Brain Cramps for God

Culture wars: What Jesus Did Not Do

2009-11-27T12:57:00.000-08:00

[Point eight Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

8. It has no root in Jesus’ ministry. Jesus knew heart change didn’t come through political power, cultural pressure, or zealotry, so he was keenly disinterested in those things.

This is the "big one", at least to me, in this series: Jesus, in His ministry, bowed out of the "culture war" of His day - or took a side that those who do want to impose morality through political power or cultural pressure may not like.

The political and social climate in Judea at the time of Jesus' ministry had every possible opportunity for Jesus to become a culture warrior on both the political and cultural levels - and He rejected those choices.

By 30AD, Judaism was beginning to ramp up for the the three Roman-Jewish wars to come. There were two primary schools of pharisees - Hillel and Shammai - and one of the primary distinguishing characteristics between the followers (and not so much the leaders) of the two schools was about rigid adherance to Jewish law and customs as a guard against encroaching Roman culture and Hellenization. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that this process was well advanced at the time of Jesus' ministry.

It would be Shammai's school that would eventually team up with the Zealots to take political control of Judea - and launch the rebellion against Rome 35 years after Jesus' death. The process of ramping up to this war was well underway during Jesus' ministry.

However, if Jesus' ministry lined up with either of these schools - it was Hillel's. He did not, in scripture, deride the Hellenization of Jewish culture, call for rigid adherance to religious rules and traditions as a guard against the corruption of tradition, or team up with the Zealots in an anti-Roman campaign.

Indeed, it was the opposite. Jesus spoke against the burdens that excessive religious rules placed on God's people; and it was the Zealot among His apostles that decided Jesus was not the "culture warrior" Messiah he expected, and betrayed him to the Sanhedrin.

* * * * *

Jared Wilson:

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.

For the glory of God.

Moi:

it is incumbant upon Christians to work for right order and justice in the society in which we live. However, our duties to the Body of Christ, the Great Commission, and the Kingdom of God trump our requirements as Christian citizens of a nation state.

Romans 8:5-8 -- "Opposite"

2009-11-26T14:58:00.000-08:00

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

The text:

(NET) Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by⁵ the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit. 6 For the outlook⁶ of the flesh is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Notes:

⁵ tn Grk “think on” or “are intent on” (twice in this verse). What is in view here is not primarily preoccupation, however, but worldview. Translations like “set their mind on” could be misunderstood by the typical English reader to refer exclusively to preoccupation.

⁶ tn Or “mindset,” “way of thinking” (twice in this verse and once in v. 7). The Greek term φρόνημα does not refer to one’s mind, but to one’s outlook or mindset.

“There are two ways, one of life and one of death;
and between the two ways there is a great difference.”
The Didache

Sermon Notes: Matt Bowen talked about:

Magnets:
“Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.”
Compasses:
“Have their minds set on what that nature desires…have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.”
Vistas:
“The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.”

Apologetics: Epic Fail at the Pet Store

2009-11-26T08:07:00.000-08:00

I was having a chat with someone who seemed to believe apology was only about Christian apologetics. It isn't, as the examples in this comment point out. The definition I would hang with in the set was from Wiki:

In modern times, apologists refers to authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for defending the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that receive great popular scrutinies and/or are minority views.

Right after posting that, I ran across a skit from Monty Python that is one of my all-time favorites - along with the Lumberjack Song of course (and the Cheese Shop . . .). It is, IMO, an example of Epic Fail at apology by the shop owner.

Admittedly, the evidence against the position he was defending was pretty conclusive.

Happy Thanksgiving

Culture wars: Fear and Comfort

2009-11-22T17:13:00.000-08:00

[Point seven Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

7. It makes idols of comfort and safety and propriety and power. The culture war is largely driven by fear. We’re afraid our public schools will ruin our children, we’re afraid gay people will ruin our families. We’re afraid a Democrat will ruin our country, we’re afraid liberals will ruin our neighborhoods. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect our family, and safety of course is not a bad thing. But neither is it a biblical virtue. Ditto comfort.

This point of Jared's is a bit harsh - so I will narrow my commentary a bit. I say it is harsh because, as a comment at the original post pointed out:

I’m not sure I understand the bit on fear and so forth. Setting oneself against the world, in the world, is not the same thing as reacting fearfully to public schools, gays, liberals or whoever.

I have argued consistantly against the usefulness of the term "homophobia" to describe folks who are opposed to homosexuality on scriptural and/or theological grounds -- it is not fear that drives their opinion. Attributing folks opposition to abortion as the "fear of women controlling their lives" and opposition to gay marriage as "fear of gays" are the classic "talking points" I see on the political left. Wrong, and common.

Perception is everything (except right) so it is worthwhile to point out that whatever the true motivation of the culture warriors - fear seems to stick rather well to their arguments. Also, some folks arguments are so lacking in rational explanation (it may exist - but I do not hear it) that it appears to be based in reactionary fear even if it isn't. One example is that gay marriage threatens God's institution of marriage -- the "how" of that has never been made to me at least.

If the arguments are based on real fear - then this (not doubt) is the exact opposite of faith. People fear because they do not trust that God is in charge and will make all things work for the Good.

And, there is no basis in scripture to believe that God is concerned for the safety or comfort of followers of Christ - indeed exactly the opposite. We are promised adversity in His name, and told that that adversity is there to give us character and not contribute to our safety or comfort.

I believe the Gospel teaches the adversity of society, and its continual (and increasing) separation from God's intent for our social relationships as a major opportunity to bring folks fearful about the future into the presence of God to experience the peace that faith in Him can bring. That doesn't happen if the follower of Christ is as fearful and concerned for their own comfort as the non-believer.

* * * * *

Jared Wilson:

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.

For the glory of God.

Moi:

it is incumbant upon Christians to work for right order and justice in the society in which we live. However, our duties to the Body of Christ, the Great Commission, and the Kingdom of God trump our requirements as Christian citizens of a nation state.

Jesus is Magic?

2009-11-22T09:56:00.000-08:00

I keep a lot of different folks on my Google Reader list from a lot of different perspectives - people that I think offer the most intelligent examples I have found for a particular niche I am interested in.

One of those sites is Common Sense Atheist. Occasionally, those places put things up that make me question why I keep them on my list. Luke just posted one of those: "Jesus is Magic".

Admittedly, up to now I haven't had a real sense of why belief in a Creator God and belief in magic are not the same; and Luke gave me the opportunity to get this defined for myself.

First, I will use Luke's definition of magic:

The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
The charms, spells, and rituals so used.

Luke makes no argument from that definition - he just states it and then assumes his case is made

So do Christians, Muslims, Hindus, other religious believers,1 new agers, indigenous believers, and shamans believe in magic? [no overreaching generalities there]

Yes. Yes they do.

And then goes straight to the "Bulverism":

Believers: Jesus is magic. Have the balls to admit it.

My response in the comments there [with some alteration in the translation]:

Actually, you have supported my position that Christianity is not based on magic - at least as it is understood theologically.
The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
What example would you give of an art used to forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural within orthodox Christianity - especially since it is explicitly warned against in scripture

The core of the definition is about witchcraft, or neo-Paganism, and the idea that the natural world can be controlled by use of spirits in that world. The idea that spirits occupy the natural world, and that world can be controlled by controlling those spirits is pantheism, or panentheism, and not theism. Certainly this is not part of any orthodox Christian teaching -- again, it is warned against.

Even if you want to say that Christians believe that there are (or can be) supernatural causes to natural events (I will grant that) - then your definition would say those folks have to believe that they can forecast and/or control those events by invoking the supernatural. That is expressly what is warned about in the passages linked above. I would have to say that it is not warned against because it is a hoax -- it is warned against because the ruler of this world is Satan. Any spiritual beings that would allow someone to predict or control natural events would be a being of this world; and that being would come under the auspices of the ruler of this world. Not good for a Christian to invoke.

If I invoke Jesus to control something (prayer) it is not to control a natural event, but to either give me supernatural power to control my actions, or perhaps intervene in the lives of others -- or asking for that power to protect me not from natural events but other supernatural "powers and principalities". The latter is obviously not included in your definition (I am not attempting to invoke the supernatural to control something natural); and the former is based on the general Christian belief that humans were created separate from, and distinct from, the natural world. As CS Lewis said, when you look at a human being you are looking at an eternal creature - a physical being with a spiritual/eternal nature. Prayer to control my natural self is aimed at - again - the supernatural part of me and not the natural part. Prayer to help others is aimed at God motivating the supernatural part of someone else to cause its physical self to step in and involve themselves in the life of the object of the prayer. Again, outside the definition you have given of magic.

And, by your definition, even if a Christian out there attempts to invoke Jesus (and not the spirits of this world) to control or predict natural events (I am sure some do) then Jesus isn't magic by your definition - He is the supernatural force being invoked and not the person practicing the magic. And, of course, if the person actually succeeds in controlling or predicting natural events in this manner I have no reason to believe that it was actually Jesus or God that responded to the request.

You are usually much better than this. Perhaps you should have the cahones admit that you know that theism is not pantheism -- and that you intentionally use the word magic to demean theists when you know it doesnt apply.

Or, if your balls are not really applicable - how about using your common sense and intelligence.

The interesting thing about this is that I am sure atheists at the site will find all sorts of examples of Christians that invoke the supernatural to control the natural: snake handlers may come up, perhaps Benny Hinn and faith healers. In the latter case, I expect Benny would say faith healing only works if the disease has a (evil)spiritual source - although the few times I have glanced at his gig I do not see that distinction made.

So, what should we orthodox Christian theists think when Christians invoke God to control or predict natural events? Is that indeed magic? If it works, do you think God is the supernatural being that makes it work? Is this what is warned about in the scriptural admonitions against magic?

Culture wars: Storing Up the Wrong Stuff

2009-11-19T00:01:00.000-08:00

[Point six Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

6. Its treasure is temporary. I am not overly concerned with the culture war because it is a battle for something that doesn’t last. Culture is temporary. I am far more interested in the transformation of peoples through the transformation of people than I am in the subduing of culture through the modification of behavior. Nobody ever got into heaven by acting better.

In the comments at the original post some folks seemed to have missed his elaboration here. Culture is temporary - we should not be necessarily fighting to transform the ones we are in.Wilson distinguishes between transforming "culture" by transforming behavior; and transforming "peoples" by transforming people. I think that is a very reasonable and important nuance.

As the Gospel transforms individual folk it will transform communities and nations ("peoples"). Put enough transformed people into one place, and the culture will adapt to them. A change in beavior will follow transformation -- I doubt transformation really follows a change in behavior. Stated another way: it is the Holy Spirit (a work of God) that transforms folks from the inside and truly modifies their behavior; and not cultural pressure to modify their behavior.

Also,as Jared points out, it is not our behavior in any case that moves us into the Kingdom of God.

* * * * *

Jared Wilson:

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.

For the glory of God.

Moi:

it is incumbant upon Christians to work for right order and justice in the society in which we live. However, our duties to the Body of Christ, the Great Commission, and the Kingdom of God trump our requirements as Christian citizens of a nation state.

Romans 8:3-4 -- "The Son and the Spirit"

2009-11-17T00:01:00.000-08:00

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

The text:

(NET) Romans 8:3 For God achieved what the law could not do because¹ it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Notes:

¹ tn Grk “in that.”

Sermon Notes:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.

One of my favorite sayings is that God's Grace provided what His justice demanded:

God did - what people are unable to do (v.3):
- God sent His own son—to accomplish what the law could not do.
- Christ fully embraced the human condition—but did not sin.
- God sent His Son as a sin offering. (literally: “for sin”)
Where is the “place” of sin being condemned? God performed an act of judicial condemnation on sin in (the flesh of) Christ on the cross.
As our substitute, Christ “was made sin for us” and suffered the wrath of God’s judgment upon sin (in His body on the cross).
Romans 3:25 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)
God executed His judgment on sin in the death of His Son.
God’s purpose of grace in condemning sin is stated in v.4:
- How could God’s demands of righteousness be “fully met in us”?
  2 Corinthians 5:21 God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.
- There is “no condemnation” for believers (vs. 1) - because “in Christ” - their sin has been “condemned.”
  “Christ became what we are so we might become what Christ is.”
- Though law did not have power to overcome sin, God’s purpose was always to have a people who would obey His will. Paul does not separate God’s “righteous requirements” from the lifestyle of the Christian.
- Believers are not left to live the Christian life in their own strength. The Holy Spirit lives in us and enables us to live in ways we could never experience by ourselves.
- God provides - in Christ - the full completion of the law’s demands and sends the Spirit into our lives to empower a new obedience to His will. Christians are now directed by the Spirit - and not by the flesh.

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness. By his wounds you were healed.

Culture wars: Fighting the Wrong Foe

2009-11-15T00:01:00.000-08:00

[Point five of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

5. It battles against flesh and blood. We’re not supposed to do that.

I do not really have that much to say on this one. The point is rather simple -- the truly important struggles believers go through are spiritual and not political. The truly important struggles that non-believers go through are spiritual and not political.

When we pick the wrong foes to struggle with -- we waste our time, energy, etc. We may also lose spiritual allies because we consider our political differences to be more important. The people who may need to hear the Gospel from us have become our political enemies. We also may not be "armed" appropriately:

Ephesians 6:13 For this reason, take up the full armor of God so that you may be able to stand your ground on the evil day, and having done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm therefore, by fastening the belt of truth around your waist, by putting on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 by fitting your feet with the preparation that comes from the good news of peace, 16 and in all of this, by taking up the shield of faith with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 With every prayer and petition, pray at all times in the Spirit, and to this end be alert, with all perseverance and requests for all the saints.

We have to be prepared to fight the right foe with the right equipment.

Jered Wilson:

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.

For the glory of God.

Moi:

it is incumbant upon Christians to work for right order and justice in the society in which we live. However, our duties to the Body of Christ, the Great Commission, and the Kingdom of God trump our requirements as Christian citizens of a nation state.

Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens.

Discussion Question: On Science and Morality

2009-11-14T00:01:00.000-08:00

It seems rare for two intelligent folks with diametrically opposed views actually have a civilized, engaging conversation. It seems to me it is even rarer when one is an atheist and one is a follower of Christ who wrote a pretty scathing indictment of Dawkins, Hitchens and company.

The atheist is Luke at Common Sense Atheist and he wrote a post called "The Irrational Atheist (notes in the margin, part 2)". Vox Day wrote The Irrational Atheist and has a blog called Vox Popoli.

I am following both of them in Google Reader. On the Vox Day side, The Irrational Atheist provided most, if not all, the basis for a couple of my posts. I also posted the beginnings of an exchange of letters between Luke and Vox.

However, what has gotten my attention this time is this set of comments by Luke. First, he quotes VD from the chapter "The Case Against Science":

[One] question that none of the New Atheists dare to ask is whether science, having produced some genuinely positive results as well as some truly nightmarish evils over the course of the last century, has outlived its usefulness to Mankind. Man has survived millennia of religious faith, but if the prophets of over-population and global warming are correct, he may not survive a mere four centuries of science

Rather than go into defensive mode, Luke says:

This is an argument I have thought about advancing myself, long before I read The Irrational Atheist. And Vox is right; I cannot imagine one of the New Atheists considering it. Vox also handily dismantles 5 of the usual pro-science responses to this argument. I will give a 6th response below. But first let me elaborate the argument.

The idea goes like this. Perhaps it would have been better if Galileo, Locke, Hume, and Kant had never awakened us from our dogmatic slumbers. Neither science nor religion are inherently destructive – both have their Gandhis and their Muhammeds, their Borlaugs and their Oppenheimers – but at least religion kept mankind ineffective. We could only kill a few thousand people at a time and with great effort, and we certainly couldn’t destroy the atmosphere or oceans of the whole planet.

But since science is knowledge, science is power. Science made mankind effective. Effective for good, yes, but also effective in evil. So now we have the power to eradicate diseases and feed the whole world on relatively little land, but we also have the power – should we choose to use it – to make our planet uninhabitable or simply blow it to smithereens . . . I am very concerned about the effectiveness science has granted man, especially when I survey the moral character of those in power. But I think science was inevitable. So it is up to us to use science for good and not for evil. And that will be a hard battle. Perhaps the hardest of all, and the most important.

This is what I am interested in exploring here. What moral or ethical structure is necessary to, as Luke says:

. . . become a highly moral species very quickly so that we use our scientific effectiveness for good and not for evil?

I will posit as a starting point for the discussion that the system must recognize the intrinsic worth of humans and present this statement from David Gushee as my answer to the question:

. . . all human beings, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity and therefore must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.

Of course, Gushee's underlying foundation for our intrinsic value is that we are created imago dei - in the image of God. Luke would not agree with that; and I disagree with this statement by Luke:

. . . one aide to becoming a highly moral species very quickly is to leave behind our religions that are explicitly based on Scriptures written by the morally backward humans of several millennia ago.

It is not the age of the morality, but its effectiveness that matters -- and I think that religion (generally, not just Christianity) has served as a relatively (not perfectly) effective moral teacher and restraint -- certainly in relationship to any secular moral foundations that have been seen up to now. Also, while folks were scientifically backwards millennia ago, it is very much a part of this discussion whether they were morally backwards. IMO, modernity has not progressed humanity on a moral level - that is why we are having this discussion.

For many in this age, the first question would be: Why do we need some sort of "core moral foundation"? I think because humans need to have their moral reasoning reinforced. We are not perfect moral agents for a number of reasons (compare Aquinas's Summa Theologica, Prima Secundæ Partis, Question 94, Articles 4 and 6):

insufficient experience: we do not know enough to reach sound conclusions;
insufficient skill: we haven't learned the art of reasoning well;
sloth: we are too lazy to reason;
corrupt custom: it hasn't occurred to us to reason;
passion: we are distracted by strong feeling from reasoning carefully;
fear: we are afraid to reason because we might find out we are wrong;
wishful thinking: we include in our reasoning what we are willing to notice;
depraved ideology: we interpret known principles crookedly; and
malice: we refuse to reason because we are determined to do what we want.

As Luke and Vox have pointed out, up to now humans have erred for all those reasons, and now due to advancing science some of those humans have incredible power to save or destroy at their fingertips. Humanity seems to need to re-anchor its moral foundations and moral reasoning in some way that will move it forward (and not horribly backwards) in the future.

So again, the question to discuss:

What ethical and/or moral principle, if generally accepted by society, would best encourage the good use of scientific progress, and discourage its bad use?

Keep in mind that this question only has a indirect relationship to politics - this is about the moral and ethical foundations of a society; and not it governance and laws (although that certainly should be impacted by the society's moral foundation)

Culture wars: How to Look Like a Hypocrite

2009-11-12T00:01:00.000-08:00

[Point four of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jered Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

4. It is often hypocritical. It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don’t know Jesus to act like they do especially when we can’t get our own house in order. So long as large numbers of Christians continue contributing to the divorce statistics, the porn industry, and more acceptable sins like gluttony and gossip and greed, we have zero business telling the world how to act. Judgment begins at the house of God.
1 Peter 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin, starting with the house of God. And if it starts with us, what will be the fate of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God?

Hypocrisy is an interesting subject when talking about followers of Christ. As I have been going through Romans the Gospel message has unfolded:

No one is worthy - no not one. No one is righteous by their own acts.
God, through Christ, imputed righteousness to us by our faith - not by our works.
Once we have been justified by faith, a process of sanctification can begin which extends into eternity.
During that process of sanctification, we continue to struggle with our own desires which pull us away from God.
It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit that gives us the supernatural help needed to win that struggle

In what one person described as "more than the mother of all Evangelical slacker verses", Paul talks about this internal struggle:

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual – but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin. 15 For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. 18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. 21 So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. 23 But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

All followers of Christ lose that war - far more often than we like - and then (hopefully) repent (turn away from) the sin and look back to Christ and continue that process of sanctification; and that internal war we are never free from. We are all hypocrites by Paul's lights: we all do things different from what be believe; and fail to do things we do believe in. All of us.

What is the best way to "look like a hypocrite" -- talk about "other people's sin". If you focus on enforcing morality on others by law, then you will constantly be at odds with your own inability to enforce that morality on yourself; and God has promised He will "bring you down" for that kind of self-righteousness and moralism. One can look at a long list of followers of Christ (Haggard, etc.) who were caught moralisticly preaching on a sin they themselves were continuing to commit.

However, if you talk about the Gospel (humbly of course), then you will be talking about your own failures and the only solution to that -- coming to the Cross; and allowing the Holy Spirit to change you from the inside out. I will finish as I will finish all of posts in this series:

Jered Wilson:

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.

For the glory of God.

Moi:

it is incumbant upon Christians to work for right order and justice in the society in which we live. However, our duties to the Body of Christ, the Great Commission, and the Kingdom of God trump our requirements as Christian citizens of a nation state.

Romans 7:21-8:2 -- "Rescued - And Free"

2009-11-10T00:01:00.000-08:00

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

The text:

(NET) Romans 7:21 So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. 23 But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be¹ to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then,² I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but³ with my flesh I serve⁴ the law of sin.

The Believer’s Relationship to the Holy Spirit

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.⁵ 2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit⁶ in Christ Jesus has set you⁷ free from the law of sin and death.

Notes:

¹ tc ‡ Most mss (א* A 1739 1881 Ï sy) read “I give thanks to God” rather than “Now thanks be to God” (א1 [B] Ψ 33 81 104 365 1506 pc), the reading of NA27. The reading with the verb (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, eucaristw tw qew) possibly arose from a transcriptional error in which several letters were doubled (TCGNT 455). The conjunction δέ (de, “now”) is included in some mss as well (א1 Ψ 33 81 104 365 1506 pc), but it should probably not be considered original. The ms support for the omission of δέ is both excellent and widespread (א* A B D 1739 1881 Ï lat sy), and its addition can be explained as an insertion to smooth out the transition between v. 24 and 25.

² tn There is a double connective here that cannot be easily preserved in English: “consequently therefore,” emphasizing the conclusion of what he has been arguing.

³ tn Greek emphasizes the contrast between these two clauses more than can be easily expressed in English.

⁴ tn The words “I serve” have been repeated here for clarity.

⁵ tc The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 pc co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 pc vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mh kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid Ï) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in Ï.

⁶ tn Grk “for the law of the Spirit of life.”

⁷ tc Most mss read the first person singular pronoun με (me) here (A D 1739c 1881 Ï lat sa). The second person singular pronoun σε (se) is superior because of external support (א B {F which reads σαι} G 1506* 1739*) and internal support (it is the harder reading since ch. 7 was narrated in the first person). At the same time, it could have arisen via dittography from the final syllable of the verb preceding it (ἠλευθέρωσεν, hleuqerwsen; “has set free”). But for this to happen in such early and diverse witnesses is unlikely, especially as it depends on various scribes repeatedly overlooking either the nu or the nu-bar at the end of the verb.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

Sermon Notes: First, a review of Romans 7 up to now: If we are not “under law” and if we are “free from law” then:

What is the purpose of the law? What does it do... and not do?
1. The law shows us the reality and extent of sin. (7)
2. The law provokes sin. (8)
3. The law results in spiritual death. (9-10)
4. The law reveals that sin deceives and puts to death. (11)
5. The law shows the ways God wants people to live. (12)
6. The law exposes sin for what it is—showing sin to be the true cause
  of separation from God (“death”). (13)
The law is spiritual—but I am unspiritual (“fleshly”). (14)
In my “flesh”—I live a life of struggle against sin. (15-16)
Sin lives in me—and I have no power (in my flesh) capable of overcoming it. (17-18)
In my flesh, I cannot do the good I want to do, and I cannot keep from doing the evil I do not want to do. (18-19)

Which brings us to the problem: There is a powerful presence of sin in me. (20-21). Here the notesheet linked above had to much important information to even try to summarize. Listen to the audio and follow the notesheet is the only advice I can give.

Evangelicalism, Politics, and the Gospel

2009-11-09T10:17:00.000-08:00

[Crossposted from Street Prophets]

In the discussions that is going on about the Roman Catholic Church, and its change, I made a comment (I will get there in a minute). Starwoman responded with:

Thanks for this very clear and helpful comment about what the strategy is wrt Evangelicals, theology, and civil marriage laws.

I'd be interested in a diary from you on the theology behind Evangelical (and other Reformed, maybe) attitudes towards the relationship between church and state.

I can try to do that - but it may not work out.

The starting point is the comment I made:

I think you are right that the Catholic Church's belief in natural theology is going to move them quicker on this issue - at least compared to Evangelicalism. The idea that God's order can partially be discerned in nature confronts the RCC with both the homosexual behavior of animals and the rising belief that homosexuality in humans is genetic.

However, the Protestant Reformation, while holding to natural moral law (that God's character overflows into us through conscience) rejected natural theology - that theological truths could be discerned in the natural physical order. Even in natural moral law, I am a bit unique in holding such a high view of it among Evangelicals. I think it makes me a closet RC in their eyes :-).

That was the whole point of sola scriptura after all. I think that the Evangelical hestitancy to accept natural moral law has led to some mistakes: I think a moral law reading of Romans and Genesis yields a much different result than most of my ilk read it - but then I have a admitted desire to relax the scriptural injunction against homosexuality as much as possible without becoming Bishop Spong.

So, generally Evangelicalism holds that all of nature was distorted by the fall so natural theology is out - including even relaxation on gay issues if homosexuality was actually proven to be genetic; and they do not particularly like natural law to the degree I do - so mostly they follow a divine command ethic based on scripture.

So, for Evangelicalism, it is deciding that this is not a divine command that they wish to enforce on non-Christians by civil law that you have to desire.

I believe Evangelicalism has damaged its missional role by its political involvement. And that is not because its political involvement has been conservative, or socially conservative, or focused on the wrong platforms and issues.

I think Evangelicalism, and the Body of Christ in general, is infected with Constantianism. I stopped cross-posting here because I was about to get far less political, and far more "religious" in my writings - and I was about to stop "biting my tongue" about certain things. Most of that would make me far more the "crazy uncle John" than I already was/am. Obviously, the series I am cross-posting here is part of that. While that series based on a critique of Evangelicalism's role in the culture wars - it, for me, is really a pointed critique of followers of Christ and their relationship to politics in general - whether conservative or progressive.

The pivotal article that "snapped" my view was by Allan Bevere and was called "On Why the Church in America Cannot Speak Truth to Power". Just so it is clear, that is not a phrase that politically conservative Christians use, and Bevere's post is aimed not at political conservatives but all political action by Christians. Bevere gives two reasons why:

the vast majority of Christians in America have accepted the Constantinian notion that the primary political task of the church is to rule, to be in charge. What that means at the very least is that Christians are to play a prophetic role in the political court of Washington DC.
it means that most Christians have accepted the modern dichotomies of left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican
"And therein is the heart of the problem. That most Christians in America believe that the church's primary role is to affect policy in Washington DC betrays the mistaken belief that the primary political action in this world is to be found in the White House and on Capitol Hill, when the New Testament clearly indicates that the primary agency of politics is located in nothing less than the community of faith known as the church. In order for the church to speak truth to power it must recover its unique polity apart from the earthly polity known as the nation state; for it is God and not the nations who rules the world.

My great concern is that when Christians in America want to play the role of prophet in Pharaoh's court, they end up looking, not like the wise sage, but the court jester that gets used by the king for his or her own comical and unsavory purposes.

The people of God have been co-opted; it is time for the church to recover the politics of witness." -- Allan Bevere

I wish I could give the answer that quote implies when asked about how Evangelicalism views the relationship of church and state - but I cannot (yet). However, Evangelicalism is shifting politically and where it is going to move to is uncertain.

To understand Evangelicalism, you have to understand its roots. It was born when the Fundamentalist movement became more and more separatist - not just not "of the world" but not even "in the world". Billy Grahmn and folks with him saw (rightly IMO) that we could not just be a "city on a hill" (a beacon outside the culture) but also "salt and light" in the culture. This is the cultural mandate that these comments (and Jered Wilson's answers) at "Funny, I Don't Feel Neoconnish" - the post that started my series on the "culture wars".

Jered Wilson: “... it is theologically naive and demonstrably false to think laws or policies make anyone a Christian.”

Responder: What if this is not the primary goal?

Jered Wilson: Oh my. Well, there we disagree. I think worship of Jesus should be the primary goal of the Christian’s engagement with the world, to do it and to do it compellingly in word and deed so that others may wake to want to, as well. Worship of Jesus trumps everything, including strong marriages, etc. In fact, what I’m saying is that it is the gospel that produces the fruit of strong marriages, etc.

Responder: What about the goals of having fewer marriages to fail, fewer unjust abortions be performed, and fewer people suffer the pain and regret of having an abortion? Are those goals worthy of fighting for, or not?

Jered Wilson: Yes. I refer to those things in my post, actually. I fight for those things almost daily, although almost none of that fighting is done in the political realm.

or this general comment about the entire post:

Responder 2: My reaction, which is a concise rebuttal to the accusations of moral crusading: You are much to either/or, refusing to acknowledge the need for public virtue. Culture Warriors never claim to be savings souls, but the preservation of prudence & a just society.

Jered Wilson: This is patently false, as even a cursory reading of my post indicates. I am only advocating a different — and more Jesusy — route to public virtue. On culture warriors not aiming for saving souls, two things:
a) Why not? Isn’t that better than just well behaved pagans?
b) I don’t know what area of the nation you live in, but in both the Bible Belt I’m from and the Northeast I’m currently in, the conflation of legislated morality and soul salvation is alive and well.

Responder 2: Secondly, your stance is completely against the grain of eschatological hope.

Jered Wilson: I have no idea how this can be true. It would be true if I did not believe in the kingdom inaugurated and yet to be consummated, if I distrusted Jesus’ promise to return, or if I believed Christians have no obligation to share the gospel in word and deed. But none of those things are true, so your accusation is untrue.

Responder 2: Do not throw the the baby out with the bathwater. You sound much too anabaptistic and against the grain of the cultural mandate.

Jered Wilson: I don’t know what “cultural mandate” you refer to. Was there an official memo I missed? Or do you mean something like the Great Commission, Great Commandment, Sermon on the Mount, or related?

Evangelicalism has bought into the idea that "engagement with the culture" means political involvement to pass laws to reform the culture from above. In a look-ahead at a future point in Jerad Wilsons's critique:

Jesus knew heart change didn’t come through political power, cultural pressure, or zealotry, so he was keenly disinterested in those things.

and something from Allan Bevere as well:

In cosying up to the principalities and powers, Christians on the left and the right have chosen the politics of power over the politics of witness; indeed, they cannot even imagine, in spite of what they say, what the politics of the Kingdom of God might look like apart from the politics of left and right. Take the recent health care debate as an example-- Christians on the left argue that health care is a right and Christians on the right proffer that health care is a commodity-- and neither side bothers to consider the possibility that both "rights" and "commodities" are notions not found in Scripture and that both concepts are theologically problematic.

[and]

As Christians, instead of identifying ourselves as primarily kingdom citizens, we see ourselves first and foremost as Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals. The Sermon on the Mount gets eclipsed by the political platforms of the DNC and the RNC. We like to say that we transcend such earthly contrived political conventions, but we can point to very little evidence to show that this is indeed the case. James Dobson is clearly a conservative Republican and Jim Wallis is obviously a liberal Democrat. The only truth they speak to power is their own Republican or Democratic truth to the power of the other party. The criticism of their own is basically absent or woefully inadequate at best. It appears that both men desire to play the role of Nathan in David's court, but they find they only have influence in that court when "David" is part of their own party; and then their prophetic denunciations are reserved only for the opposition outside the court and not those who are in power. They have very little of a prophetic nature to say to the king from their own party whom they serve. In other words, the church cannot speak truth to power because the church itself is up to its armpits in power and, therefore, has a stake in such power.

Did that answer the question about Evangelicalism's view of the relationship of church and state? You tell me.

It did however more deeply defiine this evangelical's view of the relationship between politics and the Gospel.

Culture wars: Going Forth Naively

2009-11-08T00:01:00.000-08:00

[Point three of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' are going to hell because . . ."

3. It is theologically naive. It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don’t know Jesus to act like they do.

The C.S. Lewis quote in the last post in the series speaks to this well -- and so does the one from J. Budziszewski. Indeed, this may be one of those points that just stands on its own. I really do not even want to go into people who do know Jesus not acting like they do - that is covered in a future point about hypocrisy.

I think it is worth mentioning a couple of points here:

Since I believe in natural moral law (not natural theology), there are some ways that folks can be expected to act like they know Jesus even if they don't - just because of God's general revelation to all of humanity in the form of our conscience. See J. Bud's point about some Chrisitan morality being enacted into law and some not.
Christians ability to act like they know Jesus comes from the ministry of the Holy Spirit - which of course must not be ignored.

Also, the two general points I want to continue to stress:

Jered Wilson:

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.

For the glory of God.

Moi:

it is incumbant upon Christians to work for right order and justice in the society in which we live. However, our duties to the Body of Christ, the Great Commission, and the Kingdom of God trump our requirements as Christian citizens of a nation state.

Other than that, I will let the folks that comment flesh this out some more if they wish

How We Discuss: Probabilities and Bulverisms

2009-11-07T00:01:00.000-08:00

Two things caught my eye this week related to the way discussions seem to go online:

"The Sufficiency of Probability in the Christian Belief" , Parchment and Pen, C. Michael Patton
"Bulverism" , God in the Dock, by C.S. Lewis

The second one is first - Lewis's discovery of Bulverism:

We have recently “discovered that we exist” in two new senses. The Freudians have discovered that we exist as bundles of complexes. The Marxians have discovered that we exist as members of some economic class. In the old days it was supposed that if a thing seemed obviously true to a hundred men, then it was probably true in fact. Nowadays the Freudian will tell you to go and analyze the hundred: you will find that they all think Elizabeth [I] a great queen because they all have a mother-complex. Their thoughts are psychologically tainted at the source. And the Marxist will tell you to go and examine the economic interests of the hundred; you will find that they all think freedom a good thing because they are all members of the bourgeoisie whose prosperity is increased by a policy of laissez-faire. Their thoughts are “ideologically tainted” at the source.

Now this is obviously great fun; but it has not always been noticed that there is a bill to pay for it. There are two questions that people who say this kind of thing ought to be asked. The first is, are all thoughts thus tainted at the source, or only some? The second is, does the taint invalidate the tainted thought - in the sense of making it untrue - or not?

Now, of course

The only line they can really take is to say that some thoughts are tainted and others are not - which has the advantage (if Freudians and Marxians regard it as an advantage) of being what every sane man has always believed.

and

In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method [Note: This essay was written in 1941.] is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly.

Like Lewis

I see Bulverism at work in every political argument. The capitalists must be bad economists because we know why they want capitalism, and equally Communists must be bad economists because we know why they want Communism. Thus, the Bulverists on both sides. In reality, of course, either the doctrines of the capitalists are false, or the doctrines of the Communists, or both; but you can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning - never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology.

Now, anyone who has been involved in very many discussions online between atheists and theists, or between conservatives and progressives, has seen the symptoms of Ezekiel Bulver's invention. Here is one example:

We know the gospels were written decades later by educated, Greeks. I do not see any sense in arguing this point with you as you seem to be an ultra conservative who believes that Mark wrote Mark and that John wrote John. The overwhelming consensus of scholarship is againt you but I know you do not care.

So, without having actually presenting the evidence for what they (all dem der smart people) know, I believe the obviously silly because I am an ultra-conservative that "doesn't care". Or, this one

I, as a Harvard Professor, with very little concern for, or interest in the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, believed the Pope was infallible. Most Roman Catholics, outside the Ivory Tower types that seem to inhabit this place, have even less concern for these minutia, just believing any pearls of wisdom dropped from the alter as gospel truth. You can wring your hands all you want on this issue, but your church has blood on its hands from it's dealings with the GLBT community and there is no end in sight for their continuing down this hateful path.

Maybe the best (or is that the worst?) example of Bulverism I have seen this week was pointed out by Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse -- the political left and right ascribing motives to the killer at Fort Hood without really having an evidence to know why the killings occurred.

The rationalizations for Major Hasan’s rampage - his motives, his state of mind, even the environment in which he carried out his horrific attack - are being tossed about the blogosphere on both sides as if everything that can be known about the circumstances has already been revealed.

This must be the case because without any definitive word from authorities, from his friends and associates, or from Hasan himself, both lefty and righty blogs have already “solved” the mystery of motive and any argument to the contrary is “racist,” or “pro-jihad,” or “hate speech,” or “political correctness.”

As Lewis said:

Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs. Each side snatches it early as a weapon against the other; but between the two reason itself is discredited.

* * * * *

The other interesting thing. C. Michael Patton starts with:

I often play this game with my kids that drives them crazy. Sitting in the room, with no one but us, while they are not looking I will slap them on the rear and act like I did not do it. They turn and say, “Daddy! I know you did that.” I say, “I did not.” ”Then who did it?” they respond (thinking they have settled the issue with this one question). I say, “A guy ran into the front door and slapped them and then ran out.” They look at me like I am crazy. “Look!” I respond to their skepticism, “The door is not locked. It is obvious that someone could have come in since the door is not locked.” Upon further looks of skepticism, I have them go check the door to see if it is locked or not. Once they check and see it is unlocked, I have won the day. I have poked a hole and their certainty and even caused them to confirm it. No longer possessing the indubitably that I have required for their epistemic verification, they now have lost poise in their former confidence. In other words, I tricked them into thinking that one has to be absolutely certain about something before it can be believed.

What happens when we are challenged in our beliefs:

once we cannot account for the door being unlocked, we find ourselves wondering why we are being forced to check the door in the first place. Yet we do it anyway. When the door is unlocked, those who are epistemically conditioned to find this substantial, like my children, enter into a state of suspended belief, doubt, or skepticism or opt for a “leap of faith” that demands no evidence, and then sneer at those who do demand evidence as if it is passé.

Patton does tell us what the kids really should say

“Daddy, I don’t care if the door is unlocked. It does not play a sufficient part in your proposition to warrant a disregard of the greater areas of viability with regard to our belief that you are the one who slapped us.” And if I respond, “But you don’t know with perfect, absolute, and infallible certainty,” they should say, “No daddy, probability is sufficient to warrant, yea, demand a belief such as ours and, as a consequence, to reject your alternative.” Well, if they said it like that, I would be scared, but you know what I am saying.

The point for us, as our beliefs are challenged, is to understand that

Probability is sufficient. We neither need to go into intellectual hibernation and accept our beliefs on blind faith nor do we need to suspend our belief until all the objections, no matter how improbable, are answered (i.e. we don’t need to check the door).

What I posed to my children was merely a possibility to explain the slap, but possibilities do not create probabilities. We are responsible in this life to act upon the revelation given to us, not to seek absolute indubitably.

* * * * *

As we stand ready to "explain the reason for our hope", we are going to be confronted with both Bulverisms and folks doing no more than pointing at the door and telling us it is unlocked. We need to challenge the truth of people's positions long before we talk about their psychology in believing them. And, as Collins said:

. . . believe that the resurrection of Christ is probable to such a degree that the only rational option is for all people to fall on their face and worship him.

Culture wars: Moralism is the Medium

2009-11-05T12:01:00.000-08:00

[Point two of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
"
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to Hell because . . ."

2. Its medium is moralism, not gospel. It makes kingdom militancy about religion, not gospel. It seeks a Christian coercion of others toward better behavior, not an incarnational sharing with others of the better Way.

When I think about moralism I think about a few different passages and excerpts. First, after the famous passage on homosexuality along with a large "sin list" in Romans 1, there is this passage.

Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?

This, IMO, changes the whole focus of the Romans 1 section - including the part on homosexuality. Next, is Jesus:

Luke 6:42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while you yourself don’t see the beam in your own? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

That is not really a criticism of attempting to legislate morality - it is more a criticism of hypocrisy. However, it is not really separable. This speaks to the idea of legislating morality very well:

The third moral error of political conservatism is moralism. According to this notion God's grace needs the help of the state; Christianity merely asks the state to get out of the way. We might say that while instrumentalism wants to make faith a tool of politics, moralism wants to make politics a tool of faith; on this reading, what instrumentalism is to secular conservatives, moralism is to religious conservatives. Surprisingly, though, many religious conservatives seem unable to tell the difference. Whether someone says “We need prayer in schools to make the children holy” or “We need prayer in schools to make the country strong,” it sounds to them the same.

Now I am not going to complain that moralism “imposes” a faith on people who do not share it. In the sense at issue, even secularists impose a faith on others—they merely impose a different faith. Every law reflects some moral idea, every moral idea reflects some fundamental commitment, and every fundamental commitment is religious—it proposes a god. Everything in the universe comes to a point. For moralism, therefore, the important distinction is not between religion and secularism, but between faiths that do and faiths that do not demand the civil enforcement of all their moral precepts.

To the question “Should the civil law enforce the precepts of the faith?” the biblical answer is, “Some yes, but some no; which ones do you mean?” The New Testament contains literally hundreds of precepts. However, Christianity is not a legislative religion. While the Bible recognizes the Torah as a divinely revealed code for the ruling of Israel before the coming of Messiah, it does not include a divinely revealed code for the ruling of the gentiles afterward. To be sure, the Bible limits the kinds of laws that Christians can accept from their governments, for “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). However, it does not prescribe specific laws that they must demand from them.

It is not even true that all of God's commands limit the kinds of laws that Christians can accept. To see this, contrast two such precepts: (1) I am prohibited from deliberately shedding innocent blood; (2) I am prohibited from divorcing a faithful spouse. Both precepts are absolute in their application to me, but that is not the issue. If we are speaking of governmental enforcement, then we are speaking of their application to others. The former precept should require very little watering down in the public square, for even nonbelievers are expected to understand the wrong of murder. That is why I may be confident in condemning the legalization of abortion. But the latter precept requires a good deal of watering down in the public square, for before the coming of Christ not even believers were expected to understand the true nature of marriage. “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard,” said Jesus, “but it was not this way from the beginning” (Matthew 19:8). No doubt the Pharisees to whom He was speaking were scandalized by the idea that their civil law did not reflect God's standards fully. They must have been even more offended by the suggestion that it was not intended to. Among religious conservatives this suggestion is still a scandal, but it does not come from liberals; it comes from the Master.

Christians, then, may certainly commend a law as good or condemn it as evil. They may declare it consistent or inconsistent with the faith. But not even a good law may be simply identified with the faith; Christians must not speak of a tax code, marriage ordinance, or welfare policy as Christian no matter how much, or even how rightly, they desire its enactment or preservation. That predicate has been preempted by the law of God. The civil law will be Christian—if it still exists at all—only when Christ himself has returned to rule: not when a coalition of religious conservatives has got itself elected. -- J. Budziszewski

and, finally, C.S. Lewis:

"The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one . . . the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not. " -- Mere Christianity

Moralism denies the freedom we have in Christ (see pretty much all of Romans again) to those who do not know Christ. While, as Paul says, all things are legal for us (even if they are not good) - the moralist tells folks that God restricts their freedom even if they are not Christians. This is the type of religion Christ accused the Pharisees of loading down people with:

Luke 11:46 But Jesus replied, “Woe to you experts in religious law as well! You load people down with burdens difficult to bear, yet you yourselves refuse to touch the burdens with even one of your fingers!

Again, this is a condemnation of hypocrisy - but there is little difference in expecting someone to carry a burden that you should, but will not, carry; and telling them they are expected to carry one that you know you are not required to carry at all. Indeed, the latter is exactly anti-Gospel. If the Good News is that God's Grace saves us even though we are sinners, why would we attempt to impose religious requirements on folks who have the same grace available to them - especially before they are even part of the Body of Christ?

As mentioned under point 1 -- and will probably be mentioned under every point -- it is incumbant upon Christians to work for right order and justice in the society in which we live. However, our duties to the Body of Christ, the Great Commission, and the Kingdom of God trump our requirements as Christian citizens of a nation state.

Romans 7:7-25 -- "The Real Problem With Me"

2009-11-03T00:01:00.000-08:00

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

The text:

(NET) Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I¹⁴ would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else¹⁵ if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”¹⁶ 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires.¹⁷ For apart from the law, sin is dead. 9 And I was once alive apart from the law, but with the coming of the commandment sin became alive 10 and I died. So¹⁸ I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life brought death!¹⁹ 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it I died.²⁰ 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Absolutely not! But sin, so that it would be shown to be sin, produced death in me through what is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual – but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin.²¹ 15 For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate.²² 16 But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good.²³ 17 But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. 18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it.²⁴ 19 For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. 21 So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. 7:23 But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be²⁵ to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then,²⁶ I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but²⁷ with my flesh I serve²⁸ the law of sin.

Notes:

14 sn Romans 7:7-25. There has been an enormous debate over the significance of the first person singular pronouns (“I”) in this passage and how to understand their referent. Did Paul intend (1) a reference to himself and other Christians too; (2) a reference to his own pre-Christian experience as a Jew, struggling with the law and sin (and thus addressing his fellow countrymen as Jews); or (3) a reference to himself as a child of Adam, reflecting the experience of Adam that is shared by both Jews and Gentiles alike (i.e., all people everywhere)? Good arguments can be assembled for each of these views, and each has problems dealing with specific statements in the passage. The classic argument against an autobiographical interpretation was made by W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus. A good case for seeing at least an autobiographical element in the chapter has been made by G. Theissen, Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie [FRLANT], 181-268. One major point that seems to favor some sort of an autobiographical reading of these verses is the lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit for empowerment in the struggle described in Rom 7:7-25. The Spirit is mentioned beginning in 8:1 as the solution to the problem of the struggle with sin (8:4-6, 9).

15 tn Grk “I would not have known covetousness.”
16 sn A quotation from Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:21.
17 tn Or “covetousness.”

18 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “So” to indicate the result of the statement in the previous verse. Greek style often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” but English style generally does not.

19 tn Grk “and there was found in/for me the commandment which was for life – this was for death.”

20 tn Or “and through it killed me.”
21 tn Grk “under sin.”
22 tn Grk “but what I hate, this I do.”
23 tn Grk “I agree with the law that it is good.”
24 tn Grk “For to wish is present in/with me, but not to do it.”

25 tc ‡ Most mss (א* A 1739 1881 Ï sy) read “I give thanks to God” rather than “Now thanks be to God” (א1 [B] Ψ 33 81 104 365 1506 pc), the reading of NA27. The reading with the verb (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, eucaristw tw qew) possibly arose from a transcriptional error in which several letters were doubled (TCGNT 455). The conjunction δέ (de, “now”) is included in some mss as well (א1 Ψ 33 81 104 365 1506 pc), but it should probably not be considered original. The ms support for the omission of δέ is both excellent and widespread (א* A B D 1739 1881 Ï lat sy), and its addition can be explained as an insertion to smooth out the transition between v. 24 and 25.

26 tn There is a double connective here that cannot be easily preserved in English: “consequently therefore,” emphasizing the conclusion of what he has been arguing.

27 tn Greek emphasizes the contrast between these two clauses more than can be easily expressed in English.

28 tn The words “I serve” have been repeated here for clarity.

Sermon Notes:

Is God’s Law the problem? No (v.7)
What does God’s Law do?
1. The law shows us the reality and extent of sin.
  “…through the law we become conscious of sin.” Romans 3:20
2. The law provokes sin.
3. The law results in spiritual death.
4. The law reveals that sin deceives and puts to death.
5. The law shows the ways God wants people to live.
  Psalms 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect
  and preserves one’s life.
  The rules set down by the Lord are reliable
  and impart wisdom to the inexperienced.
  8 The Lord’s precepts are fair
  and make one joyful.
  The Lord’s commands are pure
  and give insight for life.
  9 The commands to fear the Lord are right
  and endure forever.
  The judgments given by the Lord are trustworthy
  and absolutely just.
  10 They are of greater value than gold,
  than even a great amount of pure gold;
  they bring greater delight than honey,
  than even the sweetest honey from a honeycomb.
  11 Yes, your servant finds moral guidance there;
  those who obey them receive a rich reward.
  12 Who can know all his errors?
  Please do not punish me for sins I am unaware of.
  13 Moreover, keep me from committing flagrant sins;
  do not allow such sins to control me.
  Then I will be blameless,
  and innocent of blatant rebellion.
  14 May my words and my thoughts
  be acceptable in your sight,
  O Lord, my sheltering rock and my redeemer.
6. The law exposes sin for what it is—showing sin to be the true cause of separation from God (“death”).
The law is spiritual—but I am unspiritual (“fleshly”).
In my “flesh”—I live a life of struggle against sin.
Sin lives in me—and I have no power (in my flesh) capable of overcoming it.
In my flesh, I cannot do the good I want to do, and I cannot keep from doing the evil I do not want to do.
The problem: there is a powerful presence of sin in me.
Christ has rescued me!

My Comments: I quote this passage a great deal, because I think it serves as one of those testimonies to why folks do not follow either their conscience, or what they know to be right. It highlights the ways in which we distort God's general and specific revelation to us through our desire to please ourselves.

One person commenting on its use made this point:

Paul's argument in Chap 7 can be viewed as much more than just the mother of all evangelical slacker-confessions.

I see it as a point-blank refutation of the widespread Greek philosophic view that true knowledge must determine conduct for the wise man. Plato and others held that it was impossible for any rational and mature man to actually do a thing he knew was wrong. But Paul sees that the righteousness that seeks conformity with the teachings of Moses and Jesus was so transcendent that its requirements transformed this kind of wisdom into foolishness.

On the one hand, the "reach" of the Mosaic Law, under the hands of the priesthood and Pharisees, extended to such behaviors as implicated the Divine Will in a comedy of external and quotidian observance.

And on the other hand, Jesus, in brushing many of these laws aside, had alluded to divine standards which challenged human nature almost to the point of mockery.

"Don’t get me started on definitions and proofs of adultery," Jesus seems to warn, "because I tell you, your guilt has already arrived with your intent to act, whether or not she consents to your wicked advances" (Mt. 5:28)

And again, how often have we heard and accepted the higher morality of love for enemies (Mt. 5:44) and the non-resistance of evil (Mt. 5: 39) and yet failed to act accordingly in the presence of an offensive one?

Paul knows what the result must be of the annunciation of these and other divine teachings. The whole strange evolutionary mix of primitive human institutions embedded in Greek philosophy and Mosaic Law have been rendered of little or no effect in terms of the true righteousness of God. But this astonishing fact can only be a part of the good news if it includes a glad answer to the question, "How then, can we be saved?"

Which answer we have, by God’s grace, in the supreme faithfulness which underlay the life and death of his Son.

Next: 7:21-8:2 -- "Rescued - and Free"

Church Life: A Focus on Direction

2009-11-01T15:07:00.000-08:00

It seems to go along with my other post today on "Foolish Expectations" -- how does a church define and set expectations based on the Headship of Christ rather than the world.

My church is starting that process over the next eight weeks - the introductory message is here. The core passage (there has to be one of those) was:

1 Thessalonians 1:2 We thank God always for all of you as we mention you constantly in our prayers, 3 because we recall in the presence of our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and endurance of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

The theme of the the examination of the direction of the church will be:

Faith - Love - Hope

Following Jesus Together

With focus on these ideas:

Faith towards God
Love for each other
Hope for the world

For those in ministry who frequently think about how to set these kind of goals and directions - I encourage to listen to the next 8 weeks.

Culture wars: Foolish Expectations

2009-11-01T00:01:00.000-07:00

[Point one of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to Hell because . . ."

1. Its expectation is foolish. Whether you believe America was ever a Christian nation or not, it is theologically naive and demonstrably false to think laws or policies make anyone a Christian. You cannot create or recapture a people for Christ by illegalizing sin. (Which, by the way, is not to say that certain sins shouldn’t be illegal. It is only to say that, for instance, outlawing gay marriage or repealing Roe v. Wade won’t make anybody a Christian, much less make America “a Christian nation.”)

In my opinion, the expectations are not just foolish because they are about the kingdom of world instead of the Kingdom of God -- they are foolish because the struggles against abortion and gay marriage are not going to succeed even on a secular level.

In the case of abortion, even the overturn of Roe v Wade - throwing abortion back to the states - will not end abortion. Forty percent of abortions in the US are performed in the four states where abortion was legal before Roe; and there is no reason to believe that is going to change if Roe was repealed - unless there is massive cultural change. The hope of significantly reducing abortion lies in making abortion unchosen and not in making it illegal - and that comes from transforming people's hearts and their moral and ethical views.

As long as the predominate philosophy in the US is centered in utilitarianism and pragmatism - then women in significant numbers will make their decisions based on the worth and utility of the unborn child to them personally (and the way that child fits into their career, plans, etc); and not the child's intrinsic worth in God's eyes. That will be, as Paul said, foolishness to them.

In the case of gay marriage, the typical arguments ignore God's power to protect to what is important to Him. Frankly, I have lost track of why we care about secular gay marriage: it is adultery, selfishness, and rebellion - and the same utilitarianism and pragmatism - that is destroying marriage in the US; and not whether two men or two women get married. Beyond marriage, same sex attraction is complicated - and folks are going to go with what they feel is "right in their own eyes" unless they see it through the eyes of God (and that view matters more than their own). Without being willing to answer the call of Someone higher and outside of themselves they will do what they feel is best for them. That call comes not from the moralistic condemnation of those around them, but from God through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. How will they hear that call through the din of His followers?

However, this issue goes beyond just homosexuality and abortion. The entire theme of the Bible is that God gave us increasing amounts of legal direction (none, Noahide, Mosaic) until, as Paul points out relentlessly in Romans, it was proven that law could not make us righteous -- and that we not able to follow those laws. The law could only convict us of sin, rather than keep us from sin. Then, God gave His Son so that the laws could be written on our hearts, and we could have supernatural power to follow God's will in the form of the Holy Spirit. Yet, Christians still falter even with the Helper inside us and no law to bind us. Yet, we expect a law written in Washington or some state capital to hold folks to a righteousness pleasing to God.

This goes beyond just Christians on the political right and includes those on the political left. They expect God's justice to be done by the government in Washington or the various states. The Kingdom of God will no more be instituted by the moralistic expropriation of the wealthy to give to the poor than by the moralism of opponents of gay marriage: greed, selfishness, lack of concern for those around you, and laziness cannot be legislated out of existence. Every attempt to do so in the world has led to tyranny. As Allan Bevere noted in "On Why The Church in America Cannot Speak Truth to Power":

"And therein is the heart of the problem. That most Christians in America believe that the church's primary role is to affect policy in Washington DC betrays the mistaken belief that the primary political action in this world is to be found in the White House and on Capitol Hill, when the New Testament clearly indicates that the primary agency of politics is located in nothing less than the community of faith known as the church. In order for the church to speak truth to power it must recover its unique polity apart from the earthly polity known as the nation state; for it is God and not the nations who rules the world.

My great concern is that when Christians in America want to play the role of prophet in Pharaoh's court, they end up looking, not like the wise sage, but the court jester that gets used by the king for his or her own comical and unsavory purposes.

Certainly, Christians have a duty as citizens to pursue right order and justice to whatever degree is possible within the culture, but when we attempt to overlay our particular political ideology onto the Gospel we drive folks away who do not agree with our political ideology - and the Kingdom of God trumps the policies of the nation state. As Paul said:

1 Corinthians 9:19 For since I am free from all I can make myself a slave to all, in order to gain even more people. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to gain the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) to gain those under the law. 21 To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law. 22 To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some. 23 I do all these things because of the gospel, so that I can be a participant in it.

Jared's wise expectation is:

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.

For the glory of God.

Culture wars: Jared Wilson Enhanced

2009-10-31T17:54:00.000-07:00

I mentioned how much I liked Jared Wilson's "Funny, I don't Feel Neoconnish" posted at Evangel. His ten points about why the "culture wars" are going to hell --

Its expectation is foolish
Its medium is moralism, not gospel.
It is theologically naive.
It is often hypocritical.
It battles against flesh and blood.
Its treasure is temporary.
It makes idols of comfort and safety and propriety and power.
It has no root in Jesus’ ministry.
It mangles mission.
The culture war is carried out for our name’s sake, not Jesus’.

-- seem like they are each the core of a post; and that is what I am going to do over a bit of time. As I finish them, I will turn the points up above into links to the expanded posts.

Jared's conclusion seems good to post in this index as well:

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.

For the glory of God.

Romans 7:1-6 -- "Free From Law to Live By the Spirit"

2009-10-31T00:01:00.000-07:00

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

The text:

The Believer’s Relationship to the Law

(NET) Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers and sisters¹ (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is lord over a person² as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her³ husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage.⁴ 3 So then,⁵ if she is joined to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. But if her⁶ husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to another man, she is not an adulteress. 4 So, my brothers and sisters,⁷ you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God.⁸ 5 For when we were in the flesh,⁹ the sinful desires,¹⁰ aroused by the law, were active in the members of our body¹¹ to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the law, because we have died¹² to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code.¹³

Notes:

¹ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:13.
² sn Here person refers to a human being.
³ tn Grk “the,” with the article used as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215).
⁴ tn Grk “husband.”
sn Paul’s example of the married woman and the law of the marriage illustrates that death frees a person from obligation to the law. Thus, in spiritual terms, a person who has died to what controlled us (v. 6) has been released from the law to serve God in the new life produced by the Spirit.
⁵ tn There is a double connective here that cannot be easily preserved in English: “consequently therefore,” emphasizing the conclusion of what he has been arguing.

⁶ tn Grk “the,” with the article used as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215).
⁷ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:13.
⁸ tn Grk “that we might bear fruit to God.”
⁹ tn That is, before we were in Christ.
¹⁰ tn Or “sinful passions.”
¹¹ tn Grk “our members”; the words “of our body” have been supplied to clarify the meaning.

¹² tn Grk “having died.” The participle ἀποθανόντες (apothanontes) has been translated as a causal adverbial participle.

¹³ tn Grk “in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.”

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

Sermon Notes:

How does “Law” relate to this “Gospel” of Jesus Christ?
Paul now teaches us: God has “released us from the law” through
union with Christ.
Principle: law has authority over people—as long as they live.
illustration: death frees from the law of marriage
Principle: death frees from obligation to law.
Release from law through union with Christ: In our union with Christ and His death (6:1-11) — we also “died to the Law”—so that we now “belong to Another.”
1. Believers are delivered from obligation to live by law —through spiritual union with Christ in His death.
2. God’s purpose is to free us from obligation to law—that we might “belong” completely to Christ.
3. God’s intent for our lives is “that we might bear fruit to God.”
4. The old life: “in the flesh”
  The new life: “serve in the new way of the Spirit”
God’s good design for His people is for us to live in the daily experience of “serve in the new way of the Spirit.”

Going Deeper into the Word:

What is the connection between having “sin” as “master”—and being “under law”? (6:14)
Why is it necessary for the follower of Christ to be “not under law but under grace”? (6:15) What is the problem with “law”?
How do we explain that we have “died to the law through the body of Christ”? (7:4)
What are the advantages of being “released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit”? (7:6)
What does it personally mean to you to live “in the new way of the Spirit”?

Next: 7-25 -- "The Real Problem With Me"

Culture wars: To Jared Wilson -- Amen

2009-10-30T09:59:00.000-07:00

There is a new group Evangelical blog - called Evangel - at First Things. There are some interesting things about that sentence alone - First Things is primarily (although obviously not entirely) a Roman Catholic magazine of a politically conservative nature. None of the contributors to the Evangel blog are Roman Catholic.

Now for folks that do not see the difference between believing in fairies and believing in a Creator, personal God the distance between these two groups may not seem great. However, within the Body of Christ there is a marked tension between Evangelicalism as a movement within Protestantism and the Roman Catholic church. A very marked tension.

That distance has become less marked of recent - for both secular political and theological reasons. The differences between theological liberalism and theological conservatism have become even more marked than the differences that led to the Reformation and beyond. The battle for the truth around whether:

God is capable of accomplishing His will even by miraculous means within His own creation;
the resurrection of Christ was an actual, bodily event;
the Bible has authority in the present day

are defining issues across the Protestant landscape - even within Evangelicalism where those three issues were the defining issues for its creation as a movement. This is not to mention evangelism - spreading the Good News - itself which has seemed menaced, in my opinion, particularly within Evangelicalism. So, the unwillingness of the Roman Catholic church to bend in the winds of modernism is attractive to, and unity building with, those who do not believe God bends in those winds either.

Politically, for much of theologically conservative Christianity the legal battles against gay marriage and abortion have thrown Roman Catholics and politically conservative Evangelicals together often and for good reason - they stand on common ground on those issues.

Which brings me back to this new Evangelical blog at a largely Catholic magazine. For me it is wonderful - the list of bloggers there is impressive:

Matthew Anderson -- Mere Orthodoxy
Hunter Baker
Collin Brendemuehl -- Evangelical Perspective
Jared Bridges
Joe Carter
Kevin DeYoung
Gene Fant
Sarah J. Flashing -- The Center for Women of Faith in Culture
James Grant
Amy Hall -- A-Team Blog
David T. Koyzis -- Notes from a Byzantine-Rite Calvinist
Mark Olson -- Pseudo-Polymath
Russell D. Moore
Roger Overton -- A-Team Blog
Jeremy Pierce -- Parableman
John Mark Reynolds
Robert E. Sagers
Fred Sanders
Justin Taylor
Frank Turk -- Pyromaniacs
David Wayne -- Jollyblogger
Jared C. Wilson -- The Gospel-driven Church

If you wanted to set up a group of feeds to understand some of the depth of Evangelicalism - there is your list. Or, perhaps, just set up a feed to Evangel. However, this post is not just about a new and exciting (at least for me) blog.

It is about one post on that blog by Jared Wilson: "Funny, I Don’t Feel Neoconnish". Now, keep it mind that this is a Evangelical who is part of the emerging church writing at a blog sponsored by a magazine which is centrally interested in conservative politics of the United States. The opening line pretty much says it all:

The culture war will go to hell

Here are the reasons he gave (you will have to go read the text for each reasons - and the comments):

Its expectation is foolish
Its medium is moralism, not gospel.
It is theologically naive.
It is often hypocritical.
It battles against flesh and blood.
Its treasure is temporary.
It makes idols of comfort and safety and propriety and power.
It has no root in Jesus’ ministry.
It mangles mission.
The culture war is carried out for our name’s sake, not Jesus’.

His conclusion:

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.

For the glory of God.

To Jared Wilson -- Amen

Christian Carnival CCC (300) - Silver Denarii Edition

2009-10-28T10:39:00.000-07:00

As Jeremy said when he assigned me this Carnival - the 300th is a big edition. So, wanting some kind of theme - I put "three hundred" into a Bible search. Other than "mighty men" and shields in the Old Testament, I came up with this passage:

John 12:1-8 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom he had raised from the dead. So they prepared a dinner for Jesus there. Martha was serving, and Lazarus was among those present at the table with him. Then Mary took three quarters of a pound of expensive aromatic oil from pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus. She then wiped his feet dry with her hair. (Now the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfumed oil.) But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was going to betray him) said, “Why wasn’t this oil sold for three hundred silver coins and the money given to the poor?” (Now Judas said this not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money box, he used to steal what was put into it.) So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She has kept it for the day of my burial. For you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me!”

The Cast of Characters

Jesus
Leadership/Grace/Love/teaching

Kaye presents "Whiny Brats" posted at Silencing the Stones.

After getting a bit frustrated with my son, I have a bit of a revelation about myself.

Angela presents "Fool, Foolishness, Folly" posted at He Speaks To Me.

A study of
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves. That he may not be wise in his own eyes." (Proverbs 26: 4-5 NAS)

Lazarus
Redemption/Salvation

Rick Schiano presents "Let Go, Forget the Past, but not All of It" posted at Ricks Victory Blog.

There are two men in the Bible that made huge mistakes and went through majoring grieving because of those errors. They are Peter and Judas. Let’s look at the lives of these two men and see what happened to them to cause this grief.

Andrea presents "Sin and the Snake" posted at Unfailingly Loved.

We play with it, and we play with it and we play with it – until it plays with us.

Mary
Discipleship/follower/student

michelle presents "Meditation On Isaiah 58:1-12" posted at Stepping Out In Faith To The Nations...

What does fasting really mean to me? What is the kind of fasting the Lord wants from us? I know in the past, when I’ve tried to fast for things, for answered prayers, for selfish reasons, I haven’t had much success. That kind of fast is just too hard or it is I am fasting for all the wrong reasons.

Becca presents "Mothering as a Journey" posted at Inspiration for Mothers.Com.

Spiritual journeys are not about reaching the destination - for when you reach the destination the journey is over - they are all about how you travel.

Barry Wallace presents "Pride, that epidemic vice" posted at who am i?.

After a week of fall break, or “fall reading days”, things are once again back in full swing here at Southern. Our latest lecture in Biblical Counseling concerned the putting off of pride, and the putting on of humility. Dr. Scott, I believe, very accurately described pride as an “epidemic vice”.

Michael presents "Security in God" posted at Chasing the Wind.

Where do you find security in times of trouble? Wealth? Job? People? David teaches us in Psalm 62 that security is found only in God.

Herbert Anderson presents "Top 50 Blogs for Online Scripture Study" posted at A Blog of Biblical Proportions.

Do you like to analyze scripture from the Bible? Or, do you simply want daily solace through a meditative verse? The following list of top fifty blogs for online scripture study includes blogs that range from the daily verse variety to scholarly studies that include Hebrew poetry and more.

Melissa Hedding presents "Grown Up" posted at Finds For Families.

How parenting helps us grow more Christ-like.

Jody Neufeld presents "What should a congregation following Jesus Christ in ministry look like?" posted at Jody's Devotionals.

A congregation following Jesus would . . .

David Porter presents "God's Survival Guide for Enduring Economic Hard Times" posted at A Boomer in the Pew.

This current recession has been very difficult for a great many in our nation . . . One of the first things that the Christian must wrap their minds around is that God is in control, is sovereign, and in a most mysterious way has ordained this.

loswl presents "Conquering The Sinful Nature" posted at W2W Soul: Windows to The Woman's Soul.

Woman to Woman, if we’re really honest with ourselves, we have either said or thought similar expressions of frustration, upon failing a test or trial that we have faced and continue to face.

Martha
Servanthood/Missions/Ministry

Richard H. Anderson presents "You satisfy the hungry heart" posted at dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos .

“The proposition of a priestly agenda for reconciliation” is a provocative thesis

John
Reportage/observation/stories/evangelism/apologetics

Ken Brown presents "Stargate, the Christian Story, and the Role of Humanity in the Universe" posted at C. Orthodoxy.

Stargate Universe well illustrates the problem (watch it on Hulu). The show follows a group of people who have been transported to an ancient starship hurtling through the far reaches of the universe, “several billion light years from home.”

John presents "Free Will and the Quantity of Evil" posted at Brain Cramps for God.

A post about free will and the "problem" of evil

Weekend Fisher presents "Did any of the gospels claim to have been written by an eyewitness?" posted at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength.

Weekend Fisher reviews a misstatement of facts in Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities. Part of a series on stock claims against the New Testament.

Brian Marchionni presents "False Hope in Advertising" posted at Boston Bible Geeks.

A series of ads funded by eight atheist groups are being posted in the New York subway system. The ads will show a blue sky with the words, “A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?”

Jeremy Pierce presents "Fate Without Providence" posted at Parableman.

J.J. Abrams wants to have fate without providence.

Diane R presents "Great Book out on Secularism and Christianity" posted at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet.

What happens when a secularist becomes a Christian? A review of a great interview with a former secularist.

Henry Neufeld presents "Comforted" posted at Jevlir Caravansary.

She wasn’t comfortable with this visit, but it was her duty. He had lost his son just three weeks earlier and she had conducted the funeral. The death had been sudden, tragic. The man had lost his wife only three years earlier, and his son was his life. At the funeral he had been devastated. Now he looked peaceful, almost happy. It was very strange . . .

Marcus Maher presents "Book Review: Are You the One Who is to Come?" posted at Seeking the truth....

This is the first of what I hope will be a series of book reviews on new books in theology or biblical studies (no more than 12 months old). I hope to provide one review per month.

The Perfumed Oil
wealth/possessions/finance/work/politics

FMF presents "A Man Skilled in His Work" posted at Free Money Finance.

I've never written about what the Bible has to say about your career. I have talked about the value of hard work (which the Bible regularly highlights in Proverbs), but never your job/career itself. So let's talk about it now, starting with this verse:

Jay Richards presents One Best Way on Immigration? posted at The Enterprise Blog.

The blog is about the NAE’s recent resolution on immigration reform, specifically questioning whether the policy endorsements of the resolution follow from any distinctively evangelical belief.

Romans 6:15-23 -- "Free - and a Slave"

2009-10-27T00:01:00.000-07:00

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

The text:

The Believer’s Enslavement to God’s Righteousness

(NET) Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Absolutely not! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves¹³ as obedient slaves,¹⁴ you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness?¹⁵ 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves to sin, you obeyed¹⁶ from the heart that pattern¹⁷ of teaching you were entrusted to, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became enslaved to righteousness. 19 (I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh.)¹⁸ For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free with regard to righteousness. 21 So what benefit¹⁹ did you then reap²⁰ from those things that you are now ashamed of? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now, freed²¹ from sin and enslaved to God, you have your benefit²² leading to sanctification, and the end is eternal life. 23 For the payoff²³ of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Notes:

¹³ tn Grk “to whom you present yourselves.”
¹⁴ tn Grk “as slaves for obedience.” See the note on the word “slave” in 1:1.
¹⁵ tn Grk “either of sin unto death, or obedience unto righteousness.”
¹⁶ tn Grk “you were slaves of sin but you obeyed.”
¹⁷ tn Or “type, form.”
¹⁸ tn Or “because of your natural limitations” (NRSV).
sn Verse 19 forms something of a parenthetical comment in Paul’s argument.
¹⁹ tn Grk “fruit.”
²⁰ tn Grk “have,” in a tense emphasizing their customary condition in the past.

²¹ tn The two aorist participles translated “freed” and “enslaved” are causal in force; their full force is something like “But now, since you have become freed from sin and since you have become enslaved to God….”

²² tn Grk “fruit.”

²³ tn A figurative extension of ὀψώνιον (opsōnion), which refers to a soldier’s pay or wages. Here it refers to the end result of an activity, seen as something one receives back in return. In this case the activity is sin, and the translation “payoff” captures this thought. See also L&N 89.42.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

Sermon Notes:

“you are slaves to the one whom you obey”
“Freedom” is deliverance from enslaving powers that prevent people from becoming what God intended!
Habitual obedience leads to a condition of slavery.
I become slave to whatever I obey.
Two Positions: you are slaves to the one whom you obey - whether you are slaves to
1. sin, which leads to death
2. obedience, which leads to righteousness
Two practices: slavery to impurity or slavery to righteousness
1. “you used to…” offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever increasing wickedness
2. “so now…” offer the parts of your body in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness (“sanctification”)
Two results: “death” or “eternal life”
Two benefits:
1. When you look back, what was the “benefit” of that life?
2. Now that you are a slave to God, what is the “benefit”?

Next: 7:1-6 -- "Free From Law to Live by the Spirit"

The Problem of Evil: Free Will and the Quantity of Evil

2009-10-25T11:59:00.000-07:00

Luke at Common Sense Atheism is continuing his series Arguing about Evil with the post "Plantinga’s Free Will Defense". Go read that.

This was started as a comment there, and then got to long-winded to keep as a comment.

Hi Luke,

First, a person with an antisupernatural bias should be careful about dismissing supernatural reasoning in an argument about the existence of God - indeed supernatural beings could be causing some of the natural distress. As you implied, this wouldn't be the first place I went - I think all of nature was "broken" in the Fall.

Second, a bit of a nit-pick with your slipping in the comment about Hitler and his genes. I do not think genes are deterministic of someone's evil. Frankly, I have a problem with slipping Hitler in at all - the problem of evil is not about the extremes; it is about the day-to-day decisions of regular human beings and not about the most cruel monsters. However, more importantly, if we are going to make evil a deterministic result of bad genetics (as that implies) then are you saying that - along with Dawkins - you see a possible ultimate solution to evil in society being based in some form of eugenics?

You are glossing over the implications of free will way to quickly. First, let's talk about what free will is in my view:
. . . a better definition is that it is the ability to decide between alternatives. Desire is a passion, an emotion; but will is a choice between two or more desires . . . Freedom is not in unlimited options, but in unfettered choice between whatever options there are. As long as the choosing comes from the individual rather than an outside force, the decision is made freely. Free will means the ability to make an unforced decision between two or more alternatives. [I am following Norm Geisler's presentation of the "problem of evil" in When Skeptics Ask -- all the quotes are from there unless otherwise stated]
This obviously allows more determinism in our free will decisions than the extremes of the discussion sometimes allow. Geisler also states the potential vs actualization issue in a much more accessible manner:
That doesn't make Him [God] responsible for evil. He created the fact of freedom; we perform the acts of freedom. He made evil possible; men made evil actual. Imperfection came through our abuse of our moral perfection as free creatures.
If we were created free, as a basic decision and committment of God in creating humanity, then unless God intervenes in that freedom almost continually in an overt way, then we will have evil.

Evil is not a thing-in-itself, it is the absence of good; or a corruption in the good. If your shiny car rusts are you going to complain that oxygen and water are evil and God shouldn't have allowed them to exist? This is the exact nature of our human corruption. Another way it has been put: it is a bad relationship between good things:
In some cases, though, evil is more easily explained as a case of bad relationships. If I pick up a good gun, put in a good bullet, point it at my good head, put my good finger on the good trigger and give it a good pull. . . a bad relationship results. The things involved are not evil in themselves, but the relationship between the good things is definitely lacking something. In this case, the lack comes about because the things are not being used as they ought to be. Guns should not be used for indiscriminate killing, but are fine for recreation. My head was not meant to be used for target practice.
Frankly, the world is getting more corrupt, and the relationships between good things are getting more out of whack, because of the arrogance of humanity about its own ability to accomplish what it wishes by its own lights without thinking about the price - and because we are becoming more self-involved and self-indulgent. It is a long-term unintended consequences of utilitarian ethics, and our viewing people not for their intrinsic value, but for their utility and benefit to us and society. They are not worthy because (and simply because) they are human but because of what they can accomplish that benefits us.

The famous Christian triumverate that aggravates these bad free will choices is "the world, the flesh, and the devil". Plantinga mentions the last one - and your desire utilitarianism embodies the second and first. As James said:
Where do the conflicts and where do the quarrels among you come from? Is it not from this, from your passions that battle inside you? You desire and you do not have; you murder and envy and you cannot obtain; you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask; you ask and do not receive because you ask wrongly, so you can spend it on your passions.
You wish to promote an ethical system around human desire - and mention the stronger ones (the passions) as being an particularly important gauge. Individual human desire and passion, especially in the west, is largely controlled by greed and envy promoted by the base economic system and culture - especially if you try to account for the whole culture's aggregate desires. The "world" also, because it wants us isolated and more pliable, promotes individualism and a destruction of vocation:
In modern society as well, it is only when people are drawn outside themselves to a greater call or vocation that true community can be built - otherwise we have the "competition of desires" that is the source of the violence and greed of modern life. -- A.J. Conyers, "The Era of Bloodshed, The Listening Heart
That is the same "competition of desires" you wish to make central to the ethical system. So, your complaint about God, to me, boils down to you complaining because God allows someone like you to exist - or really have the possibility of existing. Do not get me wrong - I do not think you personally are evil. However, you are promoting an ethical system based on the aggregate desires of the majority that can only lead - in power - to even worse relationships than the world has seen up to now.
Sooner or later violence overtakes a society that functions chiefly on the basis of the rivalry of competitive desires, on the basis of choice, or on the basis of "freedom" defined as the unhindered will [desire]. Modern secular society is the longest experiment in history attempting to elevate "choice" or this kind of freedom to the level of a basic social principle. It should not be surprising, though I think to many the awareness of this has not surfaced, that modern life is also the most violent period in the history of mankind. -- Conyers
And God, in allowing you free will, has not stopped you - and indeed allowed you to exist in the first place. God allows you to hold a philosophy inimical to His desires and purposes. He has allowed a corruption in His created order to exist by your personal decision to believe, and advocate for what you believe.

That is the "problem" of evil. Free will means you and I essentially agree: the evil in the world comes because people choose to be evil. Period. It has really nothing to do with God - other than His original free will choice to create us that way; and God's unwillingness to "second guess" His original intent by interfering in our bad choices. If that is the case, then the issue is the best way to deal with the evil in the world; and not wasting our energy talking about whether the existence of human corruption means that God does or does not exist. Obviously, I think desire untilitarianism to be the exact opposite of a solution to the corruption and bad relationships in the world (evil) whether God exists or not.

Again, this is not personal to you - it is aimed at the view of the world you hold. Your view can change - it is not determined by your chemistry, upbringing, etc. You, IMO, have free will.

Free will is the essential core of the "problem of evil". Do you have free will or not? Should God have given you free will or not?

What is the benefit of free will - if it indeed leads to evil necessarily? First of all, as C.S. Lewis explored in his sci-fi trilogy, the fact of our freedom did not have to be actualized into acts of evil. Second, even if that evil had to be actualized, freedom still leads to a greater good:
. . . evil cannot be destroyed without destroying freedom. As we said before, free beings are the cause of evil, and freedom was given to us so that we could love. Love is the greatest good for all free creatures [Matt. 22:36], but love is impossible without freedom. So if freedom were destroyed, which is the only way to end evil, that would be evil in itself -- because it would deprive free creatures of their greatest good. Hence, to destroy evil would actually be evil. If evil is to be overcome, we need to talk about it being defeated, not destroyed.
Which, of course, finally actually brings us into Christian theology and its understanding of how God attempts to moderate (and eventually end) the corruption of the good -- and the bad relationships between people (and people and things) -- that characterize human life.

Romans 6:12-14 "Sin Shall Not Be Your Master"

2009-10-24T19:59:00.000-07:00

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

The text:

(NET) Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its desires, 13 and do not present your members to sin as instruments¹⁰ to be used for unrighteousness,¹¹ but present yourselves to God as those who are alive from the dead and your members to God as instruments¹² to be used for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace.

Notes:

¹⁰ tn Or “weapons, tools.”
¹¹ tn Or “wickedness, injustice.”
¹² tn Or “weapons, tools.”

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: This section was also included in the last post - see notes there as well.

Study Notes:

What has God done to equip us to live as His people?
- He sent His Son—to purchase our forgiveness by His blood. (Romans 3)
- He (in the cross) has changed our deepest “identity.” (Romans 6)
- He gives us Himself — His Spirit — for the ability to live by that identity. (Romans 8)
This is because Jesus promised his followers that we would be more than believers:
John 14:20 You will know at that time that I am in my Father and you are in me and I am in you.
So, we must
- Know:
  - God’s (spiritual) truth that we are “united with Him”; we were “baptized into” Christ Jesus Himself
  - “our old self” (man) = “dead”; “our body of sin” is brought to powerlessness
  - Christ died to end the rule of death and sin; we are “in” Him—(in His death and resurrection
- "Count ourselves":
  - to be dead to the rule and power of sin
  - to no longer be under slavery to sin
  - to be “alive to God”—having new life—in His eternal life
  We “count” as true for ourselves—on the basis of what God has done for us in Christ.
- do not offer: I can now choose to “not let sin reign” in my life. (I have new ability because of what God has done.)

So, God has accomplished the essential work to change
- our position before Him,
- our identity as His children and
- our ability to live in His daily grace.

Next: 15-23 -- "Free - and a Slave"