Sensus Divinitatis

Platinga On Being A Christian Philosopher

2012-01-30T08:00:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I finished reading Alvin Plantinga's esssay "Advice To Christian Philosophers," and, a few days earlier, "Christian Philosophy at the end of the 20th Century." If you are a Christian and interested in the academic discipline of philosophy, I highly recomend these essays. Plantinga, for those who are not familiar with him, is probably the single most influential person involved in reviving Christian philosophy. He points out that there are certain starting points Christian philosophers have, and thus, many of the problems in contemporary philosophy are not problems for us. Consequently, he believes that we need to focus our time and energies on our own problems and projects and not waste time attempting to resove problems that only exist for nonChristian philosophers. The Christian philosopher's duty, says Plantinga, is to the Christian community and, ultimately, to God. Reading these essays was a breath of fresh air. Last semester, I took a class on modern philosophy, and found most of it uninteresting, unlike the previous semester, when I took Medieval philosophy. The problems that arise in modern philosophy, whose intellectual parentage is found in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment humanism, are only problems if you reject the sinful nature of man and take a low view of God. Granted, the medievals were not perfect, and many of the problems in the modern period have roots in the High and Late Scholastic philosophers like Aquinas and Occham, the material seemed far more relevant and interesting to me, as a Christian student of philosophy, overall, than modern and contemporary issues. Indeed, Plantinga, a Calvinist, sees himself as within the intellectual tradition of Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure and the Reformers. If there is going to be a context to my philosophical investigations and musings, I would rather it be with these men than with those whose fundamental presuppositions about telology, God and man are opposed to my own.

Currently Reading: January 2012

2012-01-25T20:28:00.000-07:00

I am currently reading the following titles this month for either work, leisure, or both. Since I teach at a classical school, the line is often rather fuzzy.

Though I technically began reading it last Fall, I am in the middle of reading The Peloponnesian War, by the ancient Greek historian, Thucydides. I purchased Strasser's The Landmark Thucydides edition, which features informative appendices written by professors of classics and history, as well as explanatory notes and detailed maps. The translation is surprisingly readable and I am enjoying a first-hand account of an ancient war that marked the end of one era of classical Greece and the rise of a new. I was inspired by reading selections with my ninth graders and by reading Victor Davis Hanson's books Carnage and Culture and The Soul of Battle.

For work, I am reading selections from Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, one of the most comprehensive and systematic tomes of theology and philosophy produced by the Medieval Scholastics. Aquinas is attempting to synthesize his Christianity with the newly re-discovered Aristotelian philosophy. While I disagree with this father of modern Roman Catholic theology on may issues, he is undoubtedly one of the greatest minds in intellectual history. The selections my 10th graders and I are reading cover his views on the Cardinal and Theological Virtues, as well as Natural Law.

My ninth grade humanities class is currently working through Plato's Republic. We read Euthyphro, The Apology, and Crito prior, so this is not their first attempt at Plato's dialogues. I really enjoy the Hackett Press edition and the Grube translation. It is very readable and the explanatory notes in the back, as well as the chapter summaries are very helpful.

At the same time, I am reading Melville's Billy Budd with several colleagues at Providence. I was a little apprehensive at first due to a bad experience with Moby Dick in junior high, but either my tastes have improved or his magnum opus is not typical of all his other work.

Finally, I have started re-reading Chesterton's Ballad of the White Horse (free pdf download) again. I read it last year with my tenth grade class and they enjoyed it enough that I decided to make it an annual event. So now, on Fridays, we read and discuss a chapter from this great poem about King Alfred and his fight against the Danes.

Christmas Vacation Eats

2011-12-26T13:03:00.000-07:00

Merry Christmas: John 1:1-14

2011-12-25T08:50:00.000-07:00

     In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

      There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

      The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

      And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Spoils of Egypt: A Justification for Pagan Literature in Christian Education

2011-12-15T13:54:00.000-07:00

           The speculations of history's most influential thinkers are rife with dubious claims and assertions. Plato, the great philosopher of Athens, taught the existence of a spiritual reality far better and more real than the physical realm. Later, an optimistic Jean-Jacques Rousseau claimed that men living apart from government and authority act peacefully on account of their innate goodness. He roots bad behavior in the inequality perpetuated by civil society. Later, German political and social philosopher Karl Marx declared that religion is an “opiate of the masses.” Christianity not only disagrees with Marx's assertion, but ought to oppose Plato's and Rousseau's views just as vigorously. Yet, classical pedagogy uses the writings of these very men to train young minds, causing many parents to doubt the worth of ancient models for the training of Christian students. Concerned parents wonder if they are risking the faith of their students by placing them under teachers who will require them to read Plato's Republic, or The Communist Manifesto. Nevertheless, even the Christian student has much to gain from studying the ideas of pagans, humanists and atheists. Just as the Children of Israel took with them the spoils of Egypt, so too can the Christian student plunder the riches of the City of Man as he passes through on his way to the City of God.

      Christian parents should support the study of Plato or Marx for the sake of honoring the truth. The Psalmist writes, “The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein (Ps. 24:1).” God has made all things and thus, there is nothing that is not His. When the Lord speaks, it is true. What the Lord promises, He will accomplish. Thus, when God creates the universe according to certain principles or truths, those principles are truth, even in the case of claims made by pagan or atheistic thinkers. Philosophy and science are both disciplines that rely on the exercise of human reason as applied to nature. Thus, whenever an atheist philosopher or Christian scientist makes an accurate discovery, he is merely identifying the truth of reality already placed there by its Creator. Thus, Plato and Aristotle are able to discern and communicate God's truth, as it is revealed in Nature. The truth in Nature is no less true because it does not come from Scripture, and Scripture itself verifies that nature reveals God's truth: “The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above proclaims His handiwork (Ps. 19:1).” The Psalmist understood that nature reveals God's truth, and thus Christian parents should encourage their students to learn it.

      The treasury of classic literature and philosophy stands to benefit any who avail themselves of its wisdom. The Christian student finds the ancient Greek philosophers beneficial to his education in the four Cardinal Virtues. Plato and Aristotle lauded many traits that they perceived made men good. When practiced, these things produced virtue, or excellence, in the man, and virtue leads to lasting happiness. While the Christian may take issue with the claim that man, of his own efforts, can make himself good, the virtues themselves indicate that Plato and Aristotle were nevertheless perceiving some truth about reality. They correctly understood that material possessions and sensual experiences do not make one happy. Instead, they asserted that only through being good could one become happy. Becoming good depends on knowing and practicing Prudence, Justice, Courage and Temperance. Prudence is the chief of these virtues, because it requires man to know and understand the principles that uphold realty, and then to act in light of them. All other virtues flow from this right understanding of a situation and from right action in light of that understanding. Justice, for example, is the giving to each man what he is due. This requires man to know what he is due, and to act in a way that gives not only him his due but others their due. Courage is acting in light of what ought to be feared. One must understand that some things are worse than death or suffering and be willing to sacrifice them. Finally, temperance requires one to act with moderation. The temperate man exercises self-control in light of discerning what is appropriate. Plato and Aristotle's insights make them invaluable to the student of the virtues that the Holy Scriptures teach.

      Scripture affirms the wisdom of the Greeks concerning these virtues. For example, in Proverbs, Solomon admonishes the reader with this: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction (Prov. 1:7).” Solomon understands the value of wisdom, and that it is rooted, or finds its beginning, in the fear of the Lord. While Plato may have missed this essential truth, that he and Aristotle nevertheless grasped the importance of prudence is a credit to God's glory as revealed in Nature. Justice is also lauded in Scripture through the giving of the Law. Implicit in the Ten Commandments is the idea that a man ought to give to all whatever they are due. God is due the man's exclusive worship. Parents are due their children's respect and honor. No man is due another man's wife or property. The Scriptures esteem courage, seen in the exhortation to Joshua: “Be strong and courageous (Josh. 1:9).” His courage is rooted in God's faithfulness, and so he knows that the fear of God is far more important than fearing his enemies. Finally, the Apostle Paul admonishes self-control, or temperance, in 1 Timothy 3:2, when he lists it as a qualification for elders. While Aristotle and Plato's views on virtue are certainly far from perfect or without error, they demonstrate truths they derive from nature through reason that are also clearly taught in Scripture, making them not worldly truth, but God's truth.

       The Biblical truths identified by the pagan philosophers in Nature is testimony to the value of God-given rational faculties. Reason is common to all men, and sets him apart from the beasts. Exercising reason in the investigation of Nature results in a plethora of scientific, philosophical and moral insights about man and the universe. Just as the gold and silver of the Egyptians were valuable to the Children of Israel as they left for the Promise land, so too do the riches of Nature benefit the Christian as he journeys through the City of Man onward to the City of God. The truth of God is so evident that sinful pagans can sometimes take a partial glimpse of its glory. Since the Christian is a lover of truth and all that God has done, the Christian student ought to be a friend of any truths about reality that an Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes or Karl Marx can identify.

Owen On The Mortification Of Sin

2011-04-07T19:08:00.001-07:00

I recently finished reading John Owen's On the Mortification of Sin in Believers as part of Tim Challies' Reading Classics Together series. Whilst reading through, I highlighted various passages and started reviewing them and decided that I would share a few here:

Do you mortify; do you make it your daily work; be always at it while you live; case not a day from this work; be killing sin or it will be killing you.

When sin lets us alone we may let sin alone; but as sin is never less quiet than when it seems to be most quiet, and its waters are for the most part deep when they are still, so ought our contrivances against it be vigorous at all times and in all conditions, even where there is least suspicion.

There is not a day but sin foils or is foiled, prevails or is prevailed on; and it will be so while we live in this world.

The heart is like the sluggard’s field--so overgrown with weeds that you can scarce see the good corn. Such a man may search for faith, love, and zeal, and scare be able to find any; and if he does discover that these graces are there yet alive and sincere, yet they are so weak, so clogged with lusts, that they are of very little use; they remain, indeed, but are ready to die. But now let the heart be cleansed by mortification, the weeds of lust constantly and daily rooted up (as they spring daily, nature being their proper soil), let room be made for grace to thrive and flourish--how will every grace act its part, and be ready for every use and purpose!

When the Jews, upon the conviction of their sin, were cut to the heart and cried out, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37), what does Peter direct them to do? Does he bid them go and mortify their pride, wrath, malice, cruelty, and the like? No; he knew that was not their present work, but calls them to conversion and faith in Christ in general (v. 38). Let the soul be first thoroughly converted, and then, “looking on him whom they had pierced” [Zech. 12:10; John 19:37], humiliation and mortification will ensue.

Be sure to get an interest in Christ--if you intend to mortify any sin without it, it will never be done.

It is not your sore finger but your hectic fever that you are to apply yourself to the consideration of. You set yourself against a particular sin and do not consider that you are nothing but sin.

Hatred of sin as sin, not only as galling or disquieting, a sense of the love of Christ in the cross, lies at the bottom of all true spiritual mortification.

Factual Argumentation and Presuppositions

2011-04-05T13:35:00.002-07:00

"Factual argumentation may become necessary, but it is never sufficient. What one takes to be factual, as well as the interpretation of accepted facts, will be governed by his underlying philosophy of fact--that is, by more basic, all-pervasive, value-oriented, categorizing, possibility-determining, probability-rating, supra-experiential, religiously-motivated presuppositions. It is at this presuppositional level that the crucial work in defending the faith must thus be done."

- Greg L. Bahnsen

Calvin on Loving Others

2011-04-04T13:27:00.003-07:00

I have been reading through parts of Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion, and recently have been in his assessment of the Law. I came across some very good quotes that I would like to share. The Law, as Christ said, can be summed up in two commands: love God and love your neighbor. In these quotes, Calvin is focusing on the second of these two commands. The goal of Institutes was to make theology practical to Christian life, and here I think we clearly see this.

"It is not hard now to discover the whole purpose of the whole Law. It is the fulfillment of righteousness, so that men may model their lives on the example of divine purity."

"Our minds must be completely filled with love to God, and then this love must flow out to our neighbors."

"Conscience and genuine faith comes first; in other words, true godliness. Brotherly love springs from it."

"The Lord does not (as some theologians have stupidly imagined) give first place to self-love and the second to love of others. Rather, he transfers to others the love we naturally feel for ourselves. So the apostle maintains that love 'is not self-seeking' (1 Cor. 13:5)."

"Our basic principle must always be that, whatever a person may be like, we must still love him, because we love God."

Review: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (or "Why die-hard fans need to chill out")

2010-12-22T15:37:00.000-07:00

           I recently took my wife to see The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Growing up, we both read the books and the prospect of seeing them turned into movies excited us, especially after the successful adaptation of The Lord of the Rings to film. The first Narnia movie, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, was a reasonably good depiction of the book. The writers and producers seemed to stay true to the essence of C.S. Lewis' characters and seldom departed from the book's themes. When Prince Caspian arrived on screen a few years later, many gave it poor reviews and die-hard fans eschewed it. Its box-office success stifled, some wondered we would ever see Dawn Treader, especially after Disney withdrew a great deal of support. Once Fox stepped in to help distribute the film, things seemed to be back on track, bringing us to the showing that Rachel and I saw on opening weekend.

     There are two ways to evaluate The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: as an adaptation of a book, or as a movie. Critics often lambasted the movie for how it departed from the book (the same charge leveled against Prince Caspian), and only secondarily against its flaws as a film. I am only nominally sympathetic to the first kind of critiques for the following reason: the medium of film is a different category from the medium of written word. Simply put, one cannot tell the same story on screen that he can tell with written words. I can set down a book and return to it later, but no movie theater will let me leave and return to finish the film whenever I choose. Filmmakers, then, must constantly hold the attention and interest of the viewer in a way that an author does not. The pace of the story and the virtues of the characters are the two biggest obstacles facing any adaptation of a book into movie. To this end, I find many of the objections to Dawn Treader (and Prince Caspian) annoying. The most die-hard fan would find a page-by-page adaptation of any book worth reading terribly boring. Thus, for the sake of telling a story in a 2- or 3-hour format, producers and writers make choices to cut, add to, or alter the original narrative. King Caspian sailing to the end of the world just to see what is there is a poor premise for a movie, and while the motives that Lewis gives for the events of his book are much more nuanced and complex than that, telling a 2- to 3-hour story requires a much simpler impetus for the narrative. Having a problem or quest for the characters, especially one of immense existential danger, makes for a good narrative. So, is the movie a faithful adaptation of the book? Somewhat. I give it a passing "C" or "C+" grade.

     The second way to look at Dawn Treader is as a film, which is where a serious review it must begin and end. As a film, it was rather average. I have seem plenty of worse films than Dawn Treader in many respects: the characters in Dawn Treader have far more depth than those depicted in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith or Avatar. Edmund, Lucy, Caspian and Eustace all have serious, internal conflicts greater than any Anakin Skywalker or Jake Sully ever show. The flow of the narrative in Dawn Treader is decent. While it is not as good as Inception, the story does not drag, but keeps movie on. Part of this is due to the nature of the story in the book. There are shorter episodes within the larger story as the Dawn Treader stops at various islands and the crew has a series of smaller adventures amidst the larger one, harking back even to the classical epics like The Odyssey or Aeneid. The weakness in the narrative is the ending. In the same way that Peter Jackson & Co. did not know how to end The Return of the King, it seems that Michael Apted did not know how to end Dawn Treader. Our heroes vanquish the evil threatening Narnia, then suddenly find themselves at the end of the world where they see Aslan, who drones on for a while before sending the characters on their respective ways. The playing out of the resolution in Prince Caspian was far more satisfactory. The acting was fair, although nothing exceptional. In fact, the word "fair" seems to summarize the movie: it is not exceptional, nor is it awful.

     There are some movies I enjoy re-watching: Ghostbusters, Chistopher Nolan's Batman movies, and most Pixar films. There are other movies that I can happily live with never seeing again: Spiderman, Avatar, and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. This does not mean that regret seeing Dawn Treader or that it is not a safe, enjoyable family movie: it simply means that it is not excellent. Thus, my final verdict is that if even slight departures from the book bother you, do not see this movie. If you are tolerant of mediocre acting and stories that are "safe" (no gore, swearing or licentiousness), then by all means, go see The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

2010-11-04T05:37:00.000-07:00

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Who Cares About Beauty?

2009-09-25T08:58:00.003-07:00

In our enlightened age of digital self-actualization, it is customary, if not outright obligatory for a young man, whom we shall call “Bob,” to offer up, solicited or not, whole lists of his favorite books, music, and movies on MyFace or Spacebook. Being an adventurous soul, perhaps Bob has undertaken to transmit such a list via Flitter. Inevitably, some mean-spirited fellow who will doubtlessly grow up to be just as disagreeable as this blogger, writes a slandering comment against elements of Bob’s list, which prompts the victimized Bob to respond with an incendiary defense. The exchange between Bob the aesthete and his close-minded critic will continue for some time before one or the other gives the ritual up after making reference to the other's maternal figure. Having witnessed several of these exchanges in various corners of the Interweb in my younger days, I was struck by the injurious tone with which many people respond to assaults on their taste. I thought this wholly strange until it occurred to me that when Bob lists his favorite films and books, he is really saying, “these are my standards,” and thus, an attack on any particular entry on Bob’s list is nothing less than an outright assault on Bob himself. What we value and admire tells much about ourselves to others, and so any attack on the object of one’s appreciation is a personal insult. In light of this, clearly we can all agree that beauty is something that we all care about and think about. We may not be consciously aware of them, but we have all developed standards for what art, or rather, what beauty is, for art expresses beauty.

The Trivium: Stages or Skills?

2009-08-17T13:06:00.004-07:00

There is, in classical education circles, a discussion over the nature of the Trivium (Grammar, Dialectic and Rhetoric). Popularized by Dorothy Sayers' essay, "The Lost Tools of Learning," the Trivium forms a key part of what makes a school "classical." Sayers herself understood the Trivium to refer primarily to developmental stages of children: elementary-age children are in the Grammar stage in which teachers capitalize on their memorization abilities. Junior high-age children, Sayers opined, were at the cusp of logical thinking, and thus the Dialectic stage would be geared toward taking advantage of that. Finally, the senior high-age students are in the Rhetoric stage at which they are finally able to express themselves eloquently.

Since Sayers' essay is responsible for much of the revival of classical education, many early proponents of it were advocating this view of the Trivium. However, as the movement has picked up steam, some educators are beginning to think that Sayers' understanding of the Trivium might be slightly off. Rather than seeing it as concerned with playing to developmental stages, this new view considers the three parts of the Trivium to be skills themselves that are utilized all throughout the K-12 educational process. Under this view, Grammar is the skill associated with acquiring facts (rules of English grammar, Latin paradigms, geography, historical events), and the Dialectic stage with the relation of facts (logic, algebra, philosophy, critical thinking). Finally, Rhetoric is the skill of communicating excellently, and thus students study disciplines like speaking, theatre, or music to practice this skill.

The obvious point in this debate is that one can accommodate both views. Sayers' vision of the Trivium as stages does have weight, and can easily be coupled with the Trivium-as-skills view in that in the Grammar stage, a student would not only be encouraged to memorize, study relations (logic) and express himself well (rhetoric), the greater emphasis will be on memorization and the building of the related Grammar skills.

What He Said: Schaeffer on Art

2009-08-12T09:07:00.001-07:00

"We are not being true to the artist as a man if we consider his art work junk simply because we differ with his outlook on life. Christian schools, Christian parents, and Christian pastors often have turned off young people at just this point. Because the schools, the pastors and the parents did not make a distinction between technical excellence and content, the whole of much great art has been rejected with scorn or ridicule. Instead, if the artist's technical excellence is high, his is to be praised for this, even if we differ with his world-view."
- Francis Schaeffer, Art and the Bible

Jesus Was Into Organized Religion

2009-07-01T13:42:00.003-07:00

Justin Taylor posted a blurb from today's Newsweek/Washington Post religion section, written by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, who wrote a book called Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion. These gentlemen have the audacity to suggest that the problem may lie more so with those leaving the church than with the church itself.

The article they wrote reminds us well that to speak poorly of the church is to speak poorly of Christ's bride, who was worth the shedding of blood to redeem:

We love the church because Christ loved the church. She is his bride--a harlot at times, but his bride nonetheless, being washed clean by the word of God (Eph. 5:25-26). If you are into Jesus, don't rail on his bride. Jesus died for the church, so don't be bothered by a little dying to self for the church's sake. If you keep in mind that everyone there is a sinner (including yourself) and that Jesus Christ is the point and not you, your dreams, or your kids, your church experience might not be as lame as you fear.

Christians would do well to reconsider why they leave traditional, organized religion. While DeYoung and Kluck do not shy from admitting that the church is full of imperfect and hypocritical people, it still deserves our respect and love.

Read the whole thing here: "Church: Love It, Don't Leave It"

Hillsdale and Harvard

2009-06-04T07:29:00.002-07:00

My alma mater, Hillsdale College, receives absolutely no federal funding, nor are any of its students eligible for federal student loans. Consequently, the college, as a private institution, has the right to do whatever it will on campus. Hillsdale gave up its funding on principle, as it has always had a blind admissions policy with regard to race, sex or creed, and the government's Affirmative Action policies would have required them to meet a certain quota deemed by bureaucrats to be the "correct" percentage of minorities. Since admission to the college is based on academic merit, such a move would cause them undercut their already just principles. If race and sex do not matter, then they should not matter. One of the often over-looked consequences of standing by these principles is that Hillsdale does not have a ROTC program. In spite of this, many students end up joining Army or Marine Reserves, and recruiters are always more than welcome on campus by virtually every student, professor and administrator.

Journalist William McGurn recently spent some time at Hillsdale College and contrasts his experience with what one can expect to find at Harvard, where Armed Forces recruiters are not welcome, and only grudgingly permitted on campus. It is a telling article and it underscores one of the many reasons why I am a proud alumnus of Hillsdale College:

How Hillsdale Beats Harvard

Radio Worldview: Evidentialism vs. Presuppositionalism

2009-06-03T07:03:00.000-07:00

This Spring, Worldview Academy's podcast, Radio Worldview, did a two-part show on apologetic methods. A listener wrote in, asking Bill Jack and Jeff Baldwin if WVA believes in the classical, or evidential, method of apologetics, or the presuppositional method. Over the course of the two episodes, they discuss the merits and weaknesses of both approaches.

I enjoyed editing and listening to these episodes because I have been mulling over differences for a few months now. The topic deserves a much more developed thought than this, but my opinion, as a student of philosophy and theology who has taken students out to engage people on the street in meaningful, worldview and Gospel-oriented conversations, is that the person you talk to decides which approach to take. A die-hard atheist like Christopher Hitchens does not care about arguments for God's existence or historical proof of the resurrection. He has already decided that there is nothing that will change his mind. What more can you do with such a man but use presuppositional tools to help him see the contradictions and flaws in his worldview? Conversely, someone who is honestly willing to consider the evidence will benefit immensely from the wealth of evidential arguments and documentation. Since most people fall somewhere between the two extremes, it takes wisdom to discern when one should open one tool box and when one should open the other. Both have a place and are valuable, but just as one cannot pound in a nail with a screw driver or cut a sheet of plywood with a crow-bar, so also can the apologist not effectively work with only one method.

Listen to the podcasts and tell me what you think:

Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism, Part I (42:44)

Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism, Part II (45:27)

Beauty and Christianity

2009-06-02T12:26:00.003-07:00

As I hinted at in my last post, I have been pondering the nature of beauty within the context of a Christian worldview. In classical education, we embrace three themes: the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Evangelicals today are generally good at identifying and loving the first two, but there seems to be some confusion with regards to the third. At best, we can pay lip-service to it, but have little by way of a conscious understanding of its place in our worldview. Nevertheless, we are all keenly aware of beauty in the world around us, creation itself being the most apparent. Still, I believe that we have improperly relegated beauty to the back-seat in favor of Truth and Goodness.

I love older buildings. Architecture of the past as a certain weight or gravity to it that inspires a certain amount of awe. There is place where this is more clearly seen than in churches and cathedrals. The majestic Gothic-style churches of Medieval Europe demand your respect and by its arches and buttresses and spires, directs one's gaze from things below to the grandeur of the One Above. Sadly, such sublime architecture fell out of favor with Christians and it is quite common to see churches building structures that could otherwise be mistaken for a Wal-Mart: big, ugly boxes. In many cases, the rationale given is that it was all the church could afford, or it was the only space available that would meet their needs. Yet, other times it is often taken as a point of pride that the structure they meet in is an ugly warehouse. Lavish buildings and ornate wood-work are a waste of resources that could be better spent on helping starving people or supporting missionaries.

While there is nothing wrong with helping those in need, or funding missionaries, I think Christians utilizing that kind of rhetoric fail to recognize the importance of beauty and begin sliding toward what eventually becomes a kind of gnosticism: only the spiritual is good and of any importance. While I do not accuse many Christians of adhering consciously to this, in many cases, it seems to be an implicit, unconscious zeitgeist of Evangelicals. Beauty is nice, but there are other things of more importance, they say. Such Christians would do well to heed what Scripture teaches about the importance of beauty. Consider the following thought:

"What, therefore, was to be in the temple? For one thing, the temple was to be filled with art work. "And he (Solomon) garnished (covered) the house with precious stones for beauty" (2 Chron. 3:6). Notice this carefully: the temple was covered with precious stones for beauty. There was no pragmatic reason for the precious stones. They had no utilitarian purpose. God simply wanted beauty in the temple. God is interested in beauty." - Francis Schaeffer, Art and the Bible.

Note well why the temple was covered with precious stones: "for beauty." Schaeffer elsewhere in Art and the Bible points to similar passages in which God gives Moses instructions for the Tabernacle and the sundry objects it was to contain. Details for things like a lampstand are given that include specific instructions for an almond leaf motif, again, "for beauty," are found throughout. Clearly God cares about beauty and the place where he was to be worshiped was to be beautiful.

Schaeffer hints at the reason why so many Christians forget about beauty: it had no utilitarian purpose. If it does not bring about a desired good end, it lacks utility. The American mindsight has become plagued by pragmatism and inflamed with utility to the point that it has tainted even our faith and practice. However, God does care about beauty and Scripture seems to indicate that he thinks it is valuable for its own sake. As such, a Christian need not be ashamed if he is fortunate enough to worship God in a beautiful building, or for spending money on a beautiful painting. The appreciation of beautiful things is simply another part of a life of leisure, a life of wonder and worship that God has called us to. In Christ we are free to enjoy the beautiful things and praise him for them.

What He Said: Voddie Baucham

2009-05-07T12:39:00.003-07:00

The demands of teaching have been such that I have had little time of late to blog. Since the school year is coming to a close and my work schedule is changing for the summer, so I may have time to resume regular blogging. I have a few topics to research, including an opportunity to visit the past topic of beauty (the thought exercises related to which can be read here and here).

In the meantime, enjoy the words of Voddie Baucham in the video above.

(HT: VBM)

He Is Risen

2009-04-11T22:58:00.003-07:00

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

- Genesis 3:15

But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.

- Isaiah 53:5

And in that day I will answer, declares the Lord, I will answer the heavens, and they shall answer the earth, and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel, and I will sow her for myself in the land. And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.’ And the Lord said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins.” So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley. And I said to her, “You must dwell as mine for many days. You shall not play the whore, or belong to another man; so will I also be to you.” For the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or household gods. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days.

- Hosea 2:21-3:5

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

- Romans 8:1-4

The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.”

- Matthew 28:5-7

Good Friday 2009

2009-04-10T06:24:00.004-07:00

The Lord did delight in his dear Son, and when he was found in fashion as a man, and became obedient unto death, he still was well pleased with him. Strange mixture! Jehovah delights in him, and yet bruises him; is well pleased, and yet slays him.

- C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, Psalm 22:8

David's Psalm 22 is a majestic and beautiful cry for deliverance to God. Yet, more than just the prayers of David, it foretells the sufferings of Christ. The opening lines of the Psalm read, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" These are the very words of Christ as he hung on the cross: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani!"

Throned upon the aweful tree, King of grief, I watch with thee,
Darkness veils thine anguished face: none its lines of woe can trace:
None can tell what pangs unknown hold thee silent and alone.

Silent through those three dread hours, wrestling with the evil pow'rs,
Left alone with human sin, gloom around thee and within,
Till tha'ppointed time is nigh, till Lamb of God may die.

Hark, that cry that peals aloud upward through the whelming cloud!
Thou, the Father's only Son, thou, his own Anointed One,
Thou dost ask him-can it be?-"Why hast thou forsaken Me?"

Lord, should fear and anguish roll darkly o'er my sinful soul,
Thou, who once wast thus bereft that thine own might ne'er be left,
Teach me by that bitter cry in the gloom to know thee nigh. Amen.

- John Ellerton, 1875

The Folly of Youth

2009-03-16T07:40:00.002-07:00

Again, I'm linking to something Tim Challies wrote on his blog on the topic of wisdom and old age. Tim notes that we often praise ministries that draw large numbers of young people, and yet, the Bible praises the wisdom of the mature, older man and regards the ways of youth as folly. It brought to mind the words of Paul from 1 Corinthians 13:11-12:

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

Though still full of too many youthful follies, I find the grace and mercy of God are sufficient to slowly teach me wisdom. Though I know not in full, I look ahead with hope to the day when I will know in full:

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

- 1 Corinthians 1:22-31

Young People and Doctrine

2009-03-14T07:32:00.004-07:00

Tim Challies shared this magnificent quote from J.C. Ryle that focuses on a very serious problem among evangelicals, especially younger ones:

[Dislike of dogma] is an epidemic which is just now doing great harm, and specially among young people…. It produces what I must venture to call…a “jelly-fish” Christianity in the land: that is, a Christianity without bone, or muscle, or power. A jelly-fish…is a pretty and graceful object when it floats in the sea, contracting and expanding like a little, delicate, transparent umbrella. Yet the same jelly-fish, when cast on the shore, is a mere helpless lump, without capacity for movement, self-defense, or self-preservation. Alas! It is a vivid type of much of the religion of this day, of which the leading principle is, “No dogma, no distinct tenets, no positive doctrine.” We have hundreds of “jelly-fish” clergymen, who seem not to have a single bone in their body of divinity. They have not definite opinions; they belong to no school or party; they are so afraid of “extreme views” that they have no views at all. We have thousands of “jelly-fish” sermons preached every year, sermons without an edge, or a point, or a corner, smooth as billiard balls, awakening no sinner, and edifying no saint. We have Legions of “jelly-fish” young men annually turned out from our Universities, armed with a few scraps of second-hand philosophy, who think it a mark of cleverness and intellect to have no decided opinions about anything in religion, and to be utterly unable to make up their minds as to what is Christian truth. They live apparently in a state of suspense, like Mohamet’s fabled coffin, hanging between heaven and earth…and last, and worst of all, we have myriads of “jelly-fish” worshippers-respectable Church-going people, who have no distinct and definite views about any point in theology. They cannot discern things that differ, any more than color-blind people can distinguish colors. They think everybody is right and nobody wrong, everything is true and nothing is false, all sermons are good and none are bad, every clergyman is sound and no clergyman is unsound. They are “tossed to and fro, like children, by every wind of doctrine”; often carried away by any new excitement and sensational movement; ever ready for new things, because they have no firm grasp on the old; and utterly unable to “render a reason of the hope that is in them.” …Never was it so important for laymen to hold systematic views of truth, and for ordained ministers to “enunciate dogma” very clearly and distinctly in their teaching.

I see much of myself in this, for in my youth I was very disinterested in doctrine. I saw little practical value in putting much effort into the nuances of theological positions and failed to see how, in my pride, I was under the delusion that I had figured out all of the important things. I thank God for friends and mentors who helped me see how essential the study of doctrine and the things of Go are, and who helped me gain a much grander and majestic view of the Almighty. I am thankful for parents who instilled in me the primacy of Scripture, and churches who understand how important training and educating the people of God is.

Socratic Wisdom

2009-02-24T19:58:00.003-07:00

You know Chaerephon. . . . He went to Delphi at one time and ventured to ask the oracle . . . if any man was wiser than I, and the Pythian replied that no one was wiser. . . . Consider that I tell you this because I would inform you about the origin of the slander. When I heard this reply I asked myself: "Whatever does the god mean? What is his riddle? I am very conscious that I am not wise at all; what then does he mean by saying that I am the wisest? For surely he does not lie; it is no legitimate for him to do so." For a long time I was at a loss as to his meaning; then I very reluctantly turned to some such investigation as this; I went to one of those reputed to be wise, thinking that there, if anywhere, I could refute the oracle and say to it: "This man is wiser than I, but you said I was." Then, when I examined this man -- there is no need for me to tell you his name, he was one of our public men -- my experience was something like this: I thought that he appeared wise to many people and especially to himself, but he was not. I then tried to show him that he thought himself wise, but that he was not. As a result he came to dislike me, and so did many of the bystanders. So I withdrew and thought to myself: "I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know." After this I approached another man, one of those thought to be wiser than he, and I thought the same thing, and so I came to be disliked both by him and by many others.

- Socrates, from The Apology (21a-21e)

Santelli and the Chicago Tea Party

2009-02-22T14:57:00.005-07:00

CNBC journalist Rick Santelli has been making waves this week after aggressively attacking Obama's "stimulus" package on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, earning cheers from traders on the floor. Here is the video:

The President's press secretary Gibbs responded to Santelli. Here are Santelli's responses:

The truth of the matter is that Santelli is right: the stimulus is rewarding bad behavior and punishing those who have been responsible. Why should those of us who live within our means be forced to pay for those who have been irresponsible? The Porkulus Bill is simply a return to business-as-usual for liberalism: cut defense spending, increase entitlements, create new dependents, raise taxes on those who actually pay them, on companies that create job, and on people with the means to start companies. Success is vice and failure a virtue under such a scheme. No longer do we hold accountable those who act foolishly, but rather we taut them as "victims." Yes, things are not pretty economically (except for the price of gasoline), but that does not legitimize legalized plunder.

President Obama, this is neither "change" nor anything worth believing in. This is old-hat lefist socialism being pushed on America in the Chicago-style of thug-politics.

Does Facebook Make Us Dumber?

2009-02-13T08:44:00.000-07:00

This week, Radio Worldview answers a listener email about facebook and text-messaging. Do such devices harm our ability to use language? Bill Jack and Jeff Baldwin weigh in on the issue and discuss the merits and demerits of electronic communication. Get it here:

LOL, BFF!

Radio Worldview is the official podcast of Worldview Academy Leadership Camps.

Mahaney: Showing Grace

2009-02-03T08:45:00.002-07:00

We're all in need of grace. There's no one you know who doesn't need more of it. And God has so composed His church that when we're together in a larger corporate gathering or in a small group or even in casual conversation, we can both receive grace and communicate grace through the exchange of edifying and appropriate words.

Every conversation has this potential. So let us pray, "Lord, help me discern what kind of grace this person needs." For those who are legalistic or feel condemned, we want to bring justifying grace into their souls. To those struggling with besetting sin, we want to bring sanctifying grace. To those experiencing suffering, we want to bring comforting grace. To those who are just weary, we want to refresh their souls with sustaining grace. The list goes on and on.

Through each and every interaction, however casual, however brief, I want to impart grace through my words, for that's God's purpose in granting us this gift of speech. And in effect we have God's promise in [Ephesians 4:29] that when our words are edifying and appropriate, they will give grace.

- C.J. Mahaney, Humility

Worldview and Two Masters

2009-02-02T19:38:00.003-07:00

The Bible sets up a struggle between two forces: sin and righteousness. Every man, woman, and child belongs to one or the other of these groups. Indeed, we are all born slaves to sin, dead in our transgressions. Yet, we who believe in Christ are alive to righteousness and have died to death. Christ himself said that no one can serve two masters, but is either mastered by sin or mastered by righteousness.

This antithesis is underscored throughout the whole of Scripture and is an important concept for Christians to understand, for it tells us who we are and where we are going. But what does this notion of either being of sin, or being of righteousness have to do with worldviews? When discussing the truth about reality, does this distinction between saint and sinner have any relevancy? I propose that it does. In the context of belief and knowledge, the ideas we hold concerning reality dictate how we perceive and understand reality. There is no middle ground to be had. We cannot serve both sin and righteousness. Neither master will suffer to share us with the other.

In 1 Corinthians 1-2, Paul instructs the saints on how those yet in sin perceive and understand the Gospel. To such men, Christ is folly and a stumbling block. Not just as foolishness, the world also sees Christ crucified and raised as weakness. Paul, however, notes that Jesus Christ is not only the power of God, but also the wisdom of God. Thus, Christ is regarded as folly by the world and wisdom by Christians.

It seems that Paul meant that there is a difference between the Christian and non-Christian understanding reality. If they disagree on the nature of Christ, will they not also disagree with things of lesser consequence? That non-Christians are unable to correctly understand God indicates that there might be something wrong with the way they think and believe. In Romans 1, Paul indicates that sin causes them to reject the the truth of God for a lie, and to suppress the Truth in unrighteousness. The root problem is sin. Because sin darkens and twists the hearts and minds of men, they will not see Christ as the Wisdom and Power of God, but as folly and weakness.

One additional thing needs addressing: this does not mean that non-Christians are stupid or ignorant people. From His own goodness, God showers blessings on both the righteous as sinful, including glimpses of true reality. The consequences of these few paragraphs is not that only Christians are smart, but that prudence needs be used when interacting with people of different worldviews. Rather than viewing apologetics through an either/or lense of Evidential versus Presuppositional methodologies, the charitable Christian will seek to understand where each person he meets is at, and give his defense for the faith according to what wisdom dictates. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are not interested in hearing about evidential arguments. They are so darkened by sin that they will not heed. Thus, presuppositional questions are appropriate, especially when used to gentle show inconsistencies in their worldview and create doubt as to the veracity of their claims. For the non-Christian who, by God's grace, is honestly interested in exploring the historicity of Christ or arguments against Darwinian naturalism, the time for evidential arguments is at hand.

Hodge: A Covenant of Grace

2009-01-28T21:14:00.004-07:00

The word grace is used in Scripture and in ordinary religious writings in three senses. (1.) For unmerited love; i.e., love exercised towards the undeserving. (2.) For any unmerited favour, especially for spiritual blessings. Hence, all the fruits of the Spirit in believers are called graces, or unmerited gifts of God. (3.) The word grace often means the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost. This is preeminently grace, being the great gift secured by the work of Christ, and without which his redemption would not avail to our salvation. In all these senses of the word the plan of salvation is properly called a covenant of grace. It is of grace because it originated in the mysterious love of God for sinners who deserved only his wrath and curse. Secondly, because it promises salvation, not on the condition of works or anything meritorious on our part, but as an unmerited gift. And, thirdly, because its benefits are secured and applied not in the course of nature, or in exercise of natural powers of the sinner, but by the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit, granted to him as an unmerited gift.

- Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II

Anthropomorphizing Christ

2009-01-25T15:13:00.003-07:00

Our Sunday school class is currently working through the Christological doctrines and today we began wrapping up the last few weeks' study of Christ's humanity. After hearing examples of contemporary theologians denying the incarnation of Christ, and His divinity, I struck upon two general tendencies among those who perport to present the "real" Jesus.

The first tendency is to make Jesus into an ordinary man, just like us. This is called anthropomorphizing (from the Greek, which means to "change into man"). We deny Christ's divinity and pull Him down from the throne of Heaven to make him a man like everyone else. The Jesus Seminar of the '90s undertook such a demythologizing as this, as those of us who watched the Peter Jennings endorsement can attest.

If they do not make God like man, then critics will make man like God. The Deepak Chopras and others from Oprah's Book Club teach that just as Jesus was fully in touch with his divinity, so too can we be. This is nothing short of "New Age" pantheism, akin to the Gnostic heresies that the Early Church battled. A few years ago, a "documentary" called What The Bleep Do We Know advocated a certain kind of "power of positive thinking" quasi-physics which suggests that someone like Jesus was in on a great secret of reality. If you can concentrate and be "positive" enough, than you can literally affect reality and make it better. All that is required of you is to get "in touch" with that inner spark of god-hood.

Both of these views are flagrant heresy against orthodox Christianity because they make Christ no greater than man, either by pulling Him down to our level or by exaulting man up to His. In the face of such lies, Christians must stand with Scripture and with the great creeds which affirm that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully Man; one person with two natures. To undermine the doctrines of Christ is to undermine the Gospel itself.

Psalm 137: By The Waters of Babylon

2009-01-13T07:45:00.003-07:00

By the waters of Babylon,
there we sat down and wept,
when we remembered Zion.
On the willows there
we hung up our lyres.
For there our captors
required of us songs,
and our tormentors, mirth, saying,
"Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"

How shall we sing the LORD’s song
in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand forget its skill!
Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
above my highest joy!

Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem,
how they said, "Lay it bare, lay it bare,
down to its foundations!"

O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall he be who repays you
with what you have done to us!
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!

Christmas: Wonder at the Incarnation

2008-12-25T08:41:00.006-07:00

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. . . . The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. - John 1:1-5; 9-18 (ESV)

Christmas is a celebration of Christ, The Word, who was made flesh. This incarnation (God becoming man) is the center of this festival and apart from this miracle, there would be no salvation for any man; all have sinned against God and deserve his just and holy wrath. Praise be to God that he saw fit to send his Son, Jesus Christ, to die for my sins.

Leisure, Usefulness and Education

2008-12-17T12:59:00.003-07:00

As I write, my students are diligently taking their mid-year humanities exam. We finished the semester by reading Plato’s Republic, which is an allegory for the soul. In the book, Socrates asks his friend Glaucon about the nature of the Good, and Glaucon explains that there are three senses in which something can be good:

(1) “a kind of good we should be glad to have for its own sake alone, not because we desire what comes from it,” (2) “one kind that we love both for its own sake and for what comes from it,” and (3) “a third king of good… [that]… we should not care to have them alone for their own sakes, but for the sake of the wages and the other things which come from them.” (The Republic, Bk. II)

The discussion between Glaucon and Socrates then turns to consider to which of these three categories Justice would belong to. Glaucon surmises that Justice is good in the second sense, because of what it causes, and not for its own sake. Socrates disagrees with this, saying instead that Justice is good in the third sense: for both itself and its consequences.

When we read that particular passage about a week ago, my students’ opinions about what falls into which category were very fascinating. They were divided on where to put education; a majority of them thought it good for its consequences, while the rest thought it good for both its consequences and for its own sake. The students never found something to put into the first category of things good for their own sake. In summary of their opinions, as best I understand, something good needs be so for its consequences, regardless of its intrinsic value.

Over the last few weeks, I have been discussing Josef Pieper’s Leisure: The Basis of Culture with my coworkers. The philosopher Pieper, writing in 1950s West Germany, argues that Western Culture has become a “work-a-day” world in which we live to work and only break from work for the sake of returning to work rested. In such a culture, one’s value as an individual is based on his ability to work and contribute. He is not so much a human being as he is an economic variable. The more he works and produces, they greater his value. A thing is good only if it is the consequence of something else. In this world, “usefulness” and “utility” are the most important criteria in deciding how one ought to spend his time. That which derives no practical benefit is necessarily not good.

Pieper notes that Western Culture has lost its sense leisure. In the Ancient World, leisure was something that only the wealthy enjoyed. To be at leisure meant that a man had the means to support himself through others, such as his servants. In a world where most men worked from sunrise to sunset to earn their livelihood, one who had time to “not-work” stood apart. In its original context, leisure is the freedom from work in order to pursue those things which are not essential to living from one day to the next. One would spend this time pondering this good in themselves: the Virtues, philosophy, and poetry.

Theology, philosophy and poetry are all things done for their own sake. Reading T.S. Eliot’s “Choruses from the Rock” will not make you a more productive working, nor will reading Anselm of Canterbury’s argument for the necessary, non-contingency of God in Monologion result in a higher wage. If anything, reading Plato might result in earning less money, since the time spent reading The Symposium could be spent doing something much more “useful.”

I must be careful here so as not to try to argue that reading Augustine or The Ballad of the White Horse is somehow useful. To do so would be antithetical to the idea of something being good for its own sake. Chesterton’s poem about King Alfred needs no justification, least of all from me. He who has eyes to see and a willingness to take up and read will find that it is a reward in itself.

In The Apology, Socrates states that he hopes to cause the men of Athens to be more concerned with their souls than with their possessions or reputation. The man himself, not what he has or owns, is what truly matters. In our time it is important to recognize that man too, is an end in himself, and ought never be treated as the means to some other end. He is good by virtue of his existence and special creation as imago dei, the image of God. Our value as individuals must never be defined by what we produce or contribute.

The utilitarian spirit has done much to assault the ramparts of education. Higher mathematics are called into question by those unlikely to have any need of trigonometry or calculus and often labeled as “impractical.” Teaching Aristotle might seem to have no merit unless one it can be clearly show to be somehow relevant to a student’s desired vocational goals. I have come to despise these sentiments and pity those who utter them. Education is not concerned with what kind of car one will drive, where one lives, or the number of zeros on his paycheck. Education is about the human being and helping him to relate more fully to all of reality, from the created to the Creator.

“The charm of leisure must not be the indolent vacancy of mind, but the investigation or discovery of truth.” - St. Augustine

Hope Exhausted

2008-11-09T18:32:00.002-07:00

"Dantes passed through all the various stages of misery that affect a forgotten and forsaken prisoner in his cell. First there was pride born of hope and a consciousness of his innocence; next, he was so reduced that he began to doubt his innocence; finally his pride gave way to entreaty, yet it was not God he prayed to, for that is the last resource, but man. The wretched and miserable should turn to their Saviour first, yet they do not hope in Him until all other hope is exhausted."

-Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo

True Conservatism: Thoughts on the 2008 Elections

2008-11-06T20:16:00.003-07:00

Referring to the week's main event, a friend of mine commented that "conservatives lost in a big way," and certainly a resounding defeat of the Republican Party's presidential candidate, along with many smaller, state and local elections, would indicate that conservatives have suffered a serious set-back. Reflecting on what happened, however, I think it is quite clear that conservatives did not lose in this election. What lost in the 2008 elections was a kind of soft-core liberalism advocated by "moderates" within the GOP. John McCain may have lost the election, but John McCain is not a conservative. If anything, McCain's defeat has vindicated the cause of conservatism. Moderates within the Republican Party have desired to run more and more liberal candidates in an attempt to capture more votes from demographics that traditionally vote for Democrat candidates. Rather than seeking to win their support through convincing them of the superiority of conservative ideas, they watered those ideas down, stripping them of their power. That "moderate" candidates faced across-the-board failure, or rejection, is clear evidence that the GOP must return to its conservative roots if it ever wants to return to a position of leadership in this country.

The Six Canons of Conservative Thought

Conservatism, in its contemporary form, traces its roots back to Edmund Burk in the 17th Century, and while it has never been an ideology, has traditionally embraced certain tenants or beliefs in its various manifestations. Russell Kirk, in The Conservative Mind, identifies six of these "canons:"

(1) "Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems."

(2) "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems..."

(3) "Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes as against the notion of a “classless society.” With reason, conservatives often have been called “the party of order.”"

(4) "Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all."

(5) "Faith in prescription and distrust of “sophisters, calculators, and economists” who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs."

(6) "Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress."

Radicalism

In addition to identifying these principles of conservatism, Kirk identified several core doctrines of liberalism, which he thought could be found universally in all of the 20th Century's ideologies. The dogma of Radicalism are:

(1) "The perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society."

(2) "Contempt for tradition."

(3) "Political leveling."

(4) "Economic leveling."

(5) Rejection of the state as a God-ordained institution.

(6) "Rejection of society joined in perpetuity by a moral bond among the dead, the living, and those yet to be born --the community of souls."

The Future Political Landscape

While it is clear that Barrack Obama's views fall into what Kirk would call radical ideology, his election to the office of Chief Executive is not the end of the world, as those ignorant of history seem to think. Already, in my relatively short life, American witnessed the election, and re-election of William Jefferson Clinton, whose wife loudly advocated universal health care and other socialist policies. Those who would care to search the political annals of the 1990s will find that America did not slide into a socialist utopia, nor did Hilary Clinton succeed in nationalizing health care. In 1994/95, a conservative resurgence swept into Washington, and conservative Republicans rode in on conservative ideas and took a majority in congress, forcing the liberal Democrat president to reform welfare. I believe this can be done again under the Obama Administration, so long as there are courageous men willing to lead without compromising our ideals.

The Sucesses of Compromise

Compromise is considered by many to be the chief of political virtues, but it is more akin to vice than excellence. Integrity and courage are necessary to govern well. George W. Bush compromised with the liberals on education and gave us the No Child Left Behind Act. More recently, congressional Republicans compromised and allowed passage of the Wall Street bail-out. The people to whom such compromises appeal to are the kind of voters who would vote for an Obama over a McCain in any given election. Only by returning to true conservative principles, which each generation must take hold of and express in the context of their times, will this slide toward socialism and inhumanity be attenuated.

The Truth about Abortion

2008-10-21T21:31:00.004-07:00

I do not believe in emotional manipulation or in doing things for shock value. However, there is always a time and a place for the truth, especially when human lives depend on it. The following video is quite graphic, but I think we all need to see it so that we are fully aware of just how cruel and barbaric abortion really is. That there are some people who find this kind of "operation" a sign of an enlightened culture and "progress" is disgusting. We sacrifice children for the sake of convenience and end up being no better than Molech-worshipers.

That Barrack Obama can find such barbaric practices even tolerable is proof enough that he is unfit for office. In our day, barbarians do indeed wear suits and silver tongues.

(HT: JT)

Myth And Reason: The Importance of the Presocratic Philosophers

2008-10-16T20:06:00.003-07:00

A few weeks ago, I noted that I was teaching Homer's epic, The Odyssey, to my Humanities class of 9th and 10th graders. In the intervening weeks, we finished The Odyssey, read selections from Hesiod's Works and Days, and a few days ago, wrapped up a whirlwind introduction to the Presocratic philosophers. To my knowledge, the Presocratics are not normally a part of a high school-level humanities curriculum, but I think they are useful to introduce, if only briefly, to underscore the shift in the way the Greeks thought about reality.

To jump from Homer or Hesiod right to Socrates is nearly as great an academic sin as ignoring the Middle Ages as a source of serious philosophical and theological significance. Socrates did not exist in a vacuum and his method of inquiry decended from those who went before him. To forget that Thales and Anaximenes were asking big questions long before the Gadfly was sitting the the Agora is truly a crime almost worthy of the hemlock.

The Presocratics, so-called because they came before Socrates, are the intellectual bridge from Homer and Hesiod to the Golden Age of Greek philosophy. Homer and Hesiod represent a culture concerned with piety and material gain, and Socrates is accused of impiety and refuses to go against the law of Athens, even if it means his doom. Something happened in the meanwhile and the Presocratics give insight into this.

Homer and Hesiod, both poets, see reality as constantly being intervened in by the pantheon of gods. A fierce thunderstorm means that Zeus is unhappy with someone, and bulls must be offered to Poseidon to ensure a stormless trip across the wine-dark seas. Grey-eyed Athena blesses those who are crafty, like the hero Odysseus, and Hesiod's Dike scoures the earth for the unjust who malign her. The gods are active in the world and responsible for many things.

Yet, within a century or so, Thales will begin questioning reality and arrive at some very different conclusions. Sometime in the 6th century BC, Thales asked a very important question: what is the one behind the many? In other words, what is the one thing that lies under all other things and unites all things? Water was the answer he eventually settled on and for understandable reasons: water, in its various forms, is very much like everything else in reality. When frozen, water is a solid. When it is boiled, it turns into vapor and is very much like air. Water, furthermore, is everywhere. Walk in any direction far enough, and you will eventually run into water.

The significance of this shift is immense. No longer does the Greek mind turn to the gods to explain everything in reality. Rather, Thales turns away from appealing to the gods and attempts to reason to the truth, relying on his own observations and common sense. When a tree falls on a house, Hesiod would call you to consider how you may have offended the god of the trees. Thales might instead consider what else could have caused the tree to fall.

While Tales was the first to ask the question, what is the one behind the many, he was not the last. After him a line of successors wrestled with the very same question: Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides and the Atomists. Further, Pythagoras, Heraclitus and Parmenides are all significant contributors to Plato's metaphysical outlook. Without them, it is doubtful Plato would have ever become something beyond a playwrite.

Mohler on Large Families

2008-09-18T06:50:00.002-07:00

The response to large families with several children is now like a litmus test that reveals what we really think about the family, about children, and about humanity. Remember that the next time you see that multiple passenger van pull up in the church parking lot. Do you smile?

- R. Albert Mohler

Read the rest: Put a Stop to Large Families?

Resisting Evil

2008-09-12T08:16:00.003-07:00

The world of Norse mythology is a strange world. Asgard, the home of the gods, is unlike any other heaven men have dreamed of. No radiancy of joy is in it, no assurance of bliss. It is a grave and solemn place, over which hangs the threat of an inevitable doom. The gods know that a day will come when they will be destroyed. Sometime they will meet their enemies and go down beneath them to defeat and death. Asgard will fall in ruins. The cause the forces of good are fighting to defend against the forces of evil is hopeless. Nevertheless, the gods will fight for it to the end.

Necessarily the same is true of humanity. If the gods are finally helpless before evil, men and women must be more so. The heroes and heroines of the early stories face disaster. They know that they cannot save themselves, not by any courage or endurance or great deed. Even so, they do not yield. They die resisting. A brave death entitles them--at least the heroes--to a seat in Valhalla, one of the halls in Asgard, but there too they must look forward to final defeat and destruction. In the last battle between good and evil they will fight on the side of the gods and die with them.

This is the conception of life which underlies the Norse religion, as somber a conception as the mind of man has ever given birth to. The only sustaining support possible for the human spirit, the one pure unsullied good men can hope to attain, is heroism; and heroism depends on lost causes. The hero can prove what he is only by dying. The power of good is shown not by triumphantly conquering evil, but by continuing to resist evil while facing certain defeat.

Such an attitude toward life seems at first sight fatalistic, but actually the decrees of an inexorable fate played no more part in the Norseman's scheme of existence than predestination did in St. Paul's or in that of his militant Protestant followers, and for precisely the same reason. Although the Norse hero was doomed if he did not yield, he could choose between yielding or dying. The decision was in his own hands. Even more than that. A heroic death, like a martyr's death, is not a defeat, but a triumph. The hero in one of the Norse stories who laughs aloud while his foes cut his heart out of his living flesh shows himself superior to his conquerors. He says to them, in effect, You can do nothing to me because I do not care what you do. They kill him, but he dies undefeated.

- Edith Hamilton, Mythology

Teaching The Odyssey

2008-09-04T08:25:00.004-07:00

Today is essentially the conclusion of my third week of teaching. In a few hours, we are leaving with all of the Upper School (7-12 grades) for a retreat, thus rendering today a half-day and depriving the poor dears of any classes whatsoever tomorrow.

In my humanities class, we are currently reading Homer's classical epic, The Odyssey. We have made it through Book VI in our reading and have had some good discussions so far. Last week, I started giving them reading quizzes and the final question of each is one of a more philosophical nature that we subsequently discuss.

The first conversation we had was on the virtue (or vice) of being clever. Odysseus is a clever man, and Penelope, his wife, also demonstrates the same cunning. Their son displays it to a lesser extent now, but as the story unfolds, with the aid of Athena, who is herself very crafty and clever, Telemakhos becomes more like his parents. The Greeks clearly valued cleverness, but whether or not we, in our culture, value it, is another question entirely.

The second question I posed to the students was whether or not a hero who must rely on others, or in the case of Odysseus, the gods, really a hero? If the gods are enabling Odysseus to do heroic things, is it really Odysseus who is being heroic?

Yesterday, I asked them to consider hospitality. Time and again, how strangers are received is a point of emphasis in The Odyssey. While we clearly value hospitality in our time, do we value it to the same extent? Perhaps we do, but in my experience, most people only show hospitality to people they know. When a stranger or traveler is among us, are we so quick to take them into our homes and feed them?

I hope as the weeks go on, we can have many more conversations of this nature. If you happen upon a good topic in your readings of The Odyssey, please feel free to share it with me.

On Rhetoric

2008-08-18T16:39:00.004-07:00

One of the aims of Classical education is to teach students how to communicate with excellence. Such communication involves not only speaking correctly (through grammar and sound logic), but also in a persuasive manner. Rhetoric is the art of speaking well. As the saying goes, "it is not what you say, but how you say it."

Students in their final years of study in a Classical program will study and practice rhetoric as the capstone of their incremental education. To this end, most Classical schools require all seniors to write, present and publicly defend a thesis in order to graduate. Prior to this, students might practice rhetoric through formal debates for and against specific propositions, including some that might be very absurd. A rhetorician seeks to use the tools of language to convince you of his logic and reasoning.

There are, it seems, some dangers to teaching rhetoric without impressing upon students the gravity of the ethical dimension of the art. In the quest to convince someone, the rhetorician can sometimes employ language in place of, rather than in support of, his argument. This is most commonly seen in politics, and it can be used quite effectively. A skilled rhetorician can paint a picture of tragedy, create a sense of urgency, or weave a tapestry of hope, all through the use of words and language.

In our time, Barrack Obama is an example of a rhetorician of considerable skill who has used it to acquire a following. His speeches are largely full of rhetorical fluff that only seem to convey emotion rather than substance and so I find his use of language questionable. Good rhetoric ought to appeal to good reason. Bad rhetoric rests on emotional manipulation.

While I am still thinking through much of this, I would like to start a dialogue on the ethical responsibility of rhetoricians. Ought we to call rhetoricians out when they descend into manipulation, or is it even a problem worth worrying over?

Jesus is Not a Feeling

2008-08-04T17:35:00.003-07:00

A big cliche from a few years ago (which I think is finally starting to fade out) in Christian circles was to say that "Jesus is not a religion, he's a relationship." While I understand, and even agree on many levels, with the statement, I find it terribly lacking. Truly there is something other than ritual and repetition in being a Christian. Truly, Christ's death on the cross does reconcile us in a very personal way to the Almighty, to whom we, prior to Christ's death, stood as rebels and enemies. I agree with these sentiments. However, I think a rebellion against one extreme has lead into another. Just as Jesus is not a series of formalities and traditions (liturgical and theological), neither is he an "experience."

Many of those who eschew formalism and liturgy do so on the grounds that they are pursuing an "authentic" spirituality, and seem to advocate a pseudo-mystic experience as their end. Laudably, their goal is to "know God," but somehow they have come to accept that the only real "knowing" available is of a purely subjective nature. Taken to an extreme, we find the "God is Love" people who see Christianity as one great big warm fuzzy. To such people, Jesus is certainly not a religion. Indeed, Jesus has become an experience.

To "Jesus is an Experience" Christians, "worship" means the band gives you an emotional high during the concert on Sunday morning right before the self-help motivational talk designed to make you feel better about yourself. To the "Jesus is an Experience" Christian, "divine revelation" means God talked to you when you watched Braveheart. Or was that the left-over pizza from Friday night?

Such a spirituality resembles little the Faith professed by the Apostles, the Early Church and the Martyrs. Apparently before the advent of rock bands and music with a back-beat, there was no such thing as "authentic" worship. Apparently the Martyrs who suffered and died did not do so under the provision of their God, who is too "nice" to let people suffer.

I do not contend that there is no subjective aspect of Christianity. However, I think we have over-emphasized this "experientialism" and have slipped into a much more narcissistic spirituality. Is it little wonder that a people caught up in the pursuit of a religious experience struggle to see the point of local church membership and accountability? When the mark of spiritual maturity is thinking that God is there to tell you to order vanilla instead of chocolate, are we to be surprised when they push aside pursuits of the mind as being "unimportant, inauthentic, and constricting?" It is not the formalists and traditionalists alone who put God into a box.

Jesus is not a religion, but neither is he an experience. He is the second person of the Trinity, who, through the Incarnation, lived a perfect, sinless life, and then really, truly, and actually died in a very horrible and painful manner to atone for the sins of his own. Further, he really, truly and actually rose again from the dead, ascended into Heaven and is right now really, truly and actually at the right hand of the Father. He has sent his Spirit into the world to convict us of sin and to conform us into his own image. Finally, Christ will really, truly and actually return triumphantly and will judge each one for his sins, casting into eternal fire all those who stand guilty before his real, true and actual Holiness, but ushering into eternal life all those who stand justified because of his shed blood.

Reformed Catechisms

2008-08-02T12:08:00.003-07:00

Challies answers a reader's email about Reformed catechisms. One of the benefits of catechizing children is that it grounds them in Biblical doctrine from an early age. Challies has an good example of how this pays off:

Before leaving Reformed circles I had never heard anyone claim to hear from God nor had I really seen people wrestle with issues of God’s guidance. These were foreign concepts to me. It took me some time to figure out why this was not a struggle for me. I did not wrestle with issues of God’s guidance because I had been taught firm principles from my years of catechetical instruction.

Read the whole thing: Catechetical Instruction

A while back, I posted the entirety of Spurgeon's Puritan Catechism. Rather than link back to that, I direct you to the Spurgeon Archive where you can find the catechsim with Scripture proofs: A Puritan Catechsim

I also wrote a post on the uses of a catechism: The Purpose of a Catechism

Radio Worldview Takes on "The Shack"

2008-07-28T09:38:00.003-07:00

A book called The Shack has been making waves in both Christian and mainstream circles. Written by William P. Young, The Shack has been lauded by some as "the next Pilgrim's Progress." I have not read The Shack, but half of the blogs in my RSS reader seem to have reviewed it, and it has subsequently become a source of contention among Christians. In latest podcast from Radio Worldview, Bill Jack and Dell Cook begin analyzing The Shack and interacting with Young's ideas.

Radio Worldview: The Shack

This is the first installment of a two-part discussion, so stay tuned!

The Economy of Grace

2008-07-27T12:03:00.000-07:00

My friend Ben Stafford has started the blog The Economy of Grace to share thoughts and ideas on matters theological as well as economic. He is a devoted Christian and we attended the same church in college, in addition to leading a Bible study together. He is also quite knowledgeable in the area of economics and is a proponent of limited government and, thereby, a free market. Here is an excerpt from a recent post on Jonathan Edwards:

The Religious Affections

Edwards prefaces the book to state the question he is setting out to answer. “What are the distinguishing qualifications of those that are in favour with God, and entitled to His eternal rewards?” In other words, is there any way to know one if who claims to be born again truly is? And if so, what are those characteristics of his thought or actions that will tell us?

Latin and Leisure

2008-07-26T15:38:00.005-07:00

Latin and leisure are two things that have been on my mind lately. In addition to teaching humanities this Fall at Providence, I will also be teaching Latin. When I mention this to inquiring friends and family, someone inevitably voices the obvious: "What is the benefit of learning that?" Latin is, after all, a dead language that only those of us who have resigned ourselves to near-poverty as teachers and professors dabble in, right? I also happen to be reading Josef Pieper's Leisure: A Basis for Culture and in the first part of the book he writes about the cultural mindset of work. We work so we can live, and we "not-work" for the sake of working (resting for the sake of working later). Everything is done for the sake of efficiency and utility. Such a mindset easily explains why things like Latin or philosophy are regarded as trival, at best, and a waste of time, at worst. While true leisure dictates that some things have value, regardless of whether or not you get anything back from them, there are practical benefits from learning Latin.

The most often cited benefit is vocabulary. A significant number of words in the English language are derrived directly, or indirectly (via the Romance languages) from Latin. Studying Latin vocabulary lists will teach you the root and origins of many words and phrases and make decyphering new words easier.

Latin is also tremendously helpful for learning English grammar. Despite the dissimilarities between Latin and English, the same basic parts of grammar exist in both: nouns and adjectives, active and passive verbs, and cases. While it may have been otherwise in the past, today we do not learn English grammar in a very systematic way. We learn English through use and experiece, not through consulting grammar books. Further, in many schools, the process of learning to read has been stretched out over twelve grades by the curriculum manufacturers. When a student learns Latin grammar, it is most often done so by comparision to English equvilants and translation. This is not so much true for Latin as it is of learning a second language in general. I never completely grasped the difference is use between "who" and "whom" and how both function grammatically until I began studying German in college.

Finally, the act of reading and translating Latin requires discipline and attention to detail. Unlike most modern languages which rely on a word's placement in the sentence (the subject noun comes before the verb, and the object noun comes after), word order is irrelevant in Latin. Whether a noun is the subject or direct object can be learned by looking at the word ending. For example the sentence, poeta puellam amat, means "the poet loves the girl." The ending for poeta, -a, means that it is the nominative case, or "subject." The -am ending of puellam shows that it is the accusative, or "direct object" of the sentence. Finally, the verb ending of amat, -at, is the third-person singular, present, indicative, active ending. Learning Latin to encourages you pay close attention to words and what is being said, which is a highly valuable skill in just about any profession.

Clearly, Latin is not a useless subject foisted on students for the sake of tradition. Increased vocabulary, a better understanding of grammar, and a closer attention to detail are all things that a student stands to gain from studying Latin (and Greek as well). Even up into the 18th Century, Latin was the universal language of scholars and educated men. Be he from England, Prussia or Spain, a scholar who knew Latin could interact with his peers from almost anywhere in Christendom. Even as recent as the 18th and 19th Centuries, statesmen such as Edmund Burke were modeling their English speeches and writings off of the great Latin Rhetoricians, Cicero and Augustine, whose eloquence and style is appreciated even today by those who study communication. Latin, despite being a dead language, is not without usefulness. Those who find it pointless would do well to consider what they could learn from learning Latin.

Showing Love in Matters of Conscience and Contention

2008-07-14T12:04:00.002-07:00

Over the weekend, I finished reading through Romans in my personal devotions. Easily my favorite book in the New Testament, each time I return to it, I am impressed again by the grace of God in spite of my sinful rebellion, and grow a little more grateful for his love for one such as I who did not love him. Knowing that your salvation rests wholly outside of yourself, and that even the very breath with which you call upon the Lord for deliverance is only by his grace does more to quash pride and self-righteousness. In light of laying out man's total inability to be righteous, and God's amazing grace, the Apostle Paul sets for instruction in the last four chapters on how Christians out to live and relate to one another. I have been meditating on what he wrote in chapters fourteen and fifteen regarding matters of conscience and bearing with weaker brothers. Our liberties in Christ needs to be understood in the context of brotherly love.

In Chapter 13, Paul instructs the Romans to "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." This is after he exhorted them in Chapter 12 to "Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor," and later, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." All of these verses, and others, set the context for what comes in Chapter 14:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. one person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgement on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.

Further,

Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.

Finally,

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me."

There are many matters of conscience that have become matters of contention among the people of God. Among the things mentioned by Paul here and elsewhere is the question of food. Some of the Jewish Christians still clung to the Mosaic dietary laws, and some Christians (Jews and Gentiles alike) refused to eat any meat that had been dedicated or sacrificed to idols. Peter's vision in Acts 10 and Paul's statement in Romans 14:14 make it clear that in Christ, we are free to eat anything. Paul adds that he should only eat if he has a clear conscience and goes on to say that he who eats without a clear conscience has sinned. Today, matters of contention center around issues such as alcohol and media consumption. Many Christians regard the consumption of any alcohol to be sinful, and some see no justification for seeing a movie that has any questionable content. Other Christians strongly disagree with these positions, and the result has been contention among them, often resulting in a lack of charity.

In these passages, Paul instructs us to bear with the weaker brothers, and to not exasperate him. The brother who eats unclean meats with a clean conscience in the presence of a brother who does not have the same strength of conscience only stirs up contention among the Body. Today, the brother who is able to drink alcohol with a clear conscience exasperates his brother with a weaker conscience when he flaunts his freedom. Such actions demonstrate selfishness and not love toward the weaker brother. Hence, the need for Paul's command the stronger to bear with the weaker.

Though I am convinced that I have the freedom in Christ to drink alcohol (in moderation), I never have the freedom to cause my brother to sin. When I am quick to assert my freedom in Christ to enjoy the (fermented) fruits of the field in the face of a weaker brother, I am not showing him love. If we go out for lunch and I, fully knowing his conscience is not as free as mine, order a beer with my meal, I am only stirring up offense. When I seek to assert my rights at the expense of my brother, I fail in my obligation to love him.

Of Romans 14, Calvin wrote, "For God, by making us stronger than others, does not bestow strength that we may oppress the weak; nor is it part of Christian wisdom to be above measure insolent, and to despise others. The import then of what he addresses to the more intelligent and the already confirmed, is this, --that the ampler the grace which they had received from the Lord, the more bound they were to help their neighbours." The stronger the Christian, the greater the grace he is to show to the weaker. The verse, "to whom much is given, much is required" comes to mind.

My concern is that, whatever the issue may be, we overlook the fact that our love and service to our brothers is more important that our liberties. That we have them is to the glory of God, and when we enjoy them it should be to the glory of God. However, you cannot cause your brother to sin or exasperate him to the glory of God. We have not been set free from sin and death to live for ourselves, but to life for Christ as we serve one another in love, building each other up in what is right, good, and true.

This understanding requires a change in attitude in how some of us regard our liberties. Rather than flaunting them or wearing them like a t-shirt, we should not seek to draw attention to them. Perhaps for the sake of your weaker brother, you order a coke when you go to lunch with him. Our liberties and freedoms, rightly exercised, should not interfere with our mission of mutual edification. As it is written,

"All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

What He Said: John Owen V

2008-07-10T09:15:00.000-07:00

The duties that God, in an ordinary way, requires at our hands are not proportioned to what strength we have in ourselves, but to what help and relief is laid up for us in Christ; and we are to address ourselves to the greatest of performances with a settled persuasion that we have not ability for the least.

- John Owen, Of Temptation

Mr. Over-Emotional Worship Leader

2008-07-08T11:34:00.002-07:00

I seldom put up videos, but this one was too funny to pass up. If you've ever been in a contemporary evangelical worship service, this will make you laugh.

What He Said: John Owen IV

2008-07-08T09:36:00.000-07:00

If a castle or fort be never so strong and well fortified, yet if there be a treacherous party within, that is ready to betray it on every opportunity, there is no preserving it from the enemy. There are traitors in our hearts, ready to take part, to close and side with every temptation, and to give up all to them; yea, to solicit and bribe temptations to do the work, as traitors to incite an enemy.

- John Owen, Of Temptation

What He Said: John Owen III

2008-07-03T09:37:00.000-07:00

Raise up your heart by faith to an expectation of relief from Christ. Relief in this case from Christ is like the prophet's vision: "It is for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, yet wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry" (Hab. 2:3). Though it may seem somewhat long to you, while you are under your trouble and perplexity, yet it shall surely come in the appointed time of the Lord Jesus; which is the best season. If, then, you can raise up your heart to a settled expectation of relief from Jesus Christ--if your eyes are toward him "as the eyes of a servant to the hand of his master" [Ps. 123:2] when he expects to receive somewhat from him--your soul shall be satisfied, he will assuredly deliver you; he will slay the lust, and your latter end shall be peace. Only look for it at his hand; expect when and how he will do it. "If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established" [Isa. 7:9].

- John Owen, On the Mortification of Sin in the Believer

The Bondsmen of the Earth

2008-07-02T15:40:00.002-07:00

"Though dead are all the paladins
Whom glory had in ken,
Though all your thunder-sworded thanes
With proud hearts died among the Danes,
While a man remains, great war remains:
Now is a war of men.

The men that tear the furrows,
The men that fell the trees,
When all their lords be lost and dead
The bondsmen of the earth shall tread
The tyrants of the seas."

-The Ballad of the White Horse 7.127-137

In the 18th and 19th Centuries, Western Culture underwent a dramatic shift away from traditional structures of society and government toward a more egalitarian and democratic mindset. No longer were the lower classes at the mercy of the aristocrats, nor were the middle-classes beholden to the whims of a King. In America, an aristocratic class never developed, all but ensuring the development of some manner of government by popular representatives.

When Chesterton penned those lines of The Ballad of the White Horse, he was not so much speaking from the past as he was speaking to his time, beset by the barbarianism of Modernity. Christendom had no leaders, no "thunder-sworded thanes" to protect others from the dangers of Modernity. The traditional role of the aristocrat was to defend his own from harm, and in the absence of such leadership, Chesterton saw that it fell to the "bondsmen of the earth" to fight the encroaching barbarism and atheism. King Alfred calls upon these simple men to use the common skills and virtues to "tread the tyrants of the sea." Alfred gives them courage and inspires them fight. Prepared to fight and die, they rally and charge their foes, and the simple virtue of the peasant overcome the hardened warrior in the White Horse vale.

We have few generals and leaders who speak with moral authority and clear conviction. Relative to preceding generations, we are woefully undereducated and illiterate. Our abilities are few and our vision nearsighted. Yet, all is not lost. Our God is great and he uses what is weak and lowly to do mighty things. Reluctant Gideons though we may be, history has shown what even three hundred men can accomplish in the face of thousands of determined foes.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

- 1 Corinthians 1:26-2:5

What He Said: John Owen II

2008-07-01T09:33:00.000-07:00

When a man rights against his sin only with arguments from the issue or the punishment due unto it, this is a sign that sin has taken great possession of the will, and that in the heart there is a superfluity of naughtiness [James 1:21]. Such a man as opposes nothing to the seduction of sin and lust in his heart but fear of shame among men or hell from God, is sufficiently resolved to do the sin if there were no punishment attending it.

- John Owen, On The Mortification of Sin in the Believer

What He Said: John Calvin

2008-06-26T09:00:00.000-07:00

"As the soldier has ever his arms ready, that he may use them whenever he is ordered by his general, and as he never uses them but at his command; so Christians ought to regard all their faculties to be the weapons of the spiritual warfare: if then they employ any of their members in the indulgence of depravity, they are in the service of sin. But, they have made the oath of soldiers to God and to Christ, and by this they are held bound: it hence behoves them to be far away from any intercourse with the camps of sin."

John Calvin - Commentary on Romans

What He Said: John Owen

2008-06-24T09:41:00.000-07:00

"When sin lets us alone we may let sin alone; but as sin is never less quiet than when it seems to be most quiet, and its waters are for the most part deep when they are still, so ought our contrivances against it be vigorous at all times and in all conditions, even where there is least suspicion."

John Owen - On the Mortification of Sin in the Believer

What He Said: Tim Challies II

2008-06-19T09:36:00.000-07:00

"When we have rejected the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, we allow Christians to depend on things other than the Bible as their guide to matters of life and faith. In particular, people begin to depend upon mysticism, upon ways of supposedly knowing God apart from the Bible. They look inward for intrinsic wisdom rather than outward to the Bible for extrinsic wisdom. They forsake biblical reason in favor of feelings, voices, visions, or other subjective means of supposedly knowing God. This is a deadly error, for spiritual discernment must be founded upon God's objective revelation of himself in Scripture. We can only judge between what is wrong and what is right when we know what God says to be true. We can know this only from Scripture."

Tim Chalies - The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment

What He Said: Tim Challies

2008-06-17T11:24:00.003-07:00

"We live in an age where too many who profess to be Christians rarely consider their spiritual maturity--an age when many consider spiritual immaturity a mark of authenticity, and when people associate doubt with humility and assurance with pride. Far too many people consider sound theology the mark of a person who is argumentative and proud. Far too many people are just like the audience to whom Hebrews is addressed. This letter draws a clear line connecting a lack of discernment with spiritual immaturity so that those who lack discernment are those who are spiritually immature. Scripture makes it plain: if you are not a person who exhibits and exercises discernment you are not a mature Christian."

Tim Challies - The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment

The Economy In Perspective

2008-06-13T09:46:00.000-07:00

In the May issue of Imprimis, Patrick Toomey shares some interesting numbers on the U.S. economy:

Average economic growth in the U.S. has not only been positive for almost the entire last quarter century, but for much of this period the rate of growth has accelerated. Our nation’s total economic output in 1982 was $5.1 trillion; last year it was $11.3 trillion (in real 2000 dollars). Per capita economic output in 1982 was $22,400; last year it was $37,807 (in real 2000 dollars). The average unemployment rate in the 1970s was nearly seven percent; it has been declining, on average, every decade since, and has remained below five percent since 2003. The service sector of our economy has been on fire, growing from $1 trillion in 1982 to $5.5 trillion in 2006. And do you know how far back one has to go to find the year when America’s total manufacturing output peaked? All the way back to 2007! Yes, U.S. factories produced more last year than in any previous year in our history. That’s the “hollowing out”—as its critics like to say—of America’s economy.

With regard to standard of living, he said:

These gains in income and wealth have resulted directly in a better standard of living for virtually every segment of American society—including the poor. Among families living below the official poverty line in the early 1970s, less than 40 percent had a car, almost none had color televisions, and air conditioning was virtually unheard of; in 2004, 46 percent owned their own homes, almost 75 percent owned a car (indeed, 30 percent owned two or more cars), 97 percent had color TVs, and 67 percent had air conditioning. The poor in the U.S. have an average of 721 square feet of living space per person, as compared with 430 in Sweden and 92 in Mexico.

With all of the doom and gloom, it is easy to forget that we are still experiencing unprecedented economic growth, and in the long run, it will take drastic economic upheaval to truly put our economy in the gutter.

The read the entire thing here: The Greatest Story Never Told: Today's Economy in Perspective

Radio Worldview: Bill Jack on ID

2008-06-13T08:52:00.003-07:00

The latest installment of that grand adventure known as Radio Worldview is now available. In this episode, they discuss celebrity worship and Bill answer a listener's question that clarifies his position on Intelligent Design. Here's the show description:

Host Bill Jack has never been bashful about articulating his suspicions of the Intelligent Design movement. Co-host Jeff Baldwin thought he had Bill on the ropes when Ben Stein's Expelled was recently released, but Bill is sticking to his guns. Fortunately, a thoughtful listener asks just the right question, allowing Bill to (finally) clearly explain why he takes umbrage with Intelligent Design. Also, Jeff rants and raves about celebrity worship.

Subscribe to the podcast through iTunes here, or download it directly from the Worldview website here.

The 2008 season presses on as the camps in Minnesota and New Mexico wrap up today. Next week, the teams will be in Flagstaff, AZ and Wheaton, IL. Registration for these camps is still open, so if you or someone you know would like to attend a Worldview Academy Leadership Camp, go to www.worldview.org and locate a camp near you.

Voddie Baucham on the Family Integrated Church

2008-05-29T10:59:00.006-07:00

Boundless has an interview with Voddie Baucham, pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church, on the family-integrated church. He identifies a number of problems with the way things have been done and offers the family-integrated approach as an acceptable alternative. Please read and share your thoughts on:

The Family Integrated Church

Homer: Comparing Translations

2008-05-28T12:30:00.009-07:00

Last week, I announced that I had been hired by Providence Christian Academy in St. Louis. It is a part-time position teaching Humanities to 9th and 10th grade students. This upcoming school year, I will be taking them through the Ancient period, as I noted on Sunday in the used bookstore post.

One of my tasks of late has been to secure all the books I'll need, and in the same translation (and pagination) as the editions assigned on the reading list for the class. I have found some of the books in my local used bookstores, and thus also found the need to check and see if older editions were the same as newer ones. I found out on Tuesday that the older edition of the Plato anthology I bought has the same pagination as the newer edition, thanks to a quick trip to Borders.

One of the books I purchased new during that trip to Borders was the proper edition of Homer's Odyssey, the very book that taught me the importance of a good translation for those of us who cannot read Classical Greek. The summer before my freshman year of college, I was sent a high school reading list from my college's English department with a list of some books and authors that they hoped we would all be familiar with, and The Odyssey was one such book. Since I hadn't read it in high school, I picked up a copy from my local library and tried to read it on the drive to Spring Freshman Orientation (which, incidentally, was five years ago this month). I had only made it no more than five pages in when I (gently) tossed the book aside in frustration. It was hard to read and did not make a lot of sense to me. When I learned that it was on the reading list for my freshman Great Books class, I was more than a little worried about how I would survive.

To the rescue came my professor, Dr. Somerville, who, out of his wisdom, had picked an amazingly readable translation of The Odyssey. The confusing and hard-to-understand tome that I had feared simply failed to show up. I am sure there were other factors going on as well, such as having a professor lecturing, explaining and answering questions as we went along. Here is a comparison of the translation we used in the Great Books class, and the other, "standard" translation:

Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns
Driven time and again off course, once he had plundered
The hallowed heights of Troy.
Many cities of men he saw and learned their minds,
Many pains he suffered, heartsick on the open sea,
Fighting to save his life and bring his comrades home.
But he could not save them from disaster, hard as he strove-
The recklessness of their own ways destroyed them all,
The blind fools, they devoured the cattle of the Sun
And the Sungod wiped from sight the day of their return.
Launch out on his story, Muse, daughter of Zeus,
Start from where you will- sing for our time too.

And the other:

Sing in me, Muse, and through me tell the story
Of that man skilled in all ways of contending,
The wanderer, harried for years on end,
After he plundered the stronghold
On the proud height of Troy. He saw the townlands
And learned the minds of many distant men,
And weathered many bitter nights and days
In his deep heart at sea, while he fought only
To save his life, to bring his shipmates home.
But not by will nor valor could he save them,
For their own recklessness destroyed them all-
Children and fools, they killed and feasted on
The cattle of Lord Helios, the Sun,
And he who moves all day through heaven
Took from their eyes the dawn of their return.
Of these adventures, Muse, daughter of Zeus,
Tell us in our time, life the great song again.

The first is from the Robert Fagles translation, and the latter is from the older translation by Robert Fitzgerald. While it ultimately comes down to a matter of preference (unless you want as literal a translation as possible, which isn't as big a factor in this instance), I find the Fagles translation much more readable and "poetic." I've read this section from a number of other translators (such as Lattimore) and none of them seemed to draw me quite like Fagles does. That said, based on the excerpts given (which come from the first twelve lines of the epic), which translation would you rather have to read?

Christian Books: Sex, Language and Violence?

2008-05-27T13:49:00.003-07:00

Over at The Master's Artist, Mary DeMuth started an interesting conversation by pointing out how the Christian publishing industry seems to have little, if any, problem with violence in the books they put out, but still shy away from other "vices." The comment thread is has been very interesting to follow. Check it out: Goldilocks Violence.

Out of the Deep I Call to Thee

2008-05-26T09:05:00.003-07:00

Out of the deep I call to Thee, O Lord, to Thee.
Before Thy throne of grace I fall; be merciful to me.

Out of the deep I cry, the woeful deep of sin,
Of evil done in days gone by, of evil now within.

Out of the deep of fear and dread of coming shame;
All night till morning watch is near I plead the precious Name.

Lord, there is mercy now, as ever was, with Thee.
Before Thy throne of grace I bow; be merciful to me.

Dr. Voddie Baucham: The Feminization of Men

2008-05-19T13:52:00.003-07:00

Thoughts?

(HT: Marc)

The Worldview Song

2008-05-09T14:17:00.003-07:00

I love Matt Morginsky. He is the former lead singer and song-writer for The Orange County Supertones, who were probably one of the best things that came out of the CCM industry. Since the Supertones dissolved, Matt has been traveling and speaking on apologetics, a frequent theme in his songs. Check out "The Worldview Song."

Allowing Intelligence

2008-05-01T15:40:00.007-07:00

After hearing all the buzz and hype, I decided to see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed this afternoon. I was thinking about seeing it, but this morning I edited the latest episode of Radio Worldview, in which hosts Bill and Jeff offer commentary on it, and I decided to take the time this afternoon to view it for myself.

On the whole, I have been fairly silent on the issue of Intelligent Design on my blog. In college, I took a class on the philosophy of science, a course I'm convinced should be mandatory for every science student, in which we used ID and the (back then) recent Dover, PA Kitzmiller court case as a springboard. My senior year, I took a seminar on Intelligent Design that was taught by not only philosophy professors, but also an evolutionary biologist and a historian of science. There were about as many professors in the classroom on a weekly basis as there were students. The class started with the historian of science outlining the histories of both the creationism movement and the intelligent design movement, showing that they came out of very different kinds of soil. Then, then evolutionary biologist lectured for a few weeks on what darwinian evolution is. Finally, one of the philosophy professors took us through William Dembski's ID argument. The argument was very technical and even I, the philosophy major, found myself asking for simplifications. To round my educational pedigree out, I took an introductory biology class, taught by Darwinists.

One of the assignments for the Intelligent Design seminar was to write a paper, a portion of which I reworked into a blog post a few weeks ago that attracted more than a little controversy. In sum, the point I made was that the anti-ID crowd is either acting out of ignorance or with suspicious motives when they dismiss ID as "creationism." I took a look at the taxonomy and concluded that while ID and Creationism are related, as far as ideas go, it is more fitting to call Creationism "Intelligent Design," than vice versa. My argument is a little more nuanced than that, but rather than rehash it here, I'll simply direct you to read it here.

Ok. Now to the subject at hand: Expelled

I enjoyed Expelled and I thought it was a well-made and well-thought out documentary. Stein did good at backing up his claims of intellectual discrimination and at talking to scientists on both sides of the issue. If you read my past post on ID, you will understand why I particularly appreciated Dembski pointing out that ID is a "low-commitment" theory, unlike Creationism, which requires a much more rigorous series of beliefs. Even Richard Dawkins, toward the end of the film, admitted that ID was possible, provided the designers were extra terrestrials, a theory also proposed by the late Francis Crick.

In the last third of the movie, one of the interviewees made the point that we would all like to think that science is what is driving the worldview of the scientist, but said that he fears that the worldview is driving the science. This is an issue that cannot be brought up too often. Our assumptions about the nature of reality dictate how we will interpret reality.

Another important point Stein brought up is the necessity of Darwinian ideas for something like Nazism and Eugenics. As Stein stated multiple times, Darwinism does not always lead to it, but opens the door to the possibility. I think this is a good point to make, especially when you have Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris running around, talking about how religion only brings war and terror. Science, as well as religion, has been used for evil ends.

At one point, Ben Stein asks Richard Sternberg, who lost his job on account of allowing a paper that mentioned ID in its conclusion to be published in a journal, what he would say to those who think he was rightly expelled. His answer, in essence, was "who are you and what right do you have to decide what is and is not science?" That is possibly one of the biggest and more important questions raised in the film, and it is a shame that Stein did not probe it further. The demarcation problem of science (the question of what is and is not science and how scientific knowledge is different from other kinds of knowledge) is something philosophers of science have been aware of for a long time, yet few in the scientific community seem interested it wrestling with the issue.

On the whole, I think Expelled served its purpose well and will hopefully result in more discussion of the issues. If you are hoping of a systematic exposition on the finer points of irreducible complexity and Bayesian probability, then you are going to be disappointed. If you have not seen it, I encourage you to see it for yourself before you judge it. Even if you are not positively inclined toward ID, it might do you well to see how many people view those who quickly brush off ID as "creationism" and refuse to discuss it.

Planting Trees

2008-04-25T15:36:00.005-07:00

No, this is not a post about global warming or environmentalism. I'm a white male of European decent, so I don't really care about those things, remember? No, it's Friday and that means Paz has another article up on the ACWI blog. It's called Love Your Neighbor and Plant a Tree. To find out the connection, go ahead and read.

In other news, Paz and I will be making appearances all over the state of Missouri, so please ask to find out if we're coming to your part of the state. We'd love to make ourselves available for "meet and greet"as well as "Q & A" sessions.

The Conclusion of the Puritan Catechism

2008-04-14T14:28:00.005-07:00

This morning, I posted the last question of the Puritan Catechism. I now have not only the entire catechism on my blog, but also the 1689 London Baptist Confession. I think I'll take a break with posting creeds and catechisms for the time being, but I am currently thinking about doing something similar with the Canons of Dordt, where what are now known as the Five Points were affirmed against the Five Points of the Arminian Remonstrants. Dort is important, not only because it affirmed these five Biblical doctrines, but also because in spite of being an issue for the churches in the Netherlands, representatives from Reformed churches all over Europe were present. But back to the catechism...

As I blogged about before, catechisms are designed to be summaries of doctrine put together primarily for the purpose of educating new Christians or the children of Christians. The series of questions and answers provide an outline for a Christian worldview, built upon the truths of Scripture. As I said before, I know have the entire catechism on my blog, and so if you would like to go through a read them all from the beginning, here it is:

A Puritan Catechism

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

The Purpose of a Catechism

A Body of Beliefs

A Puritan Catechism: Question 82

2008-04-14T09:46:00.001-07:00

Q. What is meant by the words, "until he come," which are used by the apostle Paul in reference to the Lord's Supper?

A. They plainly teach us that our Lord Jesus Christ will come a second time; which is the joy and hope of all believers (Acts 1:11, 1 Thess. 4:16).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 81

2008-04-13T08:33:00.000-07:00

Q. What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper?

A. It is required of them who would worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body (1 Cor. 11:28-29), of their faith to feed upon him (2 Cor. 13:5), of their repentance (1 Cor. 11:31), love (1 Cor. 11:18-20), and new obedience, (1 Cor. 5:8) lest coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 80

2008-04-12T09:05:00.000-07:00

Q. What is the Lord's Supper?

A. The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to his appointment, his death is shown forth (1 Cor. 11:23-26), and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace (1 Cor. 10:16).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 79

2008-04-11T08:43:00.000-07:00

Q. What is the duty of such as are rightly baptized?

A. It is the duty of such as are rightly baptized, to give up themselves to some particular and orderly Church of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:47; 9:26; 1 Pet. 2:5), that they may walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (Lk. 1:6).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 78

2008-04-10T09:03:00.001-07:00

Q. How is baptism rightly administered?

A. Baptism is rightly administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body of the person in water (Matt. 3:16; Jn. 3:23), in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to Christ's institution, and the practice of the apostles (Matt. 28:19-20), and not by sprinkling or pouring of water, or dipping some part of the body, after the tradition of men (Jn. 4:1-2; Acts 8:38-39).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 77

2008-04-09T08:00:00.001-07:00

Q. Are the infants of such as are professing to be baptised?

A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptised, because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures for their baptism (Exod. 23:13; Prov. 30:6).

Creationism and Intelligent Design

2008-04-08T10:05:00.007-07:00

The recent rise in popularity of the intelligent design movement has attracted the interest and ire of laymen and scientists alike. Many of these men and women consider their criticisms to be in defense of what they consider good science, and see themselves as crusading against the forces of anti-intellectualism and ignorance. In particular, many of these figures, so zealous for the faith, misunderstand what they are fighting against. Indeed, many people writing the anti-Intelligent design literature are condemning it for being creationism in sheep’s clothing. Conversely, many anti-evolutionists are whole-heartedly embracing the ID movement as a sort of messiah for high education. While there are similarities between ID and creationism, they are significantly different and deserve to be treated as such.

There are three points on which ID and Creationism must be differentiated. The first is that they have very different theses. The second has to do with the identity of the designer. The last point is the role that natural selection plays in the development of life. The difference in these two positions will ultimately show that while Creationism is a kind of Intelligent Design theory, Intelligent Design does not automatically entail Creationism.

The first point has to do with the main theses of both theories. The main thesis of intelligent design is that there are, in the natural world, some complex systems that cannot be explained by purely naturalistic means. Inference to the best explanation suggests that some intelligent agent was responsible for the design of such complex systems and thus was designed. In short, purely naturalistic theories are useful and sufficient in most cases, but do not sufficiently explain everything.

The central thesis of Creationism is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis provides man with a literal, historical account of how life came about and developed. The evolutionary natural selection contradicts this account, and therefore, it cannot be true. The key point is that God is the creator of everything and that Genesis accurately tells us how he did it.

The difference is clear: Intelligent design is concerned with complexities in nature that cannot be explained solely on the basis of natural selection and simply posits that a designer is responsible. Creationism is advancing the position that a supernatural entity, God, created the world and the life in it according to a specific reading and interpretation of a Christian text. Clearly these are not the the same theses.

Intelligent design theorists posit no identity of the designer. As far as they are concerned, the designer could be anything from advanced extra terrestrials to time-traveling scientists. While the designer could be God, and many ID proponents, such as William Dembski, believe it is, the theory does not, at least explicitly, rest on the assumption that the designer is God. The identity of such a designer is not relevant to the ID theory and is thus either down-played or ignored by ID proponents.

Creationism clearly articulates who they believe to be behind the design of Creation. This being is God, who has revealed himself to mankind through the Judeo-Christian tradition. He is attributed omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Further, he commands all men to believe in him and conform their will to his.

Again, the contrast between ID and Creationism is clear. ID is silent on the identity of the designer, and Creationism clearly and boldly articulates who is behind creation. As stated above, it is not impossible for the Intelligent Designer to be identical with the Judeo-Christian God, and ID proponents such as Dembski believe that to be the case. However, it is not the case that ID necessarily entails Jehovah God as the designer. ID proponents have been clear that the designer’s identity is not essential to their theory.

The last point of contrast, and the most important one, has to do with the relation of natural selection to ID and to Creationism. In Intelligent Design, natural selection accounts for almost everything in nature. They do not argue that everything was intelligently designed, but that only certain irreducibly complex systems were specifically designed. However, there is little room for natural selection in Creationism. God directly creates every kind of creature, and thus, there is nothing for nature to select. While more recent Creationists have allowed for some natural selection to take place, they insist that it can and does only happen on a micro-level, that is, within a species. So, God originally creates the dog species and through micro-evolution all of the various breeds are derived.

Creationism and Intelligent design are clearly not the same thing. Intelligent Design is concerned with proposing an intelligent designer to explain a few complex systems that they do not believe could have evolved naturally. Creationism is concerned with affirming the theological doctrine of special creation and a particular interpretation of the Genesis text. Further, ID makes no assertions about the identity of the designer, whereas Creationists firmly assert that the Judeo-Christian God is responsible. Lastly, intelligent design is not hostile to evolutionary natural selection and most proponents are comfortable with it accounting for much of the organs and organisms in nature, save for a few specific cases. Creationists have little room for natural selection, which contradicts their interpretation of Genesis, which calls for the special creation of all things, not the slow, gradual development of organisms over long spans of time.

There is one nuanced point the needs to be made: Creationism is a form of intelligent design. While this may seem to contradict the case I have just made, it does not. Intelligent design, as a theory, on its most basic level, holds that there is a designer who has a role to play in the development of life. Creationism, by virtue of the fact that it affirms that God designed the world and created life in it, meets the criteria for an intelligent design thesis. However, just as the small size of a room does not entail that the building the room is in is small, so too with Intelligent design: simply because one kind of intelligent design theory posits certain things does not entail that all intelligent design theories much posit the same things. It might be helpful to think of Intelligent Design as a meta-theory, and under this meta-theory, are several sub-theories that all meet the basic criteria of an intelligent design theory. One of these sub-theories is Creationism. Another is Intelligent Design, as the specific theory advanced by people such as Dembski and Behe. So, while Creationism and Intelligent design are taxonomically related, it is only in so far as they both posit that purely materialistic theses of life are insufficient and that there must have been an intelligent agent behind it.

Both evolutionists and creationists would do well to keep these distinctions in mind when discussing and debating the Intelligent Design issue. ID is not too different from theistic evolution, and so creationists who find such a thesis disconcerting and problematic do well to look more closely, and critically, at the specific claims of ID proponents. Finally, ID is not creationism, and for members of the scientific community to miss these important distinctions is puzzling, unless they are debating in bad faith and simply trying to poison the well of public opinion though misinformation.

A Puritan Catechism: Question 76

2008-04-08T00:22:00.002-07:00

Q. To whom is Baptism to be administered?

A. Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6; Mk. 16:16; Acts 8:12, 36-37; Acts 10:47-48), and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and to none other.

The Reformation Returns

2008-04-07T19:15:00.002-07:00

Over at Reformation Theology, Nathan Pitchford has made a list of five factors in the rise of interest in Reformed theology:

1. Dissatisfaction with the theology and religious
environment of our parents.

2. Desire for a rootedness and connectedness with the
historic faith.

3. The resurgence of Puritan literature.

4. John Piper.

5. The internet (and Monergism in particular).

Nathan unpacks each of these points, showing why he thinks each one is a factor. I ordered Collin Hansen's new book, Young Restless and Reformed, which also explores this return to a more historic grounding in theology. It hasn't arrived in the mail yet, but when it does, I will be curious to see if Hansen picks up on some of the same reasons.

For those of my readers who consider themselves Reformed, or are interested in Reformed theology, what attracted you to it, and what have been factors in your shift?

A Puritan Catechism: Question 75

2008-04-07T09:01:00.001-07:00

Q. What is Baptism?

A. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19), to be to the person baptised a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, and burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12), of his being ingrafted into him (Gal. 3:27), of remission of sins (Mk. 1:4; Acts 22:16), and of his giving up himself to God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4-5).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 74

2008-04-06T09:25:00.001-07:00

Q. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become spiritually helpful?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become spiritually helpful, not from any virtue in them, or in him who does administer them (1 Cor. 3:7; 1 Pet. 3:21), but only by the blessing of Christ (1 Cor. 3:6), and the working of the Spirit in those who by faith receive them (1 Cor. 12:13).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 73

2008-04-05T09:21:00.002-07:00

Q. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?

A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend to it with diligence (Prov. 8:34), preparation (1 Pet. 2:1-2), and prayer (Ps 119:18), receive it with faith (Heb. 4:2), and love (2 Thess. 2:10), lay it up into our hearts (Ps. 119:11), and practise it in our lives (Jas. 1:25).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 72

2008-04-04T08:55:00.001-07:00

Q. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of convicting and converting sinners, (Ps. 19:7) and of building them up in holiness and comfort (1 Thess. 1:6), through faith to salvation (Rom. 1:16).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 71

2008-04-03T08:45:00.001-07:00

Q. What are the outward means whereby the Holy Spirit communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby the Holy Spirit communicates to us the benefits of Christ's redemption, are the Word, by which souls are begotten to spiritual life; Baptism, the Lord's Supper, Prayer, and Meditation, by all which believers are further edified in their most holy faith (Acts 2:41-42; Jas. 1:18).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 70

2008-04-02T09:00:00.001-07:00

Q. What is repentance to life?

A. Repentance to life is a saving grace (Acts 11:18), whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sins (Acts 2:37), and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ (Joel 2:13), does with grief and hatred of his sin turn from it to God (Jer. 31:18-19), with full purpose to strive after new obedience (Ps. 119:59).

The Great Books

2008-04-01T11:35:00.004-07:00

Worldview Academy's Jeff Baldwin has developed a home school curriculum for high school students on the Great Books. Covering the Ancient, Medieval, Reformation and Modern periods, each over the course of a school year, students take part in the Great Conversation of Western Culture as they encounter the classic works and thinkers whose ideas have shaped and changed the world around us. Jeff Baldwin and Mark Bertrand have written study guides for many of the essential titles, which are available to buy on the website. If you are an educator, a home schooling parent, or someone interested in reading through the best books Western Culture has to offer, check out TheGreatBooks.com

A Puritan Catechism: Question 69

2008-04-01T08:27:00.002-07:00

Q. What is faith in Jesus Christ?

A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace (Heb. 10:39), whereby we receive (Jn. 1:12), and rest upon him alone for salvation (Phil. 3:9), as he is set forth in the gospel (Isa. 33:22).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 68

2008-03-31T08:47:00.001-07:00

Q. How may we escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin?

A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, we must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Jn. 3:16), trusting alone to his blood and righteousness. This faith is attended by repentance for the past (Acts 20:21) and leads to holiness in the future.

A Puritan Catechism: Question 67

2008-03-30T07:46:00.001-07:00

Q. What does every sin deserve?

A. Every sin deserves God's wrath and curse, both in this life and that which is to come (Eph. 5:6; Ps. 11:6).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 66

2008-03-29T08:18:00.001-07:00

Q. Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?

A. Some sins in themselves, and by reason of various aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others (Jn. 19:11; 1 Jn. 5:16).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 65

2008-03-28T08:43:00.001-07:00

Q. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?

A. No mere man, since the fall, is able in his life perfectly to keep the commandments of God (Eccl. 7:20), but does daily break them in thought, (Gen. 8:21) word (Jas. 3:8), and deed (Jas. 3:2).

The Invocation of the Muse

2008-03-27T11:58:00.005-07:00

Over on her blog, Sarah has shared a conversation she had with her Muse. It is a very enlightening discussion they have and those wondering about the way of the Fair Muses would do well to check it out.

(PS: I am in no way suggesting, via the photo, that I am Sarah's muse)

A Puritan Catechism: Question 64

2008-03-27T09:31:00.001-07:00

Q. What is forbidden in the tenth commandment?

A. The tenth commandment forbids all discontentment with our own estate (1 Cor. 10:10), envying or grieving at the good of our neighbour, (Gal. 5:26) and all inordinate emotions and affections to anything that is his (Col. 3:5).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 63

2008-03-26T09:04:00.000-07:00

Q. What is the tenth commandment?

A. The tenth commandment is, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, or his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's."

A Puritan Catechism: Question 62

2008-03-25T09:36:00.001-07:00

Q. What is required in the ninth commandment?

A. The ninth commandment requires the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man (Zech. 8:16), and of our own (1 Pet. 3:16; Acts 25:10), and our neighbour's good name (3 Jn. 1:12), especially in witness-bearing (Prov. 14:5, 25).

Whosoever and Predestination

2008-03-24T16:18:00.004-07:00

A common objection to the doctrine of unconditional election (aka, predestination) is John 3:16. I typically get bent out of shape whenever I read or hear people using this verse as an objection to predestination, and not because it blows a hole in my theology, but because it is a mishandling of the Word of God to use it in such a fashion. I am currently reading R.C. Sproul's Chosen By God, and he has an excellent treatment of this common usage of John 3:16:

What does this famous verse teach about fallen man's ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing. The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ. A careful look at the text reveals, however, that it teaches nothing of the kind. What the text teaches is that everyone who believes in Christ will be saved. Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life). The text says nothing, aboslutely nothing, about man's natural moral ability. Reformed people and non-Reformed people both heartily agree that all who believe will be saved. They heartily disagree about who as the ability to believe.

The doctrine of election has nothing to do with belief in Christ as the basis for eternal life. It concerns itself with who exactly will believe in Christ, and thus inherit eternal life. There will be no soul in Hell who professed faith in Christ, but was denied everlasting life because he was not one of the elect. True faith in Christ always saves and is itself a sign of God's adoption of you as his son or daughter. The true debate, as Sproul points out, is about who has the ability, the desire, to believe.

A Puritan Catechism: Question 61

2008-03-24T10:11:00.001-07:00

Q. Which is the ninth commandment?

A. The ninth commandment is, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

A Puritan Catechism: Question 60

2008-03-23T12:40:00.002-07:00

Q. What is forbidden in the eighth commandment?

A. The eighth commandment forbids whatever does or may unjustly hinder our own (1 Tim. 5:8; Prov. 28:19; Prov. 21:6), or our neighbour's wealth, or outward estate (Eph. 4:28)

A Puritan Catechism: Question 59

2008-03-22T09:07:00.001-07:00

Q. Which is the eighth commandment?

A. The eighth commandment is, "Thou shalt not steal."

Novum Mandatum and Good Friday

2008-03-21T17:04:00.006-07:00

Last night I went to a Maundy Thursday service at church. While I know I have been to several Good Friday services, I cannot remember if I have ever been to Maundy Thursday. The name is derived from the Latin novum mandatum, or "new commandment." In John 13, before instituting the Lord's Supper, Christ washes his disciples' feet and gives them a new command: love one another. It is then that they break the bread and drink the wine of their Passover meal. That Christ told his closest followers that they world would recognize them as belonging to Him by their love for each other is worth pondering.

Not only did Christ give a new commandment, but he also washed the feet of his disciples. As Pastor Adams pointed out, the context of the foot-washing needs to be understood. Not long before, the disciples had been arguing amongst themselves as to who was the greatest. After arriving in the upper room, none of them had enough humility to wash the feet the rest. Yet, Christ himself, who truly was, and is, the greatest, is the one who gets up and serves them. More and more, this example of service sticks out in my mind as the spirit of Christian leadership. If my Lord and Savior can wash the smelly feet of a bunch of sinners, who am I to think myself above such a chore? How may we wash the feet of those around us? Another question worth pondering.

Finally, Christ instituted the Lord's Supper. Regardless of whether you believe the full nature of it to be, Christians can all agree that it is given to us as a memorial of what was done. For the disciples, it was a sign of what was shortly to come. In the rush of remembering the Resurrection, we must not rush past the Crucifixion. It is the work of Christ on the cross that secures our salvation. Today is Good Friday and it is today that we remember the death of Jesus Christ. Yet, this death, this good death (the eucatastrophe), must be remembered more than just every Spring. This is why we were given the Lord's Supper, that we might remember the death of Christ for our sins. Is the Crucifixion regularly in your thoughts? There are few things worth meditating on more.

A Puritan Catechism: Question 58

2008-03-21T14:04:00.001-07:00

Q. What is forbidden in the seventh commandment?

A. The seventh commandment forbids all unchaste thoughts (Matt. 5:28; Col. 4:6), words (Eph. 5:4; 2 Tim. 2:22), and actions (Eph. 5:3).

A Puritan Catechism: Question 57

2008-03-20T09:04:00.001-07:00

Q. Which is the seventh commandment?

A. The seventh commandment is, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

A Puritan Catechism: Question 56

2008-03-19T08:42:00.002-07:00

Q. What is forbidden in the sixth commandment?

A. The sixth commandment forbids the taking away of our own life (Acts 16:28), or the life of our neighbour unjustly (Gen. 9:6), or whatever tends to it (Prov. 24:11-12).