You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Theology' category.
To further whet your appetite for this month’s giveaway, here is an excerpt from “Total Church” in which the authors contrast a common presentation of the gospel in individualistic terms with an explanation of the biblical storyline as it has to do with the people of God. This has definitely forked some straw into my mental feed trough. I’m still chomping, in fact. Here is what they say:
At the heart of much evangelical piety is the individual soul before God. A personal relationship with God has all too often become an individual relationship with God. This individual relationship is seen as authentic spirituality from which other expressions of spirituality are derived. So people say things like, “We will not be prayerful in the public life of the church unless we have first learned to be prayerful in private.”
In some ways it depends how you tell the Bible story. There is a version that runs something like this: “God made you to know him, but you have rejected God. Your sin cuts you off from God and brings you under his judgment. But God sent his Son to die in your place and reconcile you to God. Now you can know God and look forward to being with him after death.” It is the story of an individual out of relationship with God brought back into relationship with God. This version of the story is true. But it is not the whole truth, nor is it how the Bible itself tells the story.
Hmmm. How many times have I heard — and explained — the gospel in this way? The question, of course, is not whether or not this way of understanding the message of the Bible is true. Chester and Timmis acknowledge this. The question is whether or not there is more that needs to be said. They continue:
Consider instead a different version: “God made humanity to know him and to rule over his good creation. But humanity rejected God, and ever since we have lived in rebellion against him and in conflict with each other. But God chose Abraham and his family to be the beginning of a new humanity. He rescued this people from slavery and made a covenant through which they could relate to him and display his glory to the world. When they persistently rejected God, he promised a remnant who would continue the promise of a people who know God. He promised a new covenant bringing forgiveness for sin and his Law written on their hearts. Ultimately Jesus was that faithful remnant. He died for his people to redeem God’s new humanity. And he rose as the first among many who would enjoy new life in a new creation. God is now gathering his people through the mission of the church and will present them, drawn from all nations, as the perfected bride of his Son.”
The invitation implicit in this story is not simply to an individual relationship with God (though that is one implication). The invitation is to become part of the new people of God, the bride of Christ. It suggests a spirituality with a much more communal orientation. Here is a spirituality in which we grasp the amazing dimensions of Christ’s love “together with all the saints” (Ephesians 3:18). We model and embody God’s love for one another (1 John 4:12). I have a relationship with God because we have a relationship with God. There are persons of God because there is a people of God. (pages 148-149)
What do you think?
A few days ago Andy Naselli had an interesting post about why it can be profitable to read the Apocrypha. He breaks his argument down into three reasons, which I found to be helpful:
1. Exegetical Value
The Apocrypha is valuable because it sheds light on the history of Second Temple Judaism. Understanding this period is especially important to discern the religious, political, social, and literary context of the New Testament.
2. Cultural Value
The Apocrypha has had a pervasive influence on Western literature and music. Knowledge of the Apocrypha’s content is useful for interpreting works it has inspired spanning from William Shakespeare’s plays to Charles Wesley’s hymn compositions. Dozens of Wesley’s hymns including “Now Thank We All Our God,” “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel,” and “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear,” incorporate ideas, phrases, and even whole sections from the Apocrypha (cf. Bruce M. Metzger, “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979], 1:174).
3. Devotional Value
Christians recognize that it is possible for non-inspired sources to possess devotional value (e.g., books, hymn lyrics, the words of a preacher). The Apocrypha has devotional value in the sense that a generally useful devotional book does. (And it is certainly not completely free from error!)
The life of John Bunyan is a classic example. At a crucial point in his life, Bunyan questioned whether or not he was one of God’s elect, and after a great mental struggle, God used a verse from the Apocrypha to comfort him. Bunyan could not find the reference to what he thought was a Bible verse, and he tried in vain to find it. He wrote in his autobiography Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners:
I continued my search for more than a year, but I could not find this text. Then at last, having cast an eye over the Apocryphal books, I found it in Ecclesiasticus 2:10. At first this somewhat daunted me, but because by this time I had more experience of the love and kindness of God, it troubled me less, especially when I considered that though it was not in those texts which we call holy and canonical, it did contain the sum and substance of many of the promises and it was, therefore, my duty to take comfort from it. I bless God for that word; it was for my good. That word still often shines before my face (1966; update, Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press, 2000, p. 45).
Naselli finishes by giving a suggested list of Apocryphal books to start reading.
Denny Burk explains the results of the ETS vote last week on the proposed amendment to the Society’s doctrinal basis. In short, 130 members were opposed and 47 were in favor of the amendment. Though the proposal was defeated, Burk is encouraged by what he has seen:
Ray and I [Ray Van Neste and Denny Burk co-sponsored the proposal] are realists. We knew over a year ago that our proposal had very little chance of getting the support of a majority of the ETS, much less of the 80 percent super-majority that is required to amend the doctrinal basis. When the Executive Committee (EC) made clear their intentions to oppose our measure last year, we knew that its passage would be highly unlikely. Nevertheless, we pressed forward with our effort because we thought that there would be something to be gained by soldiering on.
First, we believed that if we pushed forward we might be able to spur the EC on to take this matter up for themselves. It was clear on Friday that we had achieved that goal. After the final business meeting, we were assured that the EC would be taking up this issue to see if there is any significant interest among the membership to clarify the ETS’s evangelical commitments. We are grateful for this result and will support the EC’s efforts in this regard going forward.
Second, we thought it would be good and healthy for the Society to debate the matter publicly and for everyone to get their cards out on the table. I have to say that the two sessions of debate and discussion were some of the most stimulating sessions I have ever been to at ETS. To hear the members speak both for and against was highly instructive. I think we have a much better feel for how different members think about things as a result. Moreover, Ray and I were encouraged that so many distinguished members stood to speak in favor of our proposal: Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, Michael Haykin, John Warwick Montgomery, Robert Saucy, and others. We have the utmost regard for dear brothers who stood to oppose it. ETS needs to be a place where people of good will can debate and disagree without rancor and without fear of recrimination.
Read the whole post for more details.
I just finished my first full day of ETS yesterday. One of the benefits of convening a whole herd of scholars is that it creates a ripe opportunity for hearing very choice vocabulary words. Here are ten of my favorites so far:
You get ten cool points if you guess which ones were uttered by Al Mohler. I’ll give you a hint: you have a 60% chance of being right.
Today I’m heading out with the guys from TBI to travel to Providence, Rhode Island for the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). To be quite honest, I am more pumped than a pair of old-school Reeboks. The theme is “Text and Canon.” This will be my first time attending ETS, so I’m not quite sure what to expect.
One of the features of this year’s meeting will be the vote on a proposal by Denny Burk and Ray Van Neste to amend the ETS’s doctrinal statement. Right now, it only includes affirmations of the Trinity and the inerrancy of Scripture, leaving wide room for divergence on other matters. For more information, you can check out Burke’s explanation.
I have a post scheduled to be published for tomorrow since we’ll still be on the road then (it’s about a 22-hour trip). I’m not sure about internet access while we’re there, however. I’ll see what I can do.
I was flipping through an old hymnal recently and found a hymn called “A Student’s Prayer” by a man named John W. Peterson. I find it fascinating for two reasons:
- It expresses a bold desire to conquer the intellectual frontier in submission to the Word of God. It’s not every day you find a Jesus-loving battle song for cerebral expansion. I like it.
- It warns of the dangers of academic pride. In other words, it calls for a big mind and not a big head. That’s rare.
Here are the words.
God, the all-wise, and Creator
Of the human intellect,
Guide our search for truth and knowledge,
All our thoughts and ways direct.
Help us build the tow’rs of learning
That would make us wise, astute,
On the rock of Holy Scripture:
Truth revealed and absolute.
O how vast the shores of learning–
There are still uncharted seas,
And they call to bold adventure
Those who turn from sloth and ease.
But we need Your hand to guide us
In the studies we pursue,
And the presence of Your Spirit
To illumine all we do.
May the things we learn, so meager,
Never lift our hearts in pride
Till in foolish self-reliance
We would wander from Your side.
Let them only bind us closer,
Lord, to You, in whom we find
Very fountainhead of wisdom,
Light and life of all mankind.
Words copyright Singspiration 1965. From Praise! Our Songs and Hymns, ed. Norman Johnson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), #145.
This month I’m giving away a free copy of Mark Driscoll’s “Death by Love” to any new or current subscriber to The Fool’s Gold.
Here’s what to do:
1. Subscribe to The Fool’s Gold by RSS or by e-mail.
2. Contact me letting me know you’re a subscriber, whether new or old.
3. I will randomly select a winner on Friday.
About the Book
“Death by Love” is a collection of twelve letters written by Mark to people he has interacted with as a pastor at Mars Hill Church. The purpose of the letters is to apply some facet of the cross (redemption, gift righteousness, propitiation, etc.) to very real — and sometimes very awful — situations (lust, legalism, rape, abuse, etc.). This book will be a rich resource to anyone who wants to know how to love people better by pointing them to the Lamb who was slain.
For more information, see the reviews by Tim Challies, Adrian Warnock, or Erik Raymond (HT: Vitamin Z).
Friday night Crystal and I sat down and read what has been released of “Porn-Again Christian,” an online booklet written by Mark Driscoll to address issues of pornography and masturbation. Mark has a deep burden for the men in his church to know what biblical manhood looks like, and he is sharply aware of the crippling effect pornography has on embracing that vision.
Here is an excerpt from the introduction to give you a flavor of the booklet:
As the pastor of a large and growing church filled with strong men, many of them young, I have seen the secret sins of pornography and masturbation paralyze many men with shame, guilt, and embarrassment. I have written this booklet to discuss these matters in a manner that is both theological and practical, in hopes of contributing to each of you experiencing the power of the gospel to forgive, renew, and empower you by grace. Because I am speaking to fellow men, my tone may not be well suited for some women and, therefore, I would request that they not read this booklet, unless they are a wife whose husband has read it first and he can discuss its contents with her in love. For men wanting to encourage other men to lives of purity, I pray this booklet would be a useful and readable piece of literature that you could pass on to as many dudes as possible as a pedagogical tool for cranial-rectal extraction.
Mark’s language is raw at times, but that’s exactly what I appreciate about him. He speaks frankly about issues that can be awkward to address and doesn’t pull any punches. If you meet the criteria he mentions above, I would encourage you to read this booklet. All the chapters haven’t been released yet, but everything up through chapter 9 is available, and chapter 10 should be coming out today.
In Hebrew class we’re translating through the book of Jonah. Yesterday, Jonah 1:7 (”And they said to one another, ‘Come, let us cast lots, that we may know on whose account this evil has come upon us’”) spurred a lively discussion about whether or not it is valid for a Christian today to use lots (which for us would be something like flipping a coin or maybe throwing dice) to discern God’s will about a particular situation.
Granted, the sailors in Jonah were pagans. However, the apostles cast lots to determine whether Joseph called Barsabbas or Matthias would take the place of Judas as the twelfth apostle (Acts 1:24-26). They asked God to show them which one of the two he had chosen, they cast lots, the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the twelve.
The situation we had in mind was a situation in which all other avenues of discernment have been exhausted (prayer, searching the Scriptures, godly counsel, using wisdom) and there are still two viable and equally desirable alternatives on the table. Is it appropriate in that situation to pray that God would make known his will and then flip a coin, casting yourself on his sovereignty as it is described in Proverbs 16:33:
“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”
What do you think?
Doug Wilson has an insightful post today about an implication of the story of the widow’s mite:
This last Lord’s Day, something occurred to me in the course of the sermon, something which I mentioned in passing. But then as I was reading the Scriptures this last week, the same point jumped off the page at me, and in a far more explicit way than what I had seen before.
I was making a standard point about generosity, and mentioned the widow who had put her “two mites” into the Temple treasury, and who had been praised by Jesus for the proportions in her generosity. I then went on to point out that she was actually donating to a thoroughly corrupt ministry, one that was going to be judged in a severe way by God in the course of just a few years. Jesus didn’t rush up to the widow, and tell her to save her money for a more worthy cause, or to keep it herself.
I then compared this to the well-intentioned widows today who live in poverty, but who send more money than they can afford off to television stations where the thrones are gold and the women have big hair. God receives the intention, and not just the money.
What do you think? Do you think this could also apply to a believer who gives money in good conscience to a con artist who claims to be in need?
My dog died yesterday. She had to be put to sleep because of old age and failing health. Her name was Mandy and she would have been 13 years old in a couple weeks or so. My brother and I got her as a gift on Christmas Day 1995. She was a fluffy golden retriever puppy and her breath smelled like graham crackers. That was fitting, because that’s exactly how I would describe what Mandy was like. A graham cracker. Brown and sweet.
She was my friend. Actually, she was a friend to the whole family. She nuzzled her way into our hearts with her big wet nose and just kind of laid down there for thirteen years, smiling, patient, gentle. And then she left. It’s hard to explain what that feels like. My heart feels like a couch where somebody’s gotten up after sitting there a spell. You can still feel the warmth and see the depression of the cushions, but no one’s there.
Of course, I wonder if I’ll see Mandy again. I know she was a dog and dogs don’t have immortal souls like humans, but I just can’t shake feeling like Mandy was more than a tomato plant. I tried looking up the word “dog” in the Bible, but I don’t think dogs were highly thought of then. Revelation 22 says that dogs will be outside the heavenly city along with the sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters. I think, though, that the dogs there are people, so I’m left with a hopeful ambiguity.
Will our favorite pets be on the new earth? Perhaps. I don’t think we can know for sure, but I do know that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Romans 8:21). God will release his saints from decay and he will do the same with his creation. Maybe that will include my sweet smiling friend. I sure hope so. Either way, I can’t wait to be with Jesus. He was the one Mandy was pointing me to all along, anyway.
I’d like to share with you part of a poem by John Piper from the book Future Grace. Whenever I read it, it makes me long for the day when God will restore all things in Christ. Mom mentioned it to me this morning on the phone. Piper is talking from the perspective of someone experiencing the birth of the new creation:
And as I knelt beside the brook
To drink eternal life, I took
A glance across the golden grass,
And saw my dog, old Blackie, fast
As she could come. She leaped the stream –
Almost — and what a happy gleam
Was in her eye. I knelt to drink,
And knew that I was on the brink
Of endless joy. And everywhere
I turned I saw a wonder there.
A big man running on the lawn:
That’s old John Younge with both legs on.
The blind can see a bird on wing,
The dumb can lift their voice and sing.
The diabetic eats at will,
The coronary runs uphill.
The lame can walk, the deaf can hear,
The cancer-ridden bone is clear.
Arthritic joints are lithe and free,
And every pain has ceased to be.
And every sorrow deep within,
And every trace of lingering sin
Is gone. And all that’s left is joy,
And endless ages to employ
The mind and heart, and understand,
And love the sovereign Lord who planned
That it should take eternity
To lavish all his grace on me.
O, God of wonder, God of might,
Grant us some elevated sight,
Of endless days. And let us see
The joy of what is yet to be.
And may your future make us free,
And guard us by the hope that we,
Through grace on lands that you restore,
Are justified for evermore.
(pages 381-382)
I’d like to take this opportunity to let you know about an on-line resource that I think may be a great help to your personal Bible study or sermon preparation.
The name of the website is BibleArc.com, developed by a friend of mine in the TBI program. The purpose of the website is to provide a user-friendly platform for engaging the text of Scripture through a process called “arcing,” which is simply the method of splitting a passage up into individual units of thought (called propositions) and demonstrating how those units of thought relate to one another. You can do this in Greek or in English. Here is an example of what Romans 12:1-2 looks like when it’s arced:
Now it may not look like it, but what you’re seeing is a treasure map. All those curved lines and abbreviated symbols are leading you to Paul’s original intention in writing what he did under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They’re a graphical representation of the apostle’s flow of thought, which is the gold we’re after.
If all of this is new to you and you have no idea where to start, you’ve come to the right place. Along with allowing you to construct your own arcs, BibleArc.com offers a whole section chock full of video tutorials that take you through the process step by step and give you examples of each of the possible relationships that can exist between propositions. The following video from the website explains why a tool like arcing can be invaluable:
Personally speaking, I would say arcing is one of the most significant tools for Bible study I’ve ever learned. One of the benefits of this approach is that it forces you to slow down and ask hard questions about why an author says what he does. It takes some time to learn, but it becomes easier with practice and is worth every ounce of energy you put into it.
Listen to this testimony from John Piper about the influence this kind of approach to Bible study had on him:
It was a life-changing revelation to me when I discovered that Paul, for example, did not merely make a collection of divine pronouncements, but that he argued. This meant, for me, a whole new approach to Bible reading. No longer did I just read or memorize verses. I sought also to understand and memorize arguments. This involved finding the main point of each literary unit and then seeing how each proposition fit together to unfold and support the main point. (”Biblical Exegesis: Discovering the Meaning of Scriptural Texts,” pg. 18)
If you’re interested in pursuing this method of getting inside the Biblical authors’ heads, I would warmly encourage you to check out BibleArc.com.
Tope Koleoso, lead elder of Jubilee Church in North London, attended the Desiring God National Conference at the end of last month. Adrian Warnock, who attends Jubilee, has posted the first of three video installments in which Tope shares his thoughts about the conference. In this video Tope comments, among other things, about his experience of the worship at the conference. I found his remarks to be significant and encouraging given his background as a Reformed charismatic.
If I had to nail down a summary statement, it would probably be this one: “In the end, the question would be this: ‘Did I worship? Did I have those moments of being lost in awe and joy?’ Yes, I most definitely, absolutely did.”
You’ll find this section beginning at the 2:50 mark.
Here is a quote from Mark Driscoll’s new book “Death by Love,” a collection of letters written to people Mark has worked with as a pastor. Each letter takes one of the aspects of the cross and applies it to a particular person’s situation. In this letter, Mark is addressing a man who appears externally religious but is full of vice. He provides this man with a list of ten ways to distinguish religion from the gospel. Here is #3, which I share because it is particularly convicting to me:
[R]eligion is about what you do. Because of this, religious people like you like to quantify their righteousness in measurable ways. Meanwhile, because such things as love, patience, kindness, and mercy are not easy to quantify, you do not pursue them as vigilantly as a clean house, regular church attendance, enforced bedtime, and a balanced checkbook. Conversely, the gospel is about what Jesus has done–for you, in you, and through you–by grace. (page 95)
The winner of the October 2008 Fool’s Gold Book Giveaway is:
Tim Chen
Tim operates a blog called “To Live Is Christ, To Die Is Gain.”
What does Tim do during the day, you ask? Here is his answer:
I’m a student during the day (Engineering with an interest in everything, including philosophy).
He describes his favorite season this way:
I’m from the Midwest so my favorite season is fall. The air is crisp and clear, stinging your nostrils as it goes in. Cold enough to play soccer or tag with your hands stuffed in your pockets on the colder days. And on the warmer ones, the sun on your back is enough so that you can run freely with shirt and shorts without breaking a sweat. A dewy frost on the ground in the misty mornings before the cool glowing sun cuts into and makes the air so crystal clear.
Winter is even better, the hushed sleeping landscape with only your footprints and the silence. But being inside is cold wet and drafty at times. Cold feet are a common malady along with the constant worry of carbon monoxide. Enthusiastic heater use often results in a drowsy feel and a popped circuit breaker (and a shutdown computer). So overall, fall is the more favored holiday.
Congratulations, Tim! Be sure to stay tuned, everyone, for next month’s giveaway.
Welcome to October! To celebrate the dawn of this new month as well as The Fool’s Gold’s six-month birthday, I’m giving away a free copy of “The Reason for God” by Tim Keller.
Giveaway Details:
Between now and midnight on Thursday, October 2 (Central Standard Time), send an e-mail to thefoolsgoldblog@gmail.com. In the e-mail, include the following:
– Your name
– The name and address of your blog (if you have one)
– What you do during the day
– Your favorite season and why
After the deadline passes, I will randomly select an entry and e-mail the winner to ask for his or her mailing address. The winner will be announced sometime on Friday, October 3.
About the Book:
I warmly commend this book to you if for nothing else than to see what it looks like to winsomely defend the gospel. Keller is masterful at handling objections to the Christian message with understanding while peeling away levels of argument to expose underlying assumptions.
The book is divided neatly into two sections. The first section deals with seven common objections to Christianity:
– There Can’t Be Just One True Religion
– How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?
– Christianity Is a Straitjacket
– The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice
– How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
– Science Has Disproved Christianity
– You Can’t Take the Bible Literally
The second section presents seven reasons for believing in Jesus. Here’s an excerpt from his “Intermission” chapter to whet your appetite:
Intermission means literally to be between journeys or missions. That is where we are now. Underlying all doubts about Christianity are alternate beliefs, unprovable assumptions about the nature of things. So far I’ve examined the beliefs beneath the seven biggest objections or doubts people in our culture have about the Christian faith. I respect much of the reasoning behind them, but in the end I don’t believe any of them make the truth of Christianity impossible or even improbable. We have another journey to take, however. It is one thing to argue that there are no sufficient reasons for disbelieving Christianity. It is another to argue that there are sufficient reasons for believing it. That is what I will try to do in the last part of this volume. (pg. 115)
If you’re curious to discover his reasons, shoot me an e-mail. I think you’ll find “The Reason for God” to be a very helpful and faith-strengthening resource.
I had a professor in college who taught that burial was a testimony to the Christian’s hope of a future bodily resurrection. Because of this, he said, a Christian should not be cremated.
Tullian Tchividjian, the senior pastor of New City Church in Southern Florida, posts some reflections from a recent men’s retreat the church had. Mike Wittmer, professor of Systematic Theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, was speaker for the retreat, and during the question and answer session someone asked the question:
“Given the fact that upon Christ’s return God will reunite our sinless souls with a sinless body, is it wrong to cremate your body when you die?”
Tullian relays Mike’s response:
Mike’s answer was stellar. He said that it depends on why you choose to do it. If it’s because you think that your physical body is of no value to God, then the answer would be yes, it is wrong to cremate your body. But there are other reasons why it would be fine to do so.
He also quotes a post by Michael Walker on the subject. Walker is the Theologian in Residence at Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas, TX. Here is some of what Walker has to say:
I think there are good “arguments” for and against the practice of cremation from a Christian perspective. I worry less about whether cremation poses any obstacles for God’s power to resurrect the dead, and more about how the practice can impact our attitude toward the physicality of life in the present. We do tend to treat our bodies as objects apart from ourselves, rather than part of our-selves. Pressing issues in bioethics offer plenty of good examples, and in the evangelical community it tends to be part and parcel of the larger world-denying rather than world-engaging spirituality. If ultimately, God’s plan is to redeem our bodies and indeed all creation, how should that impact the way we treat our own bodies and the creation now?
Do you think cremation is an acceptable practice for Christians? What reasons can you think of for or against it?
Things will be kicking off tonight at 7:00 with Sinclair Ferguson speaking on James 3:1-12. Tyler Kenney and I will be blogging the conference together for the DG Blog. I’m really looking forward to it.
Mike Anderson from the Resurgence blog will also be live-blogging the event. Here’s what he wrote:
I’ll be at the Desiring God Conference this Friday-Sunday, and will be live-blogging the whole thing. You can expect photos, video, updates, and my perspective on the event. You will be able to ask questions and I will be able to respond. This will all be on the front page of theResurgence.com. Keep coming back in the following days after the event—I’ll be posting interviews with the speakers.
I think this is going to be a great conference. Maybe I’ll see you there!
Terry Virgo announced today that Tim Keller will be addressing Newfrontiers leaders in February. He also includes an interview he did with Keller as a bonus. Here is Keller’s response to being asked about his approach to apologetics in his book The Reason for God:
Most apologetic books are really written for Christians, even the ones that purport to be written for non-believers. Almost always they are not careful and respectful enough of non-Christians’ concerns to be plausible at all. One of the most frequent responses I get from non-Christian readers is: ‘I’m not sure I agree with all this, but I must say this is the first book I’ve read by a Christian that didn’t treat me like I was an idiot.’ The book is nothing but a distillation of how we converse with non-believers in NYC. The fact that you consider it ‘unusual’ shows that we aren’t very adept at connecting with such folks.
Feel free to check out the whole interview. Keller talks about engaging culture, people who have influenced his ministry, how he came to New York City, his church, and evangelizing New Yorkers.
- Deadbolts
- Pesticide
- 911
- Counseling
- Open heart surgery
- Barbed wire fences
- Contact lenses
- Aspirin
- Security lights
- Caskets
Of course, I’m referring here to Adam and Even before they ate the fruit. The point here is to remember that the way things are now is not the way they always were, nor the way they always will be. After all, through the cross and resurrection of Jesus, God is bringing his people back to Eden.
The angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. (Revelation 22:1-3)
Are there any other things you would add to the list?
Denny Burk has some strong words for those who try play the “God’s will” card in winning a girl’s affection. He cites a post by S.M. Hutchens as a springboard:
A young woman whose family I have known for years called me for advice. She had just been told by a young man that after long and earnest prayer, after seeking the face of God for days, the Holy Spirit had informed him it was God’s will she form a romantic attachment with him. With little deliberation and equal gravity I informed her she could tell her swain and his Spirit to go jump in the lake, and add a boot in my name to their collective backside with her good riddance.
Then he adds his own frank counsel to the stew:
Since I am the Dean over a school of undergraduates, I would add my own specific application of this advice to Christian college students.
To the Gals: If a guy ever tells you that God has revealed to him that you are supposed to marry him, then you need to drop him like a hot potato. Head for the hills, and don’t look back.
To the Guys: If you ever feel the need to tell a gal that God has revealed to you that you are supposed to marry her, then you need to put your hand over your mouth and repent. It’s almost certain that your “revelation” is really just a baptized form of manipulation. Such talk reveals spiritual immaturity and is unbecoming of a man of God.
It’s very common for believers to pray before eating a meal. I think support for this practice comes from two places, at least:
Mark 8:6 — “And he directed the crowd to sit on the ground. And he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.”
Luke 22:19 — “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’”
What I find curious, though, is that we don’t usually pray before snacks. I don’t see any qualitative difference between mashed potatoes and an ice cream sandwich. We are indebted to God for both.
What do you think? Does our hesitancy to pray before snacking indicate some mistaken assumptions about dinnertime blessings? Or perhaps a false distinction between the sacred and the secular…or in this case, the meal and the munchies?
That’s short for “Edwards on the Head”, my Thursday afternoon phenomena of feeling like a deflated cerebral whoopie cushion. I have class on Mondays and Thursdays, but Thursdays are the big days. We clock in at 7:45 and hang up our hats at 3:30. The whole day we belly-up to a smorgasbord of academic cuisine, beginning with Hebrew and ending with a class on Jonathan Edwards, who, by the way, has the uncanny ability to make me feel both amazed and dumb at the same time. That’s a good thing.
Right now we’re working through his dissertation “Concerning the End for Which God Created the World.” His point is that God didn’t create the world out of some deficiency or need in himself. Instead, the infinite self-knowledge and joy he has experienced in the fellowship of the Trinity is so full that it spills over. Like a fountain. God desires to communicate or display that fullness, and so he creates. Here’s how Edwards put it:
…[W]e may suppose, that a disposition in God, as an original property of his nature, to an emanation of his own infinite fulness, was what excited him to create the world; and so that the emanation itself was aimed at by him as a last end of the creation. (End of Creation, 23)
The highway to hell is paved with morality as much as with decadence. Tim Keller writes about the deceptive evil of embracing Jesus merely as a model and not as a Savior:
That, ironically, is a rejection of the gospel of Jesus. It is a Christianized form of religion. It is possible to avoid Jesus as Savior as much by keeping all the Biblical rules as by breaking them. Both religion (in which you build your identity on your moral achievements) and irreligion (in which you build your identity on some other secular pursuit or relationship) are, ultimately, spiritually identical courses to take. Both are “sin.” Self-salvation through good works may produce a great deal of moral behavior in your life, but inside you are filled with self-righteousness, cruelty, and bigotry, and you are miserable. You are always comparing yourself to other people, and you are never sure you are being good enough. You cannot, therefore, deal with your hideousness and self-absorption through the moral law, by trying to be a good person through an act of the will. You need a complete transformation of the very motives of your heart. (”The Reason for God,” 177)
This question has nagged me for some time and I’ve never come to a satisfying conclusion. Thankfully, Russell Moore has taken up the issue in a recent post. He explains why he thinks a minister should not officiate at the wedding of two unbelievers. Here is the cream filling of his argument:
In the New Testament, the marriages of church members are the business of the church community. Throughout the Scripture, the marriages of the members of the believing community are addressed to entire congregations (for instance, 1 Cor 7; Eph 5). At the same time, Paul tells the church at Corinth: “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside” (1 Cor 5:12-13).
That’s precisely the issue. For unbelievers the church has no right to hold a couple to their vows through church discipline. They are not, after all, members of the church. A church that isn’t able to hold a couple to their vows (through discipleship and discipline) as witnesses to the covenant made (through discipleship and discipline) has no right to solemnize these vows in the first place. What would the church do if the unbelieving non-members were to break these vows?
In the case of unbelievers, a minister of the state (such as a Justice of the Peace) is perfectly appropriate to officiate because it is the state, not the church, that will hold the couple accountable for any breaking of the vows made.
Almost every pastor I’ve ever heard who performs weddings indiscriminately appeals to the evangelistic potential. Every community has the “wedding chaplain” pastor who will marry anyone. He is rarely the soul-winning firebrand of the community. As a matter of fact (though I’m sure there are exceptions), I’ve not once met an unbelieving couple who were won to Christ by a pastor who was willing to marry them regardless of their belief in Christ. I know of several couples, though, who came to Christ because a faithful pastor lovingly told them no, and told them why.
What do you think?
Last night Crystal and I went on a date to Chipotle. It’s one of our favorite haunts. Chipotle typically provides some sort of biographical sketch of notable people on their drink cups. They call the series “People We’re Pleased to Know.” I had the privilege of vacuuming Mr. Pibb out of Part 7 this time, which highlighted a man named Dr. Bernie Rollin. Here is an excerpt that proved to be an interesting conversation piece:
Long before PETA made splattering paint on fur-clad celebrities fashionable, Dr. Bernie Rollin was advocating for the ethical treatment of animals. This Harley-riding, weight-lifting philosophy professor believed humans had a moral obligation to reduce animal suffering.
What do you think? Aside from the excesses of certain animal rights groups, do you think Rollin is on to something? Do humans have a moral obligation to reduce animal suffering? How would we frame the issue biblically?
This past year I have had the privilege of teaching a Sunday School class for older folks at Bethlehem. They are called “The King’s Friends.” The title is a vestige from an older era at Bethlehem, and I’ve been happy to serve under it. After all, Hushai the Archite was the king’s friend (1 Chron. 27:33). More importantly, so were the disciples (John 15:15).
This Sunday marks my last day teaching the class, as I will be transitioning to a different pedagogical post in the fall. In their honor, here are nine reasons I love my elderly friends:
- They remind me that the world got along just fine before 1983 (the year I was born).
- They lived through a lot of the stuff I read about in school.
- Most of them have walked with Jesus longer than I’ve been alive.
- Death is a more pressing reality for them. Going to be with Jesus isn’t an abstract concept they consider in pensive moods. Many of them will see him in ten years. Some even sooner.
- A smile on their face is - in some ways - more profound than a twentysomething’s grin, because it can’t be attributed to painless joints, career advancement, or an iPhone.
- They’ve had room in their hearts for a young whipper-snapper like me.
- They know how to cook.
- They love my wife.
- They consistently remind me that my youth is not perpetual.
Praise God for his aged saints. They have unique capacities to display Jesus’ worth, and I am thankful they let me share their Sunday mornings with them.
Sometimes it’s easy for me to read over a shocking statement about God and not let it hit me like it ought. Take, for example, Psalm 135:7 - “He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth, who makes lightnings for the rain and brings forth the wind from his storehouses.”
Now, the verse says that God makes lightnings for the rain. That’s easy enough to picture. Dark, rolling thunderheads crackling with veins of fire. But then I remember that lightning can cause terrific damage, even take a person’s life.
On August 21, 1776, a nighttime storm raged over the city of New York for three hours, accompanied by intense lightning. David McCullough relates the carnage:
“Houses burst into flame. Ten soldiers camped by the East River, below Fort Stirling, were killed in a single flash. In New York, a soldier hurrying through the streets was struck deaf, blind, and mute. In another part of town three officers were killed by a single thunderbolt. A later report described how the tips of their swords and coins in their pockets had been melted, their bodies turned as black as if roasted” (1776, pg. 156).
This means that if God makes lightnings for the rain, then he is also behind the life-taking effects of those bolts. “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand” (Deuteronomy 32:39).
God roasts people. May that cause us to tremble. And then, may it drive us to ponder the sizzling rage Jesus endured in our place on the cross.
Peter tells us that the heavens and the earth that now exist are stored up for fire (2 Peter 3:7).
Some would use this to justify not caring for the earth. It’s a sinking ship, after all.
Can you think of other situations where we care for things that won’t last?
Susan Wunderink from Christianity Today interviews Tim Keller on his book “The Reason for God” and how he approaches doubts that people raise about Christianity:
“Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan and cofounder of the Gospel Coalition, is behind some of the most ambitious — if not the most radical — efforts to reach urban professionals. Now he’s expanding his ministry in book form, with the publication of The Reason for God, which moved its way up to number seven on The New York Times nonfiction bestseller list.
Keller’s book tour, hosted by the Veritas Forum, has attracted 6,000 attendees to universities around the country. Many readers are saying that the book provides satisfying answers to the questions that churched and unchurched people commonly raise about Christianity. CT assistant editor Susan Wunderink sat down with Keller as he passed through Chicago.”
Here are some of the questions Keller answers:
- Are the doubts that believers face the same doubts that unbelievers face?
- Why have you avoided using arguments from intelligent design in your apologetics?
- Do you hear a lot of “I can’t believe in Christianity because I believe in science”?
- The recent Pew study talked about changing patterns of belief in America. Has that affected your apologetics ministry?
Check out the book’s website for more information, as well as a reader’s guide, study guides written by Redeemer’s pastors, and some select sermons.
Joe Carter has an insightful post today called “Six Thoughts about Jesus.” He wrote it in response to those who would ask why he doesn’t mention Jesus more often, since he runs an evangelical blog. Here is his answer:
“Over the years people have asked me why, since this is an evangelical blog, I don’t mention Jesus more often. My usual glib answer is that I prefer not to name-drop just because I’m on a first name basis with the Creator of the Universe. I also take offense at the implication [that] my sole mission as an evangelical blogger is to end every post with an altar call.
While it’s true that I don’t casually use the name of Jesus, I believe that, like Flannery O’Connor’s South, this blog is ‘Christ-haunted.’ Still, there is a time to talk about Jesus more directly. Since I think about him constantly, I often have questions, concerns, surprises, opinions, and–on rarer occasions–insights, about Christ. Here, for instance, are a few thoughts I’ve had.”
If you have time, I’d encourage you to stop over and check out his few thoughts. They are refreshingly perceptive.
Sometimes when we are in the wilderness of despair, we default to praying for a change in circumstances. New job. New roomates. New ministry. New city.
I wonder if it would be better, sometimes, to pray that God would create the miracle of refreshment within the distressing context.
In other words, rather than praying that God would transport us to the water hole, maybe we should ask God to call forth a pool in the desert.
“When the poor and needy seek water,
and there is non,
and their tongue is parched with thirst,
I the LORD will answer them;
I the God of Israel will not forsake them.
I will open rivers on the bare heights,
and fountains in the midst of the valley.
I will make the wilderness a pool of water,
and the dry land springs of water.”
Isaiah 41:17-18
In his book “The Gospel and Personal Evangelism,” Mark Dever advocates holding together three qualities in sharing the gospel: honesty, urgency, and joy. If you leave any one of these out, you will end up promoting either a deficient message or a deficient attitude. Here is what he writes:
“…there is a certain balance that we want to strive for in our evangelism, a balance of honesty and urgency and joy. Too often we have only one, or at best, two, of these aspects rather than all three. The balance is important. These three together most appropriately represent the gospel” (pg. 55).
He adds later, “Honesty and urgency with no joy gives us a grim determination (read Philippians). Honesty and joy with no urgency gives us a carelessness about time (read 2 Peter). And urgency and joy with no honesty leads us into distorted claims about immediate benefits of the gospel (read 1 Peter)” (pg. 60).
May God make us a straight-shooting, clock-watching, winsome people.
I just finished reading George Marsden’s biography of Jonathan Edwards last night. I’ll admit, at some points it was pretty tough sledding (down a fairly long hill, too….it’s a thick book) but I am so thankful to have read it. Marsden does a masterful job of interpreting Edwards’ life in Edwards’ own terms. I found it to be very encouraging. My admiration of Edwards - shortcomings and all - is even greater than before.
Toward the end of the book, Marsden relates a study published in 1900 which compared the descendants of Edwards with the offspring of one of his corrupt contemporaries:
“The work, published in 1900, contrasted the character and intelligence of 1,200 descendants of one of his [Edwards'] most dissolute contemporaries to those of 1,400 of Edwards’ heirs. The descendants of Max Jukes, a New York Dutchman whose name the researchers changed to protect the guilty, left a legacy that included more than three hundred ‘professional paupers,’ fifty women of ill repute, seven murderers, sixty habitual thieves, and one hundred and thirty other convicted criminals.
The Edwards family, by contrast, produced scores of clergyman, thirteen presidents of institutions of higher learning, sixty-five professors, and many other persons of notable achievements” (pg. 501).
I think this contrast embraces something of what it means for God to visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children (Exodus 34:7) and to bless the generation of the upright (Psalm 112:2). This is not to say that there are no exceptions. After all, Edwards’ grandson, Aaron Burr, Jr., was the famed bad apple who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Nor is it to say that God cannot raise up children for Abraham from the stones of a wicked ancestry.
Rather, what we ought to hear in a report like this is that we should so pray, so study, so delight in Jesus that, should God be pleased, we will breed a herd of holiness for generations to come.
Charles Spurgeon explains that, just as a mother cannot kill her child (assuming, for the sake of argument, a virtuous mother), so a sinner cannot come to Christ unless the Spirit draws him. Listen to what he writes:
“Now, the reason why man cannot come to Christ, is not because he cannot come, so far as his body or his mere power of mind is concerned, but because his nature is so corrupt that he has neither the will nor the power to come to Christ unless drawn by the Spirit.”
He then illustrates what he means:
“You see a mother with her babe in her arms. You put a knife into her hand, and tell her to stab that babe to the heart. She replies, and very truthfully, ‘I cannot.’ Now, so far as her bodily power is concerned, she can, if she pleases; there is the knife, and there is the child. The child cannot resist, and she has quite sufficient strength in her hand immediately to stab it to its heart. But she is quite correct when she says she cannot do it. As a mere act of the mind, it is quite possible she might think of such a thing as killing the child, and yet she says she cannot think of such a thing; and she does not say falsely, for her nature as a mother forbids her doing a thing from which her soul revolts. Simply because she is that child’s parent she feels she cannot kill it.”
1. There are many smart people in the world.
2. Some of these smart people believe very dangerous ideas.
3. To persuade others to believe their very dangerous ideas, these smart people write them down and defend them with convincing arguments.
4. Unless other smart people write down why these convincing arguments don’t work, these very dangerous ideas will spread like cancer.
5. Cancer kills people.
My wife’s birthday is tomorrow. She’ll turn a ripe 24. Given that birthdays are special days, and special days inspire special plans, and special plans upset established schedules, Crystal asked me the following question yesterday afternoon:
“So are we going to church Saturday or Sunday, since it’s my birthday?” (Our church has services on both days).
Wanting to sound decisive and manly, I said “Saturday.” And then, feeling especially pious, I added, “What better place to be on your birthday?”
“Heaven,” she said.
“Touché,” said I.
I was reading one of Samuel Rutherford’s letters the other morning when a statement he made caught me like an uppercut to the jaw.
He was writing to a Lady Kenmure, encouraging her to not despise the Lord’s discipline in her life. His point was that if all her life were nothing but ease, it would be a sign that she didn’t belong to God. Here is how he said it (with the exception of a “ye” or two):
“If you were for the slaughter, you would be fattened. But be content; you are His wheat, growing in our Lord’s field; and if wheat, you must go under our Lord’s threshing-instrument, in His barn-floor, and through His sieve, and through His mill to be bruised (as the Prince of your salvation, Jesus, was), that you may be found good bread in your Lord’s house.” (pg.78)
May God keep us from being beefed up on earthly comforts.
Al Mohler examined Grand Theft Auto IV in a very helpful article yesterday. He addresses the question of whether violent video games produce violent children. Here is his answer:
“In some sense, we are what we play. This is not to say that every young male playing ‘Grand Theft Auto’ is now or will become a violent sexual predator who steals cars. That is clearly not the case. But it is to say that these players are filling their minds with these images and narratives and they are feeling the competitive exhilaration of engaging in immoral acts as players in a game that engages multiple senses and sensations. This is dangerous stuff for the soul.”
I think this is right on, and I think it also gets at a deeper issue. Whether or not an addictive consumption of Grand Theft Auto IV will produce an army of thugs is secondary. The primary concern is what kind of a heart games like these cultivate. Do they nurture a heart that finds pleasure in violence or theft or sexual immorality, even if it’s all virtual? According to Jesus, that is what defiles a person.
“…what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.” (Matthew 15:18-20)
I’d be interested in any further thoughts you might have.
The question:
Name two of Alex and Brett’s personal interests.
Directions:
1. You’ll find the answer to the question somewhere on the Rebelution website (www.therebelution.com). (Hint: try clicking on the link titled “The Book” at the top of the main page and see what you can find).
2. E-mail your correct response to thefoolsgoldblog@gmail.com between now and 6:00pm CST.
3. Include the following in your e-mail: (a) your name and (b) the name and web address of your blog (if you have one). If you are the winner, I will e-mail you to ask for your mailing address and you can expect a shiny new package in the mail!
Sometime this evening I will post the winner of the contest.
Happy searching!
**For those of you who are just coming to the site, I am giving away a free copy of “Do Hard Things” by Alex and Brett Harris to celebrate the 1-month birthday of The Fool’s Gold and its move to the current site. The contest will be open between now and 6:00pm CST. All you have to do is follow the directions above and be entered into a random drawing for the book giveaway.
Welcome to The Fool’s Gold Housewarming Party! To celebrate, I’ll be giving away a free copy of “Do Hard Things” by Alex and Brett Harris.
Here’s the skinny: At 12:00pm CST, I will post a trivia question related to the book that can be answered by researching on the internet. Sometime between the hours of 12:00pm and 6:00pm, e-mail your response to thefoolsgoldblog@gmail.com. After 6:00pm, the contest will close and I will select a name randomly from those who responded with the correct answer. If that name belongs to you, you will be receiving a free copy of “Do Hard Things” in the mail!
Tim Challies posted a review of this book this past Friday. He writes: “Though this book is targeted squarely at teens, I can’t deny that the message rubbed off even on this reader whose teen years are far behind. There is something inspiring in watching teens shake off the low expectations that plague their lives and there is something in it that makes me want to examine where I may also have fallen prey to low expectations. Writing as the proud older brother of these authors, Joshua Harris says ‘Every former teen needs this book, too. I know I do. There’s no age-limit on the Rebelution. It’s never to late to do hard things.’”
Here’s an excerpt from the back of the book to whet your appetite:
“Most people don’t expect you to understand what we’re going to tell you in this book. And even if you understand, they don’t expect you to care. And even if you care, they don’t expect you to do anything about it. And even if you do something about it, they don’t expect it to last. We do.”
More details to come…
Denny Burk has the scoop. He quotes the Vancouver Sun:
“One of the world’s most famous evangelical theologians quit the Anglican Church of Canada this week because he believes many of its bishops are ‘arguably heretical’ for adhering to ‘poisonous liberalism.’”
Here is Burk’s summary commentary:
“After reading the excerpt above, you may be thinking: ‘I thought the split within the Anglican Communion was about homosexuality, not liberalism.’ Well, it’s about both. The Anglican Communion is being split apart because the liberal wing of the church is willing to ignore or distort the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality. At bottom, this is a question of biblical authority, and the liberal wing of the Communion has rejected that.”
After waking up this morning, I looked out the window and saw snow on the ground. Granted, it wasn’t much, but it was enough to make my heart sink like a cast-iron rowboat.
I got in the car after clearing my windshields of winter condensation. A heavy-hearted southerner met me on the radio, lamenting a fresh case of “Deep River Blues.”
My computer tells me it’s 34 degrees outside. If it were alive, I know it would be choking down a maniacal snicker.
On days like this, how do you keep from muttering? Here are five things I can think of:
1. Thank God for the snow.
This sounds counter-intuitive, but I have to remember that my “intuiter” is rotten. “Give thanks in all circumstances” (1 Thessalonians 5:18).
2. When people ask, “Why is it snowing in April?!?!?!”, tell them, “God told it to.”
This can become excessive, but take a risk. And don’t scowl when you say it! “For to the snow he says, ‘Fall on the earth,’ likewise to the downpour, his mighty downpour” (Job 37:6).
3. Remember that, compared to the lake of fire, out-of-season flurries aren’t that bad.
God has saved me from so much. When I think about the fury my sins deserve, parking it right above freezing for a day is blissfully refreshing.
4. Shock someone by telling them how thankful you are for a day like this.
To do this step requires that you actually mean it. See steps 1-3.
5. Remember that valiant acts happen on snowy days.
“And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was a valiant man of Kabzeel, a doer of great deeds. He struck down two ariels of Moab. He also went down and struck down a lion in a pit on a day when snow had fallen” (2 Samuel 23:18).
To round up our discussion of sin, I would like to bring in a long-silenced voice from across the Pond. Thomas Watson (born 1620) was a Puritan who studied at Cambridge and went on to pastor St. Stephen’s in Walbrook, London from 1646 until 1662 when he was ousted due to the Act of Uniformity. Undeterred, he went on to preach privately and then publicly until 1680, when he retired on account of poor health. Husband to Abigail, father of at least seven (four of whom died young), Watson died in 1686 while he was praying.
He wrote a number of books, one of which is “A Body of Divinity.” In this book Watson gives a chilling description of sin:
“It is a defiling thing. Sin is not only a defection, but a pollution. It is to the soul as rust is to gold, as a stain to beauty. It makes the soul red with guilt, and black with filth” (pg. 133).
He goes on to expose the heart of sin: “Sin strikes at the very Deity…. Sin is God’s would-be murderer. Sin would not only unthrone God, but un-God him. If the sinner could help it, God would no longer be God” (pp. 133-4).
Sin is horrendous. What unspeakable mercy that God would condemn this murderous pollution in the flesh of his Son for all who will trust him (Romans 8:3-4).
Here are three observations I have in thinking about Baba’s definition of sin from yesterday (”There is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft”):
1. Baba’s definition works….for a while.
Baba’s definition of sin is not logically inconsistent. At least not on the surface. It actually makes a good deal of sense. If a man kills, he steals a wife’s right to a husband. If a woman lies, she steals another person’s right to the truth. Fair enough. But all this talk about rights raises the question, What happens when perceived rights conflict? A thief may believe it is his right to do what he pleases. What then? Does Baba’s explanation leave room for the possibility that I may not be an impartial judge when it comes to determining what I’m entitled to?
2. Baba leaves God out of the picture.
Amir’s father is not a believer. Therefore, it is fitting that his understanding of sin does not include God. Fitting, but tragic. The question of sin becomes clear when we understand that God created us. We owe our existence to him. It would follow, then, that God’s rights ought to determine our notions of morality. This is the testimony of the Bible: “Has the potter no right over the clay….?” (Romans 9:21). “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4). The fact that we are deeply resistant to this possibility may indicate more about our hearts than it does about reality.
3. Sin is stealing……from God.
What is God entitled to? What is the Right that trumps all our creaturely notions? In a word, it is glory. God, as our Creator, is entitled to all honor and praise. He says, “I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols” (Isaiah 42:8). When I do anything that attempts to exalt myself as supreme, I steal glory from God. This is the heart of all sin.
Murder is sin, not ultimately because it steals a wife’s right to a husband, but because it steals God’s right to determine the length of a man’s days. Lying is sin, not mainly because it steals another person’s right to the truth, but because it exalts me as supreme over another person’s mind. Cheating is sin, not finally because it steals a man’s right to fairness, but because it places my desires on the throne of the universe.
The reason Baba’s definition won’t work isn’t because it’s implausible. It won’t work because it’s idolatrous. It never leaves the swamp of man-centered reasoning. In fact, rather than defining sin, Baba’s definition compounds it by insisting that the creature’s rights are divine. If only his idea was as fictional as his character……
I said I would post some thoughts about issues raised in “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini. Here is one hot off the Bunsen burner.
It has to do topic of sin. Amir, the main character, tells his father (Baba) what he has been learning in school from the mullah (an instructor). Amir’s report concerns the mullah’s statement that Islam considers drinking a horrible sin. Baba, who likes to drink, sits Amir on his lap and begins to explain to him what he thinks about sin. Here is what Baba says:
“Now, no matter what the mullah teaches, there is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft. Do you understand that?”
Amir is clueless, so Baba attempts another go at it:
“‘When you kill a man, you steal a life,’ Baba said. ‘You steal his wife’s right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone’s right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness. Do you see?’”
The lights go on for Amir. He gets it.
I’ll let you chew on Baba’s definition of sin for a bit. More to come tomorrow…..
I just started reading “Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be)” written by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. In his chapter on the postmodern infatuation with uncertainty and mystery, DeYoung comments insightfully on blogging:
“We live in a blogging culture, which suggests that just because we have an opinion on something it must be worthwhile and just because we are in touch with our spiritual journey it must be worth sharing” (pg.34).
In my opinion (which may or may not be worthwhile!), this is perceptively accurate. Spot on, as the Brits would say.