Carl Trueman on Blogging

Guy Davies has recently interviewed Carl Trueman. When asked “What, in your estimation are some of the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for theological reflection?” Trueman promptly responds:

Few strengths. It’s all too anarchic. I think fun and information sharing are the best it can do. Weaknesses: feeds narcissism; allows any old nutcase to present themselves as a serious player in theological and ecclesiastical discussion.

I think he may be on to something. I may be that nutcase…

Read the entire interview here or check out Trueman’s writing here.

Today I Remember: Yesterday Was Memorial Day

Yesterday was Memorial Day. Yesterday; and today I thought of it. This may be one of those posts that leaves me looking a lot less spiritual than I really am, and a little more real than you (or I) would like me to be. But, the fact remains: it is what it is.

Yesterday was Memorial Day, and as mentioned above, I finally thought of it today. Sure, I looked forward to the extra day off in the week which provided more time to be with my wife. I was thankful that our favorite coffee shop was open until noon so that we could spend the morning hours with java to sip and talk satisfaction in Christ. I was thankful that our granny saved us some ribs and corn on the cob for us to indulge ourselves in. I was even thankful that Movie Gallery was still offering free rentals that extended through Monday (due back by Saturday) and Kimberly had capitalized on that “free”dom every day this weekend (which is an oddity in itself). However, it was not until the night hours that the thought even came to me that this day, Memorial Day, was not so much about me, but about those who died for me.

Over lunch we discussed the various wars of times past: WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and even the Iraq War and how it relates to a possible conflict with Iran. However, each of these were in context with my grandfather’s service in the Korean War, but not necessarily tied to “War” in the truest sense of the word. We discussed how many of his five brothers were called to service, his thoughts on the draft, and eventually ended up with the social security and the casinos. We always end up with the casinos. But the thoughts of men who gave their lives for the freedom of America, men who died to protect the families that they loved, or men who died in order to advance the gospel never entered into my mind. I wish this were not true, but I would not share it if it were not.

So, after my uneventful afternoon lazily being entertained by a World War II era movie (even now, this is the first time that I even thought to link this movie with the significance of the day!) and a great lunch, thoughts of service men and women who have given their lives for my freedom had not caught my attention. Then last night, I stumbled upon a documentary featuring the men who fought at Iwo Jima towards the end of WWII. The men featured in this documentary were real men; real men who loved Jesus and loved their families. They did not enter into their country’s service merely because they were drafted (though some of them were) or merely because this was something that the government told them they had to do (though this was true as well). Rather, many of these men who were featured went to Iwo Jima in an effort to defend their families. They went to Iwo Jima not to spread democracy, but to prevent the spread of an atheistic mentality to sweep across the Pacific and infiltrate their living rooms. They fought (and many of them died) after thirty-six agonizing days in brutal conditions of which I know nothing about. Many left wives and children at home. Some returned, more did not. Boys left fatherless, women without husbands; the war knew no favor. Brothers lost brothers, fathers said goodbye to their sons. Those days on Iwo Jima before the infamous raising of the American Flag have been lost to much of history and only remains in the minds of a select few. I can’t say that I have forgotten, to a certain extent, I never knew.

This documentary was incredible and with commentary on what it meant then and what it means now to be a father passionate about the gospel was moving. I did not see it until the end, but it gripped me from the beginning. There were men who returned to Iwo Jima for the sixtieth anniversary of the battle, many in wheelchairs, more with canes, all with heavy hearts. This little film helped put into perspective that these were real men, fighting in a real war, with real bullets, and real death. That meant that there were real boys and real girls who lost their fathers forever.

From the website:

“More than 406,000 Americans died during the Second World War, leaving an estimated 183,000 children fatherless. Hundreds of thousands of other fathers did return from war, some who tragically never connected with their children. But within the ranks of the survivors and the heroic dead were a remarkable collection of men who made it a life mission to speak the providences of God and the meaning of manhood to the boys who would fill their shoes. Through wartime letters and present-day pilgrimages to the bloody battlefields of their youth, the ancient warriors have spoken. Their thankful children rise to honor and surpass their legacy. They are “The League of Grateful Sons.”"

I have never suffered a day in my life; the least I could do was give honor to their memory. Forgive me for forgetting.

The World Wide Web Operations of Operation World

In our day of the high-tech, low-touch world, we often rely on electronic means of communication because they are more convenient than placing a phone call. Once upon a time, if you wanted to speak with someone you either: picked up the phone, wrote a letter, or high tailed it over to the location of choice in order to speak face-to-face. These days are long gone, thus any improvements to the methods of electronic communication are welcomed with open arms. I am often amused by the many web pages that have a “contact us” option somewhere hidden obscurely on a 4th click page just underneath an unrelated ad. Then, the “contact us” button merely leads you to either a generic e-mail address to which you can pray that someone will indeed read the e-mail, process it, and respond to you before Haley’s comet arrives again. Thus, when I experienced the electronic form of REAL customer service yesterday, I was shocked to say the least.

One of my new favorite websites is Operation World (whose link appears to the right). This website, along with the links it provides, is a wealth of resources for any individual seeking to pray for the nations. While perusing said website yesterday, I noticed two things:

1. The links to the CIA World Fact Book were not working (the CIA has moved the links to another server), and
2. I was not able to search for country specific information, only the country of the day was available.

Normally, I would let both of these alone since I can only imagine the amount of time and effort it takes to maintain this website and since it has been such a great resource for me, I did not want to log a formal complaint. However, since the CIA links were not working, and the Operation World website has a specific section to “Help improve Operation World links for Web Sites” I thought I would cordially inform them of the non-working link. I also decided to send an e-mail to request if the possibility of searching for country-specific information would be available as well.

Here’s where the e-service comes in. Would you believe that within one hour I received THREE e-mails not only acknowledging my inquiries but also received direction and answers! I could not believe it. The first came in and said, “Thank you for letting us know about the links” (or something of that sort – I have since deleted it). OK, form letter I thought, but there was a specific individual’s signature tag, not just “Customer Service”. THEN, the second e-mail came from a gentlemen who forwarded my e-mail to two other individuals saying “Dear Jen/Jason, please get back to KC on this…thanks…blessings, Anjali.”

A few things to note:

1. He said “Dear…” This is not a common introduction anymore for many of us have been trained to be “formal” in our introductions therefore translating “Dear Jen,” (note the coma) to “Jen:” (not the absence of “Dear” and the replacement of a semicolon). This struck me as odd, but refreshingly odd to say the least.
2. I found it interesting that he used my name in the reply, not simply “this guy” or “customer” or some other impersonal title. When I saw my name, I felt like I was a part of the team, working together for a greater purpose. Given the nature of the website is to promote global prayer for the nations, this should not strike me as completely unheard of, but frankly, it is not often heard of. Personal touch goes a long way.

Then, about fifteen minutes later I received a lengthy reply from none other than the co-author of the book Operation World, Jason Mandryk himself! He informed me of the purpose of the website and offered a suggestion of where I might find some other useful information. (He recommended 24-7 Prayer.com which seems to be what I was looking for!) I was absolutely floored to think that individuals within an organization would take so kindly to responding to a virtually anonymous web inquiry. There is hope for the redemption of our high-tech culture yet! I tehn responded to jason’s e-mail with this,

“Thank you for an extraordinarily expedient response! Honestly, I do not think that I have ever received two personal responses from one general website inquiry! This just furthers my understanding that the folks at Operation World take their work seriously for the glory of God. Thank you for your commitment to excellence.”

I would highly commend the Operation World website to you for your use. And, having been a first-hand witness to the organizations commitment to excellence and the glory of God, I will sure to continue to visit!

***It must be noted that I do own a copy of Operation World in book form that rests no more than three feet from me (even as I type now), but my laziness prevented me from opening the book when I desired to search on the internet. Maybe there is even hope for me.

The God Question According to Francis Schaeffer: How the Epistemological Basis for Truth Affects Every Culture

There are multiple problems that exist in philosophy and any thinker must come to terms on some level with each of them if he is to think rightly about the world in which he lives. These problems include, but are not limited to, questions concerning ultimate reality, whether or not there is a separation between the mind and body, the problem of free will, and what is referred to commonly as “the god question.” The god question seeks to determine whether or not a god (some form of deity), gods (multiple deities of certain aspects of life that are often in competition), or God (a personal, infinite being) exist, and if so, how should we then live in light of this? A.W. Tozer comments, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”(1) Indeed, how one answers “the god question” is the most important thing about an individual because from this answer will flow the basic foundations of thought. Thoughts concerning ontology, evil, morality, reality, and all others are influenced by the individual’s response to “the god question.” For Francis Schaeffer, entire cultures could be examined based on how they answered this profound question.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer was born in 1912 and changed his answer to “the god question” at age eighteen. Then an agnostic, he converted to Christianity after writing in his September 3rd, 1930 journal entry, “all truth is from the Bible.”(2) After marrying his wife, Edith, the duo was sent as missionaries to Switzerland where they eventually founded the L’Abri Institute, which means “shelter in French.”(3) The Schaeffer’s began L’Abri in order to assist those who are “seeking the answers to the basic philosophical problems with which all who care about finding a meaning or purpose in life have to struggle” and “to show forth by demonstration, in our life and work, the existence of God.”(4) Thus, for Schaeffer, three things became apparent: God is real, God is personal, and our understanding of who He is directly affects our epistemological basis for truth. In other words, for Schaeffer, the most important thing about man is his concept of God.

Francis Schaeffer came to this conclusion after he traced the major thought progressions of most major western cultures beginning from Plato and Socrates and continuing until the modern era. As he looked to each prominent philosopher, he could see a corollary relationship between their thoughts on truth which stemmed from how each answered “the god question.” These philosophers then influenced the surrounding culture by way of art, poetry, prose, and drama. According to Schaeffer, “People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions, than they even themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic world view, the grid through which he sees the world.”(5) These world view’s always act as a grid through which one determines truth, not just his or her personal preferences as others might suggest.

After Greece was conquered by Rome circa 146bc, assimilation occurred between Roman and Greek thought and culture. However, this proved to be detrimental to the Roman society. Approximately 250 years prior to the integration of Rome and Greece, the infamous trial of Socrates before Meletus was held. Found guilty by a jury, Socrates was eventually sentenced to death by drinking a hemlock poison. At the time of Socrates, the State or the polis was the ruling standard by which all was measured and as a result of Socrates’ commitment to the polis his philosophy bound him to submit to it because without his submission (and others who might follow) an anarchy might erupt causing the foundation of the society to be compromised.(6) “[Socrates] explains that the state cannot exist if people do not obey its laws […] So, the argument says, in disobeying the law we destroy the state. Socrates adds that it would be especially ungrateful for someone who has benefited so much from ‘the Laws and Constitution’ to offer injury in return.”(7) As an aside, the polis has a loose affinity with the myriad of gods of their society. According to Schaeffer,

“The gods were amplified humanity, not divinity. Like the Greeks, the Romans had no infinite god. This being so, they had no sufficient reference point intellectually; that is, they did not have anything big enough or permanent enough to which to relate either their thinking or their living. Consequently, their value system was not strong enough to bear the strains of life, either individual or political. All their gods put together could not give them a sufficient base for life, morals, values, and final decisions. These gods depended on the society which had made them, and when this society collapsed the gods tumbled with it. Thus, the Greek and Roman experiments in social harmony (which rested on an elitist republic) ultimately failed.”(8)

Thus, because truth was determined by the society, the society ultimately crumbled because there was not a corporate concept of truth. There were segments that interpreted truth one way, others that interpreted it another way, and a few to be sure that were pluralists who saw no real basis for truth. Without a basis for truth, whatever structure is pretending to exist will ultimately fail. For Schaeffer, “the god question” could again be pointed to as the explanatory factor which caused the decline of the Greco-Roman behemoth that it became. In contrast to the Greco-Roman world view with the polis, or city-state as the foundation for society, first and second century Christians interpreted the world from a different view point.

“That it was the Christians who were able to resist religious mixtures, syncretism, and the effects of the weaknesses of Roman culture speaks to the strength of the Christian world view. This strength rested on God’s being an infinite-personal God and His speaking in the Old Testament, in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and in the gradually growing New Testament […] Thus the Christians not only had knowledge about the universe and mankind that people cannot find out by themselves, but they had an absolute, universal values by which to live and by which to judge the society and the political state in which they lived. And they had grounds for the basic dignity and value of the individual as unique in being made in the image of God.”(9)

It must be noted that it was not long, however, before those early Christians became tainted with the improper desire for power, fueled by the surrounding Greco-Roman society that was being built around them. By the end of the second century, the “Church” was being developed as a centralized power force and authority was understood as coming from the Church as opposed to from God Himself through His revealed truth in Scripture.

The view that the Church was able to stand as the touchstone for truth based on its own merit, not the authority of the Bible or God, continued throughout the Middle Ages.(10) It was also during this time that the Church set up the papacy who acted as the ultimate authority for the Church. Space will not permit for the discussion of why this act was wrong on so many levels, but the historic fact remains that this is indeed what happened. Therefore, suffice it to say, that this period was characterized by a general understanding of Christianity which permeated most of western culture, although many in society would not have identified themselves as “Christians.” It was in the eleventh century that John of Salisbury directly confronted the residing pope and declared that “the Roman Church, which is the Mother of all Churches, behaves more like a step-mother than a mother.”(11) Thus, even the entity composed of individuals who were supposed to know truth and interpret the world properly, had become lustful for power and greedy for dishonest gain that came at the expense of truth. Although western history experienced an overlay of Christianity, the heart of truth was not always prevalent in the minds of many who lived during this time. This period soon faded into the glory of what is now known as the Renaissance.

The Renaissance, or “new birth,” is generally dated between the 1300’s and the early 1700’s. According to Schaeffer, however, one must look back into the Middle Ages, specifically to philosopher/theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in order to properly understand the Renaissance. The traditional Christian world view can be interpreted in the grid of Creation/Fall/Redemption/Restoration. The Biblical Christian sees the world as being first created by God (this answers the question of origins). Then there was the “Fall of man” which accounts for how evil entered into the world. The final stages are redemption, how God is working in the world to counteract the fall of man, and restoration, the future, final event when all things will be restored to their original state.(12) Thomas Aquinas, however, interpreted the fall of man to not affect the entire man (as the conservative understanding teaches) but that man “lost only the added-on gift of supernatural grace (the upper story). They fell from a state of grace to the state pf pure nature, losing the extra, supra-human faculties but retaining their human faculties (the lower story) essentially intact and unchanged.”(13) As a result, the idea that man’s intellect was different from his values was propagated and values and morals were no longer considered to be elements of truth, but merely opinions or preferences.(14) It was at this juncture that the Renaissance caught its fuel, albeit one hundred years prior to its official inception. What emerged was not necessarily a birth of a new man per se, but rather the birth of a new thought about man and his position in the universe.

The Renaissance brought with it a vibrancy to life and a renewed passion for the arts. Not to say that the arts were not influential in times prior, they were, but it was unquestionably one of the greatest peaks in the history of creativity. Artwork took on new meaning, theatre regained its significance, and as always, philosophers seemed to be behind the scenes directing the culture as a stage. The philosophical framework which was to characterize the Renaissance man centered on the idea of humanism. Humanism may be understood as the “philosophy or system of thought that begins with man alone, in order to try to find a unified meaning to life.”(15) Leonardo da Vinci, Brunelleschi, and Masaccio were influential artists in their day who took this form of humanism and illustrated it in painting and in architecture. It is difficult to separate “art” and “architecture” into their exclusive categories because for the Renaissance man, the world belonged to him, and the world was his canvas. It was not until the Renaissance that the use of simple geometric forms such as the square and the circle were used in art and architecture – of which da Vinci was the master of shape and Brunelleschi the master of space. “But for the men of the men of the Renaissance the new view of perspective was also something more: It placed man in the center of this space, and space became subordinated to mathematical principles spun out of the mind of man.”(16) Although much of the artwork and architecture that was employed during this period of history was associated with the Church, it should not be understood that the artist’s had a proper view of God as revealed in the Bible. Rather, these artists attempted to display their own view of humanism, man as the centerpiece for life, rather than God. Thus, humanistic men of the Renaissance answered “the god question” this way: “God may or may not exist, and we are the least bit concerned. Our focus should be on man and the creation in order to enjoy the here and now rather than concern ourselves with some cosmic question mark.”(17) According to Schaeffer, “Man made himself increasingly independent and autonomous, and with this came an increasing loss of anything which gave meaning, either to the individual things in the world or to man. With this we begin to see the dilemma of humanism which is still with us today.”(18)

Michelangelo’s statue of David and the men “tearing themselves out of the rock” were sculpted during this Renaissance period and attempted to capture the essence of the humanistic world view that dominated the era. “They make a real humanistic statement: Man will make himself great. Man as Man is tearing himself out of the rock. Man by himself will tear himself out of nature and free himself from it. Man will be victorious.”(19) In contrast to the secular humanist’s Renaissance that was occurring, there was also another cultural revolution that was occurring in northern Europe during this same time frame. What later came to be known as the Reformation, was actually a clarion call from within the Church to bring its constituents back to a biblical view of man and of God. This was the attempt to dethrone the humanistic vantage that had gripped most of western culture and to replace man with man’s Creator, the Christian’s God. “The differences in the Reformation and the Renaissance lie right there, in the view of man. The Reformers preached the original sin of man and looked upon the world as “fallen” from God’s intended place. The Renaissance had a positive estimate of human nature and the universe itself. This confidence in man and his powers flowered and filled the air with fragrance during the Enlightenment.”(20) According to Schaeffer, the Renaissance in the south and the Reformation in the north must be dealt with concurrently, for each dealt with the same sets of issues, but yielded totally contradictory answers and results.(21)

The Reformers in the north answered “the god question” entirely differently than the southern men of the Renaissance and this thought was evident in their writings as well as the artists who were influenced by this emphasis on Biblical authority.

“In contrast to the Renaissance humanists, [the Reformers] refused to accept the autonomy of human reason [made popular by the humanists of the Renaissance], which acts as though the human mind is infinite, with all knowledge within its realm. Rather, they took seriously the Bible’s own claim for itself – that it is the only final authority. And they took seriously that man need the answers given by God in the Bible to have adequate answers not only for how to be in an open relationship with God, but also for how to know the present meaning of life and how to have final answers in distinguishing between right and wrong. That is, man need not only a God who exists, but a God who has spoken in a way that can be understood.”(22)

Johann Sebastian Bach and Friedrich Handel were arguably the most prominent composers who were heavily influenced by the Reformation’s answer to “the god question.” Disenchanted by the idea that man was the center of the world, Bach and Handel sought to compose music that would point to God as Creator, Jesus Christ as the Savior, and man in total dependence upon Him for the very air that they breathe. Thus, their music had a distinct quality about it that was characterized by chords that were always resolved, and harmonies that were never dissonant. This was deliberate in order to show how the God of the Bible causes all things to work together in harmony in order to complete a cohesive whole.

The Reformation which offered a concept of Biblically revealed truth compared to the Renaissance which eventually lead to humanistic despair was soon followed by the rise of modern science which heavily influenced modern art, music, literature, and film. This period may be referred to as the Enlightenment and its philosophical father was a Frenchman named Voltaire. According to Schaeffer, Voltaire was thoroughly impressed with the English “Bloodless Revolution” (1688) where William III of Orange and Mary came to the throne, but with limits imposed on them by Parliament. Schaeffer argues that this form of revolution was made possible only as a result of the Reformation’s concept of truth. Voltaire desired to see this same kind of revolution in France, however, what he witnessed instead was the massacre of thousands of people led by Maximilien Robespierre. Because the French leaders of their revolution answered “the god question” entirely differently than those of the Reformation, true change did not occur and it came at the expense of needless blood shed. And even after thousands of people were killed, it still did not produce the lasting results that were desired. In June 1789, Frenchman of the National Assembly gathered to develop what is now famously referred to as the “Tennis Court Oath,” where the men swore to establish a constitution after locking themselves inside a building that housed tennis courts. According to Schaeffer,

“Their base, consciously, was purely a humanist theory of rights…It sounded fine, but it had nothing to rest upon. In the Declaration of the rights of Man what was called “the Supreme Being” equaled “the sovereignty of the nation” – that is, the general will of the people. Not only was there a contrast with what resulted in the United States from the Declaration of Independence which was made thirteen years earlier. On had the Reformation base, the other did not.”(23)

Because “the god question” was left interpreted from the humanistic standpoint, the French could not offer anything of lasting value. As Schaffer comments on the Rights of Man, “within a year it was a dead letter.”(24)

The Enlightenment brought with it a season of rapid scientific advancements such as the discovery of electricity, the universal force of attraction we call gravity, and the development of such everyday tools as the barometer. All of these came about as man began to weigh heavily on the instrument of reason because he saw that the world seemed to operate in a consistent manner. According to Schaeffer, two non-Christian men, Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenheimer, both “stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian world view.”(25) Schaeffer quotes Whitehead to assert that the early scientists “had an inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labors of scientists would be without hope.”(26) In other words, the scientists of this period answered “the god question” by at least affirming that there is some being in which has caused the world to exist in its current state and to display consistent attributes by which we can observe nature and make educated predictions.

However, according to Schaeffer it was here that scientists made a grave error. The trend went towards emphasizing the particulars over the universals which ultimate reduced man’s significance. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution based on the concept of natural selection caught significant attention with the publishing of Darwin’s The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859. Whether Darwin intended to cause such a break in the way I which man was viewed is irrelevant, his thinking has shaped western culture more so than most philosophers of the past two hundred years. In Darwin’s natural selection, man is reduced to a compilation of molecules on the basis of time plus chance. In short, if natural selection is to be understood as the premise for the origin of species, something came from nothing as a result of nothing other than random chance and many millions, if not billions, of years of random chance activity. These infinite number of chance occurrences coupled with a little bit of luck and stretched out over eons, in Darwin’s view, has created everything that we see in our world today. For Darwin, and those who hold to the theory of natural selection, “the god question” is answered by stating that man does not need God, a god, or gods as a necessary and sufficient being, for all man needs is time plus chance. However, since man is then reduced to a chance number of cells and DNA strands, man’s value is lost because there is nothing that gives him value other than the idea that his number hit the lottery.

This idea of chance selection influenced more than just the area of biological science. In fact, even the musical compositions of the day were leaning on this theory of randomness as a source of creativity. John Cage was a musical composer who believed the idea that the universe consisted purely as a result of time plus chance. Therefore, his music was composed with this same theory in view and the result, although to some may sound creative, to most it was sheer noise. All sounds were dissonant. All sound was not intended to produce melodies or harmonies, it was simply intended to produce noise which hopefully with enough time and enough chance might actually formulate something that could be heard and interpreted by the listener. However, Cage eventually understood the fallacy of his thinking as he realized that one can not practically live in this world with the base idea that time plus chance will consistently yield beneficial results. Cage was also an authority in “mycology, the science of mushrooms. And he himself said, “I became aware that if I approached mushrooms in the spirit of my chance operation, I would die shortly.” Mushroom picking must be carefully discriminative. His theory of the universe does not fit the universe that exists.”(27)

As Schaeffer traced “the god question” throughout the ages, he saw a prominent theme emerge that is no shock to philosophers: how one answers “the god question” will have dramatic influence on every other area of his life. This was true in the days of Plato, the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment and is still true even today. When Schaeffer began to look at the modern times (for him this would have been from the 1950’s up until the time of his death in 1984), he still saw “the god question” as the determining factor of society and culture. With the 1960’s and 1970’s came an increased desire for personal peace and affluence.

“Personal peace means just to be let alone, not to be troubled by the troubles of other people…Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity – a life made up of things, things, and more things – a success judged by an ever-higher level of material abundance.”(28)

According to Schaeffer, in today’s world the majority answer “the god question” on the basis of a misconstrued vocabulary. No longer is God an infinite personal Being, but rather “this finally brings them to the place where the word God merely becomes the word God, and no certain content can be put into it.”(29) Therefore, god is seen as something that would allow the individual to gain greater affluence and prosperity. And when there is a lack of affluence or prosperity it is then “god’s” fault for he, she, they, or it has not provided abundantly beyond that which they have worked for. Sadly, as Schaeffer has rightly noted, “Much of the church is no help here either, because for so long a large section of the church has only bee teaching a relativistic humanism using religious terminology.”(30) According to Schaeffer, most will continue to give up his or her “liberties” provided that his or her personal peace and affluence is not threatened. This leads us into a lackadaisical approach to the issues that affect our time. Women’s rights, racial injustice, and the defending of all life at any stage meets apathy when it comes to the aggregate of western society. For the typical westerner living in a democratic society where his or her vote and voice is theoretically equally heard, the majority express a sheer disinterest until it directly affects his or her personal peace or affluence. This is a direct result of how many in this current society answer “the god question.” Without a proper, Biblical view of God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture, Schaeffer attests that man will ultimately only be concerned with that which directly affects himself. To be sure, there will be a few altruistic souls in the lot, but for the majority, the fight is not worth it as our society has bought into the idea that time plus chance will solve all problems. This is hardly a healthy view for any individual for any society and this present author desires that he was making a broader generalization than is actually present. Unfortunately, I am convinced that this is an accurate assessment.

“The god question” is the most important question for Francis Schaeffer and he set out to trace each culture’s response to “the god question” in an effort to see how each then gained their epistemological basis for truth. We live in an age of postmodern skepticism where the only absolute that is proffered is the false idea that there are no absolutes. Nancy Pearcey sums up Schaeffer’s word view this way:

“In other words, objective truth is possible only if there is a Creator who has spoken to us – giving us divine revelation. As Schaeffer put it in the title of one of his books, only if He Is There and He Is Not Silent. The only way of escape from postmodern skepticism is if God has revealed something of His own perspective to us – not about spiritual matters only, and not a noncognitive emotional experience, but revelation of objective truth about the cosmos we live in. In short, the biblical doctrine of revelation is the only way to close the gap between fact and value, between the upper and lower stories.”(31)

Schaeffer’s legacy and influence on thinking Christians who have refused to accept the anti-intellectualism so prominent in the Church today will be felt for generation’s to come. He saw and envisioned things that were virtually unheard of in his day (in-vitro fertilization, partial-birth abortion, euthanasia – to name a few) and he spoke on these issues as a foretelling of things to come. “The god question” for Schaeffer had to be answered this way:

“In Christianity the value of faith depends upon the object towards which the faith is directed. So it looks outward to the God who is there, and to the Christ who in history died upon the cross once for all, finished the work of atonement, and on the third day rose again in space and in time. This makes Christian faith open to discussion and verification.”(32)

Schaeffer’s answer to “the god question” was never to simply place blind faith in something that is without reason. He denied this fallacy of “blind faith” because first, it is simply irrational to believe that such a leap is necessary, and second because the New Testament never presents faith in this light. For Schaeffer, God Is There and He Is Not Silent. For countless thinking Christians, so is Francis Schaeffer.

——————-
End Notes:
1 AW Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1961), p. 1
2 Christopher Catherwood, Five Evangelical Leaders (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984), p. 112. As quoted by Bryan A. Follis, Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), p. 13
3 Edith Schaeffer, L’Abri: New Expanded Edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992), p. 13
4 ibid p. 13, 15-16
5 Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), p. 19
6 One could argue that this form of city-state governing polis was a precursor to socialism, but the corollary is insignificant to this discussion.
7 James Rachels, Problems from Philosophy (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005), p. 5
8 Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), p. 21
9 ibid. p. 22
10 For our purposes we will define the Middle Ages as consisting roughly between the years 500 and 1400ad.
11 ibid. p. 35
12 This should not be understood to be a complex treatise in the area of Christian world view. For such a discourse, I would respectfully submit Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004). Heavily influenced by Francis Schaeffer during her stays at L’Abri, Pearcey is also an expert in Schaeffer’s answers to “the god question” and other problems in philosophy.
13 Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), p. 92. The dichotomy between “upper story” and “lower story” was the attempt by Aquinas to

“ ‘Christianize’ Aristotle’s philosophy, rejecting what was clearly unscriptural and seeking to interpret the rest in a form compatible with Christianity (just as earlier thinkers had done with Plato).

The end result was that Aquinas retained the dualistic framework of Greek philosophy while changing the terminology. In the upper story he put grace, and in the lower story he put nature – not nature in the modern scientific sense but in the Aristotelian sense of the “nature of a thing,” meaning its ideal or perfect form, its full potential, the goal toward which it strives, its telos. In Aristotle’s philosophy, all natural processes are teleological, tending toward a purpose or goal.” (ibid 78)

14 Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), p. 52
15 Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There: 30th Anniversary Edition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 216.
16 Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), p. 62
17 This is this present author’s summation.
18 ibid. p. 68
19 ibid. p. 71
20 Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language: Updated 2nd Edition (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1995), p. 313
21 ibid. p. 79
22 Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), p. 81
23 ibid. p. 122. It should be noted that Schaeffer does not subscribe to the theory that the founders of America were all Christians, rather, that the majority were deists at best. However, he does argue that although they were not Christians in the Biblical sense, the developing nation operated under the pretenses that Biblical Christianity offers (when faithful to the Biblical revelation). These pretenses are what offer us our “unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
24 ibid. p. 122
25 ibid. p. 132
26 ibid. p. 133
27 ibid. p. 196
28 ibid. p. 205
29 ibid. p. 176
30 ibid. p. 227
31 Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), p. 246.
32 Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There: 30th Anniversary Edition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 84-85.

When Pursuits Come in a 3 Piece Fashion

Thursday afternoon I picked up a copy of Jerry Bridges’ The Pursuit of Holiness. I have never read the book, and having recently acquired a copy, I intend do so in the near future. Many have commented on its effectiveness to spur within them a desire for greater holiness and dedication to the Lord. Many others have given testimony that this little book so utterly convicted them of the presence of their own sin that they could not but help cry with the multitudes of Heaven, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” (Rev 4:8). Indeed, when we truly come into a mere glimpse of God’s holiness we will see our sinfulness laid bare against this backdrop and cause us to recognize our intense need for a Savior. There are not many books that are able to call for such an accolade. For many, Bridges’ book has done so.

Just inside the front cover I find this recommendation from RC Sproul:

”When Jerry Bridges speaks, I listen. His teaching on holiness is not an exercise in abstraction; it is an expression f a passion that has gripped his life and ministry.”

These are pretty strong words coming from Dr. Sproul. When he speaks, I tend to listen; therefore, I probably ought to read this book!

And then I read the next recommendation. Not that this will deter me from reading the book, in fact, it will probably encourage me to read it sooner as a strange twist of events, but it brought sadness to my heart nonetheless. The recommendation reads,

”Jerry Bridges gives timelss insight into a timeless problem: in our own pursuit of holiness, it’s easy to end up in the ditch of legalism on one side of the road or lethargy on the other. The Pursuit of Holiness has helped so many believer navigate the tricky but vitally important road to personal holiness. This book should be on every Christian leader’s shelf.”

And then my heart was grieved as I read the endorser’s name: “Ted Haggard, president, National Association of Evangelicals.”

Oh how great is the fall when we fall from greatness! I found myself struggling to understand how a man so seemingly committed to personal holiness could write such a powerful recommendation for a book on the subject only to later fall into temptation with an extramarital affair. I need not ponder to long in order to determine the answer: pride will tell you “it won’t happen to me” for it “goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Pr 16:18). I need not ponder too much longer before I recognize – it could happen to me. And then, if I’m really honest with myself – it WILL happen to me IF I take my focus from the cross of Jesus Christ and place my trust in my own person and in my own works. Am I capable of cheating on my wife and ruining our marriage forever? Absolutely! Do I desire to find out if our marriage is strong enough to recover? Absolutely not.

I picked up Pursuit Thursday.

Friday morning I received a call from my wife asking me to pick up a copy of the morning paper. Again, my heart was sick and I was grieved all over. On the front page of the newspaper I found that Rick Ousely, a prominent Christian leader in our community had succumbed to temptation that led to an extramarital affair spanning twenty-five years. This gentleman has been used by God in tremendous ways throughout his life of ministry. It would not be accurate to begin to question his salvation, or the legitimacy of the ministry that he led. The first Lord ’s Supper that my wife and I shared together was Christmas Eve 2004. This pastor administered the Table and I assure that our participation in the ordinance was not marginalized in any way on our parts. I can not speak for the condition of his heart that day, or even this day, for I do not know him personally.

This then brings me to an inquisitive position. What happens when a Christian leader falls? Surely, we can not possibly measure the effect that this is having on his wife and children. We need not lose sight that these are real people who are being drug through this by no choice of their own. Children of pastors have it difficult anyway – living in a glass house as it were. Add this pressure on top of them, and I can only imagine what this has amounted to. But what else accounts for the aftermath of the fallout? What is the Christian’s responsibility in the community for this fallen gospel minister? How am I to respond and how does the non-believing community respond? I would like to probe this further, more for my benefit than yours, but you are welcome to accompany me on the journey. What follows will be in list form but in no certain order or priority whatsoever.

1. The marriage of those involved is destroyed. Yes, reconciliation is possible and I pray that the Lord’s grace might be evident with his wife and children. But this kind of forgiveness and reconciliation does not occur overnight. This affair had been ongoing for twenty-five years (assuming the newspaper article has reported this accurately) which thus means what “trust” that existed was a trust based on false pretenses. It was not real. One side of the marriage was leading a life that was foreign to the other side. Therefore, this marriage will basically be forced to start over to rebuild trust from the beginning. Is it possible? Sure it is, if both of them are willing to work at it for the glory of God.

2. His vocational ministry is over. I have struggled personally with this one because I am having difficulty striking the balance between grace moving towards reconciliation and the consequences of sin. Scripture is clear on the character traits of those who are called to lead His church (1 Tim 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Now, if I am honest with myself, I will see quickly that there are various ways in which my character does not align itself with these qualities on a continuing basis. My desire is that it would, but I have a day of my life fully devoted to the Lord and fully focused on the cross of Christ. Until this day, I will continue to struggle with sin and temptation to sin. Therefore, is there a difference in the habitual nature of the sin and inconsistency? I think that there is, but I hope I do so not to just let myself off the hook. I think that a man who falls into a sin of this magnitude forfeits his right to be a pastor and to lead another congregation. Can he still be an active member in a local fellowship? Absolutely, and he should be for that matter, assuming that he is willing to submit himself to their leadership and discipline. But, ministry and oversight of God’s flock is a privilege and a responsibility, not a right.

This then begs the question concerning Parachurch organizations or traveling speaker ministries. This current pastor in question was the director of his own speaking ministry which has a board of directors and oversight committee. However, oversight committee or not, the speaker is still the one who is proclaiming God’s truth and his hearers are willfully submitting themselves under his authority. Consequently, I think that the outcome should be the same for this scenario, he should forfeit his right to this type of ministry. The only exception that I can think of for this situation specifically would be for he and his wife to have a speaking ministry TOGETHER and one would NEVER speak at an event without the other. However, this would definitely limit the scope of their talks to “how to overcome an affair in your marriage” which one would hope would have a low focal group. However, I would not be too surprised should there be a legitimate need develop within the church.

3. Those who have been under the fallen pastor’s leadership will question the validity of his teaching, their conversion, and just about every area that was affected by the ministry of the individual. This is a natural response given how much trust we place in the spiritual leaders over us, but we must remember who is ultimately in control of salvation and sanctification. The Lord is the one who sets His effectual call on us (Eph 1:4), the Lord is the One who effects his regeneration within us (John 3:8; 1 Pet 1:2), and the Lord is the One Who will keep us and continue to grow us until the Day of Christ Jesus (John 17:12 ; Ph 1:6). Therefore, to trust exclusively in the agent or administer of the gospel call is to not truly respond to the gospel itself. However, we must acknowledge that this problem is presented as a result of a minister who falls publicly and, I believe, will give an account to God for these ramifications.

4. The unbelieving world begins to issue claims of hypocrisy and condemnation on the church. The world is always looking for a reason to discount Christianity, because many of us Christians live a disenchanted and discounted Christianity. Any faithful minister of the word will at some point in his ministry make statements on the need for sexual purity, martial fidelity, and rebuke any form of immorality. This is good and essential, but this is the first line of offense that the world will take at the fallen minister and Christianity in general. As Christians, we must come to the reality that on some level we are all hypocrites. If we weren’t, we would not sin. We say that the Bible is true and that Jesus is the Lord over every area of our life. Well, if this were indeed true then I would be without sin and therefore not be a hypocrite. But, the converse is actually the truth. For those outside the church who begin to make such a claim, I would respond in kind with this question: “Well, I admit, you’re right. It is hypocritical for us to proclaim truth against an action or attitude that God has deemed sinful and then turn around and commit the same crime. This is why we are so utterly in need of a Savior who was absolutely perfect and un-hypocritical in every degree.” Further, I would then ask the inquisitor, “What would you say to this fallen minister’s wife? Is she just as much of a hypocrite as he?”

5. The unbelieving world comes to the stark reality that there is indeed an absolute truth that consists of right and wrong morality. Therefore, there can be good that can come from this, and to this fifth point I need to give full credit to my wife. As we were discussing the ramifications of Rick’s fall, she made the comment, “It just goes to show you that people really do believe in a right and wrong.” Amen, I applaud to my wonderfully astute and observant wife! She is absolutely right on. For, if the world truly did believe that all morality is relative and that there is no such a thing as right and wrong, then why did this story make the front page of the newspaper? Why did this story end up being discussed on most of the morning talk shows in Birmingham? Why was it on the 6:00 and 10:00 news that evening? If there really were no concept of morality, this story would not have made headlines, and it would not have been topic of conversation throughout the city. If right and wrong are truly figments of our imagination, why was this action being condemned and not applauded? I can only think of one legitimate answer: because there IS a moral right and wrong. Even if a non-believer were to comment, “Well, the story made headlines because it was calling out the hypocrisy of the church.” To this I would respond, “So, you confess that that it is not right to say one thing and then act in a way completely contrary – hypocritically? Well, you just proved my point. There ARE moral absolutes.”

6. This is a warning for all believers everywhere. This is another form of good that may come from this, although I wish it did not have to. As discussed previously, it can happen to any of us at any time. I know the internal wickedness of my own heart, and apart from Christ I am fully capable of any sin. Praise the Lord for the ministry of the Holy Spirit to prevent me from achieving further sin than what I already accomplish! This recent falling has caused me to question the security of the boundaries within my own marriage. Am I being cautious in all relationships with women other than my wife? Is my heart guarded at all times when it comes to conversing and interacting with other women? Have I, as Job did, “made a covenant with my eyes” (Job 31:1) so that I might not gaze upon another woman? Am I seeking anything outside of my relationship with wife that was intended to be satisfied by her and her alone? Am I being open and honest with those MEN whom God has provided for me to be accountable to? Am I asking the questions that may need to be asked of them so that together we can glorify God in the bonds of our marriages? These are heart probing questions that I must ask if I am to have an accurate inventory of my spiritual condition. I remember similar emotions when I originally heard of Ted Haggard’s fall. This could happen to me. This will happen to me, apart from a vibrantly growing radical commitment to Jesus Christ and His truth.

Dr. Mark Dever has written an insightful post at the T4G Blog titled Two Painfully Learned and Immensely Important Lessons where he speaks of a fellow pastor who has fallen in the public eye. Dr. Dever writes,

“Lesson number one: no accountability relationships will work if there is not a commitment to honesty on the part of the person in question.”

“Lesson number two: the public success of your ministry is no indication of the true state of your relationship with God.”

The entire article is well worth your time.

So, as many have asked before, how should we then live? I offer the following suggestions:

1. Pray for Rick, his wife and children. Ask that the Holy Spirit might be willing to lead them all to state of gracious repentance and that the Lord might be pleased to use this to draw them unto Himself. Pray that God might confirm his relationship to them and that He might be near as never before. (2 Chr 7:14; Ro 2:4; Jam 4:8)

2. Pray for your pastor and others who are in authority in your local fellowship. Pray that they might be protected from the wiles of the adversary who is prowling, seeking to destroy and devour. Pray that they might not be drawn into temptation of thinking that they are secure or that because of the fruitfulness of their ministry that they are above accountability. Pray that their hearts would be soft, humble, and teachable. (1 Pet 5:1-9; 1 Tim 3:1-13, Rom 13:1)

3. Pray for the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of your heart for anything that you may currently have a blind eye towards. Pray that that he would illuminate truth within you, search through your heart, and lead you in the way of everlasting, with a radical commitment to the truth of God’s word. Pray that He might create within you a clean heart and renew a right spirit within you (Psa 51:10; 139:23-24; Joh 17:17)

4. Pray that the gospel might penetrate our culture so that we might have a high view of marriage and that we will do whatever it takes to help protect our marriages and the marriages of others. Ask God to cause our nation to see the perils of a divorced society that has abandoned one another and abandoned the truth. (Heb 13:4; Rom 1:1:21, 26, 28)

5. Pray for this blogger as he seeks to remain faithful to his Lord, his wife, his calling, while remaining faithful to the word of God. Pray that he would not see himself as an exception, and that he would set his eyes on the cross of Christ this day and all days. Pray for his wife that she might be sensitive to perceive what may threaten their home and act like watchwoman to guard their marriage from being polluted by the outside world. Pray that her eyes might be opened when his may be dim and that he would take all steps needed to be sure that the Risen Lord Jesus Christ remains preeminent in his home.

For the newspaper article, click here

Imagine What?…Jesus and John Lennon Go to Greenwich

This is a video that was recorded in 1995, when the many YouTube creators may have well been in their infancy, let alone the idea of digital web-imaging – or whatever the technical term is for making entertainment like this cheap and accessible. Believe it or not, this was filmed at a “Revival” at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC and the Lennon look-a-like is the pastor of a Redeemer church plant, The Village Church. You guessed it; it’s located in Greenwich Village.

An anomaly to say the least, The Village Church seeks to see their culture redeemed by and for the Gospel by engaging the intellectual, artistic, and others who are on the quest for Truth.

From their website:

“And this is why The Village Church belongs here, proclaiming Jesus Christ. Because Jesus intends nothing less than a revolution to overturn this age. It is not that revolution is bad, it is only that the usual revolutionaries don’t take it far enough. We tell people, to be in our church, you need to agree that there is something desperately wrong with the world. You need to be skeptical of false Messiahs. And you need to be open to new experiences. By that we mean you need to be radical in your commitment to follow the truth, to follow it into whatever experience constitutes the real revolution.”

“We can serve these folks and others like them because Christ’s revolution allows us to connect our heads to our hearts. The wisdom of Christ comes behind no other path intellectually. This is why our church believes the best way to proclaim the truth is to provide an environment of free enquiry, ending each Sunday with a Question Authority time, in which all comers are invited to comment on or challenge anything they have heard that day. As one new member put it, “I joined because this church welcomes thinking as part of its religion.” Intellectual integrity is a key part of Christ’s revolution.”

As for their Pastor, Sam A. Andreades,

“He attended Yale University (B.S., Geology & Geophysics, 1984) and was awarded Yale’s Hammer Award for his thesis on acoustical wave travel through granites.”

I am fairly convinced that this is my first encounter with a geophysicist and I think the only time I have ever used the word “granite” is when I knew that I have officially been baptized into the vernacular of southern drawl by saying, “Granite, I may not be the smartest hog in the trough…”

All this said, Sam and The Village Church, a PCA congregation, seem to be affecting great gains for the gospel in New York and beyond. His latest sermon, “The Conqueror Comes on the Clouds,” is available here. He is not dynamic in his presentation, but is thoughtful, Christ-centered, and Word-oriented. Remember that his audience is composed of NYU students and faculty and other artistic intellectuals who have been questioning the establishment for years. I believe God is being glorified and using this fellowship to accomplish His purpose.

The lyrics to this song are recorded below. Click here for the full post.

“Imagine what?”

Imagine there’s no heaven,
It’s easy if you try
Imagine there’s nothing real but what you see
Isn’t that a cheery thought?
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no heaven or hell
And while we’re at it, no moral justice
No more consequences for what you do
You can cheat on your wife, no problem
(Everything turns out right anyway)
Wouldn’t this really be
A wonderful world to live in

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
And we all know truth is determined by majority
So come along and we’ll be as one

Imagine no possessions
It isn’t hard to do
Imagine not being responsible for anything
Or caring how it’s treated
Life would be sort of like the public library
All the books with the pages ripped out

Imagine not wanting to own anything
Imagine not having the things you enjoy
So imagine not caring what you have for dinner
And no passions too
Imagine what it feels like to be a brick
Living as a brick for evermore

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
So if we get enough people together
I’m sure we can talk some sense into God

Imagine no religion
No Jesus Christ to tell us what to do
Just all of us sort of figuring it out
And everyone stopping being selfish
A brotherhood of man
Because……it’s a nice thing to do
Imagine all the people
Achieving an uncorrupt, socialist world state all by ourselves

Well maybe that’s a little hard to imagine
But go ahead anyway,
After all we’ll show God we can be brave
No-ho-ho matter what He thinks

Diversity in the University and True Love Revolution

In the days of pluralism, relativism, and when tolerance is the buzz-word (except when this applies to the exclusive claims of Christianity), our nation’s universities are brimming with programs, classes, and organizations which appear to offer a new found freedom. As many have discovered, however, this “freedom” only leads to greater slavery and should be abolished altogether. Sadly, this enslavement is much more sexy to my generation’s eye as a result of the boomers that have gone before us, and our perception of sexuality has so far skewed from the gift which God intended.

I recall a time in my life when I was engaged in an auditorium full of future doctors, attorneys, soccer moms, pharmaceutical reps, restaurant owners, journalists, tax agents, politicians, educators, administrators, alcoholics, drug addicts, and felons. Granted, I could not then, nor can I now, determine who has amounted to which category but the reality exists that in a crowd this large (600+) statistically, there are bound to at least be one of each. Also, I did not know at that time that I would one day pursue a calling into vocational ministry. Having had to make the prediction that day, I would have surmised that I would have been a journalist turned drug-addicted felon. Thank You Father, for Your life-changing grace.

This meeting was not a professional meeting of young entrepreneurs, nor was this a gathering of desiring community leaders hoping to rally around an issue. It was a rally of sorts, and it was held in a packed auditorium of Winthrop University (my first college campus), but there was only one mindset that was acceptable in this seemingly tolerant society and it manifested itself in this chant: “Diversity in the University.” Led by a charismatic, engaging, and infectious Director of Student Affairs, she had the crowd on their feet on more than one occasion. I recall like it was yesterday (9 years later), “What we need is Diversity in the University. Diversity in the University. Diversity in the University. Say it with me: ‘Diversity in the University. Diversity in the University. Diversity in the Uni…” give me a break. This mantra was repeated over and over to the point that the brainwashing method employed by David Koresh, Jim Jones or the like would have seemed like a Tuesday morning knitting club at the senior citizens center.

She stressed the need for tolerance when it came to religions “Whether you’re a Christian…or a Jew…or Muslim…or Catholic…or Hindu…or Buddhist…or Ba’hai…or Atheist…we need Diversity in the University. Say it with me now, Diversity in the University. Whatever your sexual preference or orientation may be, straight, gay, bi…we need Diversity in the University. Diversity in the University.” And the mantra continued and continued and continued in drone after drone after drone to the point that I hear the words murmuring in my cranium nine years postpartum. In a sense, in order to truly be an American college student in the then twentieth century and the soon coming twenty-first who has been reborn from the ways of the old world, it was required that you be tolerant of everything – except intolerance, of course. This is the greatest oxymoron of the secular society and the space does not permit to entertain this soap box. Suffice it to say, this is a preposterousness that reeks of double talk to at minimum. Tomfoolery in barest degree.

Well, Harvard University, another institute of higher education, the highest pedigree in many opinions, has attempted to be the cosmopolitan ivy from which all others descend has made headlines once again. This time, however, it has not been as a result of their risqué outlook on sexuality, diversification, or tolerance. This time, it comes as a result of the student group, True Love Revolution, who have the audacity to proclaim to the student body that their bodies are not for all students. Clearer, abstinence is indeed a healthy lifestyle choice.

True Love Revolution is a secular organization that does not have any ties to a religious affiliation or denomination and is therefore acceptable on the college’s campus. In the AP article released Thursday, Jesse Alderman writes,

“True Love Revolution members say the problem starts with the university. They say Harvard has implicitly led students to believe that having sex at college is a foregone conclusion by requiring incoming freshman to attend a seminar on date-rape that does not mention abstinence, by placing condoms in freshmen dorms, and by hosting racy lecturers. (Harvard students have also launched H-Bomb, a magazine featuring racy photos of undergraduates.)”

Alderman also shares a telling quote from a campus feminist who was offended by receiving a valentine indicating that abstinence may be the way to go:

”Harvard student Rebecca Singh said she was offended by a valentine the group sent to the dormitory mailboxes of all freshmen. It read: “Why wait? Because you’re worth it.”
“I think they thought that we might not be `ruined’ yet,” Singh said. “It’s a symptom of that culture we have that values a woman on her purity. It’s a relic.”

Imagine that. A culture that “values a woman on her purity”! Singh is correct in that increasingly, the idea that a woman committed to purity is a relic, a thing of the past. However, the battle is not lost and the war against sexual impurity and in support of marital integrity continues to rage. I commend this group for having the courage to walk a life of purity; I only wish that they would recognize that our goal in purity is to glorify God who has bought our bodies with a price. Behind the lines, this group may be populated by many Christians, but since the article does not indicate, I may only conjecture. However, this is a start and it may just be that there is a group of individuals who are being stirred by the Spirit of God to seek a life greater than the temporal earthly, existence. We can only pray that the gospel would indeed penetrate the kudzu of plurality found in the Ivy Leagues and beyond.

For the complete article click here.

For a couple of young men who are seeking to change an entire generation, click here and join The Rebelution.

Loving God…Loving People: Watching Him Work

*NOTE: Names and some details have been changed to protect the humble, exception noted for my wife and I who, speaking for myself, am far from humble.

“Hey Kim, its Mary…I need your help. Can you call me soon?”

This is the gist of a voice message Kimberly received late Monday morning. Mary is a high school honor student whom Kimberly has met through the Sunday School class that she helps to lead. Mary has not been to church in many months nor has the rest of her family so it was a surprise to receive this phone call. They do not live exactly close to the church and being that their family of six only has one automobile, transportation has been an issue. Mary’s father, Paul, has had a medical emergency that has recently hospitalized him as his doctors are seeking guidance on how best to proceed given his condition. Oh yeah…and Mary is a sixteen-year-old mother of one.

Paul had been caring for Mary’s child, Hannah, during the day while she and her siblings were at school and her mother was at work. Paul is on medical disability from an accident that occurred many years ago. Thus, with Paul’s recent hospitalization, Mary was left without a caretaker for Hannah and, double-whammy, this honor student was unable to go to school. Therefore, Mary was seeking help from Kimberly to find someone who can watch Hannah until Paul recovers.

“Do you have any money for daycare?” Kimberly asks, knowing the answer.

“Well, I’m working on that” Mary responds. Kimberly can sense that Mary knows that she has made a mistake. She made a series of poor choices over a year ago that led to this day while a teenage mother seeks to make it against impossible odds. Sin has consequences…but there is indeed grace. Shall we sin so that grace may abound? May it never be! But when we do, we must always look to the Purifier to purify our hearts for Him.

Mary needs to go to school; she is cognizant of this truth. Hannah needs a baby-sitter; understatement of the century. Mary needs to do what is in the best interest of Hannah; a God-glorifying response. Several months ago, another young mother decided to leave her two children, ages nine and three at home while she went out to a party for the evening. When she came home, her house had burned and her three year old was dead. The nine year old escaped, but the mother is now facing charges of manslaughter for the death of her child. May the Lord be merciful to her and allow her the time to be spent in prison calculating the value of human life. Mary is not this woman. Mary is concerned for Hannah and knows that the best thing for Hannah is for Mary to get the best education that she possibly can in an attempt to make the best life for Hannah available.

Mary had called everyone she knew and could not come up with a viable solution. Kimberly, a leader in her Sunday School class, came to mind as an option for suggestions. Kimberly called me and asked me what she should do. I must confess that the very first thought that ran through my mind was, “Sin has consequences. Tell her to deal with it herself.” There is a glaring un-grace, un-mercy, and un-Christ coming through this statement. Thankfully, my wife did not have the thoughts that I did and, moved with compassion, sought to find help for this weary traveler. She saw a need in a younger sister in Christ and yearned to see the Father meet this need. Kimberly desired to be an instrument of grace in the Redeemer’s hands.

So, the ever-so-thoughtful wife of mine, after receiving little help from me (), phoned our youth minister to gather his input, the children’s minister to see about daycare options at church, and contemplated phoning a full-time mother who may have the ability to help a few days a week. Our youth minister returned her call and gave her the name of a couple who may know how best to proceed. This couple, Priscilla and Aquila, head a ministry effort for underprivileged children living in one of the poorest counties in the country and the poorest county in our neighboring state, Mississippi. They host vacation Bible schools, Christmas parties, and summer events for these children as well as provide for clothing and other physical needs. Most importantly, however, they bring the hope of the gospel to offer eternal life to these children, not just a more comfortable life. Thus said, this couple definitely has a loving and giving heart, but are they able to take care of this child? And were they able to take care of this child tomorrow? They were not, but their daughter was.

After speaking with Priscilla, Kimberly learned that Priscilla’s daughter, Lydia, was entertaining the idea of using her gifts to serve others as a foster parent. However, since the process is lengthy and the inspections are many, the modus operandi had not been completed. Kimberly spoke with Lydia to see what her thoughts would be in helping Mary and Hannah turn toward a better tomorrow, and indeed, it needed to be tomorrow! Lydia responded in a way that should not surprise us because we know that it is God who is working all things according to the purpose of His will, the praise of His glorious grace, and the glory of His name. She said, “Absolutely. I will drive the approximate fifteen miles (one-way) to pick up Hannah in the morning and return her back in the evening. Will Mary mind that Hannah travels everywhere with me?”

Kimberly then explained that she was unsure how long this scenario would last. Paul is in need of some pretty extensive medical care which may require a lengthy period of recovery. Kimberly needed to be sure that Lydia would not be surprised by the length of commitment, and also, to offer hope that her obligation may be complete in one week. She did not know. Lydia’s response? “Well, I am available through this year and the summer and next even if need be! I have plans to go out of town next month, and if Mary is OK with it, I will just have to take Hannah with me!” Incredible! What a way of showing grace to an individual whom SHE HAD NEVER MET! Grace is grace when it is given without requirement or pre-qualification.

This was Monday. Tuesday, the relationships began between Mary, Lydia, Hannah, Priscilla, Aquila, and the rest of the extended families. Lydia, Priscilla, and Aquila made the trek out to Hannah’s home in order to pick her up for the day. The night before, Priscilla and Aquila made a shopping trip to pick up a few odds and ends – to include a stroller and car seat! This is ministry: investing more of ourselves financially, emotionally, or chronologically for the purpose of the glory of the Lord to be made known. Mary kept saying, “Thank you” over and over again. Lydia, Priscilla, and Aquila replied, “Don’t thank us…praise God.”

“Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness!” (Ps 115:1)

Lydia and Kimberly spoke Wednesday to see how things were. Hannah is now going to spend the night with Lydia and her family two nights a week and Lydia is even taking to Hannah to school some mornings! I can not stress enough that this is far from convenient for Lydia! They do not live in the same subdivision, let-alone, the same suburb! Ministry is not often “convenient” by our terms. But moved with compassion as our Lord was, inconveniences are longer seen as an inconvenience, they are seen as Yahweh’s providence. Lydia and her family have purchased outfits for baby Hannah and have assured mother Mary that she need not provide formula, bottles, diapers, wipes, and the like. Grace just does that some times. When you expect a little, grace come through in ways beyond measure.

Open the floodgates of Your grace on us, O God, and grant me a spirit of willing, sacrificial, service for the sake of Your name, Your glory, and Your renown for the edification of Your church. “Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and you are exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might, and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all. And now we thank you, our God, and praise your glorious name.” (1 Chr 29:11-13).

—————
“And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.” (Acts 16:13-15)

Mega Mosque for 2012 Olympics in London

As this city happens to be on my travel agenda in the foreseeable future, all things London tend to vie for my attention. I found this to be intriguing to say the least…

Is Your Baby Gay? – A Response to Dr. Mohler’s Recent Article

Is your baby gay? Not your toddler who has just developed a love for Legos, or your newborn who after months of immobility has just begun to roll over on her own. No, is the baby that is still six months away from full gestation and entrance into this world gay? You know, the one that keeps mommy up all night kicking and stretching and doing somersaults. Yes, the one in the womb; the one who is unborn.

Indeed this is an interesting question and one which Dr. R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, poses to his readers on his blog today (actually Friday 3/2). Apparently, Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through “sexual partner preference testing” and they have determined that research suggests that there is a biological effect that bends sheep towards or away from homosexuality or heterosexuality. This is one of those questions that has raged in conservative and liberal circles alike. For, if Johnny was born with the predisposition towards homosexuality why should he fight it? If he did, would he not be going against the very make-up of his nature and thus “sinning” against his body and God? But, then there is always the “conservative” argument that God would not make an individual homosexual because, as the old heterosexual adage goes, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Both of these arguments are so wrong on so many fronts and the purpose of this article is not to address either side of the debate. My opinions will follow later.

Dr. Mohler continues, “What makes the sheep “sexual partner preference testing” research so interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery of a “cure” for the same phenomenon.” If you knew that your baby had a genetic disposition towards homosexuality (and assuming that you were a heterosexual Christian who agrees that homosexuality is a sin as defined in the Bible) would you take measures to prevent this disposition if there was a genetically altering procedure that could accomplish this work?

I am not a medical expert, but my understanding is that there is a procedure called Amniocentesis which is used to determine whether there are any chromosomal abnormalities existing in the unborn baby. (Yes, the unborn child is a baby, not a fetus.) This test is used to check for possibilities of Downs Syndrome and other possible birth defects. (I must mention that I am not fond of the term “birth defects” because this carries the weight of a child that is now therefore “lesser than” another child who does not have “defects.” But, since I am not keen on any other term that is acceptable for use here, I must include it.) Many have used Amniocentesis in the past, foresaw the potential for a defect, and after “genetic counseling” have chosen to kill the unborn child….uh….I mean “terminate the pregnancy.” If during this Amniocentesis (assuming that the procedure would be applicable for determining “sexual preference” or “orientation”) and any possible procedure to “correct” the genetic disposition towards homosexuality was available, would you follow through with implementation?

On the surface this would seem clear enough. Yes, correct any potential “defect” that my child may have. Prevent Downs Syndrome, prevent extra or not enough appendages, prevent autism, prevent, ADD, ADHD, or OCD, and the list could go on an on. Would we go so far that we would want to say that we would like to genetically produce a baby that was “perfect” in our eyes with the proper eye, hair, and skin color, proper pheromones, and even prone to interests similar to those of his parents? If you had the choice, genetically, would you have your baby predisposed towards Alabama or Auburn Football? Extremes, I agree, but if it was possible and the only thing preventing such a measure was a dollar amount, how many of us would be willing to follow through? Thus, the question remains, where is the line to be drawn? Should I stop at Downs, or is ADD too far? Is a request for his first words to be “Roll Tide” too far down the acceptable spectrum or is it more proper to suffice with eye color preference?

And this brings me to the point of this article. All of this was introduction to make the statement that I find myself in a peculiar position. I do not often stand in disagreement with Dr. Mohler, but today may be a first. In his article, he offers several suggestions of the possible ramifications of the development of a procedure that could genetically alter the sexual preference of our unborn child. He writes from the position that we should still fight for the right of the unborn child regardless of his or her sexual preference – if it is possible to biologically prove a disposition towards homosexuality. Dr. Mohler mentions that

“The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery [that homosexuality could be proven biological]. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.”

Further,

“Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.”

I agree wholeheartedly with both of these statements. Where I disagree is what follows when he states,

“If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.”

I have great difficulty with this statement. Having not been personally faced with this issue previously, I must be clear that my opinions may change when confronted with something similar. However, as we are called to rule our lives based on our biblical convictions not our feelings I hope that I will remain steadfast on this up until the time that the Lord or one of His servants may seek to counsel me in light of biblical truth. Having said this, I do not currently think that genetic altering is a biblically-based, God-glorifying procedure, regardless of the reason or “defect” that one is attempting to correct. In doing so, we discount God’s sovereignty and His ability to bring glory to Himself in all situations.

I know that this has the potential of being taken to the extreme and out context so let me clarify a few things.

I am not a proponent of the Scientology view of medicine and that we should only treat ourselves with mind therapy. If you have cancer, and chemo is the prescribed treatment, take your chemo treatments to the glory of God, trusting that His glory will be foremost and that His desire will be accomplished – whatever that may be. Whether it be healing in this life or the next, God alone is sovereign over all medical treatments and should be exalted as such. If you break your leg and need to be placed in traction for a month prior to a body-cast for two months followed by crutches for another two months before you are able to walk unaided again (which was a true case for my brother), then submit to your physician’s wisdom and do so to the glory of God depending on Him for all strength and support. He is able to work through physical means in order to accomplish His purpose. If He chooses to not let your leg heal, He is still able to accomplish His purpose in your life for His glory.

All this said, the aforementioned are all reactionary remedies. Cancer was diagnosed and it was treated. A leg was broken and it was addresses to mend. Cause, then effect, followed by attempted correction. But in the case of genetic altering, these are all forward-looking propositions that may or may not become true.

I know a gentleman whose son has Downs Syndrome. In a conversation regarding Heaven, where there is no sickness, no pain, and all defects have gone away, all the former things have passed and all things are made new (Rev 21:4-5) the idea that his son would not have Downs Syndrome surfaced. He said, “But the [Timothy] I know will not be the same [Timothy] because his personality is so influenced by Downs.” He understood that Timothy’s personality and who he is was determined by his Downs Syndrome. Timothy is a Christian who came to know the Lord several years ago. He is active in serving His church and His family and although he has “defects” he is quite useful for the kingdom and has an ability to glorify God in all that he says and does. Would the church be better off if we were just rid of these children? I don’t think so.

This then brings me to questions of MMR vaccines, Polio, Small Pox, and other diseases that once plagued our nation are now merely a thing for history books. With the advancement of medical technology, many vaccines have been developed that are able to be given near birth and the effects are life-long. Am I to say that these vaccines are wrong, unethical, or unbiblical? I confess that I have come to a loss on this and other issues similar to this. I can not imagine looking to my sister and counseling her to NOT have my nephew vaccinated from any of the aforementioned diseases and let him run the risk of contracting one of them at the possible expense of his life. However, this does not necessarily make the idea of vaccines wrong or right, just different from the social norm.

The Bible teaches that all life is precious and is to be valued and protected – born and unborn. But where do we draw the line when it comes to genetic altering and other bioethical matters that affect the future of the individual. I am all for protecting our children from sin and its destructive grip that it can have apart from the redemptive grace of Jesus Christ, but I do not think that I am currently willing to say that this is feasible through medical technology. Thus, I am left wondering where is the line on any of these issues. I am afraid that Dr. Mohler’s position of unapologetically supporting “a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation” may be going a little too far and will thus open a watershed of other possible treatments for any random personality trait, preference, or struggle in life to where we have now reduced the baby to a laboratory of our own perversions. We will never make a sinless human being. That has already occurred in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and we should not expect it to happen again. We, therefore, should anxiously await His appearing, and seek to preach the life-changing gospel message that He has given us to proclaim in hopes of seeing a fraction of the redemption that creation longs to see. I am not sure what the answers are to a myriad of bioethical issues, but that should not prevent thinking Christians from wrestling with these and other issues. As our culture moves further and further away from the authority of Scripture, we must continue to evaluate each argument in light of what has already been revealed and make informed decisions that do not counter the Word or our conscience.

*****
Also, visit Justin Taylor’s blog here for other discussion.

**UPDATE**
Dr. Mohler has apparently received much hate mail in response to his recent artice. Today, he posts some clarifying statments on his website which may be accessed here. this was topic of discussion in one of our staff meetings yesterday and the confusion continues to rage on. I am quite thankful for Dr. Mohler and his ministry to the Church. I believe him to be one of the brightest and gifted individuals serving the church today and his leadership at SBTS sends ricochettes around the globe. He should not be easily buffed and should continue to be an authority on biblical thinking.