Ubiquity (definition):
My grandmother died last week. It wasn't entirely unexpected, but it was sad nonetheless. But she lived to a ripe age of 89 and was a follower of Christ. She was ready to go. It was bitter-sweet.
When my grandfather died ten years ago, he had a funeral in the church but there was no graveside/burial service. Whoever wanted said a few words and that was about it. So this time, especially since there was to be only one service (at the graveside) I offered my father the option of me presiding over a simple burial service. In the end, they found a pastor from the Calvary Chapel my grandmother used to attend and he presided over the service.
I'm sad to say I was pretty disappointed with the service. In true Calvary Chapel form, it was very informal. But, what's worse, while the pastor talked a lot, very little was actually said. There was virtually no Scripture reading, no presentation of the Gospel, no comfort given to the grieving in the objective work of Christ on their behalf, and no talk about the Resurrection. If I would have given the homily, I would probably have said something like the following. It's by no means perfect, but I think it touches upon some of the more important points of objective comfort for Christians:
On Saturday I had the privilege attending a 3-hour lecture given by the well-known New Testament scholar, and Bishop of Durham, . N.T. Wright. It was hosted by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, CA. The title of the lecture was "Paul for Tomorrow's World." The lecture was taped and is slated to be available for viewing here.
Bishop Wright is well known for his defense of the biblical crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, among other doctrines. He is, perhaps, even better known today for his controversial teachings of a "New Perspective" on the writings of the Apostle Paul.
This was the first time I had heard Rev. Wright speak. He has a wonderful and engaging speaking style. It is no wonder he is so popular. Further, while the title of the lecture is indicative of Rev. Wright's position, I found it interesting that he did not really delve too much into the details of the New Perspectives theology. In fact, the vast majority of what he discussed was thoroughly orthodox and in agreement with Reformational Christian theology. What follows is my attempt to capture what he said during the lecture:
=========================
The First part of the lecture focused on "Paul and the Kingdom of God." Paul doesn't talk much about it but we badly need it. For some time he (Wright) has been trying to present Paul's message as a "big picture."
The problem is we think we know what Paul's message of the Kingdom is. However, we read Paul "with 19th century eyes and 16th century questions." We assume that unregenerate people go around worrying about whether they're going to go to heaven and assuming that they have to work their way in.
Paul's message about the Kingdom of God is "all about God; it's only about me inlight of that." Heaven is not our final destiny. In reality, God's sovereignty over the world results in Him rescuing that corrupt world.
Jesus is already reigning. Most Christians wouldn't disagree with that; but they don't understand what it means.
We often separate what Jesus did from what happened to Him. Jesus taught that all that stuff that the Jews had been longing for is now happening, but they just didn't see it. Jesus was busy "doing the kingdom."
The main point of the Resurrection wasn't that "Jesus is alive, therefore we're going to live again." Instead, it's "Jesus is alive, therefore God's new creation has begun."
The Kingdom of God is not about escaping this world. Love is not just our duty, it is our destiny. Because of the Resurrection, everything you do now will somehow be a part of God's new world.
---------------------------
The Second part of the lecture focused on Paul's teaching in his letter to the Romans (esp. ch 5:12-21). Up until now, Paul has been expounding the covenant faithfulness of God. Through His faithfulness to the Covenant, He is faithful to the creation.
When God saves us, He does it so that, through us, he makes the world right.
---------------------------
In the Q & A sessions, a few interesting questions were raised. He noted that the "fire" mentioned in 2 Pet. 3:10-11 is purgative, not destructive.
He noted that he sees an interesting potential that, in the Eucharist, there is a sense in which we have food coming from the future into the present. He thinks that may be a better sacramental approach.
Regarding the "intermediate state" (between death and the resurrection), the New Testament doesn't say much. The word used in Scripture signify a place to go and be refreshed, but not a place to live.
Romans 13 is about police work (not international warfare). Private vengance is out. Civil authorities are the way God has chosen to keep the world in order. But, how does that work out on an international level, between sovereign states?
Regarding the saints that were raised to life at Christ's death, he notes that this is one of the oddest parts of the Gospels. He doesn't know exactly why or what. Did they die again?
Regarding changing the pervasive pop-eschatology, he noted the best approach is to be involved in the community, showing people that Christians are not just polishing brass on a sinking ship, but that we care for other people because, through us, God is restoring the creation.
Regarding literature, he noted that so much Christianity today assumes beauty is unessential window dressing. We need to bring back music and art back to a place of importance in culture.
Regarding politics, we need to find a proper middle-ground between Anabaptist isolationism and theocratic domination.
Regarding unity in the midst of Christian disagreements, he noted that he believes women may be pastors, in light of the fact that Jesus' first witnesses of Him were women, Julia was an Apostle, etc. This is not something that should divide the Church.
===========================
In the midst of his discussion, Rev. Wright brought up a lot of important topics, such as vocation, eschatology, the already/not-yet paradigm, and issues that are adiaphora, on which I would agree with him wholeheartedly. For example, he repeatedly poked at the Gnostic, individualistic, me-centered understanding of salvation and eschatology that is pervasive in evangelicalism today. He encouraged Christians to have a broader understanding of Scripture, rather than just focusing on individual verses. For all of that, I am thankful for his teaching.
However, on a couple other points, I think he was off. First, at the very beginning he stated that because Christians read Paul "with 19th c. eyes and 16th c. questions," we assume that non-believers are walking around worrying about whether they're going to heaven and assuming they have to work their way in. I think Wright here is fighting a straw man. I don't know anyone who believes that people worry about whether they're going to heaven. I think it's pretty obvious that most unbelievers in the U.S. today don't give much thought to their eternal destiny. And when they do, I think they assume they're going to heaven. But they assume they're going to heaven--if there is such a place--because of their works. "I'm not such a bad person, after all. At least I've never killed anyone."
The second point on which I found disagreement with Wright was on the topic of a female pastorate. While he rightly points out that it was women who first told of Jesus resurrection, I don't think that narrative passage points to anything other than that women first told of Christ's resurrection. He didn't have time, but he neglected so many other didactic passages and the whole concept of the created order, biblical headship of men, etc.
All in all, the lecture was informative. Once it become available, watch the video online and post your comments here.
Author and professor David Wells, speaking on the White Horse Inn, on October 5, 2008, had the following to say about the significance of the absence of the pulpit the evangelical Church today:In this last book I wrote, The Courage to be Protestant, I talked about the transition from the Pulpit to the Plexiglas stand to the Barstool. And nobody, none of us, would say that the Word of God is chained in its delivery to a pulpit...Of course the Word of God can be preached outside a pulpit. But I think the importance of this transition has less to do with the thing that has been abandoned (i.e., the pulpit) and much more to do with the internal change which has happened. Because the preacher is now orienting himself to the congregation in a relational fashion, whereas the pulpit symbolized the preacher’s orientation toward God in a theological posture. That’s what the pulpit was saying in traditional churches. It was elevated because the Word of God is elevated, as it were, over the congregation. And the preacher stood before God to deliver that Word. So there is an internal posture that was intended to be symbolized by that pulpit. That internal posture before God, and the whole theological frame of understanding that, has disappeared in many churches today. And, therefore, what you have as a consequence is the rearrangement of the church to adopt a nightclub atmosphere, or entirely religiously neutral atmosphere, so you have no religious symbols, and so forth.
On the Frank Pastore Show yesterday, Rebecca Hagelin, VP of Communications for the Heritage Foundation, said the following:
"Sarah Palin is the modern Proverbs 31 woman."
Thoughts?
US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has recently been chastised for speaking on theological positions about which she, apparently, knows very little.
"Pelosi Gets Unwanted Lesson in Catholic Theology"
I'm no Roman Catholic, but abortion is one issue where the Protestant Church stands side-by-side with Rome. And the US cardinals, archbishops, and bishops have emphatically taken Pelosi to task for her ignorant attempt to defend abortion a la St. Augustine.
UPDATE: Excerpt from the Bishop of Fargo's letter of condemnation:
The Christian teaching on abortion throughout history is unchanged. Human life from the moment of conception is to always be respected, treated with dignity, and protected. Catholics who support so called abortion rights support a false right, promote a culture of death, and are guided by the “father of lies” rather than by the light and truth of Jesus Christ. Out of respect for the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Church, any Catholic who supports abortion rights has placed himself or herself outside of visible unity with the Church and thus should refrain from receiving Holy Communion. Catholics have a responsibility to study the teaching of the Church on human life and when life begins. This teaching is affirmed by revelation and is a basic truth of natural reason. I ask all of you in your presentations, teaching, or preaching to state the truth of this teaching in an unequivocal manner.(h/t: www.townhall.com)
We just finished a kitchen remodel. In the course of events we also purchased new ovens. Beautiful, stainless steel, convection, double ovens from Kitchen Aid. As I sat down to browse through the instruction manual (hey, I'm an engineer! what do you expect?) I learned that our ovens keep the Sabbath. And boy do they ever!
When the Sabbath Mode is set, only the number and start keys will function, no tones will sound, and the displays will not show messages or temperature changes. The heat sources icons will appear lit on the oven display throughout the Sabbath Mode. When the oven door is opened or closed, the oven light will not turn on or off and the heating elements will not turn on or off immediately.It continues like this, spanning two pages. There are countless steps for enabling, disabling, setting, changing settings, and on and on.
If a power failure occurs when the Sabbath Mode is set, the oven(s) will remain in Sabbath Mode but will no longer be actively cooking. The “ON” indicator will no longer be lit. Touch OFF to return to normal operating mode (non-Sabbath Mode, not cooking)
I was catching up on listening to episodes of the White Horse Inn on my iPod on the way into work this morning. Toward the end of the 2/16/2008 episode ("What would Moses Do?"), Dr. Horton offers a couple of nuggets of wisdom on preaching and the Bible, which I had to transcribe:
When people say, "I need more practical preaching," what they're saying is "I need more Law." Now, they may be right. But a lot of times the sheep don't know what they really need. And if, by nature, we crave more instructions and less about Christ--if, by nature, we take Christ and the Gospel for granted, but really want to hear about how we can have a better marriage--don't you think it's better for us, especially as ministers, to say, "No, Christ told Peter, 'Feed My sheep.' And I'm going to feed you as well as direct you. You need this [Christ-centered, Gospel-oriented preaching] more than you realize. What you're asking for in 'more practical preaching' is more about what you should do and less about what Jesus has done." ...
Now[days], the Bible is God's instruction book. And that's how a lot of people talk about it. Or it's the "Owner's Manual." Well, what is an owner's manual? An owner's manual is a guide you go to that tells you how to fix your car. Folks, that's the wrong category. The Bible is not, primarily, God's instruction book. It has instructions, and they need to be preached. But it is not primarily that. In fact, the Bible's silent on half the things that preachers want to talk about on Sunday morning--when it comes to the "practical."...I don't need a Christian diet; I need a Christian Gospel, if you've got that. Tell me something I can't get from Oprah or Dr. Phil...
On land, at sea, at home, abroad, / I smoke my pipe and worship God."
Here's a little poem I discovered that is believed to be written by none other than Johann Sebastian Bach, illustrating the contemplative nature of pipe smoking and Bach's right understanding that all of life--even the most mundane parts--is an act of worship.
Whene'er I take my pipe and stuff it
And smoke to pass the time away
My thoughts, as I sit there and puff it,
Dwell on a picture sad and grey:
It teaches me that very like
Am I myself unto my pipe.
Like me this pipe, so fragrant burning,
Is made of naught but earthen clay;
To earth I too shall be returning,
And cannot halt my slow decay.
My well used pipe, now cracked and broken,
Of mortal life is but a token.
No stain, the pipe's hue yet doth darken;
It remains white. Thus do I know
That when to death's call I must harken
My body, too, all pale will grow.
To black beneath the sod 'twill turn,
Likewise the pipe, if oft it burn.
Or when the pipe is fairly glowing,
Behold then instantaneously,
The smoke off into thin air going,
'Til naught but ash is left to see.
Man's fame likewise away will burn
And unto dust his body turn.
How oft it happens when one's smoking,
The tamper's missing from it's shelf,
And one goes with one's finger poking
Into the bowl and burns oneself.
If in the pipe such pain doth dwell
How hot must be the pains of Hell!
Thus o'er my pipe in contemplation
Of such things - I can constantly
Indulge in fruitful meditation,
And so, puffing contentedly,
On land, at sea, at home, abroad,
I smoke my pipe and worship God.
From "The Second Little Clavier Book For Anna Magdalena" by J.S. Bach
At this time of year, we listen to (and, hopefully, sing) a lot of Christmas carols. I was listening to Wesley's "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" today and began thinking about one verse in particular:
Christ, by highest heaven adored,
Christ, the everlasting Lord,
Late in time behold him come,
Offspring of a Virgin's womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see:
Hail, the incarnate Deity,
Pleased as man with man to dwell,
Jesus, our Emmanuel.
Hark, the herald-angels sing
Glory to the new-born King!
This verse is full of rich theological concepts, packaged into a compact little piece of poetry. It is the product of talent, skill, and a thorough understanding of God's Word. My heart rejoices to sing such wonderful words about my Savior. Would that today's Christian musicians produce such works of eloquence and biblical fidelity.
Glory to the newborn King! Merry Christmas to you and yours.
The problem with this message, says Dr. Michael Horton, professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary, is that the Christ of the Bible is totally unnecessary. “'How can I be right with God?' is no longer a question when my happiness rather than God’s holiness is the main issue...Salvation is not a matter of divine rescue from the judgment that is coming on the world, but a matter of self-improvement in order to have your best life now." Osteen has replaced the Gospel with the Law, but has made the hoops you have to jump through "easier." "Joel Osteen is the next generation of the health-and-wealth gospel. This time, it’s mainstream."
Your best life now? Or salvation by works? I see this as further evidence of mainstream American evangelicalism's drift toward Roman Catholicism. Sure, the evangelicals don't have any of the trappings of formality, reverence, or ritual, but they've got it where it counts.
(Horton's excellent essay discussing Osteen's teachings can be found here.)
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,Here is a link to the story, and here is a link to some video clips of indoctrination of young children going on in other parts of the country and which will now very likely occur in California in a matter time. (And you know what they say: "As California goes, so goes the nation.")
I write to you with great dismay, frustration, and anger at your recent actions of signing into law SB777, AB394, AB102, and AB14. It is entirely disappointing to me that you apparently lack the moral compass to guide you in the way of objective Truth and Goodness and, instead, you have taken the path of political expediency, cowing to the pressures of immoral activists who wish to impose their deviant agenda upon our culture, beginning with the public school system.
Thanks to your actions, the minds of impressionable, tender young children will be forever molded into conformity with the agenda of those who worship at the altar of themselves, whose only creed is "tolerance and acceptance of all"--all that is, except those who still believe in moral absolutes. Increasingly more deviant, immoral practices are being accepted in our society (and now, thanks to you, taught in the schools) as "good," "right," and "healthy," while the millenia-old, biblical convictions that these activities are absolutely, morally wrong and evil are trampled underfoot as "outmoded," "archaic," and simple-minded. Contrary to what you might think, our children and our society will suffer as a result.
As a result of your actions, you have alienated yourself from your core constituency--secular social conservatives and Evangelical Christians of all stripes--you have betrayed our trust, have stolen our children's innocence, and have offended us greatly. Your action to support bills which take away freedom of private institutions (e.g., clubs, charities, and hospitals) to uphold their core convictions on moral issues also a disgrace to the freedoms which our nation's Constitution guarantees. In short, you have introduced moral danger and depravity to our children, robbed private enterprise of its freedoms, and brought shame upon our great state.
Governor, with all due respect, I must state that I, my family, my church, and my friends are ashamed of your actions, and I deeply regret having had any part in giving you the mandate to represent and serve me in the highest office of the state. If it were possible, I assure you that I wouldn't make that mistake again.
Sincerely,
Van
Orange County
A town in Georgia is going to have a referendum to allow the townsfolk to decide on whether to ban all sales of alcohol.
The problem with alcohol (like most other societal problems) is not the alcohol. The problem is people. Those who misuse and abuse any divinely-given blessing from God should be held responsible for their actions. If you ban alcohol, tobacco, firearms, knives, automobiles, and chainsaws, people are still going to find ways to demonstrate their depravity. Christians, of all people, should know this.
What I want to know is where pious, conservative Christians can go to help the ban fail.
I read this pithy statement somewhere the other day about American culture. The author was quoting an apparently well-known adage, but this was the first time I heard it. I thought it was quite descriptive:
I finally read my friend Brant's post responding to another post in defense of "praise choruses." And since this is one of my hobby horses, I can't resist the compulsion to ride.
In response to Cheer 1: The author claims, Praise songs are "on the whole, present truths that are theologically sound." What praise songs is he singing? The majority of the ones I've experienced in my life are either doctrinally unbiblical, or extremely light in saying anything significant, or they consistently shift the focus off of praise of God for who He is and what He has done and onto myself and my feelings and my will. Obviously, they're not all this way, but the majority of them, in my experience, are. I certainly cannot agree that "on the whole" they are "theologically sound."
Furthermore, the author claims praise songs "allow an outpouring of emotion often more easily than the sometimes more cerebral hymns." Maybe for some people. But the author's comment seems to sever the head from the heart. The Bible knows no such dichotomy. And the normative way to our affections is through our mind. *Why* is God's grace so amazing? Not because I feel it so strongly, but for the reasons so eloquently enumerated in hymns like "Amazing Grace" and "And Can it Be."
God has ordained the means of our salvation, and that is normatively through thinking, receiving, and trusting after hearing a message that is preached to us--a message about an historical event that took place in time and space on this planet. The joy that fills our souls in response to so great a salvation is surely and ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit, but He generally administers this to us through objective, rational means. And our corporate response of praise back to Him should be equally as verbal, intelligent, and biblically accurate. As Brant indicates, when we gather to worship together, it's not just a bunch of individuals each expressing our private feelings to God. Corporate worship is a the ultimate expression of our common faith--a faith that is centered on the God presented to us in the Bible. It is entirely appropriate, then, that our response be filled with the concepts that are presented to us in the Word.
In response to Cheer #2: The author says "many evangelical worship songs take their choruses directly from Scripture." To the extent that they do that these songs are to be commended. However, as Nathaniel in his comments duly notes, the vast majority of the time praise choruses draw directly from Scripture passages, they shrewdly excerpt only the portions of the passage that are "lovey-dovey" and show God as being full of compassion and mercy. But that hardly does justice to Scripture--or to the nature of God Himself. God is indeed full of mercy and love, but He is also full of justice and wrath. When we praise Him, we should make it a point of extolling all of His attributes. God is not great simply because he's nice.
The author also states, praise songs' "simple structure and emphasis on singability allows them to get stuck in the head rather easily." There is nothing wrong with this, provided the lyrics are not banal, inaccurate, or self-centered. While I love Jesus with all my heart, He is not my boyfriend; sadly, too many praise songs are written as sappy love songs to my boyfriend Jesus.
(And the world is on to us: In an episode of "The Simpsons," Lisa is talking with a singer who crossed over from Christian rock into mainstream rock. When asked how she did it, she responds something like, "It was easy! All you do is replace the word "Jesus" in the songs with "baby." If that's all it takes to convert our praise songs into secular rock, then I suggest there's something deeply wrong with the songs we're singing.)
As far as the musical composition of our songs goes, as beings created in His image, God has given humanity the ability to create. While God can certainly be praised through the simplicity of a 3-chord song, shouldn't the Church also strive to echo God's creation, producing works that combine musical complexity and simplicity in a beautiful and composition? It seems to me that in the past 100 years or so, the trend in church music has drifted away from that and toward utilitarian simplicity or outright mimicry of secular consumer-driven rock-and-roll. We should get back to creating works of beauty that lead the secular culture, not simply follow it.
In response to Cheer #3: The author says "the evangelical worship service and its emphasis on the emotional often allows maximal freedom on the part of the worshipper." As Brant notes, and as I say above, this comment illustrates a great divide between mainstream, pop-evangelicals and confessional Christians of all stripes. I disagree that the purpose of corporate worship is to give individuals a chance to be self expressive. God doesn't just work redemptively with individuals (though He certainly does that!); He also works through the community of faith as a corporate body. To miss this is to miss out on an important aspect of the Church.
Throughout Scripture, when God gathers His people together, it is a time of corporate solidarity. The Lord's Day worship is a sort of "covenant renewal," where God speaks to His people, and they respond--corporately. This is why we have corporate prayers, corporate singing, corporate confession and absolution, and receive the sacraments. In the Eucharist, I am not just having fellowship privately with Jesus in my heart. I am sharing communion not only with the Triune God, but all of the catholic (universal) Church--those present in the room with me, those scattered throughout the world, and even "the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven." This is, therefore, not the time for each of us to engage in individual expressions of personal piety. That can be had in family and private worship. (I wonder, are we expecting corporate worship to be a substitute for regular, daily private and family worship?)
In response to Jeer #1: "I have noticed a considerable drop-off in the amount of Scripture being read during the hour long worship service...which makes me think that we as evangelicals have deeper problems than the songs we sing." Here I am in full agreement. Part of the problem, as I see it, is illustrated in that evangelicals often label the first half hour of singing as the "praise and worship" part of the service, followed by the sermon. In other words, our approach to the entire worship service is often wrong. We often see the service as primarily a chance for me to show God how much I love Him and come away with a feeling that I've had a phenomenal "worship experience." But we don't actually expect to meet God there.
Yet, Sunday worship is a corporate response to a divine summons to gather the people of God to assemble before Him in His royal throneroom. Here we actually meet with God. We respond in contrition, in recognition of our creatureliness (no, we don't sing about how much we "just want to touch You!") and in confession of our sins. God responds, through His Word, assuring us that that our sins are forgiven and that we may rise up and boldly draw near to the throne of grace--that we can enter into the holy of holies because we are united to our faithful Savior who has gone before us and has made the way safe. Then we extol His greatness and sing His praise--and we use the words of Scripture (or at least words that are heavily informed by Scripture) in so doing.
Then we corporately affirm our faith. Which (just as our singing should be) is didactic. It reminds us who we are and why we are what we are. We are the Church of Christ--His bride, and we are united in Christ together with all those who are found in Him. And our profession of faith is how we distinguish God's people from those who are not: "We believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord..."
We then hear God address His people through the reading and preaching of His Holy Word. We listen attentively--not for "five steps for successful living," but to learn of God's holiness, His justice, and His goodness and mercy. He reminds us of His eternal plan of redemption, and how He's been working it out throughout all of human history. And He comforts us with the reassuring promise to be God to us and our children, and to preserve us in the midst of trials until our end, when we will have resurrected bodies and reign with Him for eternity.
Then we witness the signs and seals of God's promise--tangible, dramatic means our Sovereign King uses to illustrate and confirm what He has just told us--through the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the Supper, we truly and spiritually feast upon the riches of the body and blood that were shed for us and, just as our bodies are nourished, so our faith is strengthened. In this meal, we are reminded of Christ's past sacrifice and are given a foretaste of the heavenly banquet in which we will one day partake.
We then close with prayers and songs of thanksgiving and doxology, whereupon God blesses us and sends us out into the world to be His ambassadors in our individual vocations.
Obviously, the details and order of some of these elements are not all fixed. But perhaps if we really understood worship as a meeting with God, we would desire to make all of it conform to what God expects (as revealed in His Word) and, in so doing, we would make our praise both doctrinally and musically rich and beautiful--as best as we are able, something fitting for the holy King of the universe with whom we are meeting. (And maybe we'll start to sit up straight and pay attention.) SDG!
I've had a few of those proud daddy moments recently, where I reflect with admiration and beam with glee at my kids. There has been a series of events over the past week or so which involve my four-year-old, Bennett, and about which as a parent I couldn't be gladder. Allow me a few moments to boast about the great son God has given me:
First, I got a call last week from my wife, telling me Bennett had a question for me. She put him on and he asked, "Daddy, does Bailey have any sin in him?" By this, he meant, "does our cat have a sin nature." I went on to explain that no, animals haven't inherited a sin nature like people have. I recalled the story of Adam and his disobedience and how, because of him, now all people are sinners. While cats and other animals are affected by the curse, they aren't in rebellion against God. I know, at only 4, he has a hard time grasping all of that (especially since Bailey does "bad" things like barf on the carpet). But in time, with a steady diet of godly teaching he will get it. But I wasn't going to say something like, "Sorry kid, you're too young to understand; wait 'til you're twelve." It warms my heart to see my little kid pondering such deep and important issues.
Last weekend, he was looking at the pictures in one of his books. He gets my attention and points to a few tiny little chicks and then, cupping his little right hand he says, "I really want to hold one." It was so cute. So I told him, mommy and I would try to find a place where he could go hold a chick. That was all he could talk about for the next two days. My wife finally took him to the little tack and feed store near our house where he got to pet and hold two chicks and a duckling. The story is that he was ecstatic. It's so neat to see the simple pleasures of life overwhelm kids with such joy.
Finally, last night was the spring musical presentation of Bennett's preschool. All of the kids got up on the bleachers and sang a number of songs they had been learning. There must have been over 600 parents and grandparents there. Bennett knew all the words and hand motions, and he sung with all of his heart. It warms my heart to see how much he enjoys learning and singing about God and the enthusiasm with which he does so.
Soli Deo gloria!
I haven't written in quite a while. But, in light of yesterday's tragic events at Virginia Tech, I felt compelled to post something about it.
As I hear and watch the news reports, I am greatly grieved and saddened. My heart goes out to the families and friends of those who died in this brutal attack. I cannot comprehend the sense of frustration and hopelessness many of them surely feel. But I can pray for them.
Pondering yesterday's events, my thoughts go back to something that happened to me here at work last week. I was in a company-wide, mandatory "Mutual Respect Training" class (a.k.a. "Harassment Training"). At the very beginning the instructor asked the class this question: "Why do we have laws?"
I immediately shot up my hand. The teacher called on me, and I answered: "To restrain Evil." The class, including the teacher, broke out in laughter. I even heard one woman snicker, "Evil!" sarcastically under her breath. I nervously muttered something about "well that is the right answer, people," but the battle was lost, and the course moved on. (Incidentally, the "correct" answer to the question was: "to prevent unfairness.")
When I discussed the incident with my friend Brant the next day, he wisely observed that in America today, we generally live such a life of ease that we rarely come into contact with Evil. So we have largely come to believe that Evil doesn't exist. And to a large extent, I think Brant's right.
But, hopefully, yesterday's massacre at Virginia Tech is a wake-up call. After witnessing such "senseless" brutality, many people will again correctly label the killer's actions as "Evil." Down deep in our souls we all have a profound sense that these events were objectively "not good" (to say the least). We recognize that this sort of behavior is more than simply "unfair." We are forced to recognize the once commonly-held belief that there is objective moral Good and Evil.
And people, as they always do when tragedy strikes, will begin to ask the question: "Why?" Apart from the existence of God, there can be no answer (or even any meaning) to this question. Those committed to atheistic humanism will be compelled to blame handguns, the university administration, the killer's parents, and even the killer's genetic make-up. While any of this might provide a tiny bit of cathartic relief, it ultimately doesn't help to answer the question.
If the questioners dare to suppose (for the sake of argument) that there might be a God, their thinking, then, often goes like this: "If God is all good and all powerful, a tragedy like this could never happen." Therefore, either God is good but impotent to stop the evil, or He is all powerful but chooses not to stop the evil because He is capricious. Either way, you end up with a being that is less than God--some sort of lesser-deity, something like a mythical Greek god.
On the surface, these questions sound reasonable and logical. But their presuppositions create a false dilemma. As the philosophers say, there is a tertium quid (a third option). And this is the answer we deduce from the pages of the Bible: God is both all powerful and all good; and yet, for reasons unbeknownst to us, He allows evil to continue for now; but He will vindicate Himself and will one day judge all men for their evil deeds; and that justice will be 100% right and good, according to His own perfectly righteous character.
The honest skeptic (if there were such a thing) has to at least grant that this is possible. The false dilemma he creates does not offer the only possible answers. And of the four possibilities offered (God does not exist, God is good but impotent, God omnipotent but not good, God is both omnipotent and good), the only one that truly offers any hope to those in grief is the fourth--the answer found in the Bible.
The Bible provides us with more insight into this tragedy as well. We all tend to assume that we somehow deserve a life of pleasure and ease. We think that when tragedy befalls us, somehow God is shortchanging us, that we have received an injustice. The fact of the matter is that all mankind are sinful and in rebellion against their creator God. As such, we have plunged the world into a downward spiral of misery, sickness, and death. And, if we continue in rebellion against God, He will justly give us what we want: eternal separation from Him and His goodness.
The very fact that any of us live one day more on this earth, that we have food to eat, clothes to wear, and houses to cover our heads, is due only to the sustaining graciousness of God. Theologians call this God's "common grace" because it is "common" to all men--even those who persist in rebellion against Him. As Jesus said, "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Mt. 5:45).
Christians are just as guilty of this mistake as non-christians. We need to remember that if we were to get more of what we deserve, the world would be even more full of murderous thugs, famine, pestilence, and calamity. It is only the restraining hand of a good and omnipotent God who ultimately keeps this from happening. We deserve sickness and death; but God is merciful.
Ultimately, the greatest expression of God's mercy and grace are offered for the sake of the people He came to save. That God became a man, suffered and died innocently under the cruel hands of sinful men is a great mystery. But He died and rose again to set sinners free from bondage to their sins and rebellion against Him, and to give them a new life. Those who put their trust in Him will one day be free of the pain and misery they have brought upon themselves because He has taken it upon Himself in their place. And one day, Justice will prevail, and all will be right with the world.
