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

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

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

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.

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 ... ]

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?"

What is the Chief End of Man?

Recently, I Overheard this conversation among some of my friends and coworkers – the speakers were an Evangelical believer discussing general apologetic issues w/ an agnostic one… I got involved after the fact, but thought this part was telling. I quote them both here verbatim [hence the expletive].


Agnostic: So you believe there is a purpose for your life?
Evangelical: Yes.
A: What is the purpose for your life?
E: To witness.
A: What does that mean?
E: To spread the ‘good news’.
A: That’s it?
E: Yes.
A: That's the purpose for your life?
E: Yes.
A: Sounds like a pretty lame-ass purpose to me.
*laughter*

I perked up when I heard the critical question but was unable to interject the glorious words of the Westminster Catechism at that point when they were so desperately fitting.  In my mind, this vividly illustrates the shortcomings of a typical shallow view of the gospel and a one-dimensional understanding of the Christian life and worldview.  The entirety of many Christians' system of faith can be likened to "I-amway: Spiritual multi-level marketing"; like so many little Christian amoebas whose only purpose is replication.  The gospel is more than this.

Choose Subversive Sarcasm

For those of my readers not from Maryland [okay, ... hi mom ... and to my other reader from Lithuania, 'Zdravstvuj, comrade!'], a bit of background is in order.  For the last 2 years, Howard County has launched a public niceness campaign based on the Oprah-endorsed book 'Choose Civility'.  The initiative is based out of their award-winning library branches, where I have to admit I do spend a considerable amount of time.  The whole campaign consists almost entirely of handing out free bumperstickers that say "Choose Civility in Howard County".  But because civility is so dependent upon some ethical framework, I find that daily, as I drive to and from work, a miniature Greg Bahnsen appears [poof] on my shoulder spouting presuppositional jabs each time I see the bumpersticker.  So, not wanting to miss an opportunity to declare the postmodern emporers' new clothes of civility to be, in fact, non-existent, here are some humorous parodies I've come up with.  My good friend and creative genius John Barnes was the original inspiration for most of these and you can find his batch of these with a quick google search. 

To see the rest of the collection, click below ...

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

You are what your mind eats ...

Opiate of the Morally Corrupt: why unbelief is so appealing

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is ... concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do…. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from an certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

-Aldous Huxley
Confession of a Professed Atheist, Report: Perspective on the News, vol. 3 (June 1966), p. 19

[blog title taken from a chapter title by Dinesh D'Souza.  He calls this the 'pelvic revolt against God'.]

What about Galileo?

I once got a chance to meet and ask Ken Ham about the story of Galileo, science, and the Church.  His response really set me back on my heels.  He said that when Church officials refused to hear Galileo’s case – they were really only doing so because Church doctrine had been established by both Biblical language AND THE ‘SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS’ of the day. The scientists of his day were originally opposed to Galileo along w/ the clergy. It’s actually most analogous to mainstream/liberal ministers shunning intelligent design or young-earth scientists today.

Genesis Debate, part 2

ME: So, when Scripture is read, should we wait for the lab results before saying the 'Amen'? Dave's point stands - if theology is subject to scientific consensus then what else is up for grabs? What stops us IN PRINCIPLE? Isn't it THE slippery slope that marks the point of departure, historically, from orthodoxy into liberalism?

A - love you, brother, but 'proven'? When scientists claim to have "proven" fossil aging in the billions of years in the same way that - say - they did the polio vaccine, a certain cynicism is in order. On the contrary, God's Word is sure. Its clear points are to be clearly and plainly believed.
@ Galileo - I asked for chapters - because that's what we have for creation. And their CLEAR point is 6-day creation, while the metaphorical "sun rising / setting" is incidental. There is no honest comparison.

A - hope to get together again soon, maybe in DC?

Pastor B, as 1 Peter commands, preach as the oracle of God, not the oracle of God**.

Let God be true and every man a liar [white lab coat notwithstanding].

HIM: B- you can still say the "Amen" whether the days are meant to be literal or figurative, because the message of Scripture is that GOD created the universe! The same way that 400 years ago, the congregation could say the "Amen" to the "...geocentric" verses before "the observatory results" were in, because the message is NOT geocentrism OR heliocentrism.

Genesis Debate, part 1

Here is an old online debate I had with a dear friend on our reading of Genesis 1-11.  Enjoy!

HIS THESIS:  Science proves that the earth is billions of years old and this is compatible with the teachings of early Genesis. 

MY THESIS: The earth is only thousands of years old and any honest reading of Genesis demands this view.

ME: A - your position can be summed up in w/ the words: square peg; round hole; hammer not included.

Here’s a big clue: something interesting to note - Unbelieving scholarship uniformely confirms … without blinking … the simple reading - without the pressure of having to actually make the account seem believable, … like the insecure, affection-starved girl mistaking lust for love, we confuse honest exegesis for sophisticated interpretations.

Can you give me the one or two strongest reasons WITHIN THE TEXT ITSELF for a “loose interpretation”?

HIM: B! Good to hear from you! I remember talking about this before with you : D It seems you haven't changed your mind on the age of the earth, but you have changed your mind on baptism! Your wisdom is now suspect... HAHAHA (kidding) : D"

No doubt similar arguments were made during Galileo's time...

THINK before you Billboard

This was too good not to post.  Apparently somewhere out west, the American Humanist Association had a billboard put up in the name of enlightened rationalism.  The tagline was "THINK before you believe".  But there was this big, irresistible void in the bottom left of the layout ... and some local Christian students just couldn't resist.  So they printed and pasted the banner you see in the picture.  Now, I'm not saying I endorse vandalism, but if my boys did something like this, I'd be very, very proud.

Discovery Channel Worldview

This week the Discovery Channel is launching a new show called "Curiosity".  It is purported to be a five year deal to explore the most tantalizing and provocative questions of science and technology.  The first episode, hosted by Stephen Hawking, is entitled, "Did God create the Universe?"  With all these things in the air, I found myself unable to ward off the parody demons.  To the tune of 'Jesus Loves Me'. 

Darwin loves me this I know

Stephen Hawking tells me so
Say goodbye to right and wrong
all the weak to feed the strong

Chorus:…

Self adapters will survive
and the fittest stay alive
Progress Darwin’s all about
Till our bright, hot sun burns out

Chorus: …

Nature red in tooth and claw
Is life’s only certain law
Thankfully for Stephen’s sake
We still often that law break.

Chorus: ...
 
Once again, I can't resist quoting the close of Steven Turner's Creed:
 
If chance be the Father of all flesh,

disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

Worship Guide: Trinity Sunday: OT Lesson

Every week at All Saints, the leadership sends out a traditional-style worship guide for use by our families to prepare for the coming Lord's Day with the readings we'll hear and [hopefully] heed then.  Here's a sample of mine for next week:

Gen 1.1-2.4a

INSIGHT: There is so much to mine from this famous passage, but the main thrust of the author is in the order of the creation process. Notice that if you take the first three days and line them up above the last three days, they perfectly correspond to each other, day by day. God was working in the first half of the week to prepare and then in the second half of the week to fulfill and complete His creation. If you were there on the first part of the first day, it would have been unclear that God was up to anything “good”. Even by the third day, it ‘did not yet appear what the earth should be’. But by the end, God brought it all together in beauty and completion. He loves order. He loves preparation. He works things out to fulfillment according to His plan. Remember where we are in the lectionary readings [and Church History]. This is the Sunday after Pentecost, Trinity Sunday. We remember the way that God had been working throughout all of human history to prepare, then “in the fullness of time” when it was just right, He sent Christ. Then, following this, He sent His Spirit. At the end of this process, we can join Him as we look back on His work in the world and declare it all to be “very good”.

The other, and much more frightening Recession

"The difference between right and wrong is fast receding. Awareness is being diluted, people are just saying 'such is life'. People are like this now."

- Denis Avey, a British WW2 POW, who used cigarettes to bribe prison camp guards in order to infiltrate Auschwitz, not once - but twice, and witness the conditions first-hand.  "My life depended on 50 cigarettes -- 25 in, 25 out."  His story has only recently gained attention and is the subject of the forthcoming nonfiction work, 'The Man Who Broke into Auschwitz'. 

The Other George Grant

“Perhaps we are lacking the recognition that our response to the whole world should not most deeply be that of doing, . . . but that of wondering or marveling at what is, being amazed or astonished by it, or perhaps best, in a discarded English usage, admiring it.”

- George Parkin Grant

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

You are what your mind eats ...