Eternal Perspectives

Almost two weeks ago, I posted “Where’d That Come From?” in which I wondered about the immune system in Adam and how - and when - it came to be. Looking at the perfect creation in which Adam and Eve lived, I didn’t see any need for an immune system.

I meant to follow up on the post but forgot. Fortunately, Martin LaBar at Sun and Shield did not forget: he posted a response to my question. I owe him thanks for several things: first, he corrected me (I called it our “autoimmune system;” he pointed out that it was actually our “immune system”); then, a couple of days ago, he posted “The Fall and the immune system,” which contains a lot of information and has triggered some thoughts; finally, he indirectly reminded me that I needed to follow up my original post.

In his post, LaBar mentions a couple of things that I’ll comment on here. The first is the possibility that there was death prior to the Fall; the second is the gap theory which sees (usually) a vast span of time between Gen 1.1 and 1.2.

I, too, believe there was death before Adam’s Fall, but not the same way that LaBar proposes. He sees it as a necessary adjunct to life in a pre-Fall world. My hypothesis is different:

(more…)

It is a recurring nightmare:

Months or years from now, long after we have won the battle to keep Terri alive, her painful and agonizingly slow therapy reaches the point where she is finally able to think clearly and speak for herself. It is a great day: all who have prayed for her and followed her dramatic, near-tragic saga eagerly await her first words. And then they come:

“Why didn’t you let me die? Why have you made me endure this pain and suffering? I wanted to die! I still want to die!”

Then I wake up.

Until today, you would have searched this blog in vain to find any mention of Terri Schiavo and the nightmare that she and her parents are actually living. It’s not that I haven’t followed her real-life - and possibly real-death - story, it’s just that I didn’t have anything to add that hadn’t already been stated. Maybe that is still true: maybe others have expressed what I’m trying to convey here. But I haven’t seen it.

What follows is not an indictment or accusation of anyone who is fighting and praying for Terri. By comparison, I have done little for her. And, as far as I know, no one has lost perspective in the battle. What I am saying is meant only as a reminder, not as a rebuke; a caution, not a correction.

I hope Terri has the chance someday to speak for herself. The idea that her bottom-feeding husband has the right to murder her is comprehensible only in a godless society such as ours. What was the sin of Sodom? Oh, yes: “she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy” (Ezek 16.49). Our job is to care for those who are unable to care for themselves and to protect them from the predators of the world, not kill them off because they’re inconvenient, in the way, or “non-productive” members of society.

But then there’s my nightmare ending. If that were to happen, then Terri would suddenly go from being a cause in the eyes of Christians to being an enemy and someone to be resisted. From darling to damned in a matter of minutes.

I have no reason to expect anything like this to happen. Even her alleged comments to her husband don’t mean anything. Life looks very different when you’re clinging to it rather than experiencing it vicariously on television. In all likelihood, if Terri is allowed to live (what a strange predicament!), she will be thrilled and thankful.

But the Christian community must see past Terri and remain focused on the bigger issue, which is that life is valuable and not to be dismissed casually. Right now that principle has a face - a lovely, endearing face - but the principle has been around long before Terri and will be around after her, too. We are not fighting for a life but for life itself. Terri is important because she has life; life is not important simply because it happens to belong to her and is threatened at the present time. Terri’s life is no more - or no less - important than the lives of the thousands of children dying in the Sudan. Life is the issue.

All life is valuable and important. We must fight for Terri because her life is in immediate danger. We would do well to remember, however, that the issue is life in general, not “just” Terri’s in particular. We have to stay focused on life: Terri’s and everybody else’s life, too.

I had a couple of people express an interest in being interviewed by me: Stacy at MediaSoul and Rob at Mind and Soul. Here are your respective questions.

Stacy:

In 8,000,000 words or less, how would you describe your spiritual journey?

Rob:

1. Your website usually shows pictures of you frolicking on the beach in various states of undress. Does your mother know about this?
2. Similar to Stacy’s second question: why did you decide to become a psychiatrist?
3. The best thing about living in England is _____; the worst thing is _____. (For the sakes of us Yanks, please explain.)
4. Describe your spiritual journey and present relationship with God (e.g., are you and He on speaking terms?).
5. Other than family members, what individual has had the biggest spiritual influence on your life? How or why?

Remember to post your answers on your website and to interview others. Drop me a comment when you’ve posted.

Thanks and have fun!

David at Jollyblogger has a very good post about the difficulty of forgiveness entitled “Forgiving the Unrepentant.” He specifically treats the problem of what to do when those who offend us fail to repent or - and here’s the rub - fail to repent sufficiently or to our satisfaction.

His discussion (go there and read it for yourself) brought to mind the two types of forgiveness discussed in the New Testament. The first, which David covers in his post, is that to which Paul refers in his letters to the churches at Ephesus and Colossae:

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you (Eph 4:32).

bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you (Col 3:13)

.
How has Christ forgiven us, i.e., how has He forgiven Christians? At the very least, He has done so at the first hint of repentance; more, He has forgiven us even when we fail to ask or are unaware of having sinned against Him. His grace extends beyond our conscience and our consciousness.

In the same manner, Paul says, we are to forgive one another. We are not, as David points out, to require sufficient suffering on the part of the offender before we extend forgiveness to them. We are to forgive: we are to release the person and no longer hold the offense against them.

Jesus, however, talks about a different kind of forgiveness. Our Lord says,

Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him (Lk 17.3-4).

Forgiveness here is conditional: it hinges on the repentance of the other person. Whereas Paul is talking about forgiving someone as an act of love, Jesus is talking about restoring a relationship with the brother who sins. Before the relationship can be restored, repentance is required.

(more…)

Over in the sidebar, under “Fun Inventories,” are some fun inventories. Not to be taken seriously, but fun in a narcissistic, time-killing sort of way.

Somehow, I’ve gotten myself into this game of “interview tag” that’s going around (actually, I volunteered for it). Tod Bolsinger of IT TAKES A CHURCH . . . has provided five questions, so now it’s my job to provide my answers.

1. What’s the best thing you learned in seminary?

There are a lot of things I could mention here, but I’ll limit myself to two “best” things. First, thanks to Dr. Bruce Demarest, I discovered that no system of theology - not even my own - could do justice to all of the material in the Bible. My carefully exegeted and well-reasoned papers came back covered with red ink, and the flaws and holes in my theology were exposed regularly. I came out of seminary with the same theology I had going in, but I held it less dogmatically and was more willing to allow others to have their own convictions. Godly Christian scholars look at the same data and come to different conclusions. Different presuppositions and hermeneutics yield different results. And that’s OK on the non-essentials of the faith.

Second, I somehow realized early on that the real education to be had in seminary was not in the material or the lectures: it was in studying the lives of my professors. I got to know them, picked their brains on matters that had nothing to do with the class, made friends with more than a few, and was privileged to see the hearts of some. I appreciate their knowledge but I really grew to admire their commitments to Christ. I saw glimpses of Jesus Christ in them. My favorite “subjects” were: Haddon Robinson, Vernon Grounds, James Beck, Bruce Demarest, Tim Weber, Bob Hubbard, and Donald Burdick.

2. Respond to this quote from Mark Twain: “I never let schooling get in the way of my education.”

Love it and lived it: I missed graduating with honors by .05 because I didn’t read the textbooks; I read original sources. I figured that, rather than reading a book about various theologies or psychologies, I would read the theologians and psychologists first-hand. I spent a lot of money (I’m sure The Tattered Cover in Denver laid people off after I moved) but I learned more than I would have if I had stuck to the core curriculum. Schooling did do this much for me: it taught me how to study the Scriptures and think theologically. And, as I said above, my real education came from studying my profs.

3. What does a “consultant” really do?

I listed consultant as my profession because Blogger didn’t give “counseling” as an option. There are times, though, when I do consult rather than counsel: when I counsel, I facilitate growth and try to help the client discover things for him/herself. When I consult, I give instructions and information to help resolve problems for people. I do a fair amount of consulting with parents of teenagers that I work with: the home environment often has to change if the teen is going to improve.

4. If you weren’t in Christian work what would you being doing?

I think anything any believer does is Christian work, whether it’s preaching on Sundays, teaching school on Mondays, handing out baskets at WalMart, or driving a beer truck. So, if I weren’t in Christian work, I wouldn’t be a Christian; if I weren’t a Christian, I’d either be doing time, drugs, or both.

5. Describe the church you’ve always wanted to belong to?

Actually, I’ve been to the church I’ve always wanted to belong to, and I think the one I’m at now is headed in that direction. The latter is Grace Bible Church in College Station, TX, pastored by Brian Fisher; the former is Blackhawk Evangelical Free Church in Madison, WI, pastored by Chris Dolson.

What makes Blackhawk so appealing to me is its balance: the people are grounded in sound doctrine, evangelistic, and seek to make a social difference in their community. The fellowship is genuine and the people seem to enjoy one another. (Plus, they have an annual dance that is just for fun!) The preaching is excellent, a blend of the cerebral and the visceral: Chris teaches doctrine and the Bible but combines it with an emotional hook that makes it memorable.

Here’s how you can play the interview game

1. Leave me a comment saying “interview me.” The first five respondents will be the participants.
2. I will respond by asking you five questions.
3. You will update your blog/site with the answers to the questions.
4. You will include this explanation and an offer to interview someone else in the same post.
5. When others comment asking to be interviewed, you will ask them five questions. (Write your own questions or borrow some.)

The excitement and clamor over what constitutes the “simple gospel” seems to have abated for now, but I want to offer this final tidbit as I drain the dregs from the cup.

As was hinted at previously by myself and others, it is important to define the term “simple gospel” as it will be used in the debate. Here’s why: Paul says to the Galatians,

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Gal 1.8-9).

Disagreeing over the gospel has serious implications and consequences. The word “accursed” in vv. 8-9 is anathema in Greek, itself a very strong term. The LXX used anathema to translate the Hebrew word herem, which means to banish and give over to God. What I understand Paul to be saying, therefore, is that someone who preaches a different gospel should be banned and given over to God for immediate judgment and punishment.

It is tempting to see this punishment as eternal, but it is not necessarily so:

(more…)

For the past week or so, for a variety of reasons - some related, some not - I’ve been letting this blog slide. I’m not sure why, but part of it is connected to the furor over blogrolling and numbers and hits and aggregators and TTLB and . . .

This pause has caused me to stop and think about how much time and - more importantly - how much emotional energy I invest in blogging. At best, the blogosphere creates pseudo-relationships: we are near without being close. Being an introvert, I like that feeling of distance and relative anonymity. But it’s not good for me: I need real relationships with real people. Besides, as a counselor, I already have one-sided relationships with a lot of people who think they know me but really don’t.

Then there’s the animosity and antagonism that is found in the comments of some thoughtful posts. Having grown up in a family where arguing was the appetizer and dessert of every meal, I’ve still got a belly full. I can argue pretty effectively, albeit not always rationally or fairly, but have come to realize it’s (a) a waste of time and (b) not Christlike - the attitudes, not necessarily the practice.

Finally, there’s a nagging doubt about the efficacy and efficiency of my particular blog. The two questions that I don’t have answers for are these: Do my posts really impact anyone? Is this the best use of whatever gifts and talents God has entrusted to me?

These and a lot of other questions roam around in my mind; I don’t have the answers. So I need to evaluate and decide what to do. In the meantime, I’ll just let my numbers fall and see if I go from being a “large mammal” to an “insignificant microbe” in the TTLB. At this point, I’d rather be insignificant in my real community than seemingly significant in (for me, at least) an artificial one.

One of the books that I’ll probably never get around to writing, one of the men’s retreats that I’ll likely never have an opportunity of doing, would be based on these two premises:

You’ll never be a man until you understand your father’s heart;
You’ll never be a godly man until you know your Father’s heart.

That’s what I would write about and talk about, though, because I’m convinced that both statements are absolutely true. It took me the better part of 40 years to figure out the first one; it’s taken more than 30 years to realize the last one.

Until you, the son, look into your earthly father’s heart, seeing all that is there and all that is not there, you will never be a man; you will remain your father’s boy. Looking into your father’s heart means seeing all that your father was and is, and understanding how he came to be that way. It is knowing just as clearly who your father wasn’t, and why he wasn’t. It’s knowing who your father might have been and who he never could have been.

It means examining how the man that was your father affected you, for better and for worse. How his drives, passions, views, and values impacted you and molded you, one way or the other. It’s finding your father in you, and then deciding what to retain and what to discard. It means growing up and becoming your father’s equal in every way.

. . . loving father, loving son

It is a two-edged blade: loving father should depict who your father is and what he does; loving father should also be what you do. Implied in this is that your father should love you as his son and that you, as his son, love him.

You need to believe that your father loved you - all of us do: a yearning for your father’s love is something I believe God has instilled in all of us, a deep belief that we are loved deeply by our father. You believed it; if you had a good father, you hopefully still believe it.

Some fathers are loving, some are not. But we all need to believe when we are boys that our father loves us. And if he does not or did not, then you believe the reason for that is either something you did, failed to do, or something lacking in you. Worse, you may conclude that there is something fundamentally wrong with you (which there is, of course, but it doesn’t have to do with your father’s responsibility to love you).

A father’s love fills your heart as a boy. It gives you a sense of safety, strength, confidence, and hope. It makes you know that you are valuable, and that you are valuable to the most important male in your life. It instructs you on how to treat others. A father gives you knowledge and models wisdom. Later, what he has done makes you feel good and positive about being a man. Responsibilities and duty rest lightly on your shoulders. They feel good and right.

Not all fathers are loving, though, and you may have grown up without a solid foundation for the structure of your life. You may now waste time trying to get blood from a turnip, seeking for the right thing in the wrong place. Or you have detached from him and rejected him, trying to relegate him to the landfill of your past hurts. The fact is that not all fathers have the capacity to love: some fail because their own fathers did not love them, others because of willful sin that is reflected is selfishness, immaturity, and self-absorption.

This does not absolve you, as a son, from loving him. But to love him you must understand him first.

(more…)

Trying to decide who to include and who to exclude on the “Theology Blogs” aggregator was just too hard. I actually lost a couple minutes of sleep over it - OK, it was only a couple of seconds, but I was thinking about it. So I decide to remedy the situation.

And I have good news and bad news.

The good news is this: if you look to my sidebar on the right (if you’re reading in Hebrew, is it on your left?) you’ll see not one but THREE new links to aggregators. They are:

Theology Blogs (which are mostly by theological types on theological subjects)
Christian Stew (which is a mix of everything Christian bloggers are blogging about)
Christian “-Tics” (which is a grouping of Christian apologetics and politics)

Now the bad news: I can’t edit or add because server.com didn’t send me a confirmation email. So there are three autonomous aggregators running just as a set them up, and I can’t do anything to change them.

I emailed server.com and they will hopefully get me out of this hole I’ve dug. If not, I’ll recreate them all - after first making sure my account is confirmed! - and let you know.

But for now, there it is.

I have a question; here’s the background.

According to most conservative theologians, Adam (later including the add-on, Eve) was created in the Garden of Eden. He was a perfect creation of God, albeit not-yet proven, possessing latent or underdeveloped righteousness. As long as he obeyed God, he continued to grow in righteousness. He was born without sin: no imputed, inherited, or personal sin. Nice set up.

He was placed by God in a perfect environment: no sin, no death, no decay. Nothing bad. It was a paradise: a genuine, real paradise. No danger to Adam’s health or well-being as long as he obeyed God. Sin had not yet entered the cosmos.

But, of course, Adam did not obey. And the consequences are well-known to everyone with even a modicum of theological knowledge: death, disease, decay, social problems, psychological problems, pain. A lot of things we pray about now.

Here’s my question, in case you haven’t guessed it:

Where did Adam’s autoimmune system come from?

Did God “install” it when He created Adam since He foreknew that sin would occur (like spiritual airbags for the inevitable wreck)? Or was it something He tossed in later, as some kind of heavenly factory recall? Did the “covering” God provided after the Fall include the first autoimmune system? Is that what the original audience would have heard from Moses?

(”And Yahweh gaveth the man and the woman a covering,” sayeth Moses to the people around the campfire. Jed nudgeth Izzy and whispereth, “Hey, I bet that’s where our autoimmune systems came from!”)

How do we reconcile or resolve this? How do you resolve it?