Paris, Texas linked to above, another sore spot in race relations was the honoring of the Confederacy at local government buildings. A white person may say "Hey, slavery has been extinct for almost 150 years. Its time to move on." When I lived in the South, some of the same white people who expressed such sentiments spoke with emotion concerning the land their families lost when it was seized by the Federal government during Reconstruction.  Bitterness and hatred can take generations, centuries to heal.  Only in the past couple of decades has the hatred between Catholics and Protestants begun to abate. Still, not everyone from either side is willing to let go of their anger over how one side tortured those on the other side. How many years will it take for some Armenians to move past their hatred for all Turkish people because of the genocide commited by Turkey against the Armenians in the early 20th century? How long will it take for the Chinese to forgive Japan for its barbarism when it invaded China in the 1930's? Some Africans still hate Europeans because of how Europe brutalized Africans during Africa's colonial days. My own mother is 82. One of her grandfathers, whom she knew, was a teenager living near Gettysburg, Pa. when the battle of Gettysburg was fought there. If my mother knew her grandfather who lived during the Civil War, how many African Americans the same age as my mother actually looked into the eyes of their relatives who had been slaves and heared them relate what had been done to them? Memories die hard. To expect the entire black community to "just get over it" is a bit unrealistic. Especially when more recent memories of Jim Crow and lynching are taken into acount. When whites, even within the Church, take this into account, this will make actual reconciliation more of a reality.

One surprise for me was Gilbreath's take on the notion of a color blind society. In a 4/7/09 post, he notes that non-whites are more productive in work environments that acknowledge differences than in work places that stress a color blind environment. In a color blind work place, whites expect non-whites to assimilate into the white world. They have no clue how this creates identity crises for non whites. Non whites see more bias in environments that strive for color blindness than in businesses that acknowledge differences.  This post is a must read. I wanted to quote from it but I think it needs to be read in it's entirety. It made me think of the issue of all black student groups on college campuses. These groups have been criticized as a regression from the progress made concerning race over the past few decades. Yet I have read that students in these groups perform better academically than their counterparts who are more "assimilated."  How should this affect thinking on reconciliation?

Gilbreath and I do not agree on everything. He voted for Obama; I did not. Yet there is no condemnation in his tone for those who he doesn't see eye to eye with. I wish the same could be said of other bloggers who write on the issue of race, and when I write this, I am referring almost exclusively to white bloggers on the left. Just today he posted an article on a book entitled "Divided By Faith" which states that Evangelical theology actually makes racial reconciliation more difficult.  I have not read this book, nor have I read Gilbreath's own book on the subject, "Reconiliation Blues."  This opinion concerning Evangelical theology certainly causes me to defend it as a first response.  I am sure I would take issue with some arguements from either work. Yet after becoming more familiar with Gilbreath's work, I know there is a possibility that some of my assumptions may have to change. I have been intending to read "Reconciliation Blues." Hopefully I will get to it next year. (I do not feel justified in buying more books until I have read some I already have, especially those I bought while in seminary.)

The "Reconciliation Blog" is not updated often. Gilbreath is focused upon his other blog, "Urban Faith," which will be explored on this blog in a future post.

Monday Morning Devotions

2010-10-03T17:20:00.000-07:00

Is. 1:18- " 'Come now, and let us reason together,' says the Lord, 'Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool.' "

This is a much quoted verse in imploring lost souls to repent and be saved. Some take the first portion of it, "Come now, and let us reason together," interpreting it to mean that God and sinners work out a contract between each other. But, of course, God is the one who alone who sets the terms of salvation: "...For the mouth of the Lord has spoken." Is. 1:20. Man is to be willing and obedient if he is to be blessed. Is. 1:18-20 can be seen as a warning against individual inward impurity, the evil desires harbored secretly until acted out before all to see.

Yet what are the sins Isaiah is refering to here? Isaiah is speaking for the Lord in rebuking the oppression of the defenseless, the poor, the fatherless, the widow in the land of Israel. Isaiah charges that though worship of the Lord in Israel still takes place, the worshippers' hands are full of blood. (Is. 1:15) Isaiah commands that Israelites cleanse themselves of impurity. This cleansing is to have certain specified salutory effects on their behavior to society's weakest: " Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes. Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow." (Is. 1:16-17) God, speaking through Isaiah, told the Israelites that these sins rendered their worship false and detestable in God's eyes. (Is. 10-15) And God, speaking through Isaiah, warned Israel that without repentance, destruction would surely come. (Is. 1:20)

Today, this warning can legitimately be applied by individual believers to their lives. Not to be involved in ministry to the vulnerable indicates a heart not fully in tune with a holy God. One of the meanings of the word "charity" in Greek is "to suffer along side of." Giving money to needs is not adequate; we must be involved in individual's lives, seeking not only the releif of immediate needs, but the transformation of individuals into disciples of Christ.

The Church can also employ the standard spoken of by Isaiah to call society into account. The Church, at least part of it in America, campaigned against slavery. The Church, at least part of it, struggled to make the indigent able to care for themselves. The Church, at least part of it, fought against the abuses of industry. Today the Church, at least part of it, defends the unborn and the disabled. Recently, the Church has pioneered the fight against sex-trafficing and forced prostitution in the U.S. and around the world. And the Church, at least part of it, continues to show God's love to the poor. We need to examine ourselves individually to see if our hearts are aligned with God on these issues. We must train disciples to engage in what Wesley called "Social holiness." Wesley's ministry in England prevented that country from experiencing a revolution like France's. Even secular historians acknowledge this. In this day, we have let the government take over the Church's role of helping the weak, with the result that the weak become further ensnared in what brought about their weak state to begin with. This has resulted in the Church losing much of its prophetic voice in the 20th century. This is a major reason the Church appears impotent and irrelevant today. And it up to today's disciples of Christ to recover this prophetic voice. Not to do so is sin indeed.

To Those Evangelicals Who Oppose Sarah Palin, This Post Is For You

2010-10-01T21:25:00.000-07:00

Did you know that there are seventeen female members of the U.S. Senate and that all of them, including the four Republicans, support the decision in Roe v. Wade? That figure may change as at least four of the women running for the Senate this year as Republicans are pro-life. That these women were nominated is due in large part to Sarah Palin. Yet there are many who label themselves evangelicals who wish Palin had never appeared on the public scene, who thinks she is an embarrassment, who opposes everything she stands for. This post is for you. If Palin is able to reverse the institutional support for abortion on demand by supporting pro-life candidates and possibly as President, don't you think that outcome outweighs any objection you have to her positions on issues and her person? Are your objections so great that they would in your mind outweigh her influence on a party and government policy toward a pro-life mindset? Talk to me.

Threats To Christian Conscience

2010-09-30T19:25:00.000-07:00

The federal Department of Education is on the verge of taking control of private colleges and universities. It has informed Congress of it's intention to remove these educational institutions from the authority of independent accrediting agencies and placing them under the authority of state governments. This would put government bureacrats in a position to determine course content and guidelines for hiring faculty and staff. This unprecedented power grab is an attempt to enforce liberal orthodoxy in the fields of history, political science, sociology, law, science and religion. If you think I am unwarranted in this assessment, consider this: The Congress is debating an amendment to a House of Representitives bill (HR 5466) mandating that faith based groups that receive federal funds may not take religious criteria into account when hiring workers. This provision is sponsored by the not too soon to be departing Patrick Kennedy. "The law has long protected the religious freedom of both the people who receive government-funded services, and the groups that provide the services – long before President Obama, and long before President Bush,” said Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel of USCCB, in a statement. “Stripping away the religious hiring rights of religious service providers violates the principle of religious freedom, and represents bad practice in the delivery of social services." (From article linked to above.) One can see a more than a trend. This is naked attempt to seize control of the thought life and ethical standards of the American public in the wake of a probable public repudiation of increased federal control over our lives which will take place this November. Not only is Christian conscience in the university and the market place under threat from without, but there are threats from within as well. It is no secret that universities have been engaged in thought control aimed at viewpoints at odds with secular orthodoxies in various academic disciplines. In the field of counseling, Christian students have been told that if they did not change their beliefs concerning same-sex relationships, they would not graduate. A student at Eastern Michigan University was assigned to counsel a person who was seeking assistance with a same-sex relationship. The student notified her supervisor who reaasigned the person to a different counselor. Yet the University informed the student that if she wished to remain in the counseling program, she had to go through a "remediation program" aimed at changing her religious beliefs concerning same-sex relationships. (For background, see here.) Some colleges don't even wait for a conflict to arise before they attempt to enforce thought control upon Christian students. At Augusta State University in Georgia, a Christian counseling student's views concerning same-sex relationships became known to her professors. They told her she must enroll in sensitivity training courses and participate in activities promoting same-sex life styles. She was told by the University that her beliefs were incompatible with the counseling profession and if she didn't change them, she would not graduate from the counseling program. Meanwhile, in North Carolina, members of the North Carolina bar are attempting to alter the state code of ethics to prohibit lawyers from taking sexual orientation or "gender identity" (practices such as pedophilia or polygamy) into account when hiring or choosing which clients to represent. (originally seen at Ken Ham's blog.) Christians in the U.S. certainly don't suffer persecution as Chrisitians do overseas. Yet there is a very real threat to Christian practice in the secular marketplace. While we must actively oppose these attempts to dictate our beliefs and practices, in the end, the only effective weapon we have is prayer and an effective Chrisitan witness.

Biblical Archeology

2010-09-29T20:48:00.000-07:00

Here are some links concerning Biblical Archeology from this year:

From Ben Witherington's blog: Pictures from the excavation of Ephesian terrace houses which shed light on Paul's ministry in Ephesus. It might take two attempts before you can see the pictures.

Also from Witherington: The Gobeckli Tepe, the earliest temple known to have been built. Its discovery debunks the notion that civilization begat religion, but in actuality, it was religion that precipitated the formation of civilization, particularly urbanization and large-scale agriculture. Witherington also posted video of the site. See here.

From Darrell Bock's blog: An ancient wall from Solomon's Temple verifies the Old Testament account of Solomon's kingdom.

New Findings suggest The Dead Sea Scrolls were not the work of the Esscenes but by 2nd Century B.C. Temple priests exiled after the royal takeover of the Temple in Jerusalem. From Gene Vieth's blog.

Dr. Claude Mariottini explains the process of Carbon-14 dating. He includes a video presentation.

Carbon 14 dating shows that these manuscripts could be the second oldest existing complete Christian text. Sent to me by Dave Bartlett.

The discovery of a statue of the Moabite god Hadad. From Dr. Mariotinni's blog. Also from Mariotinni's blog: the discovery of a new Sumerian temple and new discoveries concerning the building of the Pyramids.

Finally, two artcles from Victor Reppert dealing with how archeological discoveries have dealt a blow to theories that question the historicity of Scripture. See here and here.

Christian Presence

2010-09-25T15:50:00.000-07:00

Long ago I noticed that many Christians arrange their lives so they have no contact with the secular world. Many want to live far out in the country so they don't have to deal with urban areas, which is where most of the lost dwell. They read in scriptures that we are not to love the world, so they shun the world. Yet they spend big bucks for Christian entertainment to deal with the same emptiness that unsaved people try to supress through secular entertainment.  All the while, the Church makes little impact on society. Here is the way K.P. Yohannan describes the situation:

"What does the Lord Jesus think of our religious merry-go-round?

"The question that must be asked of every Christian activity we support is simply this:  'Will this event create any impact on a lost and dying world?' If the answer is no then we must reconsider sponsoring it. We must ask if this is something from our agenda or His.

" 'But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only.' (James 1:22)

"We have switched to a retreat and survival mode. Actually confronting the takeover of our school systems and institutions by decades of secular humanism is too much of a strain for our kind of religion. That would require going out and witnessing to the publicans and sinners of our day.

"So we are running into temporary survival shelters such as Christian schools, religious radio and TV broadcasts, Christian concerts and a myriad of other escapisms.

"The controlling force behind this massive retreat from the post- Christian, secularized culture of the West is fear rather than holiness. It is laziness rather than righteousness.  And it is born from a lack of love rather than a genuine desire for seperation. (Emphasis mine-JHG) Could it be that these 'good things' are really enemies of the best?

" 'For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.' (2Timothy 1:7)"

From "The Road To Reality: Coming Home To Jesus From The Unreal World."

I decided to post this in place of "Monday Morning Devotions" this week.

"We Are All Free To Choose, But We Are All Slaves To The Consequences."

2010-09-23T11:47:00.000-07:00

The quote above was spoken by my pastor in a sermon a few weeks ago. What is your opinion concerning it?

Monday Morning Devotions

2010-09-20T00:02:00.000-07:00

1Jn. 2:25- "And this is the promise that He has promised us--eternal life."

Jesus said that Satan is a liar and the father of lies. (Jn. 8:44) Satan tells us many lies. But what is Satan's greatest lie? That Jesus is not the Son of God, that Jesus is not the Christ.

There is a difference between a created being and a begotten one. Man is a created being. When humans reproduce children, they beget children. Humans reproduce, or beget, of their own kind. None of us were begotten of the heavenly Father because we are not of the same kind as the Father. We were created by the Father out of material not of His own being, out of material He created out of nothing. Jesus is the Father's only begotten Son, He is of the same kind as the Father. Jesus and the Father are one. If Jesus is not the only begotten Son of the Father, then His sacrifice for our sins would have been for nothing. Only a perfect sacrifice would meet the demands of the Father's justice, and if Jesus was merely human, not the only begotten Son, then He would not be the perfect sacrifice, for He would be tainted by sin as well. If this were the case, Jesus would not be the Christ, the Messiah sent from the Father.

Those that deny that Jesus is the Christ, John calls anti Christ. (1Jn. 2:22) If we abide in the truth that Jesus is the Christ, which we heard from the beginning, then we abide in the Father and the Son. (v. 23-24) Today there are some who believe truth or doctrine is not as important as doing what Jesus did. Their favorite quotation is from St. Francis of Assisi: "Preach the Gospel at all times and if necessary use words." Yet if we abide in the truth, we abide in both the Father and the Son. Those who deny the doctrines concerning the Son does not have the Father. (v. 23) Abiding in both the Father and the Son qualifies us to receive the promise of eternal life. (v. 25) We don't understand much concerning the Trinity; there is so much about it that is a mystery. Yet all who do put their faith in Christ are taught by the Holy Spirit that the doctrine of the Trinity is true. (v. 27) To abide in Christ is not only to seek to be Christian in action, but also to be truthful in knowing and teaching others who Christ really is. We cannot abide in His person without abiding in correct doctrine concerning Him. We cannot have the eternal life promise to us if we do not abide in correct doctrine.

Wesley Biblical Seminary Has A New President

2010-09-17T16:44:00.000-07:00

WBS President Dr. Ron Smith stepped down from his position earlier this year. He will work full-time with the Francis Asbury Society as well as serve as scholar in residence at Asbury Theological Seminary. Dr. Smith will be replaced by Dr. Jim Porter. As WBS is my theological alma mater, I pray for his success in leading WBS in meeting the challenges ahead. I wish Ron Smith well in his new position. I will be sorry not to see him in future visits to the seminary.

Recently I have had some dialogue with some lamenting the liberal direction Methodist/Wesleyan seminaries have taken. This has not been the case with WBS. As I heard Dr. Porter reaffirm WBS's doctrinal stand that Scripture is both infallible and inerrant, those seeking a conservative seminary affirming Wesleyan holiness teaching will find a true home at WBS. They will also be trained to apply their theology to ministry.

Here is a link to a video from the television series "Revelations" about WBS made before Dr. Smith stepped down. It is over 7 minutes.

"Let's Start With Jesus: A New Way Of Doing Theology" by Dennis F. Kinlaw. Part VII, Conclusion

2010-09-13T18:58:00.000-07:00

Those who have been following this series may have noticed that one of the subject tags at the bottom of each article is "Wesleyan Theology." One may ask, "why"? Despite the fact that Dennis F. Kinlaw is Wesleyan in theology and his book "Let's Start With Jesus: A New Way of Doing Theology" expresses polite disagreement with Reformed Theology, what is there about what Kinlaw writes that is distinctly Wesleyan? The Wesleyan distinction lies in Kinlaw's description of the nature of the transformation God accomplishes in those who experience salvation. We shall see this as we consider the final chapter, "The Fulfillment of Salvation: Perfect Love."

At salvation we receive not only pardon but a new birth through the work of the Holy Spirit who transforms us into new creatures. The Holy Spirit initiates a new life in us, the very life of God. (Titus 3: 4-7) The sign of this new birth is the holy-love of God that is poured into our hearts. (Rom 5:8) The tyranny of self-absorbtion is broken and the love we receive from the Father is lavished on others. (IJn. 3:1) The proof of this change within us is two-fold. First, we experience consciousness of reconciliation with and of our belong to the Father again. (Rom. 8: 15-26, IJn. 3: 1-2) Second, we experience a change in our conscious concerns, a divine love for God and others. (2Cor. 5: 14-15) The self's point of reference changes as Christ assumes His position as Lord in our hearts. The Holy Spirit reveals to us the enormity of our previous self-absorbtion and hostility to God. This is the beginning of sanctification. We now have the freedom to choose Christ rather than our own desires. We are to walk (keeping in step, walking) in the Spirit. (Gal. 5:25) The purpose of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is to bring us to the place Paul speaks of when he wrote "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." (Gal 2:20) See also Phil. 1:21, ICor. 4: 16-17. The purpose of the Holy Spirit is to bring us to such a devotion to Christ as a member Christ's bride, the Church, that Christ has no rival for our heart's devotion. Christ reigns supreme in our hearts. The state of such an undivided heart is what Wesley would call "Perfect Love." Kinlaw illustrates this truth by quoting the ancient collect used to prepare hearts to receive Communion: "Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee and worthily magnify thy holy name, through Christ our Lord. Amen." (Kinlaw, p. 140)

Justification and the New Birth are just the beginning of our new life. Justification and New Birth only makes possible our having an undivided heart. Some in the Church have ignored or denied this possibility. This denial is refuted by Scripure. Dt. 30:6 and Mt. 5:8 speak of us having a pure heart, the opposite of an adulterous one. In Mk. 12: 28-34, we read of the two greatest commandments. If these commands are for all of us, then obeying them is not beyond possibility.  See also Rom. 6:1-4, 8: 1-15, 12: 9-15, 13: 8-10, 1Cor. 12:3. Believers can allow their love to be tainted with self-interest; Rom 2:8 and Phil. 1: 17 both use the same word for self-seeking, eritheia.  Yet it is possible to live with our hearts untainted by self-seeking. (Phil. 2: 1-11) In Phil. 2: 19-23, Paul tells us that Timothy had attained this untainted heart; he had the mind of Christ.

Some would object that attaining this mind of Christ is a work we attempt in our own strength. If Timothy escaped the tyranny of the self because he was more noble than most, than his escape was through something other than God's grace. But if this escape was through God's grace, then this escape is available to all. The Corinthian Church was sorely divided by self-interest. Paul writes to the Corinthians highlighting his own deliverence from self-interest. Paul didn't admonish the Corinthians for their selfishness by presenting a contrasting state unavailable to most. No! This escape from self is open to all! When Paul spoke of his not using his freedom to eat meat dedicated to idols in the presence of weaker Christians who still had not attained that freedom, Paul was demonstrating how he looked out for the interests of others above his own. See also 1Cor. 3: 3-9, 8: 9-13, 9:12, 15, 18-19, 22-23, 10: 31-11:1, 15: 1-6. This state of being Paul speaks of does not nullify the grace of God. (Gal. 2:21) Kinlaw points out that "He (Paul) is citing himself not as an example of exceptional piety, but rather an example of what the Holy Spirit wants to do in washing every human heart clean through the blood of Christ." (Kinlaw, p. 145) Kinlaw goes on to ask "So why are the history of the Church and the lives of most Christian believers full of strife and division? Is it not because the possibility of the heart controlled by the pure love of Christ has been largely inconceivable? The fact that we have not thought it possible has not kept us from yearning for it." (Kinlaw, p. 147) As Kinlaw points out, much of the Church's devotional writing and hymnody testifies to this. (Example- "Breathe on Me Breath of God") Has the Holy Spirit put such a hunger in us merely to taunt us? Is it impossible for the Holy Spirit to perfect our hearts in love? IJn. 1:7 answers this with a resounding "NO!" And in this verse John is not speaking of the necessity of salvation or of our legal staus before God. He is speaking of our inner heart condition. Sanctification, like justification, is a work of grace. Faith is the key. We must trust God that He is good enough to be trusted with our care. Gal. 5:6 tells us that the Spirit works through faith.

In Romans Paul proclaims a New Testament sacrifice, not of animals, but of the self. This sacrifice brings grace to the worshipper that enables him/her to discern and do the good, acceptable,perfect will of God. (Rom 12: 1-2) The grace that self-sacrifice brings is the agape love of God. In Rom. 12-15, Paul reveals the content and meaning of this gift of grace in a person's life. Paul's major theme in these passages: agape love does not seek self-interest but is other oriented. (Rom. 15: 1-3) Paul begins Romans boasting of the power of God to save us from sin. At the close of Romans, Paul demonstrates how salvation works itself out in our lives. Christ's sacrifice restores to the human heart the glory, the agape love, the divine presence we lost in the Fall. See Rom. 12: 3-5, 10, 14-20, 13:4, 13: 1-7, 8-10, 14: 7-8, 15: 1-3, 23-32.  "One does not rise to such a life" Kinlaw states. "One kneels to receive, to let him who is agape love fill and complete our personhood." (Kinlaw, p. 152)

Why is it that we need more than justification and the New Birth? Kinlaw's answer: after the New Birth we need to live with Christ to see the depth of our need of cleansing. We will not trust God to do something for us until we feel the need. The failure to trust is the final evidence of our sinfulness. (IJn. 4:18) "The passion of believer's lives then is to let God give us this love and then let him fill us." (Kinlaw, p. 153) Kinalw quotes John Wesley stating this very thing in "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection" (a series on "A Plain Account..." will be featured  on this blog in the near future):

"Love is the highest gift of God; humble, gentle, patient love...It were well that you should be sensible of this, 'the heaven of Heavens is love.' There is nothing higher in religion, there is in effect, nothing else; if you look for anything but more love, you are looking wide of the mark, you are getting out of the royal way. And when you are asking others, 'Have you received this or that blessing?' if you mean anything but more love, you mean wrong; you are leading them out of the way, putting them upon a false scent. Settle it then in your heart, that from the moment God has saved you from all sin, you are to aim at nothing more, but more of that love described in the thirteenth of the Corinthians. You can go no higher than this, till you are carried into Abraham's bosom." (Kinlaw, p. 153)

Immediately after quoting Wesley, Kinlaw concludes "Let's Start With Jesus" with these words: "Why is there nothing higher than love? Wesley understood just as John before him did. There is nothing higher than agape love because that is what God is, and he offers himself to any who will receive him. What a gospel, and it is for the likes of me!" (Kinlaw, p. 153)

"Let's Start With Jesus: A New Way Of Doing Theology" by Dennis F. Kinlaw. Part VI

2010-09-04T15:32:00.000-07:00

In chapter four of "Lets' Start With Jesus: A New Way of Doing Theology," author Dennis F. Kinlaw identified what he calls the "problem of problems": Man's deliberate reorientation of his relation to his creator and the broken fellowship between Man and God as a result. In chapter five, "The Way of Salvation: It is All About the Nature of God," Kinlaw deals with the solution, which is salvation. In particular, Kinlaw relates salvation to the nature of God and human personhood.

The Incarnation and Atonement was possible because Mankind is made in the image of the Triune God. This fact made it possible for the second person of the Trinity to become a human baby. Christ's willingness to do so as well as His willingness to be a sacrifice for our sins made restored fellowship between God and individuals possible. One of the marvels of personhood, human and divine, is that persons operate in a web of relationships. What happens in one person makes a difference in the possibilities of another person's life. (Kinlaw does not exclude free will as a factor in one's destiny.) According to Kinlaw, if we do not understand this truth, we don't understand the cross or the power of prayer.

To restore the fellowship broken by Man, God needed a human counterpart to Adam through whom redemption can work to overcome the sinful forces set in motion by Adam's sin. God looks for one to stand between Him in His holiness and Man in his sin. In Is. 59 we read that the answer to God's own need is God's own arm. God's own arm executes His divine will (Is. 40:10, 48:14, 51:5, 62:8) but also it is His means of our salvation. (Is. 59:16) God's own arm is not used to impose a solution or simply declare the problem solved, but is the very power of God to take into Himself the very problem He wishes to solve. In Is. 53 the identity of God's own arm is revealed: the suffering servant. "Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?...He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows; yet we considered him striken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all...my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities...because he...was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Is. 53: 1, 3-6, 11, 12. Kinlaws citation from the NIV) "The offended one takes the offense into himself to save the one who offends. The physician assumes the very disease of the ones he has come to heal. The eternal judge sentences himself to the very judgement that should go to the law breaker that stands before him. The creator takes the place and the condemnation of the creature who has sinned against him." (Kinlaw, p. 130) (see also Rom. 5:6, 8, 15)

The only possibility for human salvation is for God's love to enter a human person, Jesus Christ, who has become one of us. The triune nature of God's being and the personal nature of his creatures made the Incarnation possible. Only Christianity is a religion of atonement. The nature of God who atones for our sins is triune and Christianity teaches a biblical understanding of personhood. All other religions depend upon self-effort to gain salvation. In Christianity, salvation is by God's grace alone. We rely on Jesus and His capacity to take us and our sin into Himself so we can receive Him and His saving life into ourselves. The strongest Old Testament word for forgiveness is "nasa," which means "to bear." Ps. 32:1 states that blessed is the person who is forgiven. This passage can be read as "blessed is the person who is bourne." Two other words conveying this concept are "he' emin" ("to confirm, support") and "batach" which occurs most often in Old Testament worship literature, mainly the Psalms. This second word conveys trust and can be read as "to lie extended upon" or "to repose oneself upon." A man or woman is saved in response to God's grace by casting themselves upon another, Jesus Christ. Our faith is not just in an abstract principle, but it is in another person. "The key for us is not what we can do for ourselves, but in what another can and has done for us. Faith as personal trust opens the door to the reception of saving grace found in the only one who is salvation. And all this is possible because of the nature of personhood." (p. 133)

The concept of personhood is also helpful in our understanding of the mystery of intercessory prayer. Kinlaw describes this mystery in a series of questions: Why do we need to pray for each other? Doesn't God care more for the other person than we do?  God knows their needs better than we do. Why does God need our help? Are God's resources dependent upon our assistance? If God is holy love, why do we need to twist His arm to do good for others? Why does God need to pray? (Rom. 8:26, the Holy Spirit intercedes, Heb. 7:25, Jesus Christ intercedes in our behalf.)

Kinlaw points us to two factors that shed light on this mystery: the nature of perichoresis and the power of agape love. Both can only be understood in terms of the interrelatedness of persons. The key to every person rests in another or others. What happens in others determines our possibilities. What happens in Christ determines the possibilities for all humanity. When He bore us in His heart, our options changed. Only God can atone for an individual's sin, only God can transform another. But when we make another's welfare more important than our own in our hearts, possibilities open up for the one being bourne. After God's call, Moses lived for His people. His whole life became one of intercession for his people, verbal or otherwise. His intercession prevented God's judgement from falling upon Israel. (Num. 11: 1-3, 12: 1-6) What happened in Moses had a determining effect upon Israel's possibilities. Moses surrendered his own life for the sake of Israel and the blessing of all humanity. The key to the power of Moses' life, as well as all the saints in Christian history, is more than an intellectual or psycological influence. The power in their lives was an existential influence that affected the choice of possibilities in others. The key to that power lay in their bearing others in their hearts, becoming more concerned about other persons than themselves. (Gal. 4:17, 6:2) Jesus told His disciples, and us as well, that to lose one's life is to find it. It is through us making others welfare more important to us than our own that what we bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Mt. 16: 16-28) That's when the possibilities for others are opened up. And this reprioritizing of another's welfare is not acting in our own strength.  This is agape love which has its origins in the Triune God. "The nature of love is other oriented, self-giving, and sacrificial. It is bourne in our spirits by God himself, who is love." (Kinlaw, p. 135)

I wrote earlier that I was determined that I would finish this seven part series on "Let's Start With Jesus" by this weekend, but there is still one last chapter to be covered. That should be done by the end of this coming week.

"Let's Start With Jesus: A New Way Of Doing Theology" by Dennis F. Kinlaw. Part V

2010-08-30T20:57:00.000-07:00

In the first three chapters of "Let's Start With Jesus: A New Way of Doing Theology," all that is covered leads to what author Dennis F. Kinlaw identifies as "the problem of problems." (Kinlaw, p. 107) Man was made for love, but love in Mankind is part of a moral character that gives us power to sin. The good seems unattainable while evil reigns. In the Scriptures sin has already reached its full potential in Man by Gen. 6:5. Man gives no glory to God; Man expresses no gratitude to his creator and sustainer. (see also Is. 59:3,10, 13, Ezk. 22, see v. 30) Dr. Kinlaw quotes Rom. 3: 10-18 describing Man's wretched state of sin with Old Testament parallels, mostly from the Psalms: Rom. 3: 10-12 (Ps. 14:1-3), Rom. 3:13 (Ps. 5:9, 140:3), Rom. 3: 14 (Ps. 140:3), Rom. 3: 15-18 (Is. 59: 7-8, Ps. 36:1). All creation including Man, groans for redemption. (Rom. 8:19-22) God is not the problem, Man is. Therefore, the problem must be solved where Mankind dwells. Hence, the necessity of the Incarnation. No good man or woman exists on earth. So Christ was born.

What went wrong? Man and God were seperated by Man's sin. Man's only connection to the source of holy love was broken. The one responsible for this seperation was Adam. (Rom. 5: 12, 18) What was the nature of Adam's sin, according to Kinlaw? It wasn't the violation of a moral code as the Law was not a factor in Eden. Adam and Eve chose a relationship of mistrust, distance, suspicion and disobedience toward the Creator where before the relationship was characterized by open and loving trust, friendship and obedience. They chose to become self-serving rather than other-oriented. This is described in Is. 53:6. This is Kinlaw's commentary on this verse: "We have all strayed, but not like the innocent wandering of sheep. The Hebrew word panah, translated here as 'turned', is actually the root from which comes the Hebrew word for 'face' (panim). A literal translation of the verse could be, 'We have faced everyone his own way.' We have shifted our attention from the source of all good and turned in an act of rejection and rebellion to our own individual interests." (Kinlaw, p. 112-113) Rom. 2:8 uses the Greek word eritheia (self-seekers) to describe Man. Man has deliberately reoriented himself and made the self the ultimate point of reference. Luther referred to the result of this reorientation as "the heart curved in on itself ." Adam and Eve mistakenly thought this reorientation would make them like God.

The only way for individuals to restore this broken relationship is through repentance. "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength." (Is. 30: 15) The meaning of repentance "...must be understood in contrast to the Greek understanding of repentance (metanoia) which literally means 'a change of mind' or 'an after-mind.' For the Greek, the change can be simply a rational one. The Hebrew implies a change of relationship that is personal, not just cognitive. So Adam's sin was a turning away from the one from whose hand he came, the one who gave and sustained his life." (Kinlaw, p. 116-117)

As we are cut off from God, so are we cut off from each other. As we are not open to God, we are not open to each other. The way we treat others is the way we treat God, using each other for our own advantage, not relating to others in openness and holy love. We fear others are as untrustworthy as we know ourselves to be.

This seperation is so total that Paul uses one word as a metonym for this: flesh (sarx). When Paul writes of the flesh, he is not referring to some Greek dualism such as the flesh v. the Spirit. Adam and Eve experienced life in the Spirit before they sinned. Life in the flesh is life lived in our own strength and desires. Kinlaw quotes Lesslie Newbigin to illustrate this: "The words 'flesh' and 'Spirit' do not refer to parallel and analogous realities in our experience, such as 'visible' and 'invisible' or 'lower nature' and 'higher nature.'...Flesh...denotes the whole of our creaturely being insofar as it seeks to organize itself and to exist in its own power apart from the continually renewed presence and power of God 'from above.' " (Kinlaw, p. 119)

Humans are capable of all evil because they have severed their tie to the source of all holiness, not because they exist in human bodies or because of the limitations of finitude that characterizes creatureliness. Kinlaw gives as evidence for this the fact that God took on human flesh with all its limitations in the Incarnation and maintains that flesh, redeemed, in his resurrected and ascended life. For Paul, the flesh is not evil. The moral character of a man or woman is determined by their relationship to the Holy One. If they are centered on God, their flesh is infused with the Holy Spirit and they are characterized by agape love. This is to be the pattern of life for all believers. (Gal. 5: 13-17, 2Cor. 5: 14-15) The life Jesus had on earth in the flesh was not just a moral/ethical example for us to follow, but a pattern of true personhood. None of us is complete if the Holy Spirit is not living within, liberating us from self interest. (Rom. 8:6-8) "Our completeness, our healthy personhood as it was created to be, is found not in ourselves, but perichoretically in God's Spirit. The person who knows that completenessis truly a new creature, as human as God intended the human creature to be." (Kinlaw, p. 122)

Dr. Kinlaw has examined the problem in chapter four; in the next chapter he deals with the solution.

"Let's Start With Jesus: A New Way of Doing Theology" by Dennis F. Kinlaw. Part IV, c

2010-08-27T10:11:00.000-07:00

(From Dennis F. Kinlaw's"Let's Start With Jesus: A New Way of Doing Theology", chapter three, "Personhood and the Concept of God.")

The term personhood was developed by the early Church to define the uniqueness of the three persons of the Godhead and their relationship to each other. It is the words of Christ, the second person of the Godhead, that was the most significant factor in defining the term, especially His words from the Gospel of John. Here are the last four characteristics of divine personhoood which determined how the Church defined personhood:

5. Created With a Moral Consciousness That Reflects the Holiness of God- Holiness, love and personhood cannot be seperated. "The essential nature of the God of Scripture is holy-love. All the persons of the Godhead are described as holy. Jesus, in the middle of his High Priestly Prayer in John 17, is praying for his disciples and cries out, 'Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name-the name you gave me-so that they may be one as we are one.' (John 17:11)" (Kinkaw, p. 88) Jesus is called the holy one of God. (Mk 1:24, Jn. 6: 68-69)

The Old Testament picture of God is holy. If anything is discovered to be holy, God is there because He is holy and it is He alone who sanctifies. The Sabbath, the day that belongs to Him, is holy. His presence in the burning bush made the surrounding ground holy. Israel was holy because God dwelt among them and the land they occupied was called the Holy Land. The Temple where God dwelt was called the Holy Place and the city where it was located was called the Holy City. The room in the Temple where God's presence resided was called The Holy of Holies. When God commanded that His people were to be different, He gave three reasons: "I am Yahweh," "I am holy" and "I am Yahweh who makes you holy." (Lev. 11: 44-45, 19:3, 12, 14, 20:8) "From Yahweh's point of view, the three statements are synonomous." (Kinlaw, p. 89)

In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary so that the one born to her was holy. (Lk. 1: 35) Therefore, Jesus, the second person of the Trinity and the prototype of all human persons, is holy. This then leads us to ask, Is holiness an essential element of all personhood? The answer is no. Human personhood implies a moral consciousness; we are able to recognize moral choices and respond to God's call. Adam and Eve were moral beings and after their sin, they hid from God in shame and blamed each other. We have the potential for holiness, a derived holiness. We have the possibility for becoming holy because of our relationship to a holy God. To be human is to have a sense of right and wrong, good and evil, justice and injustice. However, there is no power in us to realize the standards we apply to others. God's is and ought is the the same. The fifth character of human personhood is then the possession of an ethical/moral consciousness and the possibility to act in accordence with it. We know when we have been violated when others impose their will on us for their own self-interest. This is evidence that we were created to make our own moral choices.

God is holy. Holiness is a ethical/moral quality possible only where there is freedom. God is free. His holiness is expressed in His freedom. The inner perichoretic relation (see part IV, b, #3) of the three persons of the Trinity is holy love. All three persons freely choose to serve the other two. We cannot love unless we are free. Freedom makes holiness and evil possible.

6. Created to Live in Openness- Openness has two aspects. The first is self-transcendence. Self-transcendence is an other orientedness within the self that enables one to see one's self as others see him/her, to stand outside one's self so to evaluate one's self and one's world morally and cognitively. From this ability our consciences develop. We are moral beings who hold ourselves up to a standard. "Every person has his or her accuser within. That is the key factor in human accountability. To crush that inner voice is to dehumanize oneself. We cannot impose our own way upon the world without doing damage to ourselves and other people." (Kinlaw, p. 95)

The other aspect of openness is permeability, which grows out of self-transcendence. Each person has an inner necessity to relate to the world beyond one's self. Something within the self is unwilling to let the self be the final arbiter. The cry of the conscience is an appeal to an objective moral reality outside the self but having its echoes at the deepest inner level of the self. Jesus was aware of the world. He had certain knowledge of the Father, the Spirit, Satan, angels, worldly rulers, the poor, the sick, the demonized, the multitude, His own family and friends. There was an order in these relationships. The center of these relationships was the Father who sent Him and for whom He had chosen to do His will. The Son was open to the other persons of the Godhead, the Father and the Holy Spirit in whom He found reason for all things. "The key to understanding Jesus did not lie in Jesus. It lay beyond him. He lived joyously for Another, through Another, and for Another. Jesus was the divine Son of God and a perfect human being, yet he did not find himself complete within himself. He was not the center of his own chosen existence." (Kinlaw, p. 96) Jesus draws life from the Father and lives to please the Father. The Father defines Fatherhood in terms of His Son. His completion as Father lies in the Son and in the Holy Spirit through whom He does His work. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and the Son, speaks that which He hears from the Father and the Son. He is not the truth, but He leads us to the truth, the Son. He doesn't speak for Himself but glorifies the Son and takes what is the Son's and makes it known to those who follow the Son. Though divine, neither being is complete in themselves. Created human beings find their completeness in their creator. To be completely alone is to have entered hell.

7. Created to Relate to Others in Trusting Love- Completeness of a person is only through relating to others in trusting love. Jesus does nothing of Himself, His life is not His own, He draws life from the Father through the Spirit, He lives to do His Father's will. Jesus' relationship of trusting love is assumed when He speaks of losing one's life to find it. Self-protection is a refusal to give away one's self. This leads to loss and death. (Mt. 16:25, Mk 8:35, Lk 9:24) In John's Gospel, when Jesus speaks of a kernal of wheat that falls to the ground so many more seeds will be produced, He is applying this to Himself. If Jesus had protected Himself and not trusted the Father, He would have ceased to be who He is because God by definition is self-giving love. Baptism marks death to the old life with its sin and its source, the self. Baptism marks the beginning of a new life lived through another source. Paul and Timothy chose to live this new life. (ICor. 10:33-11:1 and Phil. 2: 19-21) So should we all. (ICor. 10: 24)

8. Human Personhood Enables Identification Between God and His Creatures- Adam and Eve were made in God's image, so God and Man could commune with each other and know each other as persons. This was the climax of the creation story and was Man's greatest priviledge. This communion is God's purpose for us and can be described as life and salvation. In Jn. 10, Jesus declared that the purpose of His Incarnation was so we could have life and have it abundantly. In Jn. 17:3, Jesus defines eternal life as knowing the Father. Jesus wants us to be where He is. (Jn. 17:24) Implicit in this statement is Jesus' desire for us to be in communion with Him. He speaks of this communion in terms of abiding in Him as branches abide in the vine. (Jn. 15: 1-8) The life of the branches has its source in the vine. Our fruitfulness comes from our abiding in Him so His life can exist in us. This is similiar to Jesus abiding in the Father. (Jn. 14:8, 10-11) The life of the Father flows through the Son to the world. We are to have the same kind of relationship with Jesus. In Jn. 17: 20-23, Jesus said that all future believers are to experience this relationship. To understand what Jesus is talking about, one needs more than a knowledge of horticulture. One needs to understand perichoresis, how the Father and the Son live in each other.

I am going to try to finish this series by the end of next week. I never thought it would take me this long to deal with Dr. Kinlaw's short book. There are three more chapters to cover.

"Let's Start With Jesus: A New Way Of Doing Theology" by Dennis F. Kinlaw. Part IV, b

2010-08-20T18:46:00.000-07:00