A Meditation with both Palm Sunday and Good Friday in Mind ...

 

"My thesis that the practice of nonviolence requires a belief in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many Christians, especially theologians in the West. To the person who is inclined to dismiss it, I suggest imagining that you are delivering a lecture in a war zone (which is where a paper that underlies this ... was originally delivered). Among your listeners are people whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers have had their throats slit. The topic of the lecture: a Christian attitude toward violence. The thesis: we should not retaliate since God is perfect noncoercive love. Soon you would discover that it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence corresponds to God’s refusal to judge. In a scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die. And as one watches it die, one will do well to reflect about many other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind."

- Miroslav Volf 

Exclusion and Embrace pgs. 303-304

What Punishments of God are not Gifts?

This from a GQ interview.  Stephen Colbert describes the plane crash that suddenly killed his father and brother when he was 10 years old.

 “ ‘You gotta learn to love the bomb,’ ” he said. “Boy, did I have a bomb when I was 10. That was quite an explosion. And I learned to love it. So that’s why. Maybe, I don’t know. That might be why you don’t see me as someone angry and working out my demons onstage. It’s that I love the thing that I most wish had not happened.”…

I asked him if he could help me understand that better, and he described a letter from Tolkien in response to a priest who had questioned whether Tolkien’s mythos was sufficiently doctrinaire, since it treated death not as a punishment for the sin of the fall but as a gift. “Tolkien says, in a letter back: ‘What punishments of God are not gifts?’ ” Colbert knocked his knuckles on the table. “ ‘What punishments of God are not gifts?’ ” he said again. His eyes were filled with tears. “So it would be ungrateful not to take everything with gratitude. It doesn’t mean you want it. I can hold both of those ideas in my head.”

He was 35, he said, before he could really feel the truth of that. He was walking down the street, and it “stopped me dead. I went, ‘Oh, I’m grateful. Oh, I feel terrible.’ I felt so guilty to be grateful. But I knew it was true.”

Francis Schaeffer on Punk Rock

"Why does human life have any value at all?  Not only are you going to die individually, but the whole human race is going to die.  Someday the world will grow too hot or cold and all you people will not only be individually dead, but the whole conscious life on this world will be dead and nobody will see the birds fly.  As you know, I don't speak academically, shut off in a scholastic cubicle.  I have lots of young people come to us from the end of the earth.  And they have gone to the end of this logically.  They realize what the situation is.  They can't find any meaning to life.  It's the meaning of the words "punk rock".  I must say that on the basis of what they're being taught in schools, that the final reality is only this material thing - they're not wrong; they're right."

- Francis Schaeffer

Islam: Mirror of Christendom

An abridged essay by Dr Peter J Leithart; the full essay is available here.

“For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.”

—The Epistle of James, 1:23-24

Deep in the pit of hell, the pilgrim Dante came across Mohammed, walking with his torso split open from chin to groin.  The surprise in this scene is not the gruesomeness of Mohammed’s punishment, but the place where this scene occurs: the ninth Bolgia of Malebolgia, in the subcircle of hell reserved for schismatics. Mohammed is not among the idolaters or the pagans, but among sinners being punished for breaking off from the Christian Church, all of whom, appropriately enough, have their bodies rent as retribution for rending the body of Christ.

In treating Mohammed as a Christian schismatic, Dante was not inventing a new perspective (he rarely did), but presenting views widespread in his time. Many in the Western medieval world believed that Mohammed himself had apostatized from Christianity.  Centuries before Dante, John of Damascus (675-749) treated Islam in the final section of his treatise de Haeresibus, calling it the “heresy of the Ishmaelites.”

Why and for Whom do we clap?

An incredible video snippet from David Gallo's TED talk "underwater astonishments", one of the top 10 most viewed TED talks of all time.

A simple question: Why did it end in spontaneous applause?  For Whom were these people clapping?  The octopus?  Gallo?  I think not.  Then for Whom? SomeOne else.

Romans 1.20.

God's Finger, My Forehead, and Her Intricate, Perfect Ears

[More than 10 years ago, in a seminary workshop outside of Greenville, SC, I heard a speaker read this passage.  Since then I've ruminated on it scores of times, though never remembering its author.  This morning, in a Ken Myers interview of Mary Eberstadt, I was delighted to hear it referred to again - with the author's name attached - Whittaker Chambers!  Enjoy.]

“It was shortly before we moved to Alger Hiss's apartment in Washington. My daughter was in her high chair. I was watching her eat. She was the most miraculous thing that had ever happened in my life. I liked to watch her even when she smeared porridge on her face or dropped it meditatively on the floor. My eye came to rest on the delicate convolutions of her ear — those intricate, perfect ears.

The thought passed through my mind: 'No, those ears were not created by any chance coming together of atoms in nature. They could have been created only by immense design.'

The thought was involuntary and unwanted. I crowded it out of my mind. But I never wholly forgot it or the occasion. I had to crowd it out of my mind. If I had completed it, I should have had to say: Design presupposes God. I did not then know that, at that moment, the finger of God was first laid upon my forehead.”

- Whittaker Chambers, Introduction, Witness

Art, Music, Creation, Difference, Violence, Harmony, and the Trinity

"Creation is the work of a dynamic, three-personed God and the members of the Trinity enjoy an eternal giving and receiving among one another. The doctrine of the Trinity informs us of both the personality and the dynamism of God - qualities that are suggested in the ancient term applied to the Trinity - perichoresis. It refers to the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity by extension perichoresis can be used to refer to God's relationship to the world whereby all things exist in him and through him; in him we live and move and have our being... why move?  Are we dancing when we have our being?
All of creation is somehow engaged in the life of the trinity is well.  John 17 in particular comes to mind where we read that in our growth in Christ God indwells us and we indwell Him.  So Father Son and Holy Spirit are dancing around each other and the Christian life is our entry into that dance.
Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart notes that while God was under no necessity to create, the act of creation flows out of the infinite love that's experienced by the members of the Trinity.  Hart writes:
"God's gracious action in creation belongs from the first to that delight, pleasure, and regard that the Trinity enjoys from eternity as an outward and unnecessary expression of that love.  Thus creation must be received before all else as a gift and beauty."

On "Givenness" ...

"I've tended to use 'givenness' in reflecting upon the given order that God has placed in creation, but creation also has a 'gift-quality' about it.  It's very existence doesn't need to be.
When I was in Sunday School as a kid, the first theological definition I can remember receiving was 'grace is unmerited favor'.  And we usually think of grace as coming after our sin, and yet the existence of all creation is an unmerited favor.  We didn't have to wait to sin to receive God's unmerited favor.
When we receive a great gift, we're delighted in the gift, but we're also delighted in the generosity of the Giver.  And so it is with the reception of a powerful work of art.
When I hear a thoughtful and attentive performance of a carefully crafted piece of music or when I watch a masterfully constructed film, I often have a sense of gratitude, not just to the performers or composer or director - but a gratitude to God as well; gratitude to live in a world where such joys are possible.
The gratitude that is felt by recipients of a gift typically resonates with the delight that is known by the Giver of the gift.  And that is a pattern built into creation."

- Ken Myers

Lewis's Other Trilemma

"This is the conclusion of the whole matter. God gives what he has, not what he has not: He gives the happiness that there is, not the happiness that is not.  To be God or to be like God and share his goodness in response to his blessings or to be miserable; these are the only three alternatives. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows- the only food that any possible universe ever can grow- then we must starve eternally... 

Law said “If you have not chosen the Kingdom of God, it will make in the end no difference what you have chosen instead.” Those are hard words to take. Will it really make no difference whether it was women or patriotism, cocaine or art, whisky or a seat in the Cabinet, money or science? Well, surely no difference that matters. We shall have missed the end for which we are formed and rejected the only thing that satisfies. Does it matter to a man dying in a desert by which choice of route he missed the only well?" 

- C S Lewis

from The Problem of Pain and A Slip of the Tongue

Thoughts on the Nye / Ham Debate ...

I did a lot of sighing.  Of course, I am grateful for Ken Ham, his gifts and faithful ministry ... but anyone familiar with Greg Bahnsen or any Reformed debater downstream from him was sighing along with me.  [*disclaimer: because I was also watching my children, I missed 10-20% of the debate, but most of it was from the Q&A at the end.]

Don't get me wrong.  It wasn't like watching the Super bowl all over again.  It was by no means a landslide victory for Nye.  But I think it's safe to say that, in boxing terms, this one went to a decision.  And as they say, the first rule of winning is, never let it go to a decision; never give it to the judges.

Here are 2 lessons I took away from the debate.

1. Doctrine Matters.

The fact that Ham is not self-consciously Reformed was a major handicap for his position.  Presuppositional apologetics is king.  Resistance is futile.  The debate is never really the debate. The resolution always teeters precariously on top of a whole pile of assumptions and underlying presuppositions which have to be aggressively challenged.  Don't argue details the whole time.  Touch on them.  But spend the bulk of your time deeper.  It's like championship ping-pong.  You have to back several steps away from the table to really get that spin and speed to win.  You'll miss the bigger picture if you're not at least a few steps back.
Bill Nye debated for an hour with a Kentucky fossil rock sitting on top of his podium.  He was locked into the debate on the myopic level of details, individual proofs, and datum.  But as the holocaust, Margaret Sanger's eugenics, and Columbine have taught us, the most compelling problems with evolution are found on a worldview level.  It's not the rattle that concerns me so much as the dripping fangs I found attached to the head on the other end when I traced the connection.
And while we're at it, does your worldview account for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the possibility of scientific advancement, not to mention the possibility of human morality, dignity, the reliability of empirical data, the existence of mind, human thought, and inquiry, etc.?  No.  As a matter of fact, your worldview directly undermines these things.

Such were some of You - Dr Rosaria Butterfield

Above are a few selected samples of a jaw-dropping presentation from former radical Lesbian feminist activist turned Reformed Pastor's wife homeschooling mom [yeah ... another one of those!].  I encourage you to listen to her full talk here and then the entirety of her Q&A here.  I have been studying this issue for several years and this is the best - the most faithful expression of the true Christian/Biblical answer to the questions of homosexuality I have found in both  what she says and how she says it [the latter often being where we fail miserably].

Enjoying the World As It Is

"They are darkened in their understanding - excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that's in them."

Why are they ignorant?  Because they just don't have a high I.Q.?  No!  It's because of the hardness of their hearts.  The Bible always teaches us that stupidity is the result of moral sin.  There is a moral stupidity which leads to stupid behavior in life.  The book of Proverbs deals with this repeatedly.  People do this that are dumb and basically that arises from the hardness of their heart.  

"These Gentiles have become callous and give themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness."

And so their lack of feeling, their hard-hearts, means that they have to pursue weirder and weirder forms of stimulation and they can't relax and enjoy the world as it is.

- J.B. Jordan, commenting on Ephesians 4.17-19

Book List [what I've been reading/ listening to lately]...

You are what your mind eats ...

Apologetics in Light of the Resurrection

"[Like Thomas], those who live in the world of the enlightenment will naturally ask, ‘but did it happen … and how do you know?’ And they must be encouraged to come with their questions.  The prim and proper Bartian would no doubt prefer it if Jesus had said to Thomas, ‘Go away and come back when you’ve got a better epistemology!’  But interestingly the story works the other way round.  Good historical answers are available just as Jesus could in fact be touched…

This is because the resurrection, if it means what the NT says it means, is not a creatio ex nihilo but a creatio ex vetere.  As in Romans 8 – just as the old ontology is swallowed up in the new: what is mortal being swallowed up,  not replaced with life but swallowed up in it -  so the old epistemology, quite properly, is transcended and therefore included in the new.  There is no complete disjunction.

The resurrection itself is not the abandoning of the old body and the emergence of a new one, but the raising to new life of the old one itself.

Think about this: the mark of the nails on the body of the risen Jesus are thus the sign that validates historical inquiry into the resurrection. The nail thrusts themselves, like the skepticism of the enlightenment, were meant to wound but now remain as evidence.  Go figure…

-Tom Wright

Book List [what I've been reading/listening to lately ...]

you are what your mind eats ...

Leah in the Morning

“In the morning it is always Leah, never Rachel.”

-Tim Keller, Counterfeit gods
[using the Biblical allusion of Jacob, Leah, and Rachel to illustrate the utter disappointment that always follows the frenzied pursuit of fulfillment in sex, money, or power.]

Please Speak Directly Into the Microphone ...

" ... there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.” 

-Richard Dawkins  [compilation by William Lane Craig]

[photo: freerepublic.com - sorry, I couldn't resist posting the picture, especially when the quote was about man's chief end being to propogate his DNA ... ]

Book List [What I've been reading lately ...]

you are what your mind eats ...

Genesis Debate, part 4 [conclusion]

HIM: B...I have not heard of that - it was my impression that many unbelieving scholars believed it to be a type of origin myth.

1 or 2 arguments:

1) I already mentioned the common 7 day literary convention in ANE literature (see Davis, "Bible, Rocks and Time")

2) The 6th day seemed to have an awful lot of things take place on it for it to be a 24 hour day

3) The 7th day clearly is not 24 hour day, unless I am greatly mistaken when I read Hebrews; if the 7th isn't, why the other 6?

As far as "Satan enticing Christians"...I'm sure the folks over at The Association for Biblical Astronomy, who still hold to an earth that neither rotates daily NOR revolves annually around the sun "because the Bible says SO!", would make the same accusations against YOU! And how would YOU go about assuring them they were wrong, I wonder? Would you go to Scripture, and say "look, this language is phenomological"? I bet their response would be something like this: "nobody thought it was phenomological UNTIL godless scientists told us that the earth spins daily and revolves around the sun, and then Christians compromised their belief in an inerrant Word of God by re-interpreting those verses!! You are letting Satan entice you away from plainly believing what you have plainly read in the Bible! The serpent is near, asking, 'Yea, hath God said?' " Something to think about, isn't it?

I think I'm getting tired of the FB exchange. When and where ya wanna do lunch? We can spar over it more then.

ME: A - that's it? All the activities of day 6 could have been done well before sunset, because - something neither of us can relate to - this took place before the invention of paperwork & cubicles; Heb 4 is moot w/ regard to our debate. I was looking for more ... oh well, back to the lab ;?).

I was also hoping our comment stream would reach 100, but alas, we're just short [finally petered out at 98]. Let me end by affirming my love and gratitude to my brother, A - and offering him the last word [his response - a short restatement of his initial post - was lost ... sorry!] ... and by asking if anyone else is even still reading and has found our exchange interesting and/or helpful ...?

Thanks, Pastor B, for stirring the Pot. Love and prayers to you, your family, and church.

Genesis Debate, part 3

ME: Well, I guess that in the same way you affirm “**creation in 6 days**” I affirm “**your position**”.

‘Mountains of evidence’… was that a pun? ;?) How big do you think the mounts of opposing ev were in Galileo’s day?

So is the debate: ‘my int.... of Gen’ vs Nature OR Genesis vs Your interpretation of nature? IMHO it’s too high a view of “science” – having spent countless hours renewing our minds via Discovery Channel HD, we’ll not doubt 1 jot or tittle of this month’s National Geographic. I’d blame your high school education, but … ;?)  [we went to the same High School]

Of the “2 books of God’s revelation” – Scripture and Nature [only 1 of which is actually a “book”] - which one is more clear? When they seem to conflict, which do we bend to fit? Which is subject to revision? Which involves more interpretation [ie. Which is harder to “read”?]? I’m telling you that Genesis is not compatible w/ these “scientific” interpretations. The text itself does not allow it.

The question is [cover your ears kids] epistemological. As one said: in Scripture, what is the opposite of “faith”? The knee-jerk Reformed answer is “works”, but that is not it … it’s SIGHT.

A, I really appreciate your candor, bro. ... I’ll reciprocate – no, I don’t read much science. But the question isn’t scientific, it’s literary. What was Moses saying? What did Israel believe? What did the Apostles teach? IMO, that’s the bottom line – take it or leave it.

HIM: B...Mountains of evidence! HA! I made a funny, and didn't even realize it! : D

I think you are well aware that there are many conservative evangelical, even Reformed, OT scholars who don't seem to have a problem understanding Genesis ...1 in such a way that it doesn't require 6 24-hour days. Ben, have you considered the fact that much ANE literature utilized a 7-day structure, which was clearly a literary device never intended to convey literal 24 days? Is it absolutely outside the realm of possibility that Moses could have used a literary convention such as this, one that his original audience (the Israelites) would have appreciated, even if we don't?

As I've tried to emphasize before, the truth discovered in God's creation will never contradict the truth in Scripture. With that much I think we agree. However, our interpretations of both creation and Scripture are fallible. You're convinced that I'm interpreting creation incorrectly (although you admit that you don't really understand the "story" that creation is telling, because you haven't read much in the area), and I'm convinced that you're interpreting Scripture wrongly. Can I humbly suggest that before you get locked in to that position, that you invest in "Bible, Rocks and Time" or another book providing the multiple lines of evidence behind the age of the earth? To me it just seems like the intellectually fair thing to do. When we get together for lunch, I'll even lend one to you.

You make jokes about putting too much stock in science shows, magazines, etc. The implication is that you think scientists are somehow more "fallible" than Bible interpreters. I beg to differ! C'mon, Ben, you've gone from being Arminian to Reformed, and from credobapist to paedobaptist (and perhaps you've changed your views in other ways too). Are you seriously trying to suggest that there aren't a lot of fallible interpretations held by fallible brethren in Christ?? On the other hand, in the scientific community NOBODY affirms a 10,000 year old earth, EXCEPT the handful of people who are bound to a specific interpretation of Genesis; and they don't really have credible scientific evidence to bring against an old earth...just an unwavering faith that this interpretation of Genesis 1 is the only conceivable interpretation. Don't you find that even a little bit troubling? Just a wee bit?

B, would you admit that there have certainly been times in the past when the commonly held beliefs of the day (which were engrained in minds because of what people THOUGHT was supported from Scripture) have been RIGHTLY discarded mainly due to new light that scientific discoveries shed? If you admit it, please remember that history tends to repeat itself.

ME: A - because you are a gentleman, brother in Christ, and buddy - I would certainly be willing to reconsider your position. Let me ask this: what do you think are the 1 or 2 strongest arguments WITHIN THE TEXT ITSELF for a loose reading/interpretation?

@ N [per A's comment] No N, actually Satan is involved a lot earlier on in the process, enticing Christians away from the practice of plainly believing what they have plainly read in the Bible from its first pages.

"Yea, hath... God said? ... Oh ... yeah, He did. But He didn't actually mean THAT, did He?"