tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4075382608999481482024-03-05T01:20:11.399-08:00Imperfect Reflections–1C13:12A blog about Christianity, Arminianism, Calvinism, prayer, and a whole lot more.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.comBlogger202125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-33416420441355418282018-09-27T08:30:00.003-07:002018-09-27T08:30:39.387-07:00Why Doesn't God Save Everyone?Why doesn't God save everyone? If God is so loving - indeed, if God is Love itself as 1 John teaches - why does he send anyone to hell at all?<br />
<br />
This question is something that gets asked by atheists and Christians alike, and it's definitely an important one. The answer - whatever it is - will tell us something important about who God is, and who we are, and what it means to "be in heaven" or "be in hell."<br />
<br />
It's that last bit in particular that I think is pretty important, and it's an aspect of the question that I think so many people overlook and take for granted. We know what "heaven" means: It's paradise! It's a place where everyone is happy! And we know what "hell" means: It's a place where everyone is miserable.<br />
<br />
But I don't think it's that simple. In fact, I think it's precisely that assumption that gets us into trouble. If we think of heaven simply as a place where everyone is happy all the time, it makes sense for us to wonder why God doesn't simply allow everyone in.<br />
<br />
So...is that what heaven actually is? <b>No. </b>When we talk about Christians "going to heaven", we don't just mean "going to a very pleasant location." We have to think about what <i>makes</i> heaven pleasant, what <i>makes</i> it paradise. And I think every Christian would agree that the thing that makes heaven paradise is primarily <b>the felt presence of God</b>. In heaven, we will <i>experience </i>God constantly. And as we worship him and submit ourselves to him, we experience that presence as pure joy and life.<br />
<br />
<b><i>That</i> is what it means to "go to heaven." </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
And when we come at the question with this in mind, the question changes to something more like this:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Is it possible for God to make his felt presence pleasurable for an unrepentant<b> </b>sinner? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In my mind, that's the <i>real</i> question when we're discussing why people go to hell. Because I don't think that it <i>is</i> possible. If placed "in heaven" - that is, in unending and incredibly intimate proximity to God - those who love darkness will be blinded by the most intense Light imaginable. Those who hate will be seared by Love itself. And those who choose to be dead will be forever forced to look Life full in the face. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i>That</i> is what would happen to an unrepentant sinner who "goes to heaven". And I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything else to call that except for hell. In fact, this is the Eastern Orthodox view of hell (or if not THE view, at least a very popular view). In this view, God doesn't send anyone to Hell, and in fact, "Hell" isn't a separate place at all. Everyone simply experiences God: Some in humble surrender, others in painful defiance.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm not positive this is the 100% correct understanding of Hell. But I think it's a distinct possibility. And I think that if it's wrong, then CS Lewis is correct when he calls hell a "painful refuge": Rather than force unrepentant sinners to remain in his presence - in agony - for eternity, God mercifully <i>allows</i> them to instead go into the "outer darkness", where they are cut off from their creator and left to stew in their own wickedness.<br />
<br />
In either case, I think the problem of God sending people to hell loses its bite. There is nothing God can do to make his presence pleasurable to someone who rejects him: the only question is whether they suffer because he's there or because he's absent. The only people in hell will be those who choose it over heaven, who reject God and choose their own pride and selfishness as eternal companions. <br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-14079369704052769462018-09-20T07:08:00.001-07:002018-09-20T07:08:28.110-07:00Why I Still Care About CalvinismAbout four years ago, I wrote on <a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-i-care-about-calvinism.html">why I care about Calvinism</a>. A lot has changed in those four years, but there's one thing that hasn't: I still think that Calvinism is absolutely poisonous to the body of Christ and to individual believers.<br />
<br />
The other night, I talked for nearly 3 hours with a friend who's been struggling with Calvinism for years, and it left me shaken. It left me angry. It left me incredibly sad. And it left me wanting to write.<br />
<br />
I still care about Calvinism because my friend, who's worked with youth for years, struggled to answer whether God loves and wants to save each one of the kids they work with, and that struggle tears my friend apart sometimes.<br />
<br />
I still care about Calvinism because my friend confessed, in tears, that they wonder whether they love the kids they work with more than God loves those kids: Because if any of them are unelect, that means that while my friend is actively working towards their salvation and earnestly desires for them to be saved, God does not desire their salvation and has in fact already irresistibly and irrevocably damned them to hell.<br />
<br />
I still care about Calvinism because it makes good, godly Christians wonder whether God's goodness is really what we would consider goodness at all, whether his love bears any similarity to our love, and whether God really means it when he commands us not to sin (after all, he orchestrates the sins he commands us not to commit!).<br />
<br />
I still care. It's still personal. Calvinism still poisons people.<br />
<br />
One thing I want to end on. My friend said that they wished they could just be Arminian (or at least non-Calvinist), that they could just easily say "YES! God loves each one of the kids I work with and actively works towards their salvation every single day!" But he can't do that, and a big reason is that would mean at the end of the day, God doesn't ultimately get his way, and that's too big of a sacrifice.<br />
<br />
That honestly boggles my mind. Because to me, that's an incredibly tiny sacrifice compared to the enormous, world-ending sacrifice of saying that each and every time I sin, that IS God "getting his way." That when I pass up an opportunity to witness to someone, that's God getting his way. That when someone experiences pain and hypocrisy that pushes them to reject God, <b>that's God getting his way. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
THAT is too big a sacrifice. I can't take a God who limits his love for the sake of his power. I can't reconcile that with the God who gave up his power so that he could be wrapped in swaddling clothes, sweat blood, be nailed to a cross, so that he could love the world and draw all people to himself. I can't reconcile that with Jesus.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-44672010945916285832018-06-22T08:33:00.000-07:002018-06-22T09:13:43.523-07:00Christian Hypocrisy in America"Gay marriage is a sin and it should be illegal! America is a Christian nation and our laws should reflect that!"<br />
<br />
"The government has no right to take my hard-earned money and give it to people who 'need' it. Whether I give to others - or not - is MY choice, and I should be free to do what I wish with my money."<br />
<br />
"Systematically separating children from their parents with no plan for how to reunite them is necessary to protect our borders. God bless America!"<br />
<br />
- All prime answers to "Things Republican Christians Say."<br />
<br />
Soooo....yikes, I guess? We've sort of hit a new low here, guys, and it's not a low that I really thought we would hit. We've reached a point where many Christians WANT to take children away from parents - again, with no plan for reuniting them - simply as a deterrent to keep other people from attempting to immigrate. And many more Christians, even if they won't say that they actually want it to happen, are content to point fingers at who "really" passed the law, or how "this has been going on for years and the media is now pointing it out," or other things that even if they were true, it wouldn't matter because <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/amberjamieson/heartbreaking-case-boys-immigration-court?utm_term=.koLK4wbBn#.jhJv6e4G3">HOLY CRAP GUYS WE PUT A THREE YEAR OLD IN COURT YESTERDAY WITHOUT HIS DAD BECAUSE WE HAD LOST HIS DAD IN THE SYSTEM. </a>They don't want to fix what's happening so much as make sure blame is apportioned to the OTHER side, and that's sick.<br />
<br />
So here's the point of this blog, the thing that's been bouncing around in my head for a couple years now and has only just now solidified:<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">When Christian Republicans say "We're a Christian nation and our laws should reflect that," they don't really mean that. They usually mean something more like "The gross, horrible sins that THOSE people commit are much worse than the small, negligible sins that my people and I commit, and they should be illegal."</span></b><br />
<br />
They never mean sins like being uncharitable, or overeating, or judgmental. They never want to criminalize pride, or lust, or greed. And they certainly don't want to mandate giving to the poor - that's one thing they're actually pretty firmly against!. In fact, <u>most of the sins they want to criminalize are those that they personally don't struggle with at all</u> - and the sins that they want to tolerate or approve are those that make their lives easier (like the whole "separating families with no plan for reuniting them" thing).<br />
<br />
So next time you hear a godless liberal hippy talking about how hypocritical Christians are...this is a small, small part of what they're talking about. It's that a Christian can somehow say both 1) the government should reflect Christian morality and criminalize gay marriage (or some other yucky sin), and 2) it's a government, not a church, and we need to protect our borders by using cruelty as a deterrent. <b>These are diametrically opposed ideas that cannot coexist</b>, and they can only appear to do so because of a substitution of fundamentalist legalism and law-worship for genuine Christianity.<br />
<br />
I guess the rant is over? This whole thing leaves me with a sick taste in my mouth. Cognitive dissonance can sometimes be funny - but here it's horrifying.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-72805565072988239222017-09-18T13:03:00.005-07:002017-09-18T13:03:45.790-07:00A Matter of Perspective?As someone interested in the Arminianism/Calvinism debate, I run into one particular comment/argument pretty often.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The outside of the gates of heaven reads "Whosoever will may enter here." The inside of the gates of heaven reads, "Chosen from the foundation of the world." It's just a matter of perspective!</blockquote>
The "perspective" argument is a popular one. Some people break it down into the "divine perspective" and the "human perspective", and this particular iteration of the argument has the advantage of being somewhat snappy and appearing to distill a complicated question into a very simple answer.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, it has the disadvantage of being an absurdly silly answer that completely fails to understand the question at hand. And it's very easy to break down and see why: <u>All we have to do is put it into different words</u>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From the outside of heaven, it LOOKS like it's a matter of free choice. The "invitation" is given to all, and some people choose it and others don't. However, from the inside, it becomes clear that what REALLY happened is those who "chose" it were, in fact, chosen from the foundation of the world and manipulated into "choosing" it in every aspect of their lives. (And of course, who cares about those poor saps who didn't get that "opportunity.")</blockquote>
See, that's the problem with "perspective" arguments: <b>They all rely on people forgetting that while there may be many perspectives, there is only one reality. </b>And when one of those perspectives is "God's perspective" or "the divine perspective" or the perspective from inside heaven, it's really easy to see which one is the reality.<br />
<br />
So in the case of this particular illustration, it's clear that God's eternal choice and election of particular people is the reality: The "perspective" of free choice is merely a temporary illusion. It's not actually real. Even the sensation of choosing was itself eternally predetermined and manipulated by God. This argument equates the mere sensation of choice ("whosoever will") with the reality of God's eternal election, and hopes you won't notice that the "whosoever will" is absolutely 100% subordinate to and dependent on God's election.<br />
<br />
Again: While there may be many perspectives, there is only one reality. In the case of two different perspectives, the rightness of one perspective only comes with a corresponding wrongness or incompleteness of the other perspective. Let's do a real quick example:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
My friend parks his car at my house, and comes home the next day to find it completely crushed by a giant boulder. I run up and say, "You should have seen it, it was crazy! This huge boulder just came tumbling down the cliff and crushed your car!"<br />The next day, my neighbor approaches my friend and says, "Hey, I don't know if you know this, but that guy is actually the one who <i>pushed</i> the boulder off the cliff and onto your car."</blockquote>
Two different "perspectives": but only one reality. The mere facts of gravity and inertia are irrelevant because they are subordinate to and dependent on the fact that I was the one who initiated it. There aren't two perspectives: There's just me being a jerk and crushing someone's car with a boulder.<br />
<br />
This really is just a silly argument. I wish people would think harder about it instead of being happy at solving centuries of conflict with two sentences. <br />
<br />
<br />Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-77632994000060147342017-05-15T17:56:00.002-07:002017-05-16T19:11:20.986-07:00The Good You Had Expected<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<i>"One goes into the forest to pick food and already the thought of one fruit rather than another has grown up in one’s mind. Then, it may be, one finds a different fruit and not the fruit one thought of. One joy was expected and another is given. But this I had never noticed before that at the very moment of the finding there is in the mind a kind of thrusting back, or a setting aside. The picture of the fruit you have not found is still, for a moment, before you. And if you wished - if it were possible to wish - you could keep it there. You could send your soul after the good you had expected, instead of turning it to the good you had got. You could refuse the real good; you could make the real fruit taste insipid by thinking of the other.’"</i></div>
<div>
CS Lewis, Perelandra</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Six months ago, I began to dream that I could take the skills I'd gained through my last five years as a copywriter, and use them to begin working for Biola, FPU, or another Christian university. For six months, I dreamed that I could do something I'm good at, to accomplish something meaningful, while working for a Christian university.<br />
<br />
That dream, such as it was, is no more - at least for the time being. I've gone through four interview processes, each one seemingly more perfect for my particular skillset than the last, and each time a better fit has been found. And now, in just four short weeks, I will be resigning from TCS and learning to be a full-time stay-at-home dad for Wes and the soon-to-arrive Gabe.<br />
<br />
And so one chapter of my life draws to a close, and the one that will be beginning is quite different from what I had hoped for. And I strive embrace one and let go of the other: To not keep the vision of what <i>could </i>have been in front of me, to not long for what is not to be. I strive to embrace the good that is coming instead of the good that is not, because otherwise even the good that I have will be poisoned.<br />
<br />
It is hard. But it will get easier. </div>
Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-50515446459549657302017-01-23T09:52:00.001-08:002017-01-23T09:52:50.009-08:00I wonderI think there will be a lot happening on the day of judgement. But I think there is <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+25%3A31-46&version=ESV">one event in particular</a> that concerns those who claim the name of Christian. The sheep and the goats, those who give and those who do not. And I've been wondering what it might look like...for Christians who strive to follow the life of Jesus but fail on a daily basis. What might it look like for us?<br />
<br />
And so I wonder.<br />
<br />
I imagine that the King calls me before him, and I see a vast multitude of people, a line stretching as far as the eye can see. And the King starts with the one in the front, a glorious man clothed in light. And Jesus says, "This is my brother Joshua. You never knew his name; You saw him begging on a street corner and pretended you didn't. You avoided his eyes and drove on. He went hungry that night."<br />
<br />
And the King moves to the next person. "This is my sister Beth. You passed her by as you pulled out of a parking lot, and you told yourself that you were just too busy to stop. She went hungry that night."<br />
<br />
And the next. "This is my brother Max. He came up to you as you came out of a grocery store, and you told him you had no money on you: You lied. You told yourself he would probably just buy drugs with it. He and his family went hungry that night."<br />
<br />
I imagine that he goes on and on through the multitude one by one, and that at the end <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAPb8JfUj2k">we will be disappointed together.</a> I imagine that he tells me that he had planned to bless these people through me, that <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+2%3A10&version=ESV">he had prepared those works for me from the beginning</a>. And that all too often, I had failed.<br />
<br />
And I am ashamed.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-49994152692660813572017-01-15T22:28:00.000-08:002017-01-15T22:28:47.213-08:00Good and Evil (are meaningless?)In my conversations with my FNC (Friendly Neighborhood Calvinist), we've talked a lot about God's role in the first couple sins (Satan's and Adam/Eve's)...what that role looks like, what the consequences would be, etc.<br />
<br />
He's <i>very</i> reluctant to say that God "caused" the first sin...which is both completely understandable and <a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2016/12/bullets-and-determinism.html">completely indefensible within a traditional Calvinistic framework.</a> And given the difficulty of this position, he has at times toyed with the idea that perhaps God <i>did</i> cause it...but that, because he's God, he can do that for certain reasons without being evil himself.<br />
<br />
And the thing is, <u>I actually agree with him!</u> I agree that God could have caused the Fall every bit as deterministically as Calvinism demands, without then being guilty of evil. Of course, the reason I agree with him is a lot different than his reasons for believing that: <b>If God caused the Fall, then the terms "Good" and "Evil" have no real meaning. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
So: Genesis 1. Creation. You all know this story. Over the course of 6 days, God creates everything that is. And after each day, "God saw that it was good." And then, at the end of the 6 days, God looks at the <u>big picture</u>. <b>"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." </b>This is a survey of <i>all of creation</i>, God looking at the work of his hands and investigating the results. And he proclaims it <u>"very good</u>."<br />
<br />
So let's talk about that. "Good". What does "good" mean? Well, in a Christian context, I'd think most people would probably go with something like "that which is pleasing to God." Pretty simple, right? And when it comes to "evil", most Christians would probably stick with "that which is <i>against</i> God's will." Showing mercy to the poor? Good. Murdering the poor? Evil. Really simple stuff so far.<br />
<br />
Everything God made was "very good". Everything God made was in accordance with his will. Now, as an Arminian, I believe that means that God had willed for humanity to have true freedom so that they might choose to obey him...but that also means that they would have the capacity to choose NOT to obey him. This capacity is not evil, because it is a necessary consequence of humans being able to LOVE God. As an example, the things that make a good set of pruning shears are the same thing that could make it a dangerous weapon. It's still a "Good" set of shears, because the harm would come from <b>misuse</b>, not the intended use.<br />
<br />
Contrast that with the Calvinist view. In the Calvinist view, God determines everything from the word "Go." From before the first atom was created, God had already determined all of human history, including human (and angelic) sin. God created Adam not just with the <i>capacity</i> to sin, but with the <i>necessity</i> of sinning. It's not just that Adam <i>could</i> sin...it's that Adam <i>must </i>sin, because of the way God created him and the context God placed him in.<br />
<br />
And <i>that</i> creation - the creation with the inevitability and necessity of sin built in from the very get-go - is what God calls "good" in the Calvinist scenario. That is what God looks at and declares "very good."<br />
<br />
To go back to the "pruning sheers" example, that's like taking a pair of sheers and adding in some fancy technology that means that at some predetermined point, they'll turn on their owner and cut his fingers off. Obviously those pruning sheers would not be "good" shears - or else, if they are to remain "good" shears, then the definition of "good" must be expanded to include "will cut owner's fingers off at a predetermined time."<br />
<br />
So back to Calvinism and creation. The creation that God declares "good" is the creation that has the Fall <u>built into it from the ground up</u>. Everything about creation has been designed to facilitate the Fall and make it certain. And not just the Fall: All sins. Every robbery. Every murder. Every single moment down to the minutest detail of every single sexual assault. All of it <u>follows necessarily and deliberately</u> from the creation that God declares Good.<br />
<br />
And if God declares that Good...then all of that must be included in the definition of Good. And if all of that is "Good", then good becomes meaningless, as does evil. They are both meaningless words for the things that God does and causes. Adam and Eve didn't commit evil...that would require them going against God's will, when in fact it was his will that caused them to eat the fruit! Satan didn't do something against God's will...in fact, his every action was a <i>fulfillment</i> of God's will! The murderer, the rapist, the child molester...every single one of them is fulfilling God's will to exactly the same degree as the godliest saint that ever walked the earth.<br />
<br />
In the end, the Calvinist can only really talk of "good" and "evil" as two different colors that an artist uses to paint a picture. One is not really better or worse than the other. And I hope that bothers them at least a little, when they think about it.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-30015266290004289442016-12-27T13:56:00.000-08:002016-12-27T13:59:17.390-08:00A Modest ProposalThis is going to be a short one...just something that's been bouncing around in my mind for a while.<br />
<br />
In my last post, <a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2016/12/bullets-and-determinism.html">I talked about determinism </a>and why it REALLY bugs me the way Calvinists will talk such a big game about God's sovereignty, his meticulous control over everything that happens, the way he orders the world and everything in it for his glory...but suddenly, when it's time to talk about sin (and specifically, the first sin in all of existence), <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/where-did-satan-s-first-desire-for-evil-come-from">all that talk disappear</a>s, and <a href="http://evangelicalarminians.org/calvinism-the-gumby-theology-2/">they bail out and throw up the "mystery" smoke screen. </a><br />
<br />
They love to talk about how God orders the world according to his glorious plan...but maybe we just don't know how that first sin happened? They revel in God's all-determining hand over history, moving the wills of men to accomplish his purposes...but it somehow must not be that simple with Satan? And most annoyingly, you don't have to look hard at all to find <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/watershed-differences-between-calvinists-and-arminians">Calvinists</a> <a href="https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/where-calvinism-gets-romans-9-wrong-prerogative-equals-unconditionality/">accusing </a><a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html">Arminians</a> of disbelieving in God's sovereignty or believing God is "helpless" (btw, those hyperlinks are John Piper, James White, and RC Sproul)...but when it's time to talk about Satan and his first desire for evil, <i>man</i>, do they sometimes start to sound Arminian! (That is, if they don't simply claim "mystery" and change the subject!)<br />
<br />
So I have a modest proposal:<br />
<br />
Unless a Calvinist is willing to say, clearly and explicitly, in any and all contexts, that <b>God is the primary and ultimately <u>only</u> cause of sin</b>, and that <b>sin happens because God wills, plans, and causes it to</b>...unless a Calvinist is willing to say that, and willing to <i>never</i> obfuscate, point to mystery, or smuggle in Arminian terms and theology, <b>then they should never again say that they believe God is sovereign while Arminians do not. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Come on, guys. Either own it or don't. Either mean what you say or don't say it. But let's stop with the big talk about sovereignty while denying the most important implication and pretending you don't know.<br />
<br />
<br />Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-20809032136629665012016-12-17T22:40:00.000-08:002016-12-18T22:29:56.192-08:00Bullets and DeterminismIn my conversations with a Calvinist, he linked me a couple articles in an attempt to explain how God could determine all the events in all of history, plan for sin to happen and put that plan into action, and still not be responsible for the sin that he had planned and determined and made certain would happen.<br />
<br />
One of those articles was by John Piper: "<a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/where-did-satan-s-first-desire-for-evil-come-from">Where Did Satan's First Desire For Evil Come From?</a>"...a promising title, to be sure, since that's a question Arminians often want to hear Calvinists answer. The article was, as a whole, incredible disappointing.<br />
<br />
Piper punts <i>immediately </i>to mystery, saying that this is "among the mysteries in my theology for which I do not have an adequate answer." This is, of course, very puzzling for Arminians, because we've been told time and time again <u>by Calvinists</u> that <i>everything </i>has a cause and that <i>nothing</i> can happen apart from God's direct will <u>or else God isn't sovereign</u>. To us Arminians, this obviously includes Satan's first desire for sin: Calvinists manage to avoid this simply by insisting "it's complicated", because the obvious answer to the complication is horrifying.<br />
<br />
So the punt to mystery, while disappointing, isn't surprising...after all, it's the only move Calvinists can make. When you have a flat-out contradiction at the heart of your theology, you don't have a lot of places to go from there. However, at the end, Piper does at least <i>attempt</i> an answer, and that's where things get interesting.<br />
<br />
Granted: He takes pains to say that this is not <i>the </i>explanation for certain. But he does see it as a possible <i>pointer</i> to an explanation, meaning that he believes it is logically valid and not mysterious in and of itself. Essentially, he uses a couple Bible verses to link sin and distance from God:<br />
<br />
Isaiah 63:17<br />
<br />
O Lord, why do you make us wander from your ways<br />
and harden our heart, so that we fear you not?<br />
Return for the sake of your servants,<br />
the tribes of your heritage.<br />
<br />
Isaiah 64:7<br />
<br />
There is no one who calls upon your name,<br />
who rouses himself to take hold of you;<br />
for you have hidden your face from us,<br />
and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities.**<br />
<br />
Here is Piper's explanation:<br />
<br />
"And I am not saying this is a foolproof explanation of sin, but somehow God cloaked his glory from Lucifer and in the cloaking of his glory somehow, still inexplicable to me, there rises a preference in Lucifer’s heart for himself over God, who has cloaked his glory. I don’t know how that happens, but this is a pointer that something like that might have been going on. I am simply saying this is worth pondering that God may be able to govern the presence and absence of sin, not by direct active agency, but by concealing himself."<br />
<br />
Again, to be completely fair: He repeatedly states that this is not his definitive explanation for how sin can arise without God causing it. But he does believe it's a "pointer", that it is "worth pondering" as a potential explanation: That God can "govern the presence and absence of sin" (Calvinists hate to be pinned down with pesky words like "cause" or "ordain" or "decree" when we get tot this subject) by "concealing himself", which he explicitly contrasts with "direct active agency." <b>(And note the passive language, both in this quote and throughout the piece: "there rises", how the first sin "came about", something "comes to pass"...this passive language is all misdirection, as explained below).</b><br />
<br />
Here's the problem: With all his caveats, he still <u>clearly</u> believes that this explanation is <u>valid</u>, that it is potentially accurate and has no gaping holes in it. But is it valid? Is it hole-free? Is it really the case that God can "govern" sin without "direct active agency", and that Piper's proposed theory actualizes it?<br />
<br />
Let's break down Piper's theory. Remember that in the Calvinist worldview, <i>everything</i> that happens is part of God's immutable, irresistible, unchangeable plan from all eternity. From the get-go, everything that happens is <u>planned</u> by God. Everything God does - or doesn't do - has a specific goal and end.<br />
<br />
So with that in mind, let's break down the "steps" leading up to Satan's first desire for sin.<br />
<br />
Step 1: God has a plan for creation that <i>requires</i> Satan to fall. God <u>plans</u> for Satan to fall.<br />
<br />
Step 2: God creates Satan (and the rest of the angels). As God creates Satan, he builds into him the following: "Nearness to God = No Desire for Sin. <b>Distance from God = Desire for Sin." </b>That is how God creates Satan, and he does so purposefully and deliberately, in order that his plan (for Satan to sin) might be fulfilled. (This is important, as Calvinists LOVE to speak as though God is using preexisting conditions that he somehow did <i>not</i> bring about, even though that's impossible in the Calvinist system).<br />
<br />
Step 3: God hides himself from Satan/withdraws his presence from Satan/"cloaks his glory" from Satan. Again, he does this <b>so that his plan for Satan to sin will be fulfilled. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Step 4: Due to his new distance from God (or his new lack of perception of God's glory), Satan sins and fulfills God's plan.<br />
<br />
<br />
This is all really simply stuff. Each premise is something no Calvinist should argue with. I think it should be <b>immediately apparent</b> to <i>anyone</i> familiar with Calvinism, let alone one of Calvinism's main proponents and scholars! So given that...can <i>anyone </i>look at this chain and say that God is <i>not</i> responsible for Satan's sin? That he is able to have sin come about without "direct active agency"? How in the world can a Calvinist say that God withdrawing his presence <b>in order to irresistibly achieve a specific purpose</b> isn't direct active agency, especially when it was God who set the rules for what that action would accomplish?<br />
<br />
<br />
It's mindboggling to me. It boggles my mind. But I know there are Calvinists out there who will still say that Piper is correct. And every Calvinist I've ever talked to has fallen back on "secondary causes" as the reason that God isn't responsible for sin...that there are so many steps in between God kicking off the universe and each individual sin, that God's hands are clea. So let me give an analogy.<br />
<br />
Let's say I build a gun. But this is no normal gun: Instead of pulling the trigger to fire the bullet, I construct it so that I am constantly holding the trigger, and it is the eventual <i>release </i>of the trigger that fires the bullet. <br />
<br />
So I have this gun. And I point it at someone I wish to kill, and then I <u>release</u> the trigger. As I release the trigger, the hammer swings forward and hits the bullet. This causes a spark which ignites the propellant in the bullet. The ignited propellant propels the bullet through the barrel, which imparts a stabilizing spin on the bullet. The bullet flies through the air, penetrating first the skin, then an essential organ. The organ shuts down, which leads (through complex biological functions) to the other essential organs shutting down. And finally, at the end of this very long and complex process (which could be made even more complex), the man dies.<br />
<br />
Now: Did I, with "direct active agency", kill this man, even though all I did was <i>remove</i> my finger from the trigger? <b>Of course I did</b>. And that's because it's not the <i>action</i> that matters, it's not the <i>mechanics </i>by which something happens, it's the <b>intention. </b>Even though all I did was release some finger pressure - even if all I did was <i>think </i>something - I <i>knew</i> what that would accomplish, and I acted with that intention. And this is identical with Piper's hypothetical - and <i>any</i> other mechanism Calvinists will contrive to try to wriggle out.<br />
<br />
Sin doesn't just "come about" as if it had it's own agency, as if it's something that just "happens" without a cause: Such would go against everything<i> </i>that Calvinism stands for. <i>Everything </i>has a cause...and in Calvinism, that cause is God, no matter how he chooses to accomplish it. Like a finger releasing a bullet and so causing a death, God conceals his presence <u>and so causes sin</u>. <i>However</i> God accomplishes his plan, <b>it is still </b><u style="font-weight: bold;">God doing the accomplishing</u>. However the first sin "comes about", it comes about because of something God did, and it comes about because God desires for it to come about. Whatever the mechanism, no matter how convoluted, no matter how "indirect", <b>it is still God with his finger on the trigger. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
**It is not my purpose here to give a complete Arminian interpretation of these passages. One possible interpretation that comes immediately to mind is that such hardening is a <u>response to free sin</u>: it is a just punishment because the sin that is being punished was freely chosen, as opposed to being determined and caused by God. In response to sin, God can justly leave people in their sin by withdrawing his presence.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-78185800896918093152016-06-22T21:55:00.001-07:002016-06-25T20:34:15.617-07:00Was Job Wrong?So...I've thought a <a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/search/label/Job">LOT </a>about Job. Like, a lot. And while I think I've thought a lot of right things about it, I've also thought a lot of wrong things.<br />
<br />
The most recent example: It's obvious that Job's friends are <u>wrong</u> about God. At the very end, God says to the friends, "“My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." He has them present a sacrifice, and Job must pray for them to be forgiven. They say a LOT of wrong things about God, and in the process they accuse Job - "a blameless and upright man" - of being wicked and sinful, utterly deserving of the tragedies that befall him.<br />
<br />
But here's where I'm pretty sure I've gone wrong: <b>I don't think Job has a lot of right knowledge about God either</b>.<br />
<br />
I think that the above verse, where God says that the friends "have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has", doesn't mean that Job has been 100% correct in <i>everything </i>that he says about God. And in fact, this is borne out in the fact that this vindication of Job comes on the heels of <u>four full chapters</u> of God telling Job that Job doesn't really know what he's talking about.<br />
<br />
In many important ways, <u>Job's knowledge of God is exactly as wrong as that of his friends</u>. In fact, that's precisely what causes him such distress: <b>His theological system has no room for suffering that is not punishment. </b>Again and again, he proclaims his innocence and protests the injustice of punishment without cause. Implicit in every complaint is his belief that bad things come directly from God as punishment for specific, personal sins: The same false belief that his friends present throughout the book.<br />
<br />
Indeed, when Job utters his famous line at the very beginning - "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" - while he does not sin, I don't think he's 100% correct, either...at least, not in what he means. The same goes for what he says in the next chapter: "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” He does not sin, but I don't think that what he <i>believes </i>to be happening is what is <i>actually</i> happening. I don't think that the Lord has taken away, and I don't think that the Lord is sending evil - the text is quite clear that while God is <i>allowing</i> these things to happen, he is not their instigator.<br />
<br />
So why is Job not sinning here? What sets him apart from his friends? How does he say <i>anything</i> that's right about God, to cause him to be praised in the last chapter?<br />
<br />
It's not about knowledge. It's not about theology. <b>It's about the <u>relationship</u> Job has with his God</b>.<br />
<br />
Job's false theology causes him incredible distress, as he searches in vain for a reason for divine punishment. His incorrect ideas about God causes him to bitterly lament that God punishes him without cause. In fact, his false theology almost drives him to despair of his very life.<br />
<br />
And in all that suffering, <b>it's his <u>relationship</u> with God that brings him back from the brink</b>. It's the <u>relationship</u> that assures him that God is his redeemer, that God is his friend and ally, and that God will save him in the end. And I think that is what God praises in the end.<br />
<br />
I don't know that I have a point here. It was just an interesting thought I had a few days ago. But I think there are a couple takeaways:<br />
<br />
-Theology can bring life or death. Incorrect knowledge about God can bring terrible distress and confusion, while correct knowledge will greatly aid in bringing peace and understanding.<br />
<br />
-<b>However</b>...<u>relationship can either salve the wounds of poor theology, or nullify and deaden the benefits of good theology</u>. A living relationship with the living God can bring peace, even without understanding, and hope even in the face of despair...but a lack of relationship will render meaningless the greatest theology in the world.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-27621995131462500562016-05-08T21:22:00.003-07:002016-05-08T21:26:25.442-07:00On Mother's DayI've written about my dad before, and anyone who knows my family knows that I got my creative bent from him. But I don't think I've written as much about my <i>mom</i> yet, and given Mother's Day, I think now might be a good time to do so.<br />
<br />
If my dad taught me how to make and create and work, my mom taught me how to <i>think, </i>how to stretch myself and grow intellectually. She taught me how to explore new ideas, see things from new perspectives, and a whole lot more.<br />
<br />
She fed my love of reading from a very early age, and I cannot recall a time I wanted a particular book and did not receive it. And this was not merely a matter of monetary expenditure: Every new book also guaranteed me coming into her office, giggling and insisting that she listen to me read a portion of my new book to her. This would happen <i>multiple </i>times per book, and looking back, I marvel at her patience in listening to out-of-context passages from random books and sharing in my enjoyment of them.<br />
<br />
She encouraged me to pursue my interests, but she also insisted that I do my best in things that did NOT interest me. If she knew that I was capable of performing better in a class or subject, she made sure that I <i>did</i> perform better. She held me up to the standard of what she knew I was capable of, and showed me how to push myself even when the rewards are not apparent. At the same time, though, she did not encourage "busy-work", which I appreciate still.<br />
<br />
And of course, one of the things that has most impacted me was her insistence that of all the colleges in all the world, <u>Biola</u> was the place for me. And when we randomly heard about Torrey at a college fair, holy CRAP was she excited. She was more excited than I was <u>by far</u>...and that was because she understood far better than I did how perfect it was for me. She saw a program seemingly tailor-made for someone like me, and she hounded me and made me see what she saw. And when I was rejected the first time, she refused to let me give up, and forced me to pursue all avenues, calling the office every day until they accepted me (out of sheer annoyance, I'm sure).<br />
<br />
I owe a lot to my mom. When I look at the stained glass panels on my bookshelves, I know that I owe them to my dad. But when I look at the books <i>on</i> those bookshelves, and the ideas and thoughts they represent, the discussions and papers and blogs...I know that I owe <i>them</i> to my mom. She is the reason I attended Biola and Torrey, and she is responsible (for good or ill) for who I am because of Torrey.<br />
<br />
So...thanks, mom. And happy Mother's Day!Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-6309465323180475162016-02-21T08:18:00.005-08:002016-02-21T11:32:09.237-08:00Death and Life and NanaAt 7:15 this morning, my grandmother Nana died. We knew it was coming: She had been deteriorating for some time, and after breaking her hip a week or so ago, we knew it couldn't be far off. And in the day or two leading up to it, as friends and family offered their support, prayers, and encouragement on Facebook, one comment in particular stood out to me:<br />
<br />
<b>"We will all miss her until we see her again."</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
I don't think I can say it any better than that. Of course I will miss her. I miss her now, and I am sure I will miss her more the next time we head into Shafter and realize that she is not there for us to visit. I will miss her breakfasts, and her amazing waffles and crisp bacon. I will miss her roast chicken dinners, and the days when the Mulligans would gather for family dinner with her and Papa (and I will miss the extra chicken legs and toast that she prepared for me without fail). Nana was the sweetest, kindest grandmother a boy could ask for: The world has not seen her equal, and we will miss her.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
<b>Until we see her again</b>. Until we see her, shining like the sun, young and strong and full of life and laughter, in body as well as spirit. And so we are comforted even in our grief.<br />
<br />
For we know she serves a Lord who came to destroy the one who held the power of death; We know she serves a Lord who was dead and is alive; We know she serves a Lord who holds the key to Death and Hades and sets the captives free. And we know that all those who believe in that Lord are saved.<br />
<br />
And so we know that she is with Him today in Paradise. She does not live on "in our hearts"...such a great soul could hardly reside in such a cramped and fickle place. Nor does she live on merely in our memories: No, her dwelling is far grander than anything we could imagine. She really lives, and she really is there in Paradise.<br />
<br />
We will all miss her until we see her again. But we <i>will </i>see her again, and every tear will be wiped away.<br />
<br />
And I cannot think of anything more to say.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-87085387016359679572015-12-30T22:40:00.002-08:002015-12-30T22:40:24.483-08:00A Man of Blood"That quietness of his is just a little deadly, like the quiet of a gutted building. It's the result of having laid his mind open to something that broadens the environment just a bit too much. Like polygamy. It wasn't wrong for Abraham, but one can't help feeling that even he lost something by it."<br />
-CS Lewis, <i>That Hideous Strength</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
I've been thinking a lot about weapons and self-defense, particularly in light of the bravado-filled, antagonistic speech given by Jerry Falwell Jr to the students of Liberty University, urging them to carry concealed guns. And I've arrived at a couple thoughts.<br />
<br />
Killing, in and of itself, is not a sin. It can't be, because God actually <i>commands</i> killing in the Old Testament, and God cannot command a sin. The commandment is against <i>murder</i> in particular, and as Chesterton says, "Murder is a spiritual incident. Bloodshed is a physical incident. A surgeon commits bloodshed." All murder is killing, but all killing is not murder: There are instances, such as warfare and self-defense, where killing is just...indeed, there are instances where killing seems to be <i>required</i> of the people of God, at least in the Old Testament.<br />
<br />
And yet...there is <i>something</i> about killing - not murder, but <i>killing</i> - that changes a person. Something that makes them...less. And we see this most clearly in the person of David, a man after God's own heart. David desired to build God a temple, a great House...but God told him no. David relates the event: "I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God, and I made preparations for building. But God said to me, ‘You may not build a house for my name, <b>for you are a man of war and have shed blood."</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Note that God does not tie David's unworthiness to his adultery with Bathsheba. God does not say that David is unworthy because of his murder of Uriah. God specifically says that David is unworthy <u>because he is a man of war and has shed blood</u>. David won many great victories for Israel, fulfilling God's commandments in battle...<b>but it did not come without a cost</b>. David destroyed the image of God, again and again, shedding blood which is the Lord's, and as a result, <u>he was unfit to build God a temple</u>.<br />
<br />
I have a few friends on Facebook who are VERY pro-gun. I know how gun-makers market their product...by creating a scenario where you get to be the hero, where you can gun down the bad guys invading your home or shooting up a mall. Indeed, I've seen many people who seem to <i>wish</i> for such an event to occur, so that they would have the excuse to pull their weapon and stop it! Sadly, I've even seen this attitude from professing Christians.<br />
<br />
Is warfare wrong? No. Should Christians participate in the military? The Bible certainly does not prohibit it. But it seems inescapable that <u>we are not meant to be people of war</u>. We are not meant to shed the blood of the image of God. And when we do, it fundamentally changes who we are for the worse. The hands soaked in blood cannot build God's temple, cannot serve him in the way that clean hands can. Killing is sometimes a necessity: it is <i>never</i> something to be desired, or fantasized about, or sought after with aggressive posturing and vain bravado.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-39881552043869955192015-11-30T14:01:00.000-08:002016-02-12T16:46:03.597-08:00On the Incarnation, Chapter 2: The Divine Dilemma and its Solution<i>In my <a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2015/11/on-incarnation-chapter-1-creation-and.html">first post</a>, I think I restricted myself too much to a simple "cliff notes" reading of the chapter. I'm going to be trying to weave more of my own reflections in, make more connections stuff like that. Black text is summary, red text is commentary. We'll see how it goes</i>.<br />
<br />
A-Cakes kicks off this chapter with possibly my favorite passage in the entire book.<br />
<br />
<i>"Man, who was created in God's image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing, and the work of God was being undone. The law of death , which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<span style="color: red;">Note again ACM's way of relating this as an <u>event</u>, as a story with characters and rising action and conflict. There is <b>drama</b> in the way Athanasius relates our sorry plight. Man is not merely "suffering the effects of a sinful nature"...man is <u>disappearing</u>, and as a result, <u>the work of God is being undone</u>. His language of the law of death <i>prevailing</i> upon us conjures the image of an encroaching army...an army from which there is no escape. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
We have reached the point of catastrophe: Is mankind really to be lost? Is God's work truly going to be undone?<br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
He continues. "<i>The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption. <b>It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil."</b></i><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">There's a LOT here. First off, note how he describes this state of affairs. There is the sense that God is in some way responsible for the natural law of death; or at least, that God could in some way mitigate that penalty. In this sense, mankind's death is understandable, and could even be understood as the "good" result of God's justice. And I've heard many, many times in church that God <i>could</i> have simply left mankind to die, and that wouldn't have have had any impact on His justice or goodness. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">However, that is certainly NOT how ACM primarily understands the Fall and the resulting death of mankind. A-Cakes has NO hesitation in declaring</span><span style="color: red;"> it simply "monstrous and unfitting". It is monstrous that mankind should be neglected and perish, and it is unfitting for God to allow it to happen. Indeed, Athanasius goes further in this than ANY modern evangelical would dare go. Athanasius insists that it would be "unworthy" of God to let mankind go without a fight. </span><span style="color: red;">"Such indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation, and that far more than if He had never created men at all."</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
Athanasius concludes: "It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, <u>because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself</u>."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Modern evangelicalism often (either intentionally or unintentionally) draws a distinction between what God <i>must</i> do and what God <i>chooses </i>to do. God <i>must</i> punish sin; God <i>chooses</i> to show love and grace. A-Bro, however, admits no such distinction. God's goodness and love literally <u>does not allow</u> him to ignore mankind's plight. In essence, A-Cakes <u>seems to be arguing that God could not ignore mankind and remain God.</u></span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><u><br /></u></span>
Having established that God must do <i>something</i>, ACM turns his attention to the nature of that something. <i>What</i>, exactly, is God to do in the face of mankind's immanent destruction? He brings up repentance as a possible solution, but rejects it. Repentance would indeed do the trick as regards future sin...but would do nothing to fix the corruption that had taken root in mankind. Moreover, God must remain true, and He had told Adam that death would follow the transgression.<br />
<br />
He asks: "What--or rather <i>Who</i> was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as was required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing?" Nothing but God Himself, no one but the Creator, can re-create man and reconcile man with the Father. "For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">First, quickly note that Athanasius takes the whole "new creation" thing seriously. Humanity does need merely need to be "fixed"...we must be <i>recreated, </i>and the only one fit to do that is the one who created us and stamped us with His image in the first place.</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">Second, it would be easy here to simply slot Athanasius into the standard "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" mold that we here in the West have grown accustomed to. However, I am not at all sure that is the correct move. First off, there is simply no sense in which God is <i>angry</i> with mankind, no sense in which he demands punishment. Second, Athanasius again and again pits God and His desire for rescue, against the powers of death and the devil. We are not being rescued from "God's wrath" or divine punishment...we are being rescued from a hostile foreign power, which has gained control over us through the deceptions of Satan. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">The crucial point, in fact, is this: <b>Athanasius is concerned NOT with punishment that needs to be dealt out, but with corruption that needs to be healed.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>Having established the necessity that God Himself be our Savior, A-Cakes moves on: "For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are." The Word has never been "apart" from creation...He fills it moment by moment. But now...now it is time for something <i>new, </i>as the Word "entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us."<br />
<br />
The Word sees our sad state. He sees our death, our corruption, our sin. He sees our wickedness mounting up against us. <i>"All this He saw and, <b>pitying our race, moved with compassion </b>for our limitation, <b>unable to endure</b> that death should have the mastery."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<span style="color: red;">I can't recall ever hearing this kind of language in an evangelical church. We don't want to say that some outside event can have this kind of "control", so to speak, over God, But ACM again has no hesitation in saying that the Word is "unable to endure" the disappearance of His people. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
And so the Word comes down and takes "a human body even as our own." Here A-Cakes clarifies that He did not merely <i>seem </i>to take a body or "appear" as though he had done so..."No, He took <i>our</i> body."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Then there's a bit that I'm honestly not wild about, how "He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin...untainted by intercourse with man." This is one area where I believe Athanasius is simply wrong. I do not think that a virgin is in any way more "spotless" or "stainless" or "untainted" than any lawfully married woman who is faithful to her husband<i>. </i></span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><i><br /></i></span>
So why does the Word come in "a body like our own"? "Because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death." Therefore "He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, when He had fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men."<br />
<br />
Corruption cannot be gotten rid of except through death. The Word is immortal and therefore can't die. So the Word takes a body that CAN die, so that the body "might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Initially, Athanasius seems to be going out of his way NOT to say that "God died" or "the Word died." Instead, it's "he surrendered <i>his body</i> to death" and "surrendering to death <i>the body</i> which he had taken." Honestly, this makes me uncomfortable...I think it may demonstrate an unease to fully embrace that which is indeed folly to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. <u>However</u>, Athanasius does at least once affirm that it is "<i>His</i> death", demonstrating that at least on some level, he can assent that the Word did indeed experience death. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">Part of his argument seems to be that death "emptied its clip" into Christ, as it were...that death expended all it's death-ness in an attempt to kill the unkillable, and now "it was thereafter voided of its power for men."</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
A-Bro continues, stating that due to "the solidarity of mankind", the Incarnation effects the defeat of death and corruption for <i>all</i> mankind. The he gives a pretty epic illustration:<br />
<br />
"You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honoured, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. Even so is it with the King of all; He has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled, and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">A couple things: First, again note the way that Athanasius uses <i>story</i> to relate theology. Second, A-Cakes is not super concerned with <i>how</i> these things are happening. He does not see the need to explore <i>why</i> one body suffering death - even if that body belongs to the immortal Word - voids death for everyone. He does not question <i>why</i> the Word dwelling in one body amidst the many has foiled the designs of the enemy. That is just the way things are.</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">Thirdly, this is (I believe) the first explicit reference to "the designs of the enemy against mankind." He just casually brings it up. The Fall is not merely an unfortunate accident, nor is the result of the Fall..it is part of a <i>plan</i>, designed by something or someone hostile to both God and humanity. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
The rest of the chapter is largely recap and wrap-up. "For by the sacrifice of His own body He did two things: He put an end to the law of death which barred our way; and he made a new beginning of life for us, by giving us the hope of resurrection. By man death has gained its power over men; by the Word made Man death has been destroyed and life raised up anew."<br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">Overall, this chapter is a LOT more action-packed than the previous one. Although Athanasius uses a lot of repetition, he constantly comes up with new ways to say what he wants to say, covering just about every angle. Big picture thoughts:</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">-Athanasius never pads his assessment of the state of mankind with appeals to God's justice or righteousness. He <i>never</i> allows God the possibility of ignoring mankind and allowing us to fall to Death. In fact, he <u>expressly denies</u> that God could do that.</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">-God does not seem primarily concerned with justice and punishment. God is primarily concerned with curing the corruption of mankind, so that humanity can once again be immortal and imperishable with God, as God had originally intended. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">-Athanasius is only concerned with the "mechanics" of the Incarnation and its effects in broadest sense. Some might see this as hand-waving or simplistic, but I think it just reflects a different attitude towards theology: God says that some things work in a certain way, and that's enough. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">-Finally, Athanasius does not consider this issue forensically, as an abstract issue. Indeed, one gets the feeling that Athanasius would object to any attempt to so treat the issue. Because it is <i>not</i> abstract...the Fall, corruption, death, and the Incarnation are things which have to do not with ideas and theories, but with flesh and blood. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">He concludes with a teaser: "This then, is the first cause of the Saviour's becoming Man. There are, however, other things which show how wholly fitting is His blessed presence in our midst; and these we must now go on to consider." More on that next time, and be sure to comment and let me know what you think!</span>Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-44310217933266012232015-11-28T21:28:00.003-08:002015-11-30T18:53:46.857-08:00On the Incarnation, Chapter 1: Creation and the FallAthanasius begins his work with an immediate reference to the ground laid in a prior work, <i>Contra Gentes</i> ("Against the Heathens"), and how he "briefly indicated that the Word of the Father is Himself divine," continuing to expound on the role of Christ in the creation and sustaining of all that is.<br />
<br />
Athanasius (hereafter A-Cakes, A-Man, A-Bro, <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria">Contra Mundum</a></i>, ACM, or other) spends a mere sentence on this. His main goal is to "take a step further in the faith of our holy religion, and consider also the Word's becoming Man and His divine Appearing in our midst." This is, of course, the topic of the work...both the reason for and the nature of this divine Appearance. What is entailed in the Incarnation, and <i>why</i> was it necessary?<br />
<br />
And his first thought is the <i>inversion</i> of expectations and nature that the Incarnation entails. As unbelievers scorn Christ, "the more does He make His Godhead evident." He takes the impossible and surpasses it; He makes fit the unfit; He takes that which is human and declares it divine. And the result? "Thus by what seems his utter poverty and weakness on the cross He overturns the pomp and parade of idols, and quietly and hiddenly wins over the mockers and unbelievers to recognise Him as God."<br />
<br />
That is the first of ACM's observations on the nature of the Incarnation, but it is far from the last. But before delving more into what the Incarnation is, A-Bro pauses, because before understanding what it is, we must understand WHY it is. "He has been manifested in a human body for this reason only, out of the love and goodness of His Father, for the salvation of us men." And then he explains that we will begin with creation and with the Creator, for before we understand anything else, we must understand one crucial fact: <i>"The renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning</i>."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">This is HUGE for A-Cakes. If I remember rightly, he spends a very large chunk of his work building on this observation, because it's very important to him that "there is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation." ACM sees a logical and <i>personal</i> continuation through creation and renewal: it is the same Agent who accomplishes both. </span><br />
<br />
Following that, Athanasius proceeds to argue for creation as told in the Bible. Since his audience consisted entirely of theists, not atheists, his arguments are quite different from how we would go about introducing creationism today! But through those arguments, one central point emerges: That God is a <i>creator</i>, not merely a craftsman. He <u>creates</u> out of nothing, rather than shaping pre-existent matter. That creation is accomplished "through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ," and one of the focal points of that creation is mankind. And upon mankind, the Creator bestowed "especial mercy"..."namely, the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself."<br />
<br />
The goal of this special mercy is that mankind might live in paradise forever. However, A-Man states that"the will of man could turn either way," and therefore that God made this grace conditional: "If they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, they would come under the natural law of death, and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Two things immediately strike me here. The first is that A-Bro goes out of his way to establish libertarian free will in the Garden: "The will of man could turn either way." This emphasis on free will, and <i>real</i> choices, is extremely common in the Church Fathers, and is a thorn in the side of Calvinists who wonder why their doctrine has no adherents in the early Church. And the second is that <u>God isn't sentencing mankind to death</u>: By sinning, <b>we place ourselves </b>under "the natural law of death." It is no more a "punishment" then being burned when you touch the stove is a punishment. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
And with this, ACM brings us back to the main event: "The former subject is relevant to the latter for this reason: It was our sorry case that caused the Word to come down, our transgression that called out His love for us, so that He made haste to help us and to appear among us."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Note the <u>story-telling</u> here. Athanasius is not merely teaching theology...he is reciting a saga, an epic, a fantasy...a fantasy that, joy of joys, <a href="http://www.rivendellcommunity.org/Formation/Tolkien_On_Fairy_Stories.pdf">is actually true.</a> Christ is not merely "made Incarnate," and the Incarnation is not broken down into sterile forensic terms. The Word comes down, as a result of our sin <i>calling out</i> to Him and causing Him to show forth his love for us. Indeed, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGVpemMY5gE">He makes haste to come to our aid!</a></span><br />
<br />
God created us to "remain in incorruption." Honestly, we screwed that up pretty quick. Mankind had come under the law of death...indeed, "they were in the process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them entirely under its dominion."<br />
<br />
And how was this happening? "The transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. <b>The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good</b>."<br />
<br />
A-Cakes begins to wrap up this train of thought with a recap. We were created by the Word and given "His own life by the grace of the Word." Since we were created beings, we were naturally subject to death and decay; However, through our "union with the Word," "the presence of the Word with them shielded them even from natural corruption." But when we forsook that union and departed from the word, we became victims of corruption even greater than what was natural, "because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for transgressing the commandment." A-Bro ends the chapter by detailing the descent of man, his ever-increasing wickedness, and his thirst for sin.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">With the word "penalty," Athanasius brings in the first hint of "punishment". However, again, there is the strong sense of natural consequences. God did not make Adam subject to death: Adam did that. God did not give Adam over to corruption: Adam did that, too. We are sustained by proximity to the Word our creator...to the extent that we depart from the Word, we become more corrupt and less...well, just <i>less</i>. Proximity to God equals existence...distance from God equals non-being and negation. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;">Anyway, we're just getting started here, folks. Athanasius is just setting the stage here, but in chapter 2 he really begins picking up steam. I'll likely be collecting feedback regarding the format of these posts, so if you have thoughts on how this blog-through could be done better, just let me know in the comments!</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red;"><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2015/11/on-incarnation-chapter-2-divine-dilemma.html">See Part 2 here. </a></span><br />
<br />Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-33718861301776369492015-11-24T13:14:00.002-08:002015-11-30T21:56:30.338-08:00Amateurs and Ancient Books - Athanasius and Cyril"There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books...The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. he feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator."<br />
<br />
This is how CS Lewis opens his introduction to "On the Incarnation" by Saint Athanasius, one such "ancient book" that Lewis thinks people should read more of. And one HUGE reason for reading those ancient books is to "put the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective." "We all," Lewis says, "need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books."<br />
<br />
Speaking of Athanasius in particular, Lewis writes that Athanasius "stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, 'whole and undefiled,' when it looked as if all the civilized world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius--into one of those 'sensible' synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away."<br />
<br />
<i>Athanasius contra mundum</i>. Athanasius against the world. He fought for the Incarnation, for very God becoming very man, and his writing is for everyone who calls themself Christian, for everyone who wishes to continue to grow in faith and understanding of the One who saves us.<br />
<br />
So as we enter the Christmas season, I can think of no better use of my blog than a meditation on <i>On the Incarnation</i>, as well as a later work by St. Cyril, <a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2013/12/on-unity-of-christ-books-part-2.html"><i>On the Unity of Christ</i>.</a> This is merely the introduction, hastily typed at a time when both Anna and Wesley are asleep. I hope to do a sort of chapter-by-chapter thing over the next four weeks, and I anticipate that it will be quite fun,<br />
<br />
I read both Athanasius and Cyril during my Freshman year at Biola, and in fact Cyril was the subject of my second paper (which was terrible and I hate it) as well as my third (which, if I do say so myself, was pretty good!). In fact, I was somewhat unique among the Plato family, preferring Cyril to Athanasius: I was absolutely blown away by Cyril's intricate Christology, while the more "story-driven" style of Athanasius seemed to fall a little flat.<br />
<br />
However, reading even the first couple of pages of Athanasius reminds me of his true greatness, and I see so much that I had merely passed over before. And I think that it is good and right to have read them one after another, in quick succession: The Gospel is not <i>merely</i> an amazing story, and it is not <i>merely</i> a thing of bare fact, of theory and philosophy. It is an amazing story that gets more amazing the deeper you go, the more you think about it: It is a puzzle that provides at one and the same time the satisfaction of having finished a piece, and the anticipation of more to be puzzled out.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2015/11/on-incarnation-chapter-1-creation-and.html">Part 1</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2015/11/on-incarnation-chapter-2-divine-dilemma.html">Part 2</a><br />
<br />
<br />Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-35760623800151970732015-11-19T11:38:00.001-08:002015-11-19T12:24:55.354-08:00I'm Dreaming of a White Jesus<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Some time ago, I blogged at a site called Evangelical Outpost.
That site is now, sadly, deceased, but I've been given the opportunity to pull
my stuff and bring it over. Many of those have simply been slotted into place where I had left place-holder posts in 2012 and 2013, but this one is specifically relevant to Christmas-time. </span></i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Are you ready for a heartwarming Christmas story of racial sensitivity, common sense, and humility?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Well, that’s not happening. Because last week, Fox News Anchor Megyn Kelly announced to children everywhere that Santa Claus was a white man. “He just is.” <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/megyn-kelly-jesus-and-santa-were-white-179491.html" style="border-bottom-style: solid; border-color: rgb(34, 49, 63); border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">And then things got <span style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">weird</span>(er),</a> when she claimed that “Jesus was a white man, too. It’s like we have, he’s a historical figure that’s a verifiable fact.” And then, when people flipped out about it, she backed down–kind of–<a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/12/16/megyn-kelly-addresses-white-santa-comments" style="border-bottom-style: solid; border-color: rgb(34, 49, 63); border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">by acknowledging that Jesus’ race “is far from settled.”</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I’m struggling to figure out which is more ridiculous: Her claiming that Jesus was white, or <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1bO__nuDI" style="border-bottom-style: solid; border-color: rgb(34, 49, 63); border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">this short clip from “Talladega Nights.”</a> Oh, wait, no, it’s definitely the first one, because the second is from a comedy and isn’t supposed to be serious.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I’m not here to talk about whether it was racist (a little, right? At least a little?). <span style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 700; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">But I am here to say that this kind of attitude is absolutely poisonous to the Christian faith.</span> This willingness to disregard literally <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">everything</em> we know about the birth and origins of Jesus destroys pretty much everything Christianity has going for it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
This kind of attitude, this insistence that we can know so little about Jesus’ origins as to declare him a white man, boils the message of the Bible down to an Everyman Birth. “And at some place (but we don’t know where), and at some time (but we don’t know when), and to some parents (but we don’t know who), God was born into the world as a man.” Such a Jesus would be the epitome of myth, and myth alone. In that situation, we might indeed be justified in siding with those who would recreate him in their own images. If his earthly origins were so unimportant, we might even tempted to make him a mere metaphor, the “Son of God” in all of us.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
From the very beginning, the Church has insisted that the birth of Jesus is an historical event, firmly located in time and space, with numerous reference points. Luke in particular goes to great lengths to place the birth of Christ in a specific time (“<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:2&version=ESV" style="border-bottom-style: solid; border-color: rgb(34, 49, 63); border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">when Quirinius was governor of Syria</a>“) and at a specific place (“<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:4&version=ESV" style="border-bottom-style: solid; border-color: rgb(34, 49, 63); border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">the city of David, which is called Bethlehem</a>,” to a specific woman (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:5&version=ESV" style="border-bottom-style: solid; border-color: rgb(34, 49, 63); border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Mary, wife of Joseph</a>), from a specific lineage (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:23-38&version=ESV" style="border-bottom-style: solid; border-color: rgb(34, 49, 63); border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">that of David</a>).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Biblical account is exceedingly precise: At <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">this</em> time and at <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">this </em>place and from <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">these</em> people was born <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">this</em> man. And that means that we have no room at all for claiming that Jesus “could” have been white. We don’t even have room for “thinking” of Jesus as white, because then we would be actively building our faith on a falsehood, on a blue-eyed Goldilocks who never existed.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
In fact, we have no room at all for claiming that Jesus “could” have been anything other than what we know he was: A Jewish man from the line of David and the city of Bethlehem. And there is a <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">very</em> good reason for thinking of him like that. Karl Barth, a German theologian, brilliantly describes what happens when we try to “generalize” Jesus:</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-color: rgba(34, 49, 63, 0.701961); border-left-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 4px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(34, 49, 63, 0.701961); font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 2.2rem; font-style: italic; line-height: 1.8182; margin: 0px 0px 1.8182em -1.0909em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 0.9091em; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-size: 22px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“The Word did not simply become any “flesh,” any man humbled and suffering. <span style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">It became Jewish flesh</span>. The Church’s whole doctrine of the incarnation and the atonement becomes abstract and valueless and meaningless to the extent that this comes to be regarded as something accidental and incidental. The New Testament witness to Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, stands on the soil of the Old Testament and cannot be separated from it. The pronouncements of New Testament Christology…relate always to a man who is seen to be not a man in general, a neutral man, <span style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">but the conclusion and sum of the history of God with the people of Israel, the One who fulfills the covenant made by God with this people.” – </span>Karl Barth, “The Way of the Son of God into the Far Country”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
To generalize Jesus, to claim that he <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">could</em> have been any race, is to utterly sever the New Testament from the Old Testament. It is to make the Christmas story merely a strange accident and an aberration. It is to tear Christmas from it’s context, history, and meaning, all for the sake of making it about <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">me</em> and me alone. It is an inherently selfish and senseless act.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
And the truth is so much more wonderful! Because when we acknowledge Christ not as Surfer Jesus, or White Jesus, or Tuxedo T-Shirt-Wearing Jesus, but as Jesus of Bethlehem and Nazareth, then we can see his birth for what it really is: The birth of the Chosen Person, born of the Chosen People. He is the answer to the covenant God made with Abraham those hundreds of years prior, the answer to the prophecy God made to Adam and Eve, the culmination and fulfillment of <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">everything</em> the Old Testament tells us about God and Israel.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Some want to think of Jesus as white, because they think it increases his relevance to <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">them</em>. Such could not be further from the truth. In fact, it is<em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">because</em> Jesus was Jewish, and <em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">because</em> he was a direct descendant of the founder of the Jewish people and of their greatest king, that he could be the Christ for the whole world.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #22313f; font-family: 'Noto Serif', serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 31.9998px; margin-bottom: 1.6842em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Is it really worth losing all of that, just to make him white?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-17091755829243042682015-11-18T19:33:00.002-08:002015-11-18T19:39:28.624-08:00Lewis Medley pt 1 (Books, Part 5)<span style="font-family: inherit;">It has been a LONG time since I've done one of these...<a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2014/10/chesterton-medley-books-part-4.html">over a year, in fact!</a> But Wesley's asleep, and I have no other current responsibilities at this very second, and thinking about CS Lewis is always fun. So here we go! <u>10 Influential Books, Part Five, Subpart 1</u>: Parts<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"> </span><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-thief-books-part-1.html" style="background-color: white; color: #3d85c6; line-height: 18.48px; text-decoration: none;">1</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">,</span><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2013/12/on-unity-of-christ-books-part-2.html" style="background-color: white; color: #3d85c6; line-height: 18.48px; text-decoration: none;">2</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">, </span><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-idea-of-university-revisited-books.html" style="background-color: white; color: #3d85c6; line-height: 18.48px; text-decoration: none;">3</a>, and <a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2014/10/chesterton-medley-books-part-4.html">4</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"> here.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">I'm not going to lie: This is a long one. You probably won't read all of it. But that's alright, because it's a lot of fun to write. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is the CS Lewis section. Like my last one, it's definitely cheating a bit, but I don't care. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="font-weight: bold;">Chronicles of Narnia: </i>I have to believe I'm in the vast majority in saying that the Narnia books were my first exposure to Lewis, years and years before I knew he'd written anything else. What can I say about the Narnia books? What <i>can't</i> I say about the Narnia books? They literally have something for everyone...whether you're 7, or 17, or 70, I think you will ALWAYS come away from a Narnia book with something new to think about. From the <i><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2014/11/christus-victor.html">Christus Victor</a></i> theology in <i>Wardrobe, </i>to Aslan the Lamb in <i>Dawn Treader</i>, to creation in <i>Magician's Nephew</i>, the books get deeper and deeper the more you read them. And I'd bet that <i>The Last Battle </i>has impacted more people's views of salvation and God's attitude towards us than any of Lewis' more scholarly works. And that's really the marvel of Lewis' creation...the theology "sneaks" in, unnoticed to small children, but impossible for the discerning reader to miss, and always offering something new: "Further up and further in," indeed. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> <b>Memorable Line: </b>Impossible to narrow down. Go read it yourself, and if you've already done so, <u>read it again</u>. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><i style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></i></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><i style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18.48px;">The Space Trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, </i><b style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.48px;">and</b><i style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18.48px;"> That Hideous Strength: </i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">This was my second experience with Lewis, and like </span></span><i style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.48px;">Lord of the Rings</i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> and the </span></span><i style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.48px;">Narnia</i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> books, I </span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">received</span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> them from my father, in the form of battered, falling-apart copies. I burned through <i>Silent Planet </i>and <i>Perelandra </i>immediately, and began <i>That Hideous Strength</i>, but quickly gave it up, as it was super boring and didn't take place in space at all. I was young and foolish then. However, at a later date (probably in high school?), I revisited the trilogy, and this time was able to power through the unhappy marriage that dominates the opening chapters of the third installment. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">The series as a whole is incredible, as is each individual book. It has that strange and amazing quality in which whichever of the three you're reading at the time is clearly the best of the trilogy. </span></span><i style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.48px;">Silent Planet</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">, of course, gives you the thrill of accompanying Ransom as he explores an alien planet, full of strange peoples and stranger customs. However, Ransom eventually discovers that in the cosmic scheme of things, </span></span><i style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.48px;">he</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> is the interloper and humanity the aberration. </span></span><i style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.48px;">Perelandra</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">, meanwhile, gives us a peek into how things </span></span><i style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.48px;">might</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> have happened in Eden, and offers a crapload of theology along the way. And </span></span><i style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.48px;">That Hideous Strength</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> is freaking Mr Toad's Wild Ride...it takes the cosmology and theology of the previous two books, centers it on earth, and adds in a healthy dose of arthurian mythology...and much like cheeze-its and nutella, the combination somehow </span></span><i style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.48px;">works</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">. These books remain incredibly influential to this day, and I </span></span><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">regularly</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> reference passages from </span></span><i style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.48px;">Perelandra</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> to explain my views on Providence and theodicy. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> <b>Memorable Lines:</b></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"><b> </b><i style="font-weight: bold;">Out of the Silent Planet</i>: "</span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">No. Thulcandra is the world we do not know. It alone is outside the heaven, and no message comes from it....It was not always so. Once we knew the Oyarsa of your world— he was brighter and greater than I— and then we did not call it Thulcandra. It is the longest of all stories and the bitterest. He became bent. That was before any life came on your world. Those were the Bent Years of which we still speak in the heavens, when he was not yet bound to Thulcandra but free like us....There was great war, and we drove him back out of the heavens and bound him in the air of his own world as Maleldil taught us. There doubtless he lies to this hour, and we know no more of that planet: it is silent. We think that Maleldil would not give it up utterly to the Bent One, and there are stories among us that He has taken strange counsel and dared terrible things, wrestling with the Bent One in Thulcandra. But of this we know less than you; it is a thing we desire to look into.” </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">This quote is so amazing because it takes all of earthly history and places it in a vast cosmological context, imagining what the Rebellion - all-encompassing and ever-present in our own lives - might look like from </span><i style="color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">outside</i><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">. And of course, MAJOR bonus points for tying it into Scripture: "</span><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+1%3A12&version=ESV" style="line-height: 18.48px;">the good news...things into which angels long to look.</a><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">"</span><br />
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> <b><i>Perelandra</i>: </b>This one's easy...it's the one that I very nearly have memorized. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"> "I will tell you what I say, "answered Ransom, jumping to his feet. "Of course good came of [the Fall]. Is [God] a beast that we can stop His path, or a leaf that we can twist His shape? Whatever you do, He will make good of it. But not the good He had prepared for you if you had obeyed Him. That is lost for ever. The fist King and first Mother of our world did the forbidden thing, and He brought good of it in the end. But what they did was not good, and what they lost we have not seen. And there some to whom no good came nor ever will come."</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">Freedom and sovereignty. Actions and consequences. The eternal significance of temporal actions by finite beings. It all comes together simply and eloquently...two words which I suppose would describe nearly everything Lewis ever wrote. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> <i style="font-weight: bold;">That Hideous Strength</i>: This was tougher than I anticipated, but eventually I remembered the bit that <i>always</i> amazes me when I read through it.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> ""Do you know, " said Ivy in a low voice, "that's a thing I don't quite understand. They're so eerie, these ones that come to visit you. I wouldn't go near that part of the house if I thought there was anything there, </span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">not if you paid me a hundred pounds. But I don’t feel like that about God. But He ought to be worse, if you see what I mean.” </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">“He was, once,” said the Director. “You are quite right about the Powers. Angels in general are not good company for men in general, even when they are good angels and good men. It’s all in St. Paul. But as for Maleldil Himself, all that has changed: it was changed by what happened at Bethlehem.”</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"><i>All that has changed</i>...I wonder sometimes if we grow so used to the world as it is now, that we read that state of affairs back into the time before Christ. The least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than the greatest of the Old Covenant saints, and enjoys a greater communion with God - or at least, has access to that greater communion. <i>Cur deus homo</i>...why God became man? The simplest answer is to reconcile and rescue, and to restore us to a right relationship with himself. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="line-height: 18.48px;">This is already quite long, so I think I will end subpart 1 here. For all I know, subpart 2 may well be up within the hour...or possibly not for several days. #wesleyisunpredictable. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">1: </span><a href="http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2012/09/on-the-merits-of-naming-your-main-character-after-a-day-of-the-week.html" style="background-color: white; color: #3d85c6; line-height: 18.48px; text-decoration: none;"><i>The Man Who Was Thursday</i> by G.K. Chesterton</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">2: </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2014/10/chesterton-medley-books-part-4.html">(Everything else by Chesterton: <i>Manalive, Orthodoxy, The Ball and the Cross</i>)</a></span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">3: </span><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2013/12/on-unity-of-christ-books-part-2.html" style="background-color: white; color: #3d85c6; line-height: 18.48px; text-decoration: none;"><i>On the Unity of Christ</i> by Cyril of Alexandria</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">4: </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">The Way of the Son of God into the Far Country</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"> by Karl Barth</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">5: </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">The Lord of the Rings </i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">by JRR Tolkien</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">6: CS Lewis section (</span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">Space Trilogy</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">Chron. of Narnia</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">Abolition of Man</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">Till We Have Faces, The Great Divorce</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">)</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">7: </span><a href="http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2012/08/hast-thou-heard-job-series-part-1.html" style="background-color: white; color: #3d85c6; line-height: 18.48px; text-decoration: none;">The book of Job</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">8: </span><a href="http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2012/12/the-great-depression.html" style="background-color: white; color: #3d85c6; line-height: 18.48px; text-decoration: none;">The book of Ecclesiastes</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">9: </span><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-idea-of-university-revisited-books.html" style="background-color: white; color: #3d85c6; line-height: 18.48px; text-decoration: none;"><i>The Idea of a University</i> by John Henry Newman</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;">10:</span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 18.48px;"> </i><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-thief-books-part-1.html" style="background-color: white; color: #3d85c6; line-height: 18.48px; text-decoration: none;"><i>The Thief</i> by Megan Whalen Turner</a></span>Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-61048586119824296562015-11-09T10:58:00.000-08:002015-11-09T11:04:46.896-08:00What will he treasure?As we get ever-closer to the birth of my son Wesley, I've been doing a lot of thinking about what I remember from my own childhood, and how I can give the same things to Wesley as he grows up. Because I owe <i>so much</i> to my parents...there's just so much I remember from my life growing up, so many things I treasure...<br />
<br />
My mom's chocolate cake and puppy chow, and how she would make both of those when I had my friends over for Halo and Smash Bros...<br />
<br />
My dad's love of gardening and working with his hands, and how he instilled that in me...<br />
<br />
Even the chores that I did...much as I hated them at the time, I fully recognize how important they were in giving me a good attitude towards work.<br />
<br />
And of course, they <i>both</i> instilled an incredible love of reading in me. And most importantly, they taught me to talk to God, to think through things and make my faith my own, to ask questions and seek answers.<br />
<br />
I remember sitting in my mom's office, reading bits of books that I thought were <i>hilarious </i>(although I'm sure they were less hilarious to her). I remember my dad's slushes, and playing roller-blade ball tag at the local school. I remember hearing them cheer for me when I wrestled and played football, and how everyone on the team knew who they were because they were so involved.<br />
<br />
I remember family trips, and epic sandcastles, and big birthdays and even bigger family-wide Christmas and Easter celebrations. And I remember "scenic routes" that turned a 2-hour drive into a 4-hour drive, and even an ill-fated hike taking us halfway around Shaver Lake (I didn't say they were all <i>good</i> ideas).<br />
<br />
I owe so much to my parents, and there are so many things that I treasure from my time growing up with them. And honestly, it's pretty intimidating.<br />
<br />
How can I possibly offer <i>that much</i> to my son (and the other children sure to follow)? Is it really conceivable that I can be <i>that</i> present for all the things going on in my son's life, that I can create <i>that</i> many memories with him? <br />
<br />
Thankfully, by the grace of God, i think the answer is "yes". Of course, that doesn't fix the worry, the nervousness. But it gives me hope, and it makes me wonder...what will Wesley treasure as he grows up?<br />
<br />
I don't know, but I'm excited to find out.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-49394231977910964152015-11-07T17:07:00.001-08:002015-11-08T18:59:51.643-08:00Does God Have Two Wills?"Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" - Ezekiel 18:23<br />
<br />
"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." - 2 Peter 3:9<br />
<br />
"[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." - 1 Timothy 2:4<br />
<br />
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" - Matthew 23:37-38<br />
<br />
"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today<u>, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse</u>. <b>Therefore choose life</b>, that you and your offspring may live." Deuteronomy 30:19<br />
<br />
<br />
Does God have "two wills" concerning humanity? Well, yes and no.<br />
<br />
Yes, God can be said to have "two wills" in a very limited, easy-to-understand sense: His "antecedent" and "consequent" wills. The easiest way of understanding that is this:<br />
<br />
A parent desires <i>never</i> to hurt their child. In a perfect world, their child would never be injured. <u>However</u>, because sickness is a thing, it is sometimes necessary for a parent to cause pain to their children in the form of a shot.<br />
<br />
Right there, in that one example, we have antecedent and consequent wills. They may conflict with each other at times, but it is as a result of something <i>outside</i> the one willing. Another more extreme example would be the case of someone whose arm is broken and needs to be re-set: The doctor desires to to <i>heal</i> the person and take away the pain, but in this case, a further injury must be done, and the bone must be re-broken in order to fully heal.<br />
<br />
And in the case of God, that thing influencing the world from outside God is <u>sin</u>. <a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2014/12/sin-is-episode.html">Sin was NOT decreed or caused by God, </a>and while God remains in control over it, it is something <i>against</i> God's will in every sense of the word. And as a consequence of sin, God's antecedent will does not always come to pass. God desires all men to be saved, but because of sin and their free will decisions, not all men are saved. Jesus desires to protect Jerusalem and his chosen people, <i>but they were not willing</i>. God desires for people to choose life, but they often choose death instead. He desires our salvation and love, but more than that, he desires for us to be a willing participant in that (much in the same way that when I ask my little brothers for a hug, I'm asking for a willing expression of love: If I were to <i>force</i> them to hug me, it would be literally meaningless).<br />
<br />
Now, let's tweak the example a bit. In the previous example of a doctor and a broken bone, the doctor had nothing to do with the arm being broken in the first place. That is why the distinction between antecedent and consequent wills works. But let's change that: let's say that he <i>did</i> ultimately cause the arm being broken in the first place. Let's say that through a series of manipulations and behind-the-scenes machinations, the doctor was the mastermind behind the person breaking his arm originally.<br />
<br />
In that case, does the distinction still hold? <u>Of course not</u>. The doctor cannot claim to desire the health and comfort of his patients in re-setting the bone, <u>because he was the one who caused the need for that re-setting in the first place!</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
And that's where we enter the "No" part of whether God has two wills. Because while the occasional Calvinist (either through carelessness or intentional deception) will talk about antecedent vs consequent will, most of the time they talk about it differently: They talk about God's "moral and decretive" wills, or more tellingly, his "revealed and hidden" wills.<br />
<br />
So what's the difference? Well, God's "moral" or "revealed" will is what we read in the Bible. God desires all men to be saved. God desires us not to sin. <u>God desires for us to choose life instead of death, blessing instead of curse</u>. And it's called the "revealed" will because...well, because it's <i>revealed</i> in the Bible. God reveals this will to us, and reveals the way in which he wishes us to live.<br />
<br />
Strangely, though, this "revealed" will isn't really much of a will at all, <b>because it is completely and utterly trumped by God's "secret" or "decretive" will.</b> It's called God's "decretive" will because rather than what God <i>says</i> he wants us to do, <u>this is what he actually <i>decrees</i> that we do</u>. Remember that classic Calvinism - the Calvinism espoused by big names from John Calvin to John Piper - teaches <u><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2015/10/is-all-well.html">meticulous providence</a>,</u> meaning that everything that happens has been <i>decreed</i> by God. And it's called his "secret" will <b>because it's secret...it's not revealed anywhere in the Bible</b>. Therefore, God tells us that he desires all men to be saved through his revealed will, <u>but secretly causes the vast majority to be damned via his decretive/secret will</u>.<br />
<br />
<b>Essentially, this means that God urges the reprobate towards life with his left hand, while actively pushing them away from life with his right. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
That's why the Calvinist cannot claim the antecedent and consequent distinction: Because in the face of meticulous providence, <u>that distinction does not exist</u>. God cannot claim "sin" as something impacting his desire to save everyone, <u>because God desired and caused sin to come about in the first place</u>.<br />
<br />
So...two wills. In one sense - the sense that EVERYONE has two wills - God <i>does</i> have "two wills": The "perfect world" will and the "because of sin" will. But in the more important sense - that of God contradicting his declared, revealed will at practically every turn - it is sheer lunacy to believe that God has two wills. It is nothing less than to sacrifice the whole of God's revealed will, making it practically meaningless and utterly powerless, for the sake of a "hidden will" of which we know little.<br />
<br />Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-62240377766349638592015-10-25T22:11:00.004-07:002015-11-05T22:46:30.978-08:00Is All Well? <i>"And a bell, sir?"</i><br />
<i>"A bell?"</i><br />
<i>"For ringing and shouting 'All's well!' with, Sarge."</i><br />
<i>"No bell for me, Snouty," said Vimes. "Do </i>you<i> think things are well?"</i><br />
<i>Snouty swallowed. "Could go either way, Sarge," he managed.</i><br />
-"Night Watch", by Terry Pratchett<br />
<br />
I was thinking about Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" universe today, and the cavalier approach to policing that his early watchmen take: After all, ringing a bell and shouting "All's well!", even when things <i>aren't</i> well, is a heck of a let easier (and safer) than fixing them!<br />
<br />
And it reminded me of something that's always upset me about Calvinism: That when you get right down to it, there is only one acceptable answer to the question Vimes asks: <u>Yes, things are well</u>.<br />
<br />
By that, I mean <i>all</i> things, everywhere, at all times, are well according to the Calvinist system. I don't mean the "big picture"...I don't mean how things will "turn out in the end"...I mean that every single event in the history of the world is going well...in fact, <u>it's going exactly according to plan</u>, ordained by God himself.<br />
<br />
Of course, many Calvinists would be reluctant to admit this. After all, getting a Calvinist to admit that God ordains evil and renders it certain from before all creation is sometimes difficult. Nevertheless, even Calvin himself, though waffling at times, states that "as all contingencies whatsoever depend on it, therefore, neither thefts, nor adulteries, nor murders, are perpetrated without an interposition of the divine will" (<i>Institutes, </i>1.17.1). Note that God does not merely "permit" these evils to occur...it requires an active interposition (or <i>interference</i>) on God's part <u>to cause those things to happen</u>.<br />
<br />
This is because, to Calvin and Calvinists, God rules the world through "meticulous Providence": God governing every aspect of the universe, down to the movement of individual atoms and molecules. In fact, RC Sproul has stated that "There is no maverick molecule if God is sovereign.” No molecule in the universe moves except in the course that God himself ordained for it.<br />
<br />
This is a pretty enough picture of providence and sovereignty on its face, I'll grant you. And after all, surely there could be no greater compliment to God's great power and might than to say that he directs every single atom in its planned trajectory! Of course, there is one small issue: When you actually <i>apply </i>this to life, it becomes absolutely horrifying.<br />
<br />
It means that everything that has ever happened, (including, say, the Holocaust) was divinely ordained, planned and executed by God from the foundation of the universe. It means that when a small child is kidnapped, raped, and murdered, that God himself was there, <u>actively planning it and making it happen</u> (admittedly through secondary, tertiary, and however many other causes that he himself ultimately caused). It means that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were planned by God from the beginning of creation, and that his divine hand ensured the death of every person who died.<br />
<br />
But it's easy enough to find the horror in our own history. It is, perhaps, more satisfying and more meaningful to go to the Bible. Let's look at a few key passages...I'll highlight the necessary Calvinist commentary in red:<br />
<br />
Genesis 3:17<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And to Adam he said,<br />
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife <span style="color: red;">(Which I planned and caused to happen) </span>and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,’ <span style="color: red;">(Which, again, I caused by creating you flawed and then withholding the grace you needed to persevere)</span>cursed is the ground because of you; <span style="color: red;">(Well, technically because of <i>me</i>...)</span> in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life"</blockquote>
<br />
Surely you can see the mockery this makes of the text, and how the doctrine of meticulous providence renders God's actions and words nonsensical?<br />
<br />
Let's skip ahead a bit, to the days of Noah:<br />
<br />
Genesis 6:5-7<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. <span style="color: red;">(Of course, this was because God had eternally determined that this would be so and caused it to happen). </span> And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth<span style="color: red;"> (Not really, though, because he was the one who had caused it)</span>, and it grieved him to his heart. <span style="color: red;">(Which was weird, because it was something he himself had eternally planned and deliberately caused to happen).</span> So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” <span style="color: red;">(But he wasn't <i>really</i> sorry, because he had intended all along for this to happen, and had in fact created the universe in such a way as to make it impossible for it to have happened any other way). </span></blockquote>
Do you see it? Do you see how meticulous providence actually makes this verse literally meaningless? Calvinists can talk of "anthropomorphisms" and metaphors all they like: The fact remains that if meticulous providence is true, then this verse doesn't just mean something different then what it appears to mean...<b>this verse means <u>the literal opposite</u> of what it says.</b> It means, in fact, that this verse tells us something <i>false</i> about God, and that this verse gives us a picture of God that <u>couldn't be further from the truth</u>. This verse tells us that God was saddened by man's actions, whereas Calvinism tells us that <u>God actively caused those things to happen</u>.<br />
<br />
Here's my point: There are many, <i>many</i> points in the Bible where God himself seems to say that <b>all is not well</b>. The Bible is FULL of instances of God lamenting the state of mankind, all the way to Jesus himself lamenting over Jerusalem: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"<br />
<br />
God himself says that all is not well. God himself says that things are not as they should be. And we who are not Calvinists do God the honor of taking him at his word. It is, rather, the Calvinists who dishonor God by attributing to him the things that he abhors. God says, "I am grieved by what mankind is doing," and Calvinists wink at him and say "<span style="color: red;">We get that you have to say that, big guy, but you can be honest with us. We know what you mean. <i>*wink</i>*."</span> God says in Jeremiah 7, "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, w<b>hich I did not command, nor did it come into my mind</b>", and the Calvinists smile and say, <span style="color: red;">"Look, God, you don't have to play that game with us. We get it. You caused it to happen. You thought it up and planned it all out. Great job!"</span><br />
<br />
All is not well. The Fall was a real evil. Evil really is evil, and not good in disguise (as is necessitated by the Calvinist system). The sin of man "<a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2014/12/sin-is-episode.html">has not escaped the knowledge and control of God. But it is not a work of His creation and not a disposition of His providence."</a> (Karl Barth) God is in control, and he will set all wrongs right...but in the meantime, they are <i>real</i> wrongs, not merely the illusions of wrongs.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-78880620415135502732015-10-20T23:12:00.002-07:002015-11-05T22:47:11.644-08:00Eating with the SinnersLast Sunday, I had the honor of speaking to the Jr High and High School group at the Bridge. I spoke on Luke 15 and the triple-parable that Jesus busts out in response to the Pharisees' grumbling. There were two big things that stood out to me as I was writing the talk.<br />
<br />
First off, I GIVE YOU RCH LENSKI THE COMMENTATOR OF COMMENTATORS EVERYBODY GIVE IT UP FOR LEEEEEENSKIIIII:<br />
<br />
<i>“But the climax of the parable is reached in the joy over the finding of the lost. How natural and self-evident that would be! Jesus places this joy ‘in the heaven’ and ‘before the angels of God’ over against the murmuring of the Pharisees and the scribes. <b>They look sour; in heaven the very angels sing with delight!</b> In so masterly a way is this done that the very parable becomes a seeking and reaching out by the Shepherd Jesus after these Pharisaic lost sheep so that their joy at being found may produce still more joy in heaven among the angles. Thus through the entire parable there run in duplicate: 1) being lost, 2) the great search, 3) the happy finding, 4) the abounding joy.”</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Lenski is awesome. No surprise there. Jesus gets around the hardened sourness of the Pharisees with an object lesson referencing the normal, human reaction to a normal, every-day event: And at the end, he demonstrates just how crappy their attitude really is, by contrasting their sourness with the joy in heaven. And the whole thing is wrapped up neatly, <i>Inception</i> style: In telling the parable, <u>Jesus is doing what the parable represents</u>.<br />
<br />
Second: <b>The Pharisees are totally the older brother guys!!!!</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Yeah. OBVIOUSLY. Right? But it never really clicked until I was writing the sermon. This section begins with the Pharisees grumbling about Jesus eating with sinners and tax collectors: "Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”<br />
<br />
And it <i>ends </i>with prodigal son drawing near his father, and the older brother grumbling about how the father received the son and ate with him.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last thing that occurred to me on my way home from church:<br />
<br />
Luke is freaking FULL of Jesus eating with people. I mean, Jesus is eating ALL THE TIME. He eats with tax collectors in Luke 5 and 19. He eats with the pharisees in Luke 7, and again in Luke 11, <i>and again</i> in Luke 14. He eats with his disciples and friends in Luke 10, 22, and 24. "<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+7%3A34&version=ESV">The Son of Man came eating and drinking,</a>" indeed! He's like <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/robert-downey-jr-food_n_5891020.html">Robert Downey Jr!</a><br />
<br />
But that's not the point. Here's the point: When Jesus eats with the tax collectors, the Pharisees absolutely <i>lose </i>it. They see it as not only a waste of time, but actually <i>dangerous</i>: There is the sense that Jesus is tainting himself by interacting with them. But when he eats with the Pharisees themselves, they take it pretty well in stride. Jesus being a prominent rabbi, the Pharisees ask him over for a meal, so that they may sit and talk over food. I'd imagine that from their perspective, it's a chance for Jesus to finally <i>relax</i>, to get away from the rabble, to get away from the greedy tax collectors and common sinners...a chance for Jesus to be with <u>other righteous people</u> like themselves.<br />
<br />
When the truth, of course, is that there was no such distinction...or if there is, it's the other way around. Whether Jesus was eating with the self-proclaimed "righteous" or with those who recognized themselves as sinners, the meal served one over-arching purpose: <b>To seek and save the lost. </b>The only difference was that sometimes, he ate with people who actually <i>knew</i> they were lost, and desired to be found. And I'd imagine those were the meals where he actually <i>could</i> relax a little...at least, more so then eating with a <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+23%3A33&version=ESV">brood of vipers</a>!<br />
<br />Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-32450597713006655392015-10-16T21:49:00.001-07:002016-09-19T11:59:20.388-07:00The Jesus Storybook Bible: Initial ThoughtsWe recently had our baby shower, where we received many wonderful things in preparation for the birth of our son Wesley Alexander Mulligan (November 3rd is coming so fast!). One of those gifts (well, three, actually) was the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310708257/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d1_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=17RRNTSSGVR2E29F0ERK&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop">Jesus Storybook Bible.</a> I decided it would be good to do an "initial thoughts" post, then come back to it after I've actually read it all the way through (probably with/to Wesley).<br />
<br />
First thing: <b>I LOVE this Bible.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Second thing: It's not perfect. There are things that I think could have done better, and a few things that I think are actually wrong/bad about the way events were portrayed. (David described as "the weakling of the family, he's only teeny-" being one of the most annoying errors, since <a href="http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2012/07/twisted-stories.html">he killed lions and bears with his bare hands</a>!).<br />
<br />
Third thing: <b>But it's still amazing</b>.<br />
<br />
I think what I love most about it really is the subtitle: "Every Story Whispers His Name." Jesus is <i>THE</i> image of the invisible God, and in a very real sense every verse in the Bible points to Him. This Bible makes that explicit, over and over again. I'll just include one example: The first of them, and the most amazing. This is how this Bible ends the story of Adam and Eve:<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"But before they left the garden, God made clothes for his children, to cover them. He gently clothed them and then he sent them away on a long, long journey--out of the garden, out of their home. </span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i>
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well, in another story, it would all be over and that would have been...</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><i>The End.</i></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But not in this Story.</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">God loved his children too much to let the story end there. Even though he knew he would suffer, God had a plan - a magnificent dream. One day, he would get his children back. One day, he would make the world their perfect home again. And one day, he would wipe away every tear from their eyes.</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">You see, no matter what, in spite of everything, God would love his children - with a Never Stopping, Never Giving Up, Unbreaking, Always and Forever Love.</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And though they would forget him, and run from him, deep in their hearts, God's children would miss him always, and long for him - lost children yearning for their home.</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Before they left the garden, God whispered a promise to Adam and Even: <b>"It will not always be so! I will come to rescue you! And when I do, I'm going to do battle against the snake. I'll get rid of the sin and the dark and the sadness you let in here. I'm coming back for you!"</b></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And he would. One day, God himself would come."</span></i></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
That is my absolute favorite part about this Bible: <u>It opens with a STRONG emphasis on </u><a href="http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/2014/11/christus-victor.html"><i style="text-decoration: underline;">Christus Victor</i>.</a> And all throughout the Old Testament portion of this Bible, nearly <i>every</i> story contains a reference to "The Great Rescue," God's secret plan to save the world. And who is the rescue from?<br />
<br />
The Genesis section makes it fairly clear: In order to rescue his people, God MUST do battle with the devil. While human beings are definitely active sinners, they are primarily <i>prisoners</i> to be freed, not enemies to be vanquished (which, by the way, has many Calvinists on Amazon absolutely livid). *<br />
<br />
Another thing I love? <b>The Artwork</b>. It's amazing. And the most amazing thing it does is to bring out the humor often overlooked in passages: For instance, the section labeled "How to Pray" (covering Jesus critiquing the prayers of the hypocrites in Matthew 6) features three people praying very passionately: Two of them are emoting vividly, heads dramatically tilted upwards, while the third actually has one eye open to see if anybody is watching him pray!<br />
<br />
Again: This Bible is not perfect. Since it's designed for children (who, being children, are incapable of many of the finer points of Biblical interpretation and analysis), there's a LOT of built-in interpretation, connecting dots that are sometimes "gimmes", sometimes much more contested. (For instance, during the last supper, Jesus says "My body <u>is like</u> this bread," which Catholics on Amazon are <i>not</i> down with). Unless you happen to be <i>the author of this particular book</i>, there WILL be something in here that you disagree with....but then again, that's literally unavoidable when paraphrasing and commentating. <i>c'est la vie. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Will I read EVERY line to Wesley, exactly as written here? No. When speaking of David, I'll talk about how he was the youngest, and how that made him seem very unimportant to most people...but I'll also talk about his strength and bravery. But I'll read MOST of it exactly as written, because i think it does an incredible job at communicating the love of God and his desire for humanity to be saved, woven throughout the Bible. (and HOLY CRAP I just realized that I will be mostly responsible for the theological formation <u>of a tiny person who will take my words as absolute truth</u> oh my gosh WHAT AM I GOING TO DO)<br />
<br />
<i>Ahem</i>. Anyway...yeah. I'll be writing a lot more about this...about whether the simplification going on here is a valid move, when it's appropriate to simplify and when it's NOT appropriate, and a couple others. But for now, I just wanted to get this out there.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-28692796920403333872015-09-21T21:13:00.002-07:002015-11-05T22:48:00.837-08:00A Hamburger and FriesYou ever have a moment where you feel as though you know <i>exactly </i>what God wants you to do, and yet you don't want to do it? And it's not even a <i>good</i> reason why you don't want to do it, just something stupid and inconsequential?<br />
<br />
<br />
I was on my way to Life Group tonight, and I was already going to be late. Shaw (our main street) is crazy that time of night, and even getting on it was slow going. And there, at the corner, was Dee. I had forgotten her name, but she was often there at the corner, holding a sign, asking for help. I was blasting music, as is my wont, but I turned it down as I approached the corner. I pulled out my wallet, but a quick glance confirmed what I had already suspected: It was empty.<br />
<br />
So, as is my usual practice in that situation, I simply said a short prayer for her and went on my way, turning the music back up. Except...the joy I had been feeling mere seconds earlier was gone, replaced by something else. A nagging feeling, as though something had been missed. And it wouldn't go away.<br />
<br />
<i>You're just going to let it go, just like that?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Well, I mean, yeah. It's late, the traffic is crazy, I don't have money, what am I-</span><br />
<br />
<i>You could get her some food. It's nearly 7, and she had nothing with her.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Well, yeah, I <i>could</i> do that, but it's going to take forever to get the food and -</span><br />
<br />
<i>Seriously? There's a Carl's Jr right there</i>.<br />
<br />
And so there was. So almost without thinking, I pulled into the parking lot (although, due to a miscalculation, it was actually the next parking lot over that I pulled into). And then it began again.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Wait, what are you doing? Buying food? She probably doesn't even <i>want</i> food. She's probably going to look at you like you're a weirdo, and then you're just going to have food sitting in your car, food you don't want, and it's going to be awkward and -</span><br />
<br />
And then I got out of the car and went into the Carl's Jr. I got a burger and fries, and a drink, and then started back down the way I'd come. She was still there at the corner, so I went past, U-turned, and pulled into a nearby parking lot. I got out of the car, grabbed the bag of food and the drink, and started walking towards her.<br />
<br />
She saw me coming, and she set down the sign and came to meet me. I'd been working out my "speech", what I was goign to say to her, but it left me, so I mumbled something about how I didn't have any money and I thought she might want food and -<br />
<br />
"Food is <i>great</i>!" she said. "Thank you!"<br />
<br />
I asked what her name was, and told her I'd be praying for her. She did the same, and said a short prayer right there. As I walked back to the car, I saw her checking out the bag and grabbing some fries.<br />
<br />
But then, as I pulled out of the parking lot and began to turn the corner again, I saw that she had placed the bag back on the ground. She wasn't holding her sign. She wasn't looking at the cars passing her by. Instead, she had her hands slightly raised, her eyes closed, and her face towards heaven. And she remained that way until I could no longer see her.<br />
<br />
<br />
It was...an interesting experience, and it made me 25 minutes late to Life Group. It's very rare that I have that moment, that point in time where I feel as though I know <i>exactly</i> what I'm supposed to do. I'm just glad that God refused to allow me to pass it by, despite my fighting it every step of the way.Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-55846336341327068752015-09-14T14:07:00.001-07:002015-11-05T22:48:19.239-08:00Duct Tape and PeopleThe youth group at my church just finished up three weeks on sex and dating, covering the usual gamut of God's intended purpose for sex, common temptations and obstacles, and forgiveness and recovery. We worked through this during our mid-week Small Group time as well, and last week, that unfortunately included a popular addition to such talks: The Duct Tape Example.<br />
<br />
One of my fellow leaders brought out a roll of duct tape in the middle of the talk, and asked for volunteers who were "really strong." Finding one such volunteer, he tore off a suitable length of tape and plastered it to the volunteers arm, observing that the tape was stuck fast and was now "one flesh" with the high schooler. Then he ripped it off, pointing out the pain experienced by the volunteer, as well as the hair and debris that remained stuck to the duct tape.<br />
<br />
He repeated this a couple more times, noting each time how much less sticky the tape had grown, and how much weaker the attachment was between tape and high schooler. And each time, he brought it back to sex, telling the guys that each time they had sex with someone else, they would become less capable of experiencing a meaningful connection with the next person they had sex with, even someone they intended to marry. And at the end, he was sure to bring up the power of God in Christ, to forgive us and make us new, and heal our wounds.<br />
<br />
He <b>said</b> all the right things. He didn't say anything that was untrue, and he said a lot that was true and helpful! But the problem is, <u>the illustration itself is incredibly flawed</u>.<br />
<br />
As the last volunteer shook the tack-less tape from his arm, one of the guys said something that (unintentionally) drove the point home for me. He said, "So we should call all the hoes at our schools 'duct tape'?"<br />
<br />
He was joking, of course, but the comment betrayed the crucial flaw in the illustration. While it was accompanied by a lot of spoken truth about connection, intimacy, and the very real dangers of pre-marital sex, the illustration itself said something different:<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Girls who have sex with multiple people are inherently worthless. </span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b>
That's what the illustration says when performed with a group of guys. It can't say anything else. The tape is an obvious (and explicit) stand-in for a woman, and it is quite literally <i>worthless</i> for its intended purpose after one or two people have "had their way" with it. The illustration is very effective...at least, if your goal is to get guys to associate worth with virginity.<br />
<br />
A lot of the guys laughed when he made the "hoe" comment (they are high schoolers, after all), but I immediately raised my voice, to say, "And that's the danger of illustrations like this: They reduce people to <i>one</i> thing, and make that the only worthwhile thing about them." I think he understood my point, because he immediately nodded and was quiet for a bit.<br />
<br />
But the problem remains: We use these illustrations, and to the people in charge, they mean one thing...but to the people witnessing it, <u>they mean something completely different</u>, about people, sex, and worth as human beings. And I think we need to stop with the analogies, because ultimately, I think they do more harm than good. Or, if you simply MUST use analogies, they need to be accompanied by a LOT more explanation and restriction: What do they mean, and more importantly, what do they NOT mean? This is what our analogies lack, and this is the reason why they so often reduce people to something <i>less</i> then people...and that is unacceptable.<br />
<br />
<i>NOTE: I owe a great deal of my thinking on this matter to my good friend Alishia, who has written about this topic <a href="http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2014/08/purity-movement-didnt-tell-us.html">here</a> and <a href="http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2014/09/stick-carrot-exposing-hidden-false-gospel-purity-movement.html">here</a>. </i>Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com1