Growing Lumps into Wings

"For mere improvement is not redemption, though redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end, improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine. God became man to turn creatures in to sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man. It is not like teaching a horse to jump better and better but like turning a horse into a winged creature. Of course, once it has got its wings, it will soar over fences which could never have been jumped and thus beat the natural horse at its own game. But there may be a period, while the wings are just beginning to grow, when it cannot do so: and a that stage the lumps on the shoulders -- no one could tell by looking at them that they are going to be wings -- may even give it an awkward appearance." (C.S. Lewis, Nice People or New Men?)

Speech isn't 'free' in Hollywood...

It'll cost you a great deal. Your career, your identity, or at the very least, some serious time and money spent in high profile therapy with an approved tinsel town shrink.

Just ask Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, and the latest heinous offender, Isaiah Washington (from Greys Anatomy). Mel hates Jews, Michael Richards hates blacks, and Isaiah Washington hates homosexuals.

That is, if we buy into the notion that drunken slurs are tantamount to wholesale hatred. Or that an awful, angry, and really weird tirade on stage is tantamount to wholesale hatred. Or a comment calling someone a bad name in a heated discussion is tantamount to wholesale hatred. Is it? Should we all have our lives destroyed because of such indiscretions in speech, thought, or even philosophy? Really? Who, then, could stand? Only those with a savvy PR team and plenty of cash for 'diversity training'.

Wait a minute. Did I say 'indiscretion'? You must admit it is a bit funny to see the moral outrage of Hollywood. And the question is valid: is what these guys did or said wrong? If so, who says? By what standard? Whose arbitrary morality is standing judge in Hollywood? Now listen, before you scream bloody hate crime, I really do believe wholeheartedly that what Mel said was wrong. But I judge such things by the fixed moral standards of Scripture. I didn't read the latest Gallup findings on whether or not Jew hating is a cultural no no. There is a good biblical word for what Mel, Michael, and Isaiah did: sin. It isn't all that hard to see it for what it is. But, if we refuse to see it, we'll pay Dr. Phil the going rate to root out the real cause of our indescretions. The Scriptures call us to account to God, and one another, for our speech and actions. And these three guys should be held accountable. The Scriptures call us to confess, repent, and seek forgiveness. These men should apologize. They should write letters of contrition. Their careers as public 'personalities' should rightfully suffer for their pathetic public behavior. Thankfully, the moral standard that I operate under, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, call us all to love and forgiveness, they tell us that 'mercy triumphs over judgment'. But, sadly, while there are many standing on the moral high ground of Hollywood in these circumstances, few will wallow in the valleys of forgiveness.

Does anyone else see the fly in the ointment here?

I really must ask: where are our first Ammendment freedom fighters backing up Isaiah? Where is George 'good night and good luck' Clooney? It fascinates me that now at The Laugh Factory (the comedy club where Michael Richards apparently lost his mind) you can say anything - anything, no matter how sick, twisted, and vile - you could possibly think to say. Except the 'N' word. If you can't see some irony in that, I'm afraid you've been drinking the P.C. Kool-Aid by the gallon jug. If that isn't an example of the pressure and power of the Hollywood thought police, I don't know what is. We have decided that there is now a word that shall never be uttered, no matter the intent, no matter the circumstances. It should disturb us when license is everywhere exercised to the most perverse degree, yet the stong arm of the media elite bears down with furious anger at its own whim. We should not be afraid of a drunken anti-semite (if we should call someone an anti-semite on that basis), an angry comedian with a personality disorder, or a slighted TV personality. We should be afraid of the creeping tyranny represented in the latest 'moral outrage' we hear from our distinguished Hollywood purveyors of truth and virtue.

Racism is ugly. It is an offense against God who made all men. It is a sin against men made in the image of God and bearing dignity. Prejudice against Jewish people and black people is wrong , treating a homosexual with contempt and mockery is wrong, and should be opposed and fought in the arena of free speech and free ideas.

It should not be fought with PR stunts to boost ratings and destroy a career. Or maybe it should. But that is the glory of a free society. How pathetic that such battles are fought with compulsory 'anger management' courses, 'diversity training' (lest Alec Baldwin, Ted Turner, and so many other Hollywood darlings suffer under such tyranny for their constant hateful remarks about Christians) or whatever other therapeutic reprogramming is being offered over at the counseling center. In this free republic we all have the freedom to despise what someone might say or believe, but we should fight with our lives their right to say or believe it.

Or, we might just pop in a sensitivity training DVD and bully each other into submission.

And we'll all pretend that it actually works. We'll all pretend that we're getting somewhere.

"Why is this on your blog, Pastor Erik?" you might ask. Good question. Because this has significant implications for Christians, churches, and anyone anywhere who believes there is to be an open and honest discussion of ideas. Let's remember that it is now a 'hate crime' in parts of the world to speak of homosexuality as sin. Christian student groups are being banned from campus' across our nation because of their biblical commitments. When the speech, ideas, philosophies, or convictions of one (however misguided, wrong, or 'emotionally' or 'socially' hurtful we think them to be) are censored in such a fashion, we are all susceptible.

'Tolerance', the buzzword in a pluralistic society, lest we forget, is a Christian and distinctly biblical virtue. Tolerance, in the Christian sense is not the forcing of all to forego conviction and live in a constant state of blind neutrality save in the narrow space of one's 'private' world. It is the belief, and even the cornerstone of a free society, that another has a right to convictions, beliefs, and cultural practices apart from your own as long as they are embraced lawfully and peacefully. It is rooted in the biblical ethic that God is the judge of all men and will indeed bring all to account. Therefore, we dare not act as God over the conscience and convictions of another, but rather love them and live in peace with them. This biblical 'tolerance' is being replaced by the loss, or at the very least, severe limitation of public discourse on the issues and ideas that matter most. And in their place are the secular boundaries of a 'private' and 'public' morality, set by the cultural power brokers, the arbiters of correct speech, ideas, and action. And the arena of 'free speech' is filled instead with all things trivial and banal at their best, and perverse and destructive at their worst.

Speech is never really 'free'. It will always cost you. And it seems to be taking its toll on an increasingly godless America.

Blah Like Postfoundationalism

In first service sermon time yesterday I 'bashed' Donald Miller. I say 'bashed' because someone said to me that I shouldn't 'bash' people. I agree. When I was in 10th grade I got into a nasty tustle with a kid named Bobby and he 'bashed' me in the face. It really hurt and I bled all over my Members Only jacket. It was a heart -and nose- breaking experience.

I didn't 'bash' Donald Miller. Yes, I know, I know, sticks and stones, right? Yet, I didn't call him any bad names or make fun of him (though there is some room for that, isn't there? I mean, you know, in good fun, of course. Maybe a little of this at the end of this post, where most people have stopped reading). I simply said that he is a best selling 'evangelical' author who represents the new 'emerging' pop evangelical culture that is rife with unbiblical thinking. My main point was that Miller has popularized the underlying philosophical tenets of the emergent community set forth by guys like Franke and Grenz. The philosophical tenets- mainly postfoundationalism and postcritical thought- are in my humble estimation, unbiblical and irrational (but then, I am a foundationalist- so of course I would think emergent philosophy and theology irrational and illogical! Oh, why can I not just embrace the mystery!). Miller is a good writer (though hardly the genius that most of the FSU sophomores claim him to be) and a winsome and likeable guy. I enjoyed reading 'Blue Like Jazz' when I wasn't throwing it at the wall. But, he is popularizing a view of Christian faith (or 'nonreligious thoughts on spirituality' or 'nonspiritual emotions on religiousity' or whatever the subtitle is) that is dangerous.

I'll let Leonard Sweet (another emerging, post-everything 'evangelical') define 'foundationalism' for us (to give you an idea of how the emerging logic runs):

In the foundationalist world, people assumed that through careful reason, logic, and research a complete structure of knowledge could be erected and mysteries could be gradually be replaced with knowledge. This knowledge would accumulate like bricks cemented on a foundation, and assuming the foundation is secure and certain, humans could have rock solid certainty from the bottom up. Modern scientists tended to rely only on sensory data for their "bricks", while modern Christians mined their bricks from the Bible, which was assumed to be intended by God as a source from which propositions could be extracted. In either case, it was assumed that knowledge was like a wall or building engineered upon an undoubtable, unshakable foundation. (Sweet, McLaren, Haselmayer; A is for Abductive, pp. 128-129)

Sweet (or McLaren or whoever) has made a pretty flimsy straw man here. This definition is filled with false dichotomies (we can have careful reason and logic without having hopes of a complete structure of knowledge; we can have true knowledge that isn't complete in the sense that I think Sweet intends to communicate here)- but I gave it to you so you get the idea. And, I suppose, this does define a sliver of the more entrenched rationalistic, Cartesian sort of modern thought that I rarely have encountered in evangelical circles. But the question must be asked, "Can we know anything?" Or, "Are there true propositions to be 'extracted' from the Bible?" Or, "Do Christians have any certainty?" Or, "Is all a 'mystery'?" And, again, let me say that my own epistemology has always been more of a reformed presuppositional sort (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/reformedepistemology.html; and http://www.carm.org/apologetics/presuppositional.htm) that isn't reducible to a merely foundationalist or post-foundationalist label.

You can read more about the foundationalism/postfoundationalism debate in a great book, Reclaiming the Center by Erickson, Helseth, Taylor, eds. (especially part two: Truth, Foundationalism, and Language, specifically chapter four, "The Premature Report of Foundationalism's Demise" by J.P. Moreland and Garrett DeWeese). There is a good review of the themes of this book here over at http://www.reformation21.org/.

Ok, ok, back on topic. What does all this have to do with Donald Miller? Hmmm. Here is the first paragraph of his chapter in Blue Like Jazz titled, "Belief":

My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don't really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly I don't care. I don't believe I will ever walk away from God for intellectual reasons. Who knows anything anyway? If I walk away from Him, and please pray that I never do, I will walk away for social reasons, identity reasons, deep emotional reasons, the same reasons that any of us do anything.

Go over to Doug Groothuis' blog for a detailed critique and review of Miller's best-seller http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2006/02/blue-like-jazz-deliver-us-from.html.

What can we deduce from Miller's statement? Here's five things:

1. Intellect (reason, logic, sound thinking, and the like) is unimportant and basically useless. Thankfully, Miller didn't build my house.
2. There are people that are convinced that God doesn't exist, and the same number who believe he does. So, we just throw our hands up and pick a side for arbitrary reasons.
3. Christian apologists are just trying to show how smart they are. Its not that they love Jesus and want people to trust him and avoid the flames of hell.
4. Nobody knows anything. Except for maybe the meaning of words and basic syntax, allowing us to read the sentences that Miller crafted and his basic propositions, like
5. The only reasons anyone does anything are sociological and deeply emotional.

I'll leave it to just those five things for now. Let me ask you, dear reader, if there is anything biblically wrong (apart from the fact that Miller doesn't make much sense, like so many who don't believe in making sense, but are all about being 'deeply emotional') with these statements? Should we as believers not challenge such assertions about the nature of God, his revelation, our knowledge of Him, and our duty before Him to set forth this knowledge to an unbelieving and lost world?

Is Humanity a Waste of Space?

A few years back Jodie Foster starred in the movie Contact that was scripted by the late agnostic astronomy-Guru Carl Sagan. The movie attempted (in typical Hollywood fashion- Matthew McConaughey plays a hunky theologian) to deal with some of the questions that have perplexed and plagued mankind throughout history: Why are we here? Where did we come from? Are we alone in the universe? Foster’s character is on a tireless crusade to prove that there is intelligent life out there in the cosmos (filled with billions and billions of stars and galaxies), though her search is often foiled by political spin-doctors and power hungry scientists. Ultimately Sagan’s worldview breaks through loud and clear with the close of the film when Foster’s character is asked by a group of schoolchildren on a field trip if there is life in the universe, on some distant planet, in some far off galaxy. The answer is given: “If not, then all this sure is a waste of space.”

There is a problem with Sagan’s worldview on a variety of levels. First, it ignores the incredible studies and findings that have surfaced in the field of physics in fairly recent history. One of the most significant studies was dropped like a bomb on the scientific community in 1973 by an astrophysicist from Cambridge, Brandon Carter. Carter developed a notion he called the ‘anthropic principle’ in physics (coming from the Greek word for man, ‘anthropos’). Basically, Carter’s thesis was this: It seems that the mysterious fundamental forces of physics, the ‘constants’ which we recognize as necessary yet inexplicable on a basic level (gravity, for example) are held in a intricate and delicate balance in order to produce a universe which would sustain and uphold human life. Further, it seemed to Carter that billions of years of evolution moved amazingly toward the goal of creating human life. Now, Carter’s theological commitments are ambiguous, to say the least, and he doesn’t attempt to answer a variety of biological questions regarding the biblical narrative surrounding creation. But his thesis is an incredible one, and has been the source of no little debate in the scientific community. How is it that man seems to stand at the center of such a vast and intricate mystery? If any of the ‘constants’ of physics are altered in the least, then human life is unable to continue. The laws of the physical universe sustain and uphold human life in an astounding way, and the more physicists discover of the universe, mankind’s existence becomes more and more baffling to those who have no ‘theological center’ to provide the answers to their questions. It seems that the more we learn about ‘space’ and the universe we realize that none of it is ‘wasted’ but is part of a created order, held in a delicate balance, in order to sustain the lives of human beings who stand at the center.

This brings me to the ‘theological’ problem with Sagan’s worldview. What a hopeless and devastating outlook! It is a common sentiment in our postmodern age. It is the sentiment which pervades every corner of a secularized community. In a world with no theological reference point we are simply a waste of space. With no theological reference point, one faces a vast and random universe and realizes he is only a blip on the screen. If indeed, as Sagan himself often said, “the cosmos is all that ever was and all that ever will be”, then we should not be surprised that we live in a culture of despair and hopelessness.

So what is the Christian’s response to the jaded philosophy of despair that has seeped into our culture? It is found in Genesis 1:26-27, 31, “Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them…God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Carter’s anthropic principle espouses an ancient and biblical doctrine, the doctrine of the imago Dei, that God has indeed created the universe for the purpose of sustaining human life, life which reflects his own image. Human life is precious and full of worth because humanity reflects, even in a fallen world, the image and likeness of our sovereign God.

But there is more to the biblical answer. The Apostle Paul says this in his description of the person of Christ in Colossians 1:15-20, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…in him all things hold together…For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” Though made in the image of God, man fell into sin and depravity. Yet his inherent dignity and worth remains and is shown in the reality that the same God who created us in His image, became man to reconcile us to himself. What a powerful message to proclaim to our culture of despair. God has created the universe for his own glory, and God has sent his Son to redeem a fallen race, to reconcile alienated and sinful men. The God of the universe entered time and space, was incarnated (made flesh) to redeem us. No Christian should ever entertain for a moment the thought that in comparison to the vast reaches of outer space that we are just a waste of space. The cross of Christ is proof positive that all things (including our immense universe) were created for God’s glory- and the most glorious event to have occurred since the beginning of time is beheld at Calvary. And it is there that we find our purpose, our worth, and our dignity. And it is to Calvary that we should point our despairing and hopeless culture.

Free Will?

“Do you believe in free will, or is every action by man determined and controlled by God?”

I do not like using the term ‘free will’ in the context of a biblical discussion on this issue. The reason is that there is so much imprecision in the usage of such a term. But I do believe in some sort of ‘freedom’ when it comes to the actions and decisions men. Calvin says this,

“Man will then be spoken of as having this sort of free decision, not because he has free choice equally of good and evil, but because he acts wickedly by will, not by compulsion. Well put, indeed, but what purpose is served by labeling with a proud name such a slight thing…But how few men are there, I ask, who when they hear free will attributed to man do not immediately conceive him to be master of both his own mind and will, able of his own power to turn himself toward either good or evil…If anyone, then, can use this word without understanding it in a bad sense, I shall not trouble him on this account…I’d prefer not to use it myself, and I should like others, it they seek my advice, to avoid it.”

What Calvin is getting at is the fact that the term ‘will’ (either thelema, or boulomai in the NT Greek) is rarely used with reference to man. It almost always refers to the eternal and steadfast decrees and counsel of our sovereign God. When thelema (the common word for ‘will’) is used of men, it is used to speak of man’s ability to choose sin and wickedness and his inability to procure grace for himself. Look at Ephesians 1 and 2—in chapter one the word ‘will’ refers to the free and sovereign will of God (vv. 1, 5, 11) and the only description of the ‘will’ of men is in chapter where we find Paul describe man in his ‘gratifying the cravings (thelema- ‘will’) of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest we were by nature children of wrath.’ The testimony of Scripture by and large describes man’s ‘freedom’ as tragically hampered by his sinful nature and depravity. This is why, in describing the ‘will’ of men, Paul says this in Romans 9: 16, “It [‘it’ referring, I believe to vv.11-12 speaking of God’s purpose in election] does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort (boulomai), but on God’s mercy.” In this passage we find that man’s ‘will’ has nothing to do with the issue, all is based on God’s mercy.

This is not to say that man is not morally responsible or culpable- the Scriptures testify that he is and that he is subject to punishment and wrath because of his sin. And we must speak of man as being ‘free’ in some respect. Otherwise God is some sort of capricious master puppeteer and we are his robotic craftsmanship. This is not the case. We engage in moral decision making throughout the day, we are responsible to ‘choose’ good and to deny evil ‘choices’. But I never want to assert the will of man as separate and distinct from the omniscience and omnipotence of our sovereign God. Psalm 139 is for me a great testimony to the fact that God is one who knows all things, ordains all things, and sees all things. In that passage, this divine knowledge extends to even the minute details of our lives, he knows our words before they are on our lips. It is, I believe, a tragic flaw in one’s theology of God to assert that the God who has revealed himself in such a way does not have knowledge of who his people are- are that the exercise of his creatures’ will is outside of his control. To be honest, to say that our ‘will’ is totally free and incontingent is to deny the free and incontingent will of God. Basically, you can’t have a God who is sovereign and free and have a creature who is able to make completely ‘free’ choices outside the contingencies that bind him (such contingencies being: his own depravity, his inability and need for grace, his dependence upon God for all things).

So, to make a long answer even longer I would say this: I am careful to use words like ‘free will’ because the common conception of such a phrase usually is very loaded and is often not consistent with the testimony of Scripture. I will say that there must be a sense in which we are ‘free’ in that we are responsible- some call us ‘free moral agents’. Dr. Packer says that the testimony of Scripture presents us with an ‘antinomy’. An antinomy is the phenomenon in physics where we find seeming contradictions in the physical universe (light as both wave and particle, for example). In Scripture, we find a tension between God’s sovereignty (the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent ruler of all he has created) and man’s responsibility. This is a ‘seeming’ contradiction from our limited and sin-stained perspective. But, in fact, from the divine perspective it is not a contradiction, such tensions are resolved in God’s divine and eternal counsel and will one day be revealed to us in glory. Ultimately, I will land on the shore of God’s power and purpose as free and sovereign, because I believe the burden of Scripture is on the shoulders of those who assert that man’s will is totally free and completely undetermined in any sense by God’s election, foreknowledge, and will.