We have been working through the book of Exodus in our Sunday School class this semester and just last week began to examine the "plagues" of Egypt. These plagues are variously described as "signs", "wonders", and "acts of judgment" executed by God himself through the prophet Moses so that Egypt may know his power and so that God can claim for himself a people.
In the first chapter of Exodus we see that Pharaoh has become frightened of the growing population of the Israelites and hence embarks on a genocidal plot as reported in verse 22: "Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live." Pharaoh fills the Nile with the blood of Israelite male children and so in the first plague, God returns the favor and turns the waters of the Nile into blood. With this act of judgment God begins a series of increasingly severe punishments that eventually yield the complete freedom of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery.
Of course, the story has a modern side since it is a magnificent and full-orbed portrayal of the nature of sin and the nature of redemption. The unbeliever is oppressed and enslaved by the power of sin but God has come to the aid of those who believe and has called them into freedom so that he can "be their God and they will be his people". God commands all people to believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ so that they might be saved. How foolish to remain in bondage to sin when perfect freedom can be found in Christ!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Modern Debate
I spent last evening at an exceptionally interesting Intervarsity Christian Fellowship event as a guest panelist. The event turned out to be an open forum for students to ask essentially any questions they wished regarding the Christian faith. I was one of four panelists; the others being a colleague in an administration position on our campus, a student, and a female preacher from a local church.
The questions were mostly of the expected variety. What about evolution; How do we know God exists; Why should we pray; Who wrote the Bible and how do we know that it's true. There were a few tricky ones: What about predestination, how do I combat doubt, how should I live my life and what about "dating"?
The question that brokered the most interesting controversy involved the role of women in the church. As a man of the reformed faith my position is that scripture clearly teaches the perfect equality of men and women in terms of identity (both are made in the image of God) and scripture also clearly teaches that men and women do not have identical functions in the context of the church. When Paul writes in I Timothy 2:12 that
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."
This injunction clearly prohibits women from taking on the role of Pastor or Elder within the church structure. I find it quite odd that someone can read this text and argue that women should be Pastor's when that is what the text clearly forbids. The reasoning goes something like 'in the culture of his time there were women who were mis-using their positions of teaching and authority within the church and Paul was telling them to stop that mis-use'. They thus seek to relativize the equation.
But none of that logic is to be found anywhere in the text of scriptures. In fact, we are not left to guess as to what Paul's actual reason for giving this injunction was since he clearly states it: 'For Adam was formed first, then Eve'. It is a reason rooted in the historical fact of creation and the fall. Since this historical fact is equally true in all cultures at all times, there is no room to make this a culturally relative statement on womens roles within the church. The female panelist, herself a minister, strongly objected of course, but did not mount a serious biblical case for her position.
We also, very predictably, disagreed on the position of predestination; she taking the Arminian position and myself take the orthodox reformed position that God is sovereign in electing his children and giving them 'new birth'. Putting these two (important and relevant) issues asside, however, the panel was largely united in thought and heart and I hope that people were truly encouraged and edified.
The questions were mostly of the expected variety. What about evolution; How do we know God exists; Why should we pray; Who wrote the Bible and how do we know that it's true. There were a few tricky ones: What about predestination, how do I combat doubt, how should I live my life and what about "dating"?
The question that brokered the most interesting controversy involved the role of women in the church. As a man of the reformed faith my position is that scripture clearly teaches the perfect equality of men and women in terms of identity (both are made in the image of God) and scripture also clearly teaches that men and women do not have identical functions in the context of the church. When Paul writes in I Timothy 2:12 that
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."
This injunction clearly prohibits women from taking on the role of Pastor or Elder within the church structure. I find it quite odd that someone can read this text and argue that women should be Pastor's when that is what the text clearly forbids. The reasoning goes something like 'in the culture of his time there were women who were mis-using their positions of teaching and authority within the church and Paul was telling them to stop that mis-use'. They thus seek to relativize the equation.
But none of that logic is to be found anywhere in the text of scriptures. In fact, we are not left to guess as to what Paul's actual reason for giving this injunction was since he clearly states it: 'For Adam was formed first, then Eve'. It is a reason rooted in the historical fact of creation and the fall. Since this historical fact is equally true in all cultures at all times, there is no room to make this a culturally relative statement on womens roles within the church. The female panelist, herself a minister, strongly objected of course, but did not mount a serious biblical case for her position.
We also, very predictably, disagreed on the position of predestination; she taking the Arminian position and myself take the orthodox reformed position that God is sovereign in electing his children and giving them 'new birth'. Putting these two (important and relevant) issues asside, however, the panel was largely united in thought and heart and I hope that people were truly encouraged and edified.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Book Review : Exegetical Falacies
I've nearly completed reading an exceptionally well written text by D. A. Carson entitled "Exegetical Fallacies". It is a brief compendium (about 140 pages of narrative) of the most common logical and rhetorical errors made by preachers through the ages. As a part-time pulpiteer I understand the ease with which false arguments can be made and incoherent appeals constructed and was hence drawn to the text hoping to avoid such mistakes in the future.
This text catalogs and explains fallacies involving word studies (overgeneralizing and equating semantics with etymology for example), logical errors, improper presuppositions and a wide array of others. While Carson is himself a conservative scholar, he includes examples of errors made by a representative sampling of scholars from fundamentalists to moderates to liberals.
My interest was drawn particularly to the longest chapter; that on 'word study fallacies'. The author speaks at length and with great attention to detail on issues of grammar, syntax, etymology and literary genre. Of particular personal interest was his discussion of how often the notions of synonym and equivalence are conflated. If two words are equivalent, for example, they can be legitimately interchanged in any context without the smallest nuanced change of semantics or connotation or external referent. A confusion between similarity and equivalence can lead to a host of errors which are carefully described throughout the central portion of the text.
It is rare to find a book that is simulatneously modern, rigorous and linguistically rich. This is must reading for anyone who aspires to "rightly divide the word of truth". It gives clear instruction on how to identify likely sources of error and gives, by way of example, a vision of the well trained and renewed mind; an example that in today's postmodern academic environ, is all but extinct.
This text catalogs and explains fallacies involving word studies (overgeneralizing and equating semantics with etymology for example), logical errors, improper presuppositions and a wide array of others. While Carson is himself a conservative scholar, he includes examples of errors made by a representative sampling of scholars from fundamentalists to moderates to liberals.
My interest was drawn particularly to the longest chapter; that on 'word study fallacies'. The author speaks at length and with great attention to detail on issues of grammar, syntax, etymology and literary genre. Of particular personal interest was his discussion of how often the notions of synonym and equivalence are conflated. If two words are equivalent, for example, they can be legitimately interchanged in any context without the smallest nuanced change of semantics or connotation or external referent. A confusion between similarity and equivalence can lead to a host of errors which are carefully described throughout the central portion of the text.
It is rare to find a book that is simulatneously modern, rigorous and linguistically rich. This is must reading for anyone who aspires to "rightly divide the word of truth". It gives clear instruction on how to identify likely sources of error and gives, by way of example, a vision of the well trained and renewed mind; an example that in today's postmodern academic environ, is all but extinct.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Doubting Doubt
The question of "doubt" in the mind and experience of the Christian has recently arisen since I've been asked to participate on a panel discussion centering on the topic of "doubt". The discussion is sponsored by our local Intervarsity Christian Fellowship and while I'm not certain of the composition or size of the panel I expect that they will all be speaking from within a Christian mindset.
In considering this issue the I quickly realized a need to define terms so as to bring clarity to the table. Doubt, when used as a verb, is "to be uncertain about; to consider questionable or unlikely; to hesitate to believe; or to distrust". Synonyms include mistrust, disbelief, question and antonyms include belief, faith, and trust.
It should be immediately apparent that it is foolish to be certain about something that is, by nature, uncertain. It is foolish to be absolutely certain about tomorrows weather or tomorrows stock market performance or even to place your complete trust in the the word of an unreliable man. It is equally foolish, however, to be uncertain about things which are intrinsically reliable. It is foolish to doubt the historicity of the holocaust or the law of gravity or, more to the point, to be uncertain, mistrusting and disbelieving of God and his Word.
Doubt is, of course, a universal human experience but we must carefully distinguish the source and object of our mistrust. Scripturally speaking, doubt in God and his Word is never tolerated or encouraged but is to be cast off. James 1:5-7 says it well when it says that "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord.." If God is the object of our mistrust then we are in error, indulging our sin and must actively seek to believe. In doubting God and his Word we implicitly treat Him as unreliable and not worthy of our trust - we do not give him the glory that is due to his name.
Jesus never said that it was OK to doubt the things of God. When Peter saw Jesus walking on water and asks to come to him Jesus replies "Come". The text then relates that "Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" When Jesus speaks, in this case "Come", the only proper response is belief and complete faith without doubt or mistrust.
Perhaps one reason the so many believers entertain doubts is that they are simply not sure what God has actually said and so are unsure of what to believe. Belief must have an object; there must be external cognitive content; and hence the elimination of doubt must begin with the study of scripture and a corresponding submission to it's teaching. Apart from true knowledge doubt is inevitable and, according to both scripture and logic, a severe weakening of faith.
In considering this issue the I quickly realized a need to define terms so as to bring clarity to the table. Doubt, when used as a verb, is "to be uncertain about; to consider questionable or unlikely; to hesitate to believe; or to distrust". Synonyms include mistrust, disbelief, question and antonyms include belief, faith, and trust.
It should be immediately apparent that it is foolish to be certain about something that is, by nature, uncertain. It is foolish to be absolutely certain about tomorrows weather or tomorrows stock market performance or even to place your complete trust in the the word of an unreliable man. It is equally foolish, however, to be uncertain about things which are intrinsically reliable. It is foolish to doubt the historicity of the holocaust or the law of gravity or, more to the point, to be uncertain, mistrusting and disbelieving of God and his Word.
Doubt is, of course, a universal human experience but we must carefully distinguish the source and object of our mistrust. Scripturally speaking, doubt in God and his Word is never tolerated or encouraged but is to be cast off. James 1:5-7 says it well when it says that "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord.." If God is the object of our mistrust then we are in error, indulging our sin and must actively seek to believe. In doubting God and his Word we implicitly treat Him as unreliable and not worthy of our trust - we do not give him the glory that is due to his name.
Jesus never said that it was OK to doubt the things of God. When Peter saw Jesus walking on water and asks to come to him Jesus replies "Come". The text then relates that "Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" When Jesus speaks, in this case "Come", the only proper response is belief and complete faith without doubt or mistrust.
Perhaps one reason the so many believers entertain doubts is that they are simply not sure what God has actually said and so are unsure of what to believe. Belief must have an object; there must be external cognitive content; and hence the elimination of doubt must begin with the study of scripture and a corresponding submission to it's teaching. Apart from true knowledge doubt is inevitable and, according to both scripture and logic, a severe weakening of faith.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Moral Diversity?
The Synod of Saints has drawn our attention once again to the homosexual issue as it plays out in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). This denomination has gained a large amount of national press over the years for their inner conflict on the homosexual question and this year is no different. The only media coverage of the ELCA 2007 national assembly regarded their action to excise ELCA prohibitions on homosexual conduct by ordained ministers. As the Chicago Tribune reported it "A national assembly of Evangelical Lutherans urged its bishops this weekend to refrain from defrocking gay and lesbian ministers who violate a celibacy rule, but rejected measures that would have permitted ordaining gays churchwide." The article goes on to report that proponents of the homosexual agenda described the pain of having to choose between ministry and a life-long partner.
Mr. Modern is like all of us, sympathetic to human pain and is willing to extend the benefit of a doubt even when the pain seems embellished with tears of the croc. But this kind of pain is absurd. It is outrage over the pain of sanctification; the fury of an alcholic who feels the pain of sobriety or the rage of a slanderer who feels the cruel torment of having to control their tongue. The argument pre-supposes that homosexuality is a virtue, a positive good, and that to choose between mutually exclusive virtues (ministry and homosexual behavior) is simply not fair.
The argument really rests on a foundation of genetic diversity. The homosexual, they will say, is homosexual by virtue of genetic composition - a simple variation on the more prevalent genetics of the heterosexual. The logic of such thinking goes something like this. Premise: Human identity is defined by ones genetic makeup. Premise: It is immoral to ask others to behave in ways that are inconsistent with their fundamental identity. Premise: Homosexuality is embedded in the human genetic structure. Conclusion: It is immoral to ask homosexuals to behave in non-homosexual ways. The locus of complete human autonomy is thereby found in the genes. Any behavior with a genetic source becomes a zone of morality-free license. The real fly in the ointment however is that all behavior is genetically sourced. The Bible forbids lust in the heart of the 19 year old male heterosexual and it forbids adultry although the genetic drive is universally acknowledged. The Bible also clearly forbids homosexual conduct regardless of whether or not a genetic component is in play (and Mr. Modern is of the opinion that there probably is since Mr. Modern embraces the Reformed position on "total depravity").
The Chicago Tribune article concludes with this final sentence: "The 2.5 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, based in St. Louis, believes the Bible is literally true and does not ordain gays." The use of the term"literally" is worth noting. First Corinthians 6:9-10 says "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." What kind of mental gymnastics would it take to read this non-literally as "homosexuality is a non-wicked positive good in the eyes of God"? The Missouri-Synod position does not require belief in a literally true Bible - any belief will do. A belief that is obviously lacking in the ELCA.
Mr. Modern is like all of us, sympathetic to human pain and is willing to extend the benefit of a doubt even when the pain seems embellished with tears of the croc. But this kind of pain is absurd. It is outrage over the pain of sanctification; the fury of an alcholic who feels the pain of sobriety or the rage of a slanderer who feels the cruel torment of having to control their tongue. The argument pre-supposes that homosexuality is a virtue, a positive good, and that to choose between mutually exclusive virtues (ministry and homosexual behavior) is simply not fair.
The argument really rests on a foundation of genetic diversity. The homosexual, they will say, is homosexual by virtue of genetic composition - a simple variation on the more prevalent genetics of the heterosexual. The logic of such thinking goes something like this. Premise: Human identity is defined by ones genetic makeup. Premise: It is immoral to ask others to behave in ways that are inconsistent with their fundamental identity. Premise: Homosexuality is embedded in the human genetic structure. Conclusion: It is immoral to ask homosexuals to behave in non-homosexual ways. The locus of complete human autonomy is thereby found in the genes. Any behavior with a genetic source becomes a zone of morality-free license. The real fly in the ointment however is that all behavior is genetically sourced. The Bible forbids lust in the heart of the 19 year old male heterosexual and it forbids adultry although the genetic drive is universally acknowledged. The Bible also clearly forbids homosexual conduct regardless of whether or not a genetic component is in play (and Mr. Modern is of the opinion that there probably is since Mr. Modern embraces the Reformed position on "total depravity").
The Chicago Tribune article concludes with this final sentence: "The 2.5 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, based in St. Louis, believes the Bible is literally true and does not ordain gays." The use of the term"literally" is worth noting. First Corinthians 6:9-10 says "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." What kind of mental gymnastics would it take to read this non-literally as "homosexuality is a non-wicked positive good in the eyes of God"? The Missouri-Synod position does not require belief in a literally true Bible - any belief will do. A belief that is obviously lacking in the ELCA.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Genetic Diversity and Liberal Positivisim
A recent study by Harvard professor Robert Putnam is gaining attention from the press. His study addressed the effect of genetic diversity on society as a whole. The study surveyed about 30,000 individuals asking them about such things as their level of trust in neighbors, police, and government officials; how they spent their own leisure time; how often they voted in public elections; their level of participation in civic organizations and other such indicators.
The finding indicated that genetic diversity is inversely related to civic health. As the Boston Globe put it "The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings...the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings."
After decades of propaganda and positive-think touting the virtues and benefits (especially the academic benefits) of genetic diversity the liberal mind is being challenged by actual data. This study strikes at one of the central questions of human life, the question of "how can we live in harmony (as united people) in the face of so much difference (genetic and ethnic diversity)?" With almost our entire attention focused on an increase of diversity simply for diversities sake, we overlook the far more fundamental issue of what will hold us together? An increase in difference cannot possible lead to a healthy society without a clearly defined and universally embraced unifying ideology.
The unification sought be the liberal mind seems to be found in the political and intellectual spheres. They seek a political system that will institutionalize the "unifying" ideal of increasing genetic diversity while forcing academics to walk in lock-step with propagandistic opinions that support this ideal. Even Professor Putnam, a liberal-minded supporter of diversity, concludes his study with a profound example of anti-scientific positive-think when he says that "[these social trends] have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed". Apparently, despite the evidence, Professor Putnam clings to the notion that there must be a way to bow down to the god of genetic diversity without consequence.
The Christian church has held the answer to this dillema for millenia. The church is united by the Spirit of God, is uniform (united and non-diverse) in what it believes intellectually; how it behaves morally; and even genetically since we are all made in the image of God. It is diverse (non-uniform) in irrelevant genetic ways and in terms of function for God has given his gifts to men as he has choosen. Putnams study just recently discovered this to be true. In his study he found that the Evangelical Mega-Churches had the most healthy of civic lives and sees them as something of a model for political change. Good luck Professor Putnam - you'll need it to grow a church without Christ.
The finding indicated that genetic diversity is inversely related to civic health. As the Boston Globe put it "The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings...the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings."
After decades of propaganda and positive-think touting the virtues and benefits (especially the academic benefits) of genetic diversity the liberal mind is being challenged by actual data. This study strikes at one of the central questions of human life, the question of "how can we live in harmony (as united people) in the face of so much difference (genetic and ethnic diversity)?" With almost our entire attention focused on an increase of diversity simply for diversities sake, we overlook the far more fundamental issue of what will hold us together? An increase in difference cannot possible lead to a healthy society without a clearly defined and universally embraced unifying ideology.
The unification sought be the liberal mind seems to be found in the political and intellectual spheres. They seek a political system that will institutionalize the "unifying" ideal of increasing genetic diversity while forcing academics to walk in lock-step with propagandistic opinions that support this ideal. Even Professor Putnam, a liberal-minded supporter of diversity, concludes his study with a profound example of anti-scientific positive-think when he says that "[these social trends] have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed". Apparently, despite the evidence, Professor Putnam clings to the notion that there must be a way to bow down to the god of genetic diversity without consequence.
The Christian church has held the answer to this dillema for millenia. The church is united by the Spirit of God, is uniform (united and non-diverse) in what it believes intellectually; how it behaves morally; and even genetically since we are all made in the image of God. It is diverse (non-uniform) in irrelevant genetic ways and in terms of function for God has given his gifts to men as he has choosen. Putnams study just recently discovered this to be true. In his study he found that the Evangelical Mega-Churches had the most healthy of civic lives and sees them as something of a model for political change. Good luck Professor Putnam - you'll need it to grow a church without Christ.
Monday, August 13, 2007
(D)Evolutionary Extinction
Most major news outlets reported this past week on the probable extinction of the Yangtze River dolphin. The baiji are a species of freshwater dolphin found only in the Yangtze river in China and there have been no reported sightings of a baiji dolphin in several years.
A group of scientists recently spent six weeks scouring the river for any sign of the baiji dolphin but failed to spot a single one. The expedition was led by Swiss scientist August Pfluger. After reaching the conclusion that the baiji dolphin are probably extinct in spite of efforts at preservation, Mr. Pfluger comments that "We have to accept the fact that the Baiji is functionally extinct. We lost the race. It is a tragedy, a loss not only for China, but for the entire world. We are all incredibly sad."
Given that evolutionists believe in the "survival of the fittest" and the "death of the least fit" it is difficult to understand saddness at the loss of a species. Under evolutionary theory, the loss of a species is the fundamental law of nature and one which cannot (and I think most evolutionists would argue) should not be altered since it is the mechanism by which this entire universe has come to be. The reaction of the evolutionist to the extinction of a "weak" species should seem to be one of optimism and joy as the fitness of all living things for this planet has increased; that is to say, that when viewed in a global sense, things will have improved for all remaining life! Perhaps they would posit that simply the existence of the baiji dolphin provides some net gain in the ever-ascending evolutionary staircase of man, a kind of prostration before the supreme ideal of biological "diversity"; but such an axiom seems to stand in opposition to evolutionary reality.
Of course the Christian has a well-founded motive to preserve species and a well-grounded reason to be saddened at the loss of life. God himself has placed man as ruling steward over all of his creation and has commanded him to manage it with wisdom. Since all of creation reflects the creative glory of God it is with sadness that we see the dimming of this reflection and the failure of man to preseverve this reflected light. From the Christian perspective then, the extinction of the baiji demonstrates more than anything the devolution of modern man since it demonstates an internal conflict between what is true and what is desired. What the evolutionist believes is at odds with what the evolutionist feels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
