Eternal Perspectives

Every morning just after sunrise, I take my two dogs for a walk in the park down the street from our home. I let them off their leashes and they run and romp around for awhile before coming back to me. Then we wander down the road and head back to the rest of the pack.

Since it’s springtime in Texas - as, I suppose, it is just about everywhere else in the northern hemisphere these days - the wildflowers are out in full force. In these delicate, perennial splashes of color, God teaches me about Him, me, and us.

Now, when I say God is teaching me things, I don’t mean that I hear an actual voice but only that I notice things and thoughts come to mind. Since the thoughts are about Him, I assume that it’s the Holy Spirit within me using creation to reveal truth about God. It is consistent with what Scripture teaches, too, so I figure it’s legitimate.

The first thing I noticed this year was the remarkablely uniform disposition of the flowers. That is, as the day began to break over the eastern horizon, all the wildflowers in the field were turned in that direction, as though anxiously awaiting the first rays of the sun. No one told them to turn, but all of them did. This, it seemed to me, is what worship is actually all about. It is about turning our faces toward God and waiting expectantly for what He is about to give. It is about taking all that in and then doing what He has designed us to do: in the case of flowers, it’s one thing; in our case, it’s something else. But it’s worship, just the same.

Some days at the park the sky is overcast and the clouds, while not exactly “pregnant with rain” (as a poet or novice writer might say), are certainly sullen and grey. Seemingly cheerless. Drab. But the flowers don’t seem to notice much: even on these days they are still turned toward the source of their life. Still in worship, still doing what they were designed to do, waiting to do what they were designed to do in response. This, I thought, is what our own worship should look like when God’s eyelids seem to be testing us.

Though we cannot see Him or even feel Him at such times, we know He is there, perhaps obscured by the clouds of our struggles or discontent, but no less present than in the clearest light. And His nurture is no less on these than on any other days. He is there, if only we turn to Him.

These wildflowers, so incredibly beautiful, are also delightfully lacking in self-awareness. They do not seem to be comparing themselves with the other flowers, whether of the same kind or not. Neither do they seem troubled or worried about whether they are seeking the sun enough or doing it right or being beautiful enought. They just are. They exist. They reach up toward the sun, oblivious to what they look like. They passively and ignorantly enrich my life; more importantly, they display the glory of God and glorify Him in doing so. Theirs is a daily, silent, faithful worship. No drawing attention to themselves, no self-promotion. They are drawn and, in response, they draw themselves toward their sun.

Sometimes, when my dogs are off chasing the scent or trail of some rabbit or skunk that may have passed through the park during the night, I stop and stoop to get a closer look at one of these remarkable flowers. (Of course, first I make sure no one is watching so I won’t be thought of as, well, you know.) They don’t pay any attention at all when I do this. They stay focused on being what they are and doing what they do.

Most of the time, though, I look at them from a distance. As beautiful as they are individually, they are even more striking when they are clustered, huddled together, all stretched in the same direction in their worship. When gathered, I do not tend to notice the individual beauty of a single flower but instead am struck by the unity - not uniformity - of the flowers. There is a lesson in there, I think, for those of us who are members of the church - both the local and the universal church. We try so hard sometimes to stand out, to be different, to have a strong sense of identity and sense of individuality. And we do, of course, since we are all unique.

But it is our unity that is most compelling and, I think, most glorifying to God. When we are selfless and focused, all turned in one direction, all seeking the same Source, all waiting to receive that which He has to give, eager to do that which He has designed us to do - it is then that we are most glorifying to God and truly beautify the world.

2 Cor 1.13

 

Adam at In the Agora has been wrestling with the mind-brain dilemma and its biomedical ramifications, specifically with regard to human cloning. He attempts to connect the presence of a person’s soul (I’ll clarify some terms in a minute) with particular brain functions. His first post is here; his second, here.

First, a little by way of introduction. According to the ITA site, Adam is a first-year grad student at UC-San Diego in cognitive neuroscience - which, if I had it to do over again, is exactly what I would study in addition to theology. I am glad he is asking hard questions and seeking to come up with viable and applicable answers.

As for terms, Adam uses “soul” to describe the immaterial dimension of an individual. This is unfortunate and confusing from a biblical perspective, since both the Old and New Testaments present a monistic view of anthropology: we do not have souls, we are souls. I have argued elsewhere (here and there) for a nonreductive physicalism - different from that advocated by Nancey Murphy and others - that does not divide or section a person into dichotomous or trichotomous existence. The spirit and soul are distinguishable functionally, but irreducible and indivisible in essence.

This distinction is partially a result of my Christology: the Second Member of the Godhead existed spiritually prior to the Incarnation; in the embodied state, His personality was no different than it had been previously. Personality, it would thus seem, is a function of the spirit and not the soul. The spirit is that which animates a soul (i.e., the body, including the brain) but cannot be separated from it in this lifetime. Hence, the monistic view of human nature.

For these and other reasons, therefore, wherever Adam has used the word “soul,” I will replace it with the more appropriate term “spirit.”

While it is possible that Adam holds to either pre-existence of what I would regard as the human spirit (as do Mormons) or reincarnation , he instead (if I understand him correctly) takes a creation approach to the soul. That is, God creates a soul for each individual either at conception, birth, or some point in between. (This is in contrast to the traducian understanding of the soul, which would see the soul as included in the process of people reproducing after their kind: the soul is inherent in reproduction. Both creationism and traducian views of the soul may be biblically supported, although I find the traducian perspective the stronger of the two.)

Adam writes,

. . . when does the [spirit] actually fuse with the brain? There is no obvious point in the development of the fetus when the brain makes a quantum leap from mere automaton to functioning human . . . I’m simply going to say that at some point, between when the fetus has no brain (up to about 21 days) and when the fetus is fully developed, the [spirit] somehow makes contact with the organism and it becomes a person. Up to that point, no matter how much our senses may be fooled into thinking that the fetus resembles a person, it is a soulless clump of matter. When, at the end of life, the cerebral cortex no longer functions, the soul has already left the body; again, though, it’s impossible to say when exactly that might happen.”

From this premise, Adam goes on to argue for the appropriateness of biomedical cloning. His conclusion notwithstanding, however, it is important to investigate his premise more closely and - most importantly - to examine his anthropology biblically.

Such scrutiny, I am convinced, reveals that his conceptualization of a person’s immaterial nature is biblically untenable.

(more…)

2 Cor 1.13

 

I do not know the names of many flowers. The same holds true for trees, bushes, birds, and a host of other things, both concrete and abstract. My ignorance truly knows no bounds, for I am also uneducated about a lot of concepts, philosophies, and ideas, as well as for the technical aspects of art (I don’t know a Monet from a Marmet), music (read music?), and poetry (iambic penwhatamer?).

I intentionally try to remain as ignorant as possible about such things.

The reason is expressed in a couple of quotes I’ve acquired along the way and a long time ago. The first statement comes from a minor psychologist - I cannot remember who and thus cannot find the exact quote - that said something along the following lines:

When the child learns the genus and species of the bird outside his window, he can no longer hear its song.

Those words, of course, are but an encapsulation of the wonderful poem entitled, “When I Heard the Learned Astronomer”:

When I heard the learned astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wandered off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Looked up in perfect silence at the stars
-Walt Whitman

What Whitman and the unknown psychologist are saying is that our cognitive or cerebral functions tend to get in the way of our emotional or visceral responses. When we would be better served listening carefully with our hearts, we analyze and scrutinize exclusively with our heads. In so doing, we become less and less passionate and tend to re-define love, joy, and the whole of Christian living and experience.

The other side of the problem is too much emotion without discernment. Another quote comes to mind, this one from Emerson:

The fact that you speak of is of no importance, but only the impression that it makes.

We may believe that we are rational and logical beings but (as Damasio, LeDoux, and others have demonstrated), we can’t have a thought without an emotion being attached to it. The question is whether we’re aware of the emotion or not: the more aware we are, the more we can take the affective component into consideration in our response; the less aware, the more likely we will be driven by our emotions even while believing that we are not.

As Schaeffer said, we are separated from ourselves. (more…)

2 Cor 1.13

 

(Brad at 21st Century Reformation has undertaken an enormous work aimed at church renewal: ambitiously called “The New 95 Theses Project,” his goal is to collect theses identifying malformations, deformations, and atrophied aspects of the local church in an effort to refresh the visible body of Christ. Thesis #1, which is his own, is

1. The church is not morally distinct with respect to love for those suffering around the world. Our witness is diluted by our materialism and the quest for economic security. We call the churches to engage the problem of poverty and development as a witness to the Love of Christ and our faith in His provision for us as His children. Therefore, we risk our own economic security for the immediate needs of others and to help secure the economic security of those who are in greater imminent danger of the loss of life’s most basic provisions of food and shelter.

What follows is my own attempt to address a troubled area in the church. If I am able, I will provide my own thesis at the end of this study; if not, I’ll leave it others more adept than I to state a thesis for Brad’s project.

In all fairness, I must begin this by saying that I am about to write a post by Nancy Pearcey. Much of my thinking (and most of what follows) is drawn from her latest book, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity.

Practically speaking, this post is about why I am not an evangelical and why, most likely, you aren’t either. Pearcey has clarified this and classified me in her book; the quotes that follow, unless otherwise noted, are from TT. If you haven’t read it, you need to; if you have read it, you know what’s coming.

The chapter I’ll be citing most is ominously entitled, “When America Met Christianity - Guess Who Won?” It examines the effect of the American Revolution on the Second Great Awakening and, in turn, that Awakening’s impact on the institution of the American church.

First, however, it is necessary to define evangelicalism historically and accurately. Pearcey says,

What does it mean to be evangelical? . . . American historians typically use [the term] . . . to refer to a movement that grew out of the First and Second Great Awakenings, embracing a revivlaist style of preaching and an emphasis on person conversion (the ‘New Birth’). Because it was a renewal movement within the church, its goal was not so much to convert nonbelievers as to enliven the faith of nominal believers - to bring individuals to a subjective experence of the saving truths of the gospel.

So far, so good. But a slight but significant shift surfaces in evangelicalism that had unforseen and unfortunate effects:

Classic Protestantism stemming from the Reformation defined the Christian life largely in terms of participation in the church’s corporate worship and liturgy . . . But the revival movement cast much of that aside. It stressed the individual’s direct access to God apart from any church, defining the Christian life primarily in terms of individual devotion and holiness. Thus the rhetoric of revival tended to have an anti-authoritarian and anti-traditionalist flavor, denouncing liturgy and ceremonies as empty, external ritualism . . . any protestant who emphasizes the subjective and ethical aspects of Christianity, rather than its official and churchly characteristics, is an evangelical.

Pearcey covers the First Great Awakening in her previous chapter, “What’s So Good About Evangelicalism?” and offers this summary:

In many ways, the second Awakening carried forward the themes of the first Awakening, so as we tell some of its stories, bear in mind the major characteristics listed in the previous chapter: the focus on an intense emotional conversion experience; the celebrity model of leadership; a deep suspicion of theological learning, especially as embodied in creeds and confessions; and an increasingly individualistic view of the church, which borrowed heavily from the political philosophy of the day . . . It became common for leaders in the second Awakening to transfer the rhetoric of independence uncritically from the political sphere to the religious sphere. (emphases mine)

Pearcey effectively demonstrates that the seeds for anti-intellectualism and even postmodernism can be traced back to the American mentality of individualism and sufficiency. Also striking are the features of the first and second Awakenings that have either endured or re-emerged in the past thirty years or so. She continues:

For example, in the first Awakening, revivalists had not attacked church structure per se, but only the abuses that had turned the clergy into a privileged class. By contrast, in the second Awakening, church authority itself was denounced as ‘tyranny.’ Creeds and liturgies were nothing but ‘popery’ and ‘priestcraft.’ (Charles Finney denounced the Westminster Confession as . . . (more…)

2 Cor 1.13

 

I got this in a roundabout way from Dory at Wittenberg Gate.

Have we really sunk this low?

Happily, no: check the lower right corner. (HT: Rev Bill)

2 Cor 1.13

 

A Pew(ny) Commentary

In the first installment of this study, I looked at the first chaper of the Book of Jonah and provided some of the historical and cultural background necessary to properly understand this remarkable member of the collection we call the Minor Prophets. Before beginning this second post, I will summarize the first and include a few additional observations.

Before God called Jonah to a ministry in Nineveh, Assyria, the prophet had enjoyed success and (undoubtedly) some fame as a prophet in the land of Israel. It was Jonah who announced that, under the leadership of Jeroboam II, the nation would expand and once again enjoy great prosperity (2 Kings 14:23-27). This, of course, came to pass as the Assyrians weakened in power and withdrew their military influence from the region.

Told to preach a message of judgment to Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, Jonah ran - and sailed - in the opposite direction. He boarded a ship to Tarshish only to be tossed overboard and to become chum for a large, man-swallowing fish. Chapter One ends with our anti-hero swimming in the digestive juices of this fishy agent of God.

As will be revealed more fully in Chapter Four, Jonah ran because of his love for his country and his hatred of its enemies. We see in Jonah’s disobedience the same root we find in our own: it is not because we do not understand what God wants from and for us that we run away, but because we understand quite clearly what He desires. Like Jonah, we knowingly and willfully disobey God.

Living in a democracy, as many of us do, lures us into having the same sort of inflated, grandiose view of ourselves and our beliefs as Jonah seemed to have entertained. God, however, does not ask for either our opinion or our agreement: He tells us what He desires, gives us the grace and power to do it, and then promises to reward us if we obey. But I - and you - sometimes choose not to do so.

Paul discusses this struggle in his first letter to the church in Corinth. Reflecting on his own ministry, he says, “For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me” (1 Cor 9:17). Either way, Paul is saying, our obedience to God is reflected in what we do and not merely in what we say or how we feel. Grudging obedience is better than honest disobedience.

Chapter Two

This chapter is a record of Jonah’s prayer and psalm to God from inside the fish that God prepared and sent to save him from certain drowning. Many commentators find a cry of repentance in these words, believing that the prophet has learned his lesson and is now willing to follow God no matter where the path might lead.

I, for one, have never understood Jonah’s petition in this manner.
(more…)

2 Cor 1.13

 

I have had two careers so far in my life: a dozen-plus years as a writer/journalist for a daily newspaper and c. 20 years as a mental health therapist. Spurred on by these two interests, I at times indulge myself by surfing over to some of the more flagrant and blatant narcissistic Godblogs where I take some sadistic pleasure as I read and analyze their writings.

(In writing all of this, I realize that I open myself up to the charge of being guilty of the same, i.e., that I am as narcissistic as anyone else. Perhaps I am - after all, it takes a bit of narcissism to have a blog and assume that others will want to read it! - but I think I keep the clinically significant displays of narcissism safely tucked away for the most part. If you only knew . . . )

The bloggers I’m talking about, however, fall into that most-regretable and hardest-to-endure category: the ones who never stop to consider that they might actually be narcissistic!

How can you spot a member of the Blogdom of Narcissism? There are a number of things that give them away.

First, while they appear to be writing about this subject or that issue, the post is actually about them. It begins with statements about the supposed subject matter, but it soon becomes apparent that it is really meant to draw attention away from everything but him/herself. As a result, the reader usually knows more about the author than about the subject. And usually not much at all about Christ.

(This does not include those blogs and posts that are intended to be about the author, i.e., those that are a slice of life or an actual journal of the person’s life. I like reading those, too, but do not find them narcissistic at all. They’re just a window into someone’s life and soul, opened by someone strong and open enough to do so.)

Second, there is generally a detectable tone or theme in their posts that reveals a subtle (or not-so subtle) attitude of smugness and superiority to their peers - not that they think they actually have any peers! A hint of condescension is usually present as they enlighten their readers. The reader is meant to have a sense of awe upon concluding the post.

They are also convinced of their own uniqueness and their posts are usually disclosures of their own superior, private insight or understanding that sets them apart from everyone else. Their theology - which tends to be more chaotic than eclectic - is unlike anyone else’s or, failing that, is obscure and held only by a few. And, of course, they will have come to this understanding by virtue of their own studies. Lacking a strong sense of identity, these narcissists define themselves by what they are not and swim upstream to allow the current to outline their otherwise difuse sense of self.

(more…)

2 Cor 1.13

 

A Pew(ny) Commentary

Preface:

The Minor Prophets, so named because of their brevity rather than their importance, are timely reading for Christians today. These dozen men spoke powerful messages to their nations and leaders during times not too dissimilar from our own: materially prosperous, the countries of Israel in the north and Judah in the south were floundering spiritually.

It is profitable, therefore, to understand (1) what the message was to the people at the time and (2) to glean what these prophets may be saying to us thousands of years later. Their messages are generally disturbing; we, being comfortable, are in desperate need of disturbance.

The Book of Jonah is somewhat unique among these records. First, Jonah’s ministry in this book is to a foreign nation and not to either Israel or Judah. Second, instead of the focus being on the message God entrusted to him, this book examines the behavior and attitudes of the prophet himself. It is a valuable lesson, therefore, for Christians living in a time of national pride and patriotism.

Chapter One

1 The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying,
2 “Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me.”
3 But Jonah rose up to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. So he went down to Joppa, found a ship which was going to Tarshish, paid the fare and went down into it to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

To understand Jonah’s behavior it is necessary to understand the times in which he lived. According to 1 Kings 14.23-27, Jonah was a prophet in Israel during the time of Jeroboam II. Though a wicked king, Jeroboam II was successful in expanding the territory and restoring prosperity to the nation to an extent not seen since the days of Solomon. This was a good time to be an Israelite.

(more…)

2 Cor 1.13

 

In a post entitled “Unspiritual” Paul, I took a brief glance at Paul’s apparently casual approach to resolving sticky situations: what to do if, as a believer, you find yourself deserted by a spouse; what to do when invited to a pagan party with pagan food and drink. I commented there that

God has called us to peace, as Paul says, and that may be more important than insisting that we do every little thing exactly right and for exactly the right reason with the right justification. And everything He has created is good and meant to be enjoyed, and we shouldn’t let our own sense of righteousness spoil what He gave to us.

Mark at Pseudo-Polymath, in a comment, responds:

I was reading (but not really understanding) Dunn’s book on the Theology of Paul the other day, and one thing he said may apply here. Dunn says (if I understand him) that Paul teaches that following the Law is sort of on a see-saw with our relationship with the Spirit, i.e., strong in Spirit then the Law is less important and the reverse, weak in Spirit then toe the line on the Law.

Paul certainly was strong in the Spirit, so the Law was less of an obstacle, … he could shrug off some things more casually.

This could be the case - I doubt neither Dunn’s insights nor Mark’s ability to understand him - but that only raises more questions. Paul says that the law is holy and the individual commandments are holy and righteous and good. What Dunn seems to be suggesting only adds to the confusion: trying to keep the law - even as Christians - in our own power (i.e., when we’re not “strong in the Spirit”) is not a good idea, and seeing the law as a fall-back option is hard to reconcile with what Paul says elsewhere.

Consider his letter to the Galatians, who fell prey to trying to maintain their righteousness by adhering to the Law,

This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? - Gal 3.2-3

It is difficult to see how keeping the Law (when we’re stumbing a bit in our walk in the Spirit) is desirable, or even possible. (more…)

2 Cor 1.13

 

I read the obituaries just about every morning. Usually there is at least one listing that says of the deceased, “He was a Baptist.”

I have instructed my wife, upon my death, to make sure my obituary clearly states, “He was not a Baptist.” Not that I have anything against Baptists - why, some of my best friends are Baptists! - it’s just that I don’t want to be grouped with them. Most of my Baptist friends think this is a good idea, too.

So you can imagine my horror when I took the Denominational Quiz and got these results:

Rank Item Percent
1: Baptist (non-Calvinistic)/Plymouth Brethren/Fundamentalist (100%)
2: Anabaptist (Mennonite/Quaker etc.) (79%)
3: Baptist (Reformed/Particular/Calvinistic) (72%)
4: Congregational/United Church of Christ (72%)
5: Pentecostal/Charismatic/Assemblies of God (68%)
6: Church of Christ/Campbellite (56%)
7: Seventh-Day Adventist (54%)
8: Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene (52%)
9: Presbyterian/Reformed (50%)
10: Lutheran (41%)
11: Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England (37%)
12: Eastern Orthodox (31%)
13: Roman Catholic (16%)

I got to this site through John, who admits he was led to it by someone calling himself Jeff the Baptist, so I’m thinking it’s rigged. Or, I’m hoping it’s rigged.

Please, not a Baptist. Plymouth Brethren, sure. But a Baptist?

2 Cor 1.13

 

The appearance of a new website extolling the virtues of Naturalism (Center for Naturalism) is being hailed by some as a great opportunity for the Christian community to expose the inconsistencies and failings of this previously elusive philosophy. Joe Carter at the evangelical outpost, for example, writes that

“we Christian critics now have handful of unwitting allies in our cause. A small group of atheist philosophers, including Daniel Dennett and Brian Leiter, have instituted a new organization that will prove to be our best ally in the effort to expose the self-refuting philosophy . . . Initially, I assumed that this was a brilliant April Fool’s Day hoax. The website provides such a parody of naturalistic ideas that it couldn’t be anything other than an elaborate prank. But the CFN is no joke — at least not an intentional one. The CFN website contains dozens of pages and articles, a virtual treasure trove for anyone who wants to point out the ludicrously inconsistent views espoused by these naturalists.”

His post, “Naturalism for Dummies: Contradictions, Causal Connections, and the Center for Naturalism,” is worth reading a couple of times. He provides a good introduction to the fallacies contained in the philosophy.

Also worth reading is Amanda Witt’s post “Let the Naturalists Speak” at Wittingshire. She gives a summary of some of the basic tenets of naturalism and welcomes the opportunity to interact with and debunk the philosophy it espouses.

“This new website is a good thing: Naturalism presents the case for believing that nothing but the physical exists, and that everything can be explained by strictly natural causes.

You read that right. Proponents of intelligent design (including Bill Dembski and Denyse O’Leary) are jumping-up-and-down happy about this official naturalism site.

Why? Because people tend to think that those who disagree with naturalism are portraying it inaccurately, to make it look bad; but now there’s a clear presentation of naturalism by its proponents, so all the world can see that the flaws are not manufactured, but are inherent to naturalism.”

It is good to demonstrate the weaknesses and ultimate failings of those philosophies that set themselves up against God and the truths of the Bible, and I am thankful for Joe, Amanda, and many other apologists who rise to meet the challenge. I am certainly but an amateur apologist myself and rely on such sharp Christians to wrestle through the morass of worldly reasonings to expose the fallacies contained therein.

In saying all of that, however, I am also reminded of an underlying truth that we need to keep in mind in all our apologetics.
(more…)

2 Cor 1.13