As I woke up the other morning, I looked at myself in the mirror and thought, "God has truly blessed me. Just look at that luscious, full head of hair. God has been so good to me. What astounding, rippling biceps He has given me. Every beautiful square inch of golden tan skin on my finely chiseled physique is a testament to God's goodness to me."
What does hair, and muscles, and tanned skin have to do with God's blessing? No more than any fiduciary fitness we may experience. God's blessings cannot be contained in material goods. God's blessings go far beyond the worldly. Most evangelicals know this. No evangelical that I know of would deny this. Yet many evangelicals, even pastors, see to place a high premium on material goods. Tim Challies notes that tax time is a good time to see in numerical form how God has blessed him. What difference does it make if we have any financial goods? Is the person who sees on his 1040 that he made only $5000 in the year any less blessed than the person who made $500,000? How is any material estimate an indication of Christ's blessings? A friend of mine recently pointed me to a quote by C.S. Lewis. He says, "The man who has Christ and everything has no more than the man who has Christ and nothing." Evangelicals know this, but do they talk like this? I hear many pastors speaking frequently on blessings in terms of finances. What good do finances do us? How are they a blessing? A full bank account can be as much as blessing as a burden. God's blessings are not measurable, they are not quantifiable. God's blessings simply are. He that is in Christ has everything. God has given us in Christ everything necessary for life and godliness. Why need we speak of blessing in any other form?
Fred Sanders has an excellent post on Ephesians 1. No other book of the Bible more effectively enumerates the blessing God has given us. Not once in that entire passage does one see a material qualification. Would anyone claim that a nice house or car exceeds the inheritance we have in Christ? Why are we so earthly minded, that our perspective stays chained to the things of this orb?
Most certainly God gives us everything we have. Most certainly God takes from us everything we loose. Where we are is where God placed us, be it Malibu or Morgantown. We ought to thank God for the dirt and as well as the dough. More importantly, we ought to realize that the blessings God has given to all His children are transcendent, immaterial blessings. Anything else would be far less.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
On teaching
It took me several years to teaching to realize what Paul Spears discusses in this post. Even now this idea is not predominate in my daily routine. Teaching, especially on the grade school and high school level, is not about expounding details, but about encouraging desire. The art of teaching lies not in producing the learned, but in developing the learner. If all I do as a teacher is to produce students that know many facts, I have fallen short. As I teacher, I should seek to produce students who desire to know God and His world more each day. As we often hear, learning is a lifetime activity. People are always learning new ideas, but they are not always learning worthy ideas. A true learner seeks not just knowledge, but good knowledge. He seeks this knowledge so that he may better serve His Savior. He seeks this knowledge so that he may better fulfill his commission. Education is merely a starting point. If we as teachers cannot see beyond the quizzes and tests, then we cannot really see.
May God help us educators to see the lives these kids will one day live, not just the lives they live in our classrooms.
May God help us educators to see the lives these kids will one day live, not just the lives they live in our classrooms.
Family-first
Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost has a tremendous post on "Family-First Conservatism." His manifesto very accurately details the significance of the family and its essential role in society. For centuries people-groups have placed the family as the center of society. People groups that have moved the center of society to another source have experienced trouble. Many modern Oprahfied liberals seem to want to replace the family with something else. They will acknowledge that community is important to society. Yet, they do not recognize this community begins with the family. Instead of the family, the begin with the individual. They place the individual at the center of society. This seems to be backwards. The strength of the family is what gives the individual his worth. Having intrinsic worth means that you as a person play an important role in something. It means that you are a valuable part of a whole. Though we might say it, and attempt to convince ourselves of it, no one is autonomous. No one can survive without a connection to someone and something else. We all greatly desire to be a part of something outside of ourselves. The family satisfies this desire. The family provides the connections we so desperately desire. Nothing can make as feel as valuable as a solid family structure. Nearly all types of social organizations at some level resemble the family. This can be seen explicitly in street gangs. Many of the kids that join street gangs are looking for the belonging and support that they don't receive from their families. Much of the community that Oprahites crave is patterned after the familial structure that is often absent in their lives. In attempting to replace that which is missing, they are destroying that which is missing. People flock to things to replace the family because their family doesn't provide the support they desire. Yet, by running to these other groups, they are forsaking the one thing which they really need. No one can give us the support and unconditional love our families can. That is one of the main themes of last-year's film Little Miss Sunshine--no matter how dysfunctional a family is, and no matter how many troubles cross their paths, they can survive if they support each other. Family is what makes this life livable. Seeking the familial structure in places other than the family is like drinking soda when you are dehydrated--it may temporarily quench your thirst, but it will not solve the problem.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Christianity in the theater
This past weekend the movie Amazing Grace premiered in theaters. I have not seen it yet. Many Christ-bloggers I read are very excited about it. The movie is about the life of William Wilberforce, a prominent Christian statesman who helped bring about the abolition of slavery. He was a tremendous individual. Many people are unaware of his contribution to society. He is as important a person in the history of abolition as Abraham Lincoln, probably even more important. The Christ-bloggers who have seen the film say it is really good. Its rating on IMDB is 7.8s/10 stars (with only 159 votes). Secular critics are mostly impressed by it (RottenTomatoes.com has its Tomatometer at 70%, meaning 7 out of 10 critics liked it). I hope to see it eventually. I think many people hope that this film, and others of its ilk, will hope to spread the message of Christianity. Thinking about this film lead me to think of Christian films in general.
There are two kinds of Christians films--films aimed at Christians, and films with Christian themes aimed at the world. From the few that I have seen (and there are not many), neither type is very good. We are far from the days of The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Story Ever Told. Both Hollywood and America are far different than they were in the 1950s. I think that Christians are doing a poor job representing themselves in film. Many of the Christian films out there are cheesy and ineffective.
Before we talk about Christians effectively expressing themselves in film, we need to discuss whether or not films can effectively express anything. I wrote a post a while back in response to a series of articles discussing Christians and the theater. The author of the articles espouses the idea that theater, particularly film, is inherently unable to carry the Christian message. I disagree with many aspects of the articles, and I now disagree with many things I wrote in my post. I am not sure that film is able to convey any message, that is, convey it to the point where it effects the way people think. I cannot think of any film that made any significant impact on the world. Most films, like most art, reflect the culture in which they are born All that films have ever done is express the sentiments alive already in the culture. Films exist in a self-contained sphere. Their primary impact is on other films, and the way in which people see film. It is rare that films reach out of their sphere to effect the lives of people and society. While all films have a world view, and while all films express a particular philosophy, I do not know if the language of film is strong enough to make a significant imprint on society. Films are above all else entertainment. They may entertain intellectually, emotionally, or even physically, but they all merely entertain. People in Hollywood especially have a bloated opinion on the role of film in society. I am amused when people talk of an "important film." I suppose they mean that the film is making an important comment on society. I suppose that they hope this statement with result in tangible societal change. I do not think this has ever happened. Film is film. I think it has a small role to play in society, but it has a role nonetheless.
All that being said, and at the risk of contradicting myself and obliterating my own thesis, films can still express ideas, whatever impact it has. The problem that I have with many Christian films is that they so ineffectually carry their message. They are many times either very simple morality tales, that blatantly and prosaically expound their message, or they are biblical tales, that try their darnedest to be germane to modern culture. Most of the time their cinematic value is very low. I enjoy watching films. I watch about one or two each week. I have seen many films that carry post-modern themes. These films are very effective. They have high cinematic value that effects you deeply, and they have a deep thematic value that force you to think about what they are about. I do not see any reason why Christians cannot make such films.
Two of my favorite authors are Dostoevsky and Graham Greene. Each of these were Christians. Each of these where able to very profoundly deliver their religious themes in a highly skilled manner. They wrote interesting stories that dealt with all kinds of horrid themes--parricide, prostitution, murder, lying, stealing, drunkeness, and other types of debauchery. They didn't exploit these themes. They used these themes to convey their message. They wrote very powerful pieces of literature. If you have never read Crime and Punishment, by Dostoevsky or The Power and the Glory by Greene, you should. They are wonderful Christian novels. Is it possible for us to make films with such artistic values? Is it possible for Christians to use the language of cinema as effectively as such post-modernists as Bergman, Fellini, and Kurosawa? I think we can. Granted, their is probably always going to be a prejudice against Christians in Hollywood. Yet, with the grassroots, Independent cinema that is so popular, and so inexpensive, their is no reason why Christians cannot make good films.
We need to change our mindset. We need to understand that we don't always need to be explicitly Christian. While we don't need to be explicit in portraying sex and violence, we should not shy away from stories that contain sex and violence. Graham's novel contains sex and violence. As I said before, he does not exploit it. It is not bawdy or inappropriate. It is appropriate to the story he is telling, and that story effectively carries the message he wants to convey. I am not calling for barroom evangelism here. I am calling for a more artistic, realistic approach to cinema. I am calling for films that establish some artistic credibility. Christains had this credibility in the past, but we have lost it. Some Christians think you either have to be "Christian," or you have to crossover and become secular. I don't think these are our only options. We can have artistic credibility without sacrificing our Christian principles. Films like Facing the Giants may entertain Christians. That is great. I think that we can do better.
Addendum: I came across this article that discusses Christianity in the movies. It has provoked by thoughts.
There are two kinds of Christians films--films aimed at Christians, and films with Christian themes aimed at the world. From the few that I have seen (and there are not many), neither type is very good. We are far from the days of The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Story Ever Told. Both Hollywood and America are far different than they were in the 1950s. I think that Christians are doing a poor job representing themselves in film. Many of the Christian films out there are cheesy and ineffective.
Before we talk about Christians effectively expressing themselves in film, we need to discuss whether or not films can effectively express anything. I wrote a post a while back in response to a series of articles discussing Christians and the theater. The author of the articles espouses the idea that theater, particularly film, is inherently unable to carry the Christian message. I disagree with many aspects of the articles, and I now disagree with many things I wrote in my post. I am not sure that film is able to convey any message, that is, convey it to the point where it effects the way people think. I cannot think of any film that made any significant impact on the world. Most films, like most art, reflect the culture in which they are born All that films have ever done is express the sentiments alive already in the culture. Films exist in a self-contained sphere. Their primary impact is on other films, and the way in which people see film. It is rare that films reach out of their sphere to effect the lives of people and society. While all films have a world view, and while all films express a particular philosophy, I do not know if the language of film is strong enough to make a significant imprint on society. Films are above all else entertainment. They may entertain intellectually, emotionally, or even physically, but they all merely entertain. People in Hollywood especially have a bloated opinion on the role of film in society. I am amused when people talk of an "important film." I suppose they mean that the film is making an important comment on society. I suppose that they hope this statement with result in tangible societal change. I do not think this has ever happened. Film is film. I think it has a small role to play in society, but it has a role nonetheless.
All that being said, and at the risk of contradicting myself and obliterating my own thesis, films can still express ideas, whatever impact it has. The problem that I have with many Christian films is that they so ineffectually carry their message. They are many times either very simple morality tales, that blatantly and prosaically expound their message, or they are biblical tales, that try their darnedest to be germane to modern culture. Most of the time their cinematic value is very low. I enjoy watching films. I watch about one or two each week. I have seen many films that carry post-modern themes. These films are very effective. They have high cinematic value that effects you deeply, and they have a deep thematic value that force you to think about what they are about. I do not see any reason why Christians cannot make such films.
Two of my favorite authors are Dostoevsky and Graham Greene. Each of these were Christians. Each of these where able to very profoundly deliver their religious themes in a highly skilled manner. They wrote interesting stories that dealt with all kinds of horrid themes--parricide, prostitution, murder, lying, stealing, drunkeness, and other types of debauchery. They didn't exploit these themes. They used these themes to convey their message. They wrote very powerful pieces of literature. If you have never read Crime and Punishment, by Dostoevsky or The Power and the Glory by Greene, you should. They are wonderful Christian novels. Is it possible for us to make films with such artistic values? Is it possible for Christians to use the language of cinema as effectively as such post-modernists as Bergman, Fellini, and Kurosawa? I think we can. Granted, their is probably always going to be a prejudice against Christians in Hollywood. Yet, with the grassroots, Independent cinema that is so popular, and so inexpensive, their is no reason why Christians cannot make good films.
We need to change our mindset. We need to understand that we don't always need to be explicitly Christian. While we don't need to be explicit in portraying sex and violence, we should not shy away from stories that contain sex and violence. Graham's novel contains sex and violence. As I said before, he does not exploit it. It is not bawdy or inappropriate. It is appropriate to the story he is telling, and that story effectively carries the message he wants to convey. I am not calling for barroom evangelism here. I am calling for a more artistic, realistic approach to cinema. I am calling for films that establish some artistic credibility. Christains had this credibility in the past, but we have lost it. Some Christians think you either have to be "Christian," or you have to crossover and become secular. I don't think these are our only options. We can have artistic credibility without sacrificing our Christian principles. Films like Facing the Giants may entertain Christians. That is great. I think that we can do better.
Addendum: I came across this article that discusses Christianity in the movies. It has provoked by thoughts.
Monday, February 19, 2007
On capital punishment
The "West Wing" Watcher Series--Volume 1.
In Season 1, Episode 14, entitled, "Take This Sabbath Day," President Bartlett is presented with his first opportunity as president to pardon someone who is about to get executed. All of his staff members think he should pardon the man. They feel that the death penatly is immoral. President Bartlett does not know what to do. He, a strong Catholic man, feels as well that capital punishment is never acceptable. He gets counsel from his old parish priest (played very well by Karl Malden) and from the Pope. We also get opinions from a Rabbi and a Quaker, all saying he should commute his sentence. The President does nothing, and the guy gets whacked, causing much consternation for POTUS.
Capital punishment seems to be one of the favorite issues of liberal minded people. At least, many of them love to hate it. I, an very un-liberal minded person, believe capital punishment is right and necessary. The show posits some of the common arguments against capital punishment to promote its stand. Thomas R. Eddlem, in an older article found here, debunks some of the common myths that formulate the basis for the argument against the death penalty. I would add only a few ideas to the points he makes.
Abolitionists argue that the death penalty is racist, stating that it is used more often against minorities. Eddlem provides some statistics that show this is simply not the case. Even if more minorities were executed than non-minorities, this would not automatically point to racism. Racism is a matter of intent, not outcome. If statistics showed that far more white people than black drink Coca-Cola, would that make Coke a racist company? Is our prison system racist because a majority of people in prison are minorities? Or would these statistics simply reveal that fact that there happens to be more white people drinking Coke, and more minorities in jail? In order to prove racism you have to demonstrate intent. There would have to be evidence that the judges or juries in these cases were motivated by race. Though outcome is connected to intent, it is not solely a result of intent. Statistics can show whatever people want them to show. A cursory and biased reading of statistics regarding executions can be very deceptive. It is not racist to say more murders are committed by black people than any other ethnicity if it is a fact. A fact is a fact, and sometimes it is nothing more than a fact.
Abolitionists state that sometimes innocent people are executed. According the Eddlem, as of 2002, this had never happened. Some people have been sentenced unjustly, but that sentence has never been carried out. It amazes me that abolitionists seem more upset by the possibility of an innocent person executed than by a guilty person set free. I would never want to see an innocent person condemned. Yet, I would much more dislike seeing a guilty person set free. In life we are not always given a perfect choice. Sometimes the less detestable choice is the best choice. The existence of innocent people on death row does not negate the existence of guilty people on death row. A system that fails one time out of a hundred (or in this case, zero times out of 100) is not a worthless system. We can refine the system without scraping it.
Abolitionists state that capital punishment does not deter crime. They might say, "People, like drug dealers, gang members, and serial killers--the ones who commit most of this country's murders--are not going to be swayed by the existence of a death penalty." I have no doubt that our current system does not deter crime. Another abolitionist argument is that the death penalty is administered inconsistently. Is there a chance these are related? I also have no doubt that a system with much more consistency than out system would deter crime. If we executed nearly everyone that committed a murder (outside of the mentally retarded, which is another issue), whether premeditated or not, we would see far less murders. Most people that commit murder are not executed. In their mind they get away with it. Human nature is to do as much as you can without getting caught. If the consequences do not matter to you, then you will keep doing it. Our current system might even embolden murders, as it is so easy to get off with a relatively light sentence. Yet, as Eddlem points out, deterrence is not the primary reason for capital punishment, though it might provide an attractive side benefit. He quotes C.S. Lewis here, and I think it is worth re-quoting:
Judicial sentences should be to punish the criminal, and nothing more. Anything else would truly be cruel and unusual.
Abolitionists find the death penalty cruel and unusual. I find rape and child molestation to be cruel and unusual. I think that a father who knocks his two year old daughter unconscious, and then leaves her outside to die in the cold, to be cruel and unusual. I think gang member that kill innocent bystanders during a drive by shooting are cruel and unusual. Executing people who have mercilessly taken the life of another human being is the only option a sane society has. We must value human so much that we punish those who callously abuse it. What kind of people are we if we place more worth on the life of a convicted murderer than on the life of an innocent victim?
Abolitionists say that the death penalty encourages vengeance and violates the Christian principle of mercy. I too believe that executing a murderer out of vengeance is wrong. As Eddlem points out, this is why the state must be responsible for it. The movie In the Bedroom is a perfect example of this. If government is not willing or able to execute justice, then it will be left to the hands of the vengeful. To not execute guilty ones will perpetuate the cycle of violence more than anything else. What can a society do when their government will not mercifully administer justice? The Bible does say that, "Vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord."--Romans 12:19. The Bible also says that government is the minister of God, and that they hold not the sword in vain--Romans 13. This does not mean that government is exonerated in everything they do as ministers of God, nor does this mean that government is mandated to administer justice. It means simply that governmental officials have Biblical authority behind their justice. Incidentally (or not), many people in our country find acceptable to "punish" chemical and insurance companies with multi-million dollar lawsuits. I am sure, though, that vengeance plays no role in this.
I wish I had the faith of a Jed Bartlett. I wish I had the insight into the mind of God he and others like him have. I wish I could know, as he does, when to follow what the Bible clearly teaches me, and when to follow what I feel in my heart. I wish I had his faith, so that I could remove the mountains of Scriptural teachings to do what makes me feel better, and what helps me sleep at night. There is so little I know of right and wrong. My tiny mind cannot grasp it. All I can do is be the blind sheep following the archaic commands of an archaic book. I wish I too had to faith to believe that Bible is no longer to be believed.
In Season 1, Episode 14, entitled, "Take This Sabbath Day," President Bartlett is presented with his first opportunity as president to pardon someone who is about to get executed. All of his staff members think he should pardon the man. They feel that the death penatly is immoral. President Bartlett does not know what to do. He, a strong Catholic man, feels as well that capital punishment is never acceptable. He gets counsel from his old parish priest (played very well by Karl Malden) and from the Pope. We also get opinions from a Rabbi and a Quaker, all saying he should commute his sentence. The President does nothing, and the guy gets whacked, causing much consternation for POTUS.
Capital punishment seems to be one of the favorite issues of liberal minded people. At least, many of them love to hate it. I, an very un-liberal minded person, believe capital punishment is right and necessary. The show posits some of the common arguments against capital punishment to promote its stand. Thomas R. Eddlem, in an older article found here, debunks some of the common myths that formulate the basis for the argument against the death penalty. I would add only a few ideas to the points he makes.
Abolitionists argue that the death penalty is racist, stating that it is used more often against minorities. Eddlem provides some statistics that show this is simply not the case. Even if more minorities were executed than non-minorities, this would not automatically point to racism. Racism is a matter of intent, not outcome. If statistics showed that far more white people than black drink Coca-Cola, would that make Coke a racist company? Is our prison system racist because a majority of people in prison are minorities? Or would these statistics simply reveal that fact that there happens to be more white people drinking Coke, and more minorities in jail? In order to prove racism you have to demonstrate intent. There would have to be evidence that the judges or juries in these cases were motivated by race. Though outcome is connected to intent, it is not solely a result of intent. Statistics can show whatever people want them to show. A cursory and biased reading of statistics regarding executions can be very deceptive. It is not racist to say more murders are committed by black people than any other ethnicity if it is a fact. A fact is a fact, and sometimes it is nothing more than a fact.
Abolitionists state that sometimes innocent people are executed. According the Eddlem, as of 2002, this had never happened. Some people have been sentenced unjustly, but that sentence has never been carried out. It amazes me that abolitionists seem more upset by the possibility of an innocent person executed than by a guilty person set free. I would never want to see an innocent person condemned. Yet, I would much more dislike seeing a guilty person set free. In life we are not always given a perfect choice. Sometimes the less detestable choice is the best choice. The existence of innocent people on death row does not negate the existence of guilty people on death row. A system that fails one time out of a hundred (or in this case, zero times out of 100) is not a worthless system. We can refine the system without scraping it.
Abolitionists state that capital punishment does not deter crime. They might say, "People, like drug dealers, gang members, and serial killers--the ones who commit most of this country's murders--are not going to be swayed by the existence of a death penalty." I have no doubt that our current system does not deter crime. Another abolitionist argument is that the death penalty is administered inconsistently. Is there a chance these are related? I also have no doubt that a system with much more consistency than out system would deter crime. If we executed nearly everyone that committed a murder (outside of the mentally retarded, which is another issue), whether premeditated or not, we would see far less murders. Most people that commit murder are not executed. In their mind they get away with it. Human nature is to do as much as you can without getting caught. If the consequences do not matter to you, then you will keep doing it. Our current system might even embolden murders, as it is so easy to get off with a relatively light sentence. Yet, as Eddlem points out, deterrence is not the primary reason for capital punishment, though it might provide an attractive side benefit. He quotes C.S. Lewis here, and I think it is worth re-quoting:
"[Deterrence] in itself, would be a very wicked thing to do. On the classical theory of punishment it was of course justified on the ground that the man deserved it. Why, in Heaven's name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? -- unless, of course, I deserve it. . . . If deterrence is all that matters, the execution of an innocent man, provided the public think him guilty, would be fully justified."
Judicial sentences should be to punish the criminal, and nothing more. Anything else would truly be cruel and unusual.
Abolitionists find the death penalty cruel and unusual. I find rape and child molestation to be cruel and unusual. I think that a father who knocks his two year old daughter unconscious, and then leaves her outside to die in the cold, to be cruel and unusual. I think gang member that kill innocent bystanders during a drive by shooting are cruel and unusual. Executing people who have mercilessly taken the life of another human being is the only option a sane society has. We must value human so much that we punish those who callously abuse it. What kind of people are we if we place more worth on the life of a convicted murderer than on the life of an innocent victim?
Abolitionists say that the death penalty encourages vengeance and violates the Christian principle of mercy. I too believe that executing a murderer out of vengeance is wrong. As Eddlem points out, this is why the state must be responsible for it. The movie In the Bedroom is a perfect example of this. If government is not willing or able to execute justice, then it will be left to the hands of the vengeful. To not execute guilty ones will perpetuate the cycle of violence more than anything else. What can a society do when their government will not mercifully administer justice? The Bible does say that, "Vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord."--Romans 12:19. The Bible also says that government is the minister of God, and that they hold not the sword in vain--Romans 13. This does not mean that government is exonerated in everything they do as ministers of God, nor does this mean that government is mandated to administer justice. It means simply that governmental officials have Biblical authority behind their justice. Incidentally (or not), many people in our country find acceptable to "punish" chemical and insurance companies with multi-million dollar lawsuits. I am sure, though, that vengeance plays no role in this.
I wish I had the faith of a Jed Bartlett. I wish I had the insight into the mind of God he and others like him have. I wish I could know, as he does, when to follow what the Bible clearly teaches me, and when to follow what I feel in my heart. I wish I had his faith, so that I could remove the mountains of Scriptural teachings to do what makes me feel better, and what helps me sleep at night. There is so little I know of right and wrong. My tiny mind cannot grasp it. All I can do is be the blind sheep following the archaic commands of an archaic book. I wish I too had to faith to believe that Bible is no longer to be believed.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Lullaby
Lay your sleeping head, my love,
Human on my faithless arm;
Time and fevers burn away
Individual beauty from
Thoughtful children, and the grave
Proves the child ephemeral:
But in my arms till break of day
Let the living creature lie,
Mortal, guilty, but to me
The entirely beautiful.
Soul and body have no bounds:
To lovers as they lie upon
Her tolerant enchanted slope
In their ordinary swoon,
Grave the vision Venus sends
Of supernatural sympathy,
Universal love and hope;
While an abstract insight wakes
Among the glaciers and the rocks
The hermit's carnal ecstasy.
Certainty, fidelity
On the stroke of midnight pass
Like vibrations of a bell
And fashionable madmen raise
Their pedantic boring cry:
Every farthing of the cost,
All the dreaded cards foretell,
Shall be paid, but from this night
Not a whisper, not a thought,
Not a kiss nor look be lost.
Beauty, midnight, vision dies:
Let the winds of dawn that blow
Softly round your dreaming head
Such a day of welcome show
Eye and knocking heart may bless,
Find our mortal world enough;
Noons of dryness find you fed
By the involuntary powers,
Nights of insult let you pass
Watched by every human love.
--by W.H. Auden
Monday, January 29, 2007
Concepts of God
Theologian Paul Helm (about whom I know little) has a rather lengthly article on his blog on "The Classical Calvinist Doctrine of God". This is a scholarly and well-constructed discussion of some of the major views of God, with specific emphasis on His foreknowledge and predestination, throughout Church history. He begins with the Calvinist view of God, which is in truth the view outlined by the "'A' team"--Augustine, Anslem, and Aquinas. He compares this view with Scripture and very effectively demonstrates that they are congruent. He then compares three other views with the first one--the Arminian view, the Open Theistic view, and the Modified Calvinistic view. Helm eruditely discusses each view, and its conflict with Scripture. He concludes with some very germane comments on philosophy and understanding.
This is a challenging article. It deals with some difficult Theological concepts. Yet, these concepts are very important. One might say these are the central concepts in a Theological belief system. It is well worth the time of any Christian to ponder these thoughts. We may not come to a conclusion, but we can surely come to a deeper understand than what we once had. Too many Christians are too ignorant regarding these discussions. Most are content to accept what their pastors tell them. Many pastors I have known are not to enthusiastic about tackling such "controversial" topics. They will try to explain it away with a simple analogy. One pastor describes man's free will and God's sovereignty as being like the rails of railroad tracks. Close to us they look like two tracks, but as we gaze into the distance they appear to merge into one. This doesn't explain the relationship between them at all. This doesn't come close to a logical, Scripture explanation at all. Many pastors will state that God is sovereign and we have a free will, they do not conflict, and that is the way it is. Again, no logical, Scriptural explanation.
I doubt that these pastors are too lazy or unintelligent to tack on such a task. I would say that they are afraid. They are afraid of where these concepts will lead. They may lead into a very frightful abyss. Helm explains in his conclusion that we may not be able to follow these concepts to their end.
Note that I have spoken about the article rather than commenting on the article. I am far from qualified. Helm brought up many theological terms and concepts with which I am not familiar. Sad to say I have studied theology very little. One aspect of the article I found interesting was his assertion that, when we look at God's sovereignty and man's free will, we must make one unmovable. That is, when we develop our position, we must either make God's sovereignty the unmovable post about which man's free wheel pivots, or vice versa. His opinion is that the Scripture clearly states that God is sovereign. He predestinates us according to His will, not according to His foreknowledge of our faith or good works. In a sense, our will is according to His will. This is one of those concepts that can be very frightening. Does that mean that we really don't have a free will? Does that mean that God wills sin? I have not the answer to that.
This is a challenging article. It deals with some difficult Theological concepts. Yet, these concepts are very important. One might say these are the central concepts in a Theological belief system. It is well worth the time of any Christian to ponder these thoughts. We may not come to a conclusion, but we can surely come to a deeper understand than what we once had. Too many Christians are too ignorant regarding these discussions. Most are content to accept what their pastors tell them. Many pastors I have known are not to enthusiastic about tackling such "controversial" topics. They will try to explain it away with a simple analogy. One pastor describes man's free will and God's sovereignty as being like the rails of railroad tracks. Close to us they look like two tracks, but as we gaze into the distance they appear to merge into one. This doesn't explain the relationship between them at all. This doesn't come close to a logical, Scripture explanation at all. Many pastors will state that God is sovereign and we have a free will, they do not conflict, and that is the way it is. Again, no logical, Scriptural explanation.
I doubt that these pastors are too lazy or unintelligent to tack on such a task. I would say that they are afraid. They are afraid of where these concepts will lead. They may lead into a very frightful abyss. Helm explains in his conclusion that we may not be able to follow these concepts to their end.
"We have some understanding of what predestination is, but we lack the sort of knowledge that would free us from all the difficulties that it presents to our minds—difficulties about fairness, or about the way in which the divine decree meshes with human freedom, or about the manner in which God's choice is grounded. These matters are at least presently beyond our full grasp, but they are not completely ungraspable.This is a tremendous paradigm. Not being able to find the end of a thread of thought is no reason not to seek the beginning. We should take the ideas giving to us in Scripture, and, by His Grace, seek them as far as they will take us. The Truth, no matter how difficult or mysterious, will set us free.
We should expect mystery, but it is 'targeted' mystery. We can identify the mystery, and say why it is so. In the noble tradition of ‘faith seeking understanding’ we should do what we can to understand the mystery insofar as we have warrant to do so in Scripture, but not at the expense of what Scripture actually teaches."
Note that I have spoken about the article rather than commenting on the article. I am far from qualified. Helm brought up many theological terms and concepts with which I am not familiar. Sad to say I have studied theology very little. One aspect of the article I found interesting was his assertion that, when we look at God's sovereignty and man's free will, we must make one unmovable. That is, when we develop our position, we must either make God's sovereignty the unmovable post about which man's free wheel pivots, or vice versa. His opinion is that the Scripture clearly states that God is sovereign. He predestinates us according to His will, not according to His foreknowledge of our faith or good works. In a sense, our will is according to His will. This is one of those concepts that can be very frightening. Does that mean that we really don't have a free will? Does that mean that God wills sin? I have not the answer to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)