Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
What does snow say about us and Jesus? Or snow as a little "s" sacrament.
Today it is snowing in my native Birmingham, a rarity this far south. So I began to look out my office window ( a blessing in itself) and reflect on what we love about snow, why we love it, what that says about who we are, and what all of us really need. Here is my view from my window.
Why though, why love change so much? Why value the rare so thoroughly? I think, and I believe myself to be in good company here, that there is something innate in the human to want change. The reason being things aren't like they're supposed to be. We crave new, but we hear "There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9; and I fully believe tomorrow if it is still snowing, we'll still love it.
If we suppose though that in a week, next thursday we are still trudging through snow to get to work, to class, to get home our tunes will change. Because snow didn't fix anything, the promises of romance, of snowball fights, and hot chocolate have faded and it isn't new anymore and even if the promises were fulfilled they'll be insufficient. Snow can only be a brief respite before it becomes our background and life is mundane again.
Snow is something else. Snow is sacramental. When I say things like this, I come from a context where I think reality is sacramental in that all reality points to things other than itself. Snow shows us something, something real and needed. It shows the need for change, the artistry of the creator, and other things I won't even begin to try to list. The change it brings about points us to a greater change. Snow shows us we want something else, but snow can't fulfill what we long for. Snow as many other things is insufficient.
But not all things are insufficient, there is one who brings a permanent change because of his own sufficiency and he will proclaim from his Throne "Behold! I am making all things new." Revelation 21:5
So I sit here looking out my blessed window enjoying the snow and desiring something else new, or perhaps something newer than anything we can imagine.
As I do this I must say, I live a life full of God's grace, in fact if I am theologically consistent even the "bad" things in my life God has graciously allowed and planned for my good. I love my life, it isn't easy, but it is good.
Today my life is white, and what I mean by that is imagine your favorite movie, and now imagine the backdrop as snow (if the backdrop is snow lose the movie for another). It's different right? Imagine Aragorn killing orcs in the snow or the dude getting snow in his white russian. It familiar but it seems different. The backdrop for life has changed.
It seems like everyone in Birmingham (according to my facebook and Twitter feed) loves this change of background, and honestly so do I.
Why though, why love change so much? Why value the rare so thoroughly? I think, and I believe myself to be in good company here, that there is something innate in the human to want change. The reason being things aren't like they're supposed to be. We crave new, but we hear "There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9; and I fully believe tomorrow if it is still snowing, we'll still love it.
If we suppose though that in a week, next thursday we are still trudging through snow to get to work, to class, to get home our tunes will change. Because snow didn't fix anything, the promises of romance, of snowball fights, and hot chocolate have faded and it isn't new anymore and even if the promises were fulfilled they'll be insufficient. Snow can only be a brief respite before it becomes our background and life is mundane again.
Snow is something else. Snow is sacramental. When I say things like this, I come from a context where I think reality is sacramental in that all reality points to things other than itself. Snow shows us something, something real and needed. It shows the need for change, the artistry of the creator, and other things I won't even begin to try to list. The change it brings about points us to a greater change. Snow shows us we want something else, but snow can't fulfill what we long for. Snow as many other things is insufficient.
But not all things are insufficient, there is one who brings a permanent change because of his own sufficiency and he will proclaim from his Throne "Behold! I am making all things new." Revelation 21:5
So I sit here looking out my blessed window enjoying the snow and desiring something else new, or perhaps something newer than anything we can imagine.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Some responses reflecting on Calvinism-Arminianism and Evangelicalism-Liberalism
The core of this blog was written in correspondence, I have done my best to reformat it. Italics within parenthesis in the context of quotes is my interjection. In Bold is what I am responding to.
There is an undercurrent of liberalism amongst some "evangelical" and I use that term loosely, discussion of theology these days. I approach the following interlocutor from a stance of trying to weigh arguments based on merit and not their systems of origin. Yet sometimes these two are far to bound together to separate. This particular theological discussion was in respect to Arminianism and Calvinism. As most of you know I am unapologetically the latter.
"I do believe that these matters are important (that is Calvinism and Arminianism). But even so, it seems to me that Paul's alleged treatment of these topics are in the service to instructions about Christian unity, charity and humility. I think that too many people fail to see why these doctrines are presented."
Agreed some people often do not know why Paul writes what he does, but the answer lends itself to one interpretation or the other, not equally to both. Ultimately I think the difference is important, I disagree. Calvinism/Arminianism changes the way you conceive of the scope of redemptive history. This is no small matter, at the same time it can change what you say when you worship God and cause a restructuring of worship. But it is not as if there were no texts mentioning this, which is a hard thing to imagine, that we would be without beliefs corresponding to one of these systems.
A proper doctrine of God (and really all of theology is in relation to his action and design) is essential so that our worship can correspond to a proper view of God and not an idol we have fabricated in our head. This applied to this situation means that either Arminians or Calvinists are attributing something false to God. This may not be damning but it is serious.
"It also seems to me that there is a need for us to individually come to grips with the degree to which our intuitions and personalities influence our thinking about these matters. I suspect our own personalities have a huge role in how we process theology. Over the years, I have noticed a remarkable connection between personalities and beliefs. I guess what I am saying is that one's doctrinal beliefs are not merely a matter of biblical texts. Most people don't have this awareness and so dialogues are often unproductive."
I agree and disagree, yes intuitions shape theology. They shape everything, but hermeneutics is the unravelling of intuitions through linguistics, history, text criticism, and applying these with a few philosophical notions (biblical usually) to narrow the level of the distance between the reader and the text in the reading of the text. I am not as skeptical as to whether we can reconstruct Paul's mind. So a good reading of Scripture can undo some of these intuitions we bring to the discussion.
Sometimes in this discussion the view of Scripture of the person is the problem. Such as someone stating that, "In the O.T. Satan wasn't evil, this is because there is no evidence until the intertestamental period for Satan being considered evil."
I don't think this person is what is called a Biblicist, that is I do not think he believes that the Bible is a complete unity. Meaning this person would say when we reconstruct say John's mind and Peter's mind from their texts they may disagree. There does not exist for this person canonical progression, which in ultimate is what Jesus is, the canon progressed until it culminated in him.
The statement that Satan was not evil in the O.T. and that it was perhaps in the intertestamental period that he became so is right to a level, Jewish or specifically O.T based theology without the balance of the N.T. would be hard pressed to come to a theology of Satan and him be evil. Yet the problem is the balance of the N.T. theology, John clearly places Satan as evil from the beginning, John 8:44 has him as a liar from the beginning and in the book of Revelation 20:2 John creates a connection between Satan and the ancient serpent, tying his evil all the way back to Genesis 3.
Bringing these texts and issues up to people I have gotten the answer "Of course John thinks that, but would Peter think that?"
I believe this answer is implying that scripture can be contradictory and therefore fallible even in matters of theology. If Peter doesn't believe what John believed or even taught the opposite, the doctrine of God becomes affected.
This also leads to a neo-liberal protestant view of Scripture, that Scripture isn't the final authority but we are, at which point we are no longer Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox (I refer to the first split church from Catholicism here). We become liberals, which is in my mind antithetical to being evangelical. Evangelicalism at its heart I think is a Biblicist domain, that scripture is without error or contradiction, and that it is the final authority in manners of Doctrine, worship, and rule of life.
This belief is because God gave them authority by making them inspired. This inspiration is a special revelation above any other in my opinion, God gave us a magnificent gift, and because he is without error and good, he gave us a consistent gift. I consider the purity of scripture on par with the sinlessness of Jesus in that they come from the same method. When God incarnates himself in flesh and his message, he does so purely. The divinity of Jesus and of Scripture is an unbendable bar even when combined with humanity, divinity does not bend.
So I would agree, the way we are wired shapes our theology and this is often ignored. Yet I would add to that, does my personality detract from there existing an objective answer for this issue within scripture. In the end it isn't a salvation issue, but God through his Apostles and Prophets, Gospel writers and Former Prophets (OT historical books) made clear many things. It takes being a good reader and a logical thinker to plow through the depth of Scripture.
The questions I would ask are: does my interpretation ever change the objective truth, and does my interpretation correspond to the methods I believe are best for determining that truth?
There is an undercurrent of liberalism amongst some "evangelical" and I use that term loosely, discussion of theology these days. I approach the following interlocutor from a stance of trying to weigh arguments based on merit and not their systems of origin. Yet sometimes these two are far to bound together to separate. This particular theological discussion was in respect to Arminianism and Calvinism. As most of you know I am unapologetically the latter.
"I do believe that these matters are important (that is Calvinism and Arminianism). But even so, it seems to me that Paul's alleged treatment of these topics are in the service to instructions about Christian unity, charity and humility. I think that too many people fail to see why these doctrines are presented."
Agreed some people often do not know why Paul writes what he does, but the answer lends itself to one interpretation or the other, not equally to both. Ultimately I think the difference is important, I disagree. Calvinism/Arminianism changes the way you conceive of the scope of redemptive history. This is no small matter, at the same time it can change what you say when you worship God and cause a restructuring of worship. But it is not as if there were no texts mentioning this, which is a hard thing to imagine, that we would be without beliefs corresponding to one of these systems.
A proper doctrine of God (and really all of theology is in relation to his action and design) is essential so that our worship can correspond to a proper view of God and not an idol we have fabricated in our head. This applied to this situation means that either Arminians or Calvinists are attributing something false to God. This may not be damning but it is serious.
"It also seems to me that there is a need for us to individually come to grips with the degree to which our intuitions and personalities influence our thinking about these matters. I suspect our own personalities have a huge role in how we process theology. Over the years, I have noticed a remarkable connection between personalities and beliefs. I guess what I am saying is that one's doctrinal beliefs are not merely a matter of biblical texts. Most people don't have this awareness and so dialogues are often unproductive."
I agree and disagree, yes intuitions shape theology. They shape everything, but hermeneutics is the unravelling of intuitions through linguistics, history, text criticism, and applying these with a few philosophical notions (biblical usually) to narrow the level of the distance between the reader and the text in the reading of the text. I am not as skeptical as to whether we can reconstruct Paul's mind. So a good reading of Scripture can undo some of these intuitions we bring to the discussion.
Sometimes in this discussion the view of Scripture of the person is the problem. Such as someone stating that, "In the O.T. Satan wasn't evil, this is because there is no evidence until the intertestamental period for Satan being considered evil."
I don't think this person is what is called a Biblicist, that is I do not think he believes that the Bible is a complete unity. Meaning this person would say when we reconstruct say John's mind and Peter's mind from their texts they may disagree. There does not exist for this person canonical progression, which in ultimate is what Jesus is, the canon progressed until it culminated in him.
The statement that Satan was not evil in the O.T. and that it was perhaps in the intertestamental period that he became so is right to a level, Jewish or specifically O.T based theology without the balance of the N.T. would be hard pressed to come to a theology of Satan and him be evil. Yet the problem is the balance of the N.T. theology, John clearly places Satan as evil from the beginning, John 8:44 has him as a liar from the beginning and in the book of Revelation 20:2 John creates a connection between Satan and the ancient serpent, tying his evil all the way back to Genesis 3.
Bringing these texts and issues up to people I have gotten the answer "Of course John thinks that, but would Peter think that?"
I believe this answer is implying that scripture can be contradictory and therefore fallible even in matters of theology. If Peter doesn't believe what John believed or even taught the opposite, the doctrine of God becomes affected.
This also leads to a neo-liberal protestant view of Scripture, that Scripture isn't the final authority but we are, at which point we are no longer Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox (I refer to the first split church from Catholicism here). We become liberals, which is in my mind antithetical to being evangelical. Evangelicalism at its heart I think is a Biblicist domain, that scripture is without error or contradiction, and that it is the final authority in manners of Doctrine, worship, and rule of life.
This belief is because God gave them authority by making them inspired. This inspiration is a special revelation above any other in my opinion, God gave us a magnificent gift, and because he is without error and good, he gave us a consistent gift. I consider the purity of scripture on par with the sinlessness of Jesus in that they come from the same method. When God incarnates himself in flesh and his message, he does so purely. The divinity of Jesus and of Scripture is an unbendable bar even when combined with humanity, divinity does not bend.
So I would agree, the way we are wired shapes our theology and this is often ignored. Yet I would add to that, does my personality detract from there existing an objective answer for this issue within scripture. In the end it isn't a salvation issue, but God through his Apostles and Prophets, Gospel writers and Former Prophets (OT historical books) made clear many things. It takes being a good reader and a logical thinker to plow through the depth of Scripture.
The questions I would ask are: does my interpretation ever change the objective truth, and does my interpretation correspond to the methods I believe are best for determining that truth?
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Why I Only Date Calvinist Girls: and Why Theology and World-view are Important in Romantic Relationships.
The purpose of this post is to address dating within (and not from without of) a particular theological system. Some have been puzzled by this, I recall staying in a friend's room while my roommate was sick, myself and the friend I was staying with discussed this for quite a while. So I realize it may be strange, but here is a list of reasons and explanations beginning as broad as possible and narrowing to myself eventually.
1. Sharing life = sharing vision.
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24
Some may or may not be surprised to find that my first reference comes from my favorite book of the Bible. In context the editor and/or author has within the account of the creation of man an explanation of marriage. Eve was just taken out of Adam, and he composes a short poem, which comprises v. 23. Using the familiar "bone of my bone," "flesh of my flesh," and ends by calling her woman (isha) because she was taken from man (ish). In consequence marriage is the reuniting or making two flesh one again, which I think is supposed to be understood as completing.
By analogy for this point I will state that a person who has two different world-views is usually labeled as a schizophrenic. Thus worldview is important for sharing one life together. People who marry often have decisions to make together, if they do not see life the same way, then likely they will experience difficulty in marriage. I come from a set of parents that have dissimilar world-views to an extent that has made parenting of myself be interesting at some points. But I think it will suffice to say that people with drastically different world-views probably don't make a good one person union. I will touch on parenting later, but here I will say the issue of an atheist and theist marrying already puts strain on the kids because dad believes X and mom believes not X, then the kid is pulled between the two and also may develop a fractured world-view.
Calvinism is a radically different world-view from the common one. The presence of thinking man is totally depraved, to a point that without God's specific help no one will never come to him. The human will is in a horrid state. God works in this view monergistically, that he is alone the actor in salvation. Man is without part. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the distinct nature of calvinism from other, even christian, world-views.
I have experience trying to reason and make rational decisions with someone who does not share foundations of belief. It is frustrating, often unproductive, and relegates our decisions together as minor rather than major. It is not something I would enjoy having to deal with often.
2. Sharing life = sharing community
"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." Hebrews 10:24-25
"But God has put his Word in the mouth of men in order that it be communicated to other men. When one person is struck by the Word, he speaks it to others. God has willed that we should seek and find His living Word in the witness of a brother, in the mouth of man. Therefore, the Christian needs another Christian who speaks God's word to him. He needs him again and again when he becomes uncertain and discouraged, for by himself he cannot help himself without belying the truth. He needs his brother man as a bearer and proclaimer of the divine word of salvation. He needs his brother solely because of Jesus Christ. The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother; his own heart is uncertain, his brother's is sure." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
The New Testament places an importance of communal life, most of the works that make up the New Testament are works specifically sent to churches. Church and congregational traditions are the modern expression of the gospel centered and saturated life. To live out the gospel one must live in community. Living all life is an expression of community, John Donne's common aphorism rings true, "No man is an island." We all live in community, we are never so separate that we are independent of others.
Now one must ask oneself, what is dating? What is marriage? The relevant answer is this, marriage is the deepest form of human community, perhaps the deepest form of community that excludes the divine. In Ephesians 5 the community of marriage is in a context where the Genesis 2 quote from earlier is said to be applicable to Christ and the Church. The community of marriage is a very deep thing.
I now belong to a tradition, a denomination that is expressly calvinistic (PCA). I also have no intentions of leaving this tradition, even with the onset of marriage and family in the coming years. Thus a woman that I would consider dating and later marrying must be fine with being in this denomination. With being in community with mostly calvinists, to hear preaching/teaching from exclusively this unshared perspective, and to have her significant others actions and intentions saturated from another viewpoint. This leads to parenting
3. Sharing life = sharing lives.
I want to be a father, perhaps one day I'll blog on calvinist parenting. But this leads to another distinct relational conundrum. World-views change actions, I will parent distinctly calvinistically. I intended to use the reformed catechisms to catechize my future offspring. I want my kids to love Jesus and know his truth and his word. As a theologian/churchmen I want to be the primary example and teacher of my kids. I want doctrine to be adorned in my household Titus 2:9-10, and taught from me to my children to help make them better citizens of God's kingdom.
If my wife is a non-calvinist she will inevitably teach our kids, which is not wrong, but will teach different things, creating a dichotomy again in the kids theological and practical lives. For a person act in part from beliefs and world-view. I am a calvinist, this changes the way I worship, parent, think, read Scripture, teach Scripture, work, process tragedy, and relate with others. I will be a very dissimilar person from my significant other if I date a non-calvinist.
4. Sharing life = living with me.
This blog serves as proof I am opinionated, I would particularly be hard to reason with as that I have a very calvinistic and reformed view. So not only would our decision making be difficult from a different world view, but I hold very strongly and expressly to calvinistic views of almost everything, I often look at something in life, and think I need to develop a theology of ____. This is hard to put up with if we agree, could you imagine if we don't.
1. Sharing life = sharing vision.
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24
Some may or may not be surprised to find that my first reference comes from my favorite book of the Bible. In context the editor and/or author has within the account of the creation of man an explanation of marriage. Eve was just taken out of Adam, and he composes a short poem, which comprises v. 23. Using the familiar "bone of my bone," "flesh of my flesh," and ends by calling her woman (isha) because she was taken from man (ish). In consequence marriage is the reuniting or making two flesh one again, which I think is supposed to be understood as completing.
By analogy for this point I will state that a person who has two different world-views is usually labeled as a schizophrenic. Thus worldview is important for sharing one life together. People who marry often have decisions to make together, if they do not see life the same way, then likely they will experience difficulty in marriage. I come from a set of parents that have dissimilar world-views to an extent that has made parenting of myself be interesting at some points. But I think it will suffice to say that people with drastically different world-views probably don't make a good one person union. I will touch on parenting later, but here I will say the issue of an atheist and theist marrying already puts strain on the kids because dad believes X and mom believes not X, then the kid is pulled between the two and also may develop a fractured world-view.
Calvinism is a radically different world-view from the common one. The presence of thinking man is totally depraved, to a point that without God's specific help no one will never come to him. The human will is in a horrid state. God works in this view monergistically, that he is alone the actor in salvation. Man is without part. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the distinct nature of calvinism from other, even christian, world-views.
I have experience trying to reason and make rational decisions with someone who does not share foundations of belief. It is frustrating, often unproductive, and relegates our decisions together as minor rather than major. It is not something I would enjoy having to deal with often.
2. Sharing life = sharing community
"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." Hebrews 10:24-25
"But God has put his Word in the mouth of men in order that it be communicated to other men. When one person is struck by the Word, he speaks it to others. God has willed that we should seek and find His living Word in the witness of a brother, in the mouth of man. Therefore, the Christian needs another Christian who speaks God's word to him. He needs him again and again when he becomes uncertain and discouraged, for by himself he cannot help himself without belying the truth. He needs his brother man as a bearer and proclaimer of the divine word of salvation. He needs his brother solely because of Jesus Christ. The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother; his own heart is uncertain, his brother's is sure." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
The New Testament places an importance of communal life, most of the works that make up the New Testament are works specifically sent to churches. Church and congregational traditions are the modern expression of the gospel centered and saturated life. To live out the gospel one must live in community. Living all life is an expression of community, John Donne's common aphorism rings true, "No man is an island." We all live in community, we are never so separate that we are independent of others.
Now one must ask oneself, what is dating? What is marriage? The relevant answer is this, marriage is the deepest form of human community, perhaps the deepest form of community that excludes the divine. In Ephesians 5 the community of marriage is in a context where the Genesis 2 quote from earlier is said to be applicable to Christ and the Church. The community of marriage is a very deep thing.
I now belong to a tradition, a denomination that is expressly calvinistic (PCA). I also have no intentions of leaving this tradition, even with the onset of marriage and family in the coming years. Thus a woman that I would consider dating and later marrying must be fine with being in this denomination. With being in community with mostly calvinists, to hear preaching/teaching from exclusively this unshared perspective, and to have her significant others actions and intentions saturated from another viewpoint. This leads to parenting
3. Sharing life = sharing lives.
I want to be a father, perhaps one day I'll blog on calvinist parenting. But this leads to another distinct relational conundrum. World-views change actions, I will parent distinctly calvinistically. I intended to use the reformed catechisms to catechize my future offspring. I want my kids to love Jesus and know his truth and his word. As a theologian/churchmen I want to be the primary example and teacher of my kids. I want doctrine to be adorned in my household Titus 2:9-10, and taught from me to my children to help make them better citizens of God's kingdom.
If my wife is a non-calvinist she will inevitably teach our kids, which is not wrong, but will teach different things, creating a dichotomy again in the kids theological and practical lives. For a person act in part from beliefs and world-view. I am a calvinist, this changes the way I worship, parent, think, read Scripture, teach Scripture, work, process tragedy, and relate with others. I will be a very dissimilar person from my significant other if I date a non-calvinist.
4. Sharing life = living with me.
This blog serves as proof I am opinionated, I would particularly be hard to reason with as that I have a very calvinistic and reformed view. So not only would our decision making be difficult from a different world view, but I hold very strongly and expressly to calvinistic views of almost everything, I often look at something in life, and think I need to develop a theology of ____. This is hard to put up with if we agree, could you imagine if we don't.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The connection of Joy and the Reformed tradition.
The pondering of this topic sprung from two later to be mentioned works, one was a history of alcohol in the Church, the other has been Piper's "The Pleasures of God." Both are excellent, but something struck me over the summer as I read the texts on drinking for a paper for class, and has been reaffirmed by reading some Piper works and listening to sermons. This is probably my admission to being a Christian Hedonist. Also I recommend reading the works I will quote from, also reading Calvin's five chapters on the Christian life in his institutes of the Christian religion has been extraordinarily enlightening; Third book chapters 6-10.
Calvin, Joy in the Sufferings of life.
"Whether, therefore, in maintaining the truth of God against the lies of Satan, or defending the good and innocent against the injuries of the bad, we are obliged to incur the offense of and hatred of the world, so as to endanger life, fortune, or honor, let us not grieve or decline so far to spend ourselves for God; let us not think ourselves wretched in those things in which he in which he with his own lips has pronounced us blessed (Matt. 5:10). Poverty, indeed considered in itself, is misery; so are exile, contempt, imprisonment, ignomity: in fine, death itself is the last of all calamities. But when the favor of God breathes upon us, there is none of these things which may not turn out to our happiness." Calvin, Institutes 3:8:7.
Calvin here and in his other chapters on the Christian life speaks of the Christian as a person encountering immense suffering, thus when Calvin speaks of a Christian's joy it is amongst this context. Joy for Calvin is a supernatural gift in suffering. He sees suffering as having the ability to turn into happiness or joy (I think the term happiness here is synonymous with joy) and this is because of having God's favor by following the path of his Son.
I think this aspect of Joy in the Reformed tradition is irreplaceable, I think Calvin understood at the heart of our faith was that God has ordained his followers to suffer and gain his favor and joy through trials, and as we remember trials produce fruit in us (James 1).
To borrow from Piper the idea is that our salvation was not grounded in us, but in God. Because of this our Joy is that our salvation is not changeable, but based in the rock of unchangeable God. Yet we still benefit from it.
Personally I marvel at this, that something can be for God's glory and completely satisfy his wrath, his love, and bruise his son to do so, for himself and his glory, and we benefit from it as well. These aspects of the gospel floor me. This is a true source of joy that is irreplaceable in all life.
Piper and Edwards, Joy in worship extending to all life.
Piper is famous for modifying the Westminster catechism's first question from:
Luther, Joy to avoid sin.
Luther is understood to have thought rejoicing in God to be the most effective way to ward off sin and the tempter. Luther is reported to have said to those who struggle with doubts and serious thoughts that, "Accordingly, you should eat and drink and enjoy yourself. Those who are afflicted with spiritual temptation should be given plenty to eat and drink, but whoremongers and those assailed by lust should fast." Luther, as quoted in Drinking! With Calvin and Luther.
Luther is also as understood as to think joylessness is incompatible with the Christian life. Luther saw Joylessness as an objective of Satan and saw taking Joy, in drink, one's children, one's spouse as mocking Satan, and celebrating victory over him through the Cross.
This is by far the most intriguing portion of theology of Joy in the Reformed tradition. The aforementioned book speaks of Luther using joy to mock the devil. Luther saw Joy in the victory Christ secured for us as a way to thwart sin and the tempter. For Luther Christ bore in himself your sin and your death and therefore when Satan tried to tempt you, you were to rejoice in this and make efforts to attain a Joyous attitude, especially food and drink (specifically the alcoholic kind). Enjoying God's creation and blessing to mock Satan.
This theology needs to be taught more, Joy in God's creation is way to avoid despair and the slough of despond.
To close I would like to say that the Reformers and their theology have made quite an impact on the Christian life. These benefits of understanding the roles and places of joy within our experience and theology are immeasurable. Joy for the Reformers was always something that came from God's grace into an imperfect world as a gift to bring us to God. The promise that proper soul satisfying joy is found in and with God, is comforting in our deepest sufferings.
Calvin, Joy in the Sufferings of life.
"Whether, therefore, in maintaining the truth of God against the lies of Satan, or defending the good and innocent against the injuries of the bad, we are obliged to incur the offense of and hatred of the world, so as to endanger life, fortune, or honor, let us not grieve or decline so far to spend ourselves for God; let us not think ourselves wretched in those things in which he in which he with his own lips has pronounced us blessed (Matt. 5:10). Poverty, indeed considered in itself, is misery; so are exile, contempt, imprisonment, ignomity: in fine, death itself is the last of all calamities. But when the favor of God breathes upon us, there is none of these things which may not turn out to our happiness." Calvin, Institutes 3:8:7.
Calvin here and in his other chapters on the Christian life speaks of the Christian as a person encountering immense suffering, thus when Calvin speaks of a Christian's joy it is amongst this context. Joy for Calvin is a supernatural gift in suffering. He sees suffering as having the ability to turn into happiness or joy (I think the term happiness here is synonymous with joy) and this is because of having God's favor by following the path of his Son.
I think this aspect of Joy in the Reformed tradition is irreplaceable, I think Calvin understood at the heart of our faith was that God has ordained his followers to suffer and gain his favor and joy through trials, and as we remember trials produce fruit in us (James 1).
Calvin, Joy in Advent.
This is a subsection on Calvin's theology of Joy for this blog.
This is from Songs of the Nativity
, a new translation of selected sermons from Luke 1& 2.
, a new translation of selected sermons from Luke 1& 2.
In commenting on the angel’s announcement of “good news of great joy” in Luke 2 Calvin stated:
For Calvin here being objects of God's favor is where our joy is, amidst suffering, our normal lives, our fallen existence true joy is found like the shepherds did, in being objects of God's favor.“Since the angel invites us to rejoice at the coming of Christ, not in any ordinary way but with unbounded delight, let us make the most of the message. What can we say about this joy? If we involve ourselves in worldly pleasures and are wholly absorbed by our own wants, we will never rejoice in the grace of Christ. Let the shepherds instead be or example. Their earthly lot did not change, despite the fact that they had heard the angel’s word and had witnessed the birth of God’s Son. They went back to their flocks exactly as before; they continued to live as poor men, guarding their herds. In terms of the flesh and of this passing world they gained nothing from the privilege which we read about here. For all that, they were full of joy. Theirs is a lead we should follow. For although the gospel might earn us neither wealth nor fame, and although it might not bring us gratification or amusement, nevertheless we should be glad that we are the objects of God’s favour. This is where true blessing and happiness lie, and where real rest is found.”
To borrow from Piper the idea is that our salvation was not grounded in us, but in God. Because of this our Joy is that our salvation is not changeable, but based in the rock of unchangeable God. Yet we still benefit from it.
Personally I marvel at this, that something can be for God's glory and completely satisfy his wrath, his love, and bruise his son to do so, for himself and his glory, and we benefit from it as well. These aspects of the gospel floor me. This is a true source of joy that is irreplaceable in all life.
Piper and Edwards, Joy in worship extending to all life.
Piper is famous for modifying the Westminster catechism's first question from:
"Question 1: What is the chief and highest end of man?
Answer: Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever."
to
"Question 1: What is the chief and highest end of man?
Answer: Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God by fully enjoying him forever."
I am a Piper fan, he is one of the authors who shook me out of the cultural Christianity my mind grew into. That being said I have a bit of war with him changing the catechism, but I also think the thought contained in his change is correct.
Piper and Edwards stress that God is glorified by our joy in him, but make no mistake there is no disagreement here with Calvin. Christianity for these two is a wellspring of joy amongst suffering. The imperfect world cannot satisfy us and our satisfaction in God glorifies God. But this is a proper satisfaction of our souls. My pastor says of Piper and Edwards that they remind us that God's glory and our joy are one thing, forever united.
Piper centers his theology around the chief end of man as finding satisfaction in God and thus glorifying him.
This theology of joy as soul filling satisfaction in glorifying the maker is comprehensive and life changing. This is also a stream of thought in the Reformed tradition I find priceless.
I am a Piper fan, he is one of the authors who shook me out of the cultural Christianity my mind grew into. That being said I have a bit of war with him changing the catechism, but I also think the thought contained in his change is correct.
Piper and Edwards stress that God is glorified by our joy in him, but make no mistake there is no disagreement here with Calvin. Christianity for these two is a wellspring of joy amongst suffering. The imperfect world cannot satisfy us and our satisfaction in God glorifies God. But this is a proper satisfaction of our souls. My pastor says of Piper and Edwards that they remind us that God's glory and our joy are one thing, forever united.
Piper centers his theology around the chief end of man as finding satisfaction in God and thus glorifying him.
This theology of joy as soul filling satisfaction in glorifying the maker is comprehensive and life changing. This is also a stream of thought in the Reformed tradition I find priceless.
Luther, Joy to avoid sin.
Luther is understood to have thought rejoicing in God to be the most effective way to ward off sin and the tempter. Luther is reported to have said to those who struggle with doubts and serious thoughts that, "Accordingly, you should eat and drink and enjoy yourself. Those who are afflicted with spiritual temptation should be given plenty to eat and drink, but whoremongers and those assailed by lust should fast." Luther, as quoted in Drinking! With Calvin and Luther.
Luther is also as understood as to think joylessness is incompatible with the Christian life. Luther saw Joylessness as an objective of Satan and saw taking Joy, in drink, one's children, one's spouse as mocking Satan, and celebrating victory over him through the Cross.
This is by far the most intriguing portion of theology of Joy in the Reformed tradition. The aforementioned book speaks of Luther using joy to mock the devil. Luther saw Joy in the victory Christ secured for us as a way to thwart sin and the tempter. For Luther Christ bore in himself your sin and your death and therefore when Satan tried to tempt you, you were to rejoice in this and make efforts to attain a Joyous attitude, especially food and drink (specifically the alcoholic kind). Enjoying God's creation and blessing to mock Satan.
This theology needs to be taught more, Joy in God's creation is way to avoid despair and the slough of despond.
To close I would like to say that the Reformers and their theology have made quite an impact on the Christian life. These benefits of understanding the roles and places of joy within our experience and theology are immeasurable. Joy for the Reformers was always something that came from God's grace into an imperfect world as a gift to bring us to God. The promise that proper soul satisfying joy is found in and with God, is comforting in our deepest sufferings.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Iron Bowl and Masculine Identity.
*Warning this post contains subjective introspective speculation.
I have lived and continue to live in the Birmingham Al, area. Thus yesterday was as I tweeted "the one day of the year that everyone in state is equally belligerent." There are exceptions to this, like my history prof. who could really care less.
I have worked on saturday this entire football season, on top of this I have schoolwork and business as a Student leader when I'm not working. So when it came to be football time this season, I was nowhere to be found. Till yesterday. I watched the game, well the first half of the first quarter. As an Auburn fan I felt nauseous. I asked myself, why? As some pregame I will tell you that when I was younger I was physically upset by football sometimes. So I had thought about this recently and not experienced it. Till yesterday.
I had thought that the nausea may be caused by the fear of dealing with obnoxious Bama fans. Or by being emotionally tied to the game. Recently on the way back from Toccoa falls Ga with my campus pastor and close friend, I participated in discussion about why men did not come to Church. Identity was one of the ideas tossed about. Here is where I think my football insecurities come from, ultimately I think in the back of my head the fear of being ostracized from Bama fans or others because of my Auburn fanship has the direct correlation with my nausea. My identity and acceptance are on the line for a year, a year of shrugging saying next year, of being really annoyed and on edge. I really don't care about football, it is not important, not to me at least. But this game one game a year has myself and others visibly upset. I think we need to find health in sports. As spectators, we can't let a game ruin our weeks, months, or year if it does, I think you may have issues.
I think often we tie our identity with media consumption, as my pastor would say how repulsive is it to be called a consumer, your designated as someone who consumes things, and that is all you are in some peoples' minds'. So don't add to it by actually finding your identity in media. Find it in Jesus, he who gave his life and gives his righteousness.
Soli Deo Gloria.
I have lived and continue to live in the Birmingham Al, area. Thus yesterday was as I tweeted "the one day of the year that everyone in state is equally belligerent." There are exceptions to this, like my history prof. who could really care less.
I have worked on saturday this entire football season, on top of this I have schoolwork and business as a Student leader when I'm not working. So when it came to be football time this season, I was nowhere to be found. Till yesterday. I watched the game, well the first half of the first quarter. As an Auburn fan I felt nauseous. I asked myself, why? As some pregame I will tell you that when I was younger I was physically upset by football sometimes. So I had thought about this recently and not experienced it. Till yesterday.
I had thought that the nausea may be caused by the fear of dealing with obnoxious Bama fans. Or by being emotionally tied to the game. Recently on the way back from Toccoa falls Ga with my campus pastor and close friend, I participated in discussion about why men did not come to Church. Identity was one of the ideas tossed about. Here is where I think my football insecurities come from, ultimately I think in the back of my head the fear of being ostracized from Bama fans or others because of my Auburn fanship has the direct correlation with my nausea. My identity and acceptance are on the line for a year, a year of shrugging saying next year, of being really annoyed and on edge. I really don't care about football, it is not important, not to me at least. But this game one game a year has myself and others visibly upset. I think we need to find health in sports. As spectators, we can't let a game ruin our weeks, months, or year if it does, I think you may have issues.
I think often we tie our identity with media consumption, as my pastor would say how repulsive is it to be called a consumer, your designated as someone who consumes things, and that is all you are in some peoples' minds'. So don't add to it by actually finding your identity in media. Find it in Jesus, he who gave his life and gives his righteousness.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Worship & Community
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? We don’t need letters of recommendation to you or from you as some other people do, do we? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone, revealing that you are a letter of Christ, delivered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets but on tablets of human hearts.
2 Corinthians 3:1-3 (NET)
Paul is speaking to a Church here, a messed up Church, one that doubted his apostleship. His point is that he doesn't need a letter of commendation. This is because the Corinthian Church is his letter, their existence is authenticating his work. Their existence communicates something. Their existence was communication.
I was worshipping this morning and I noticed that people were shut off, eyes closed, it was them and Jesus, no one else. The thought popped into my brain that in this passage it was the people who communicated a needed truth.
It is our brothers and sisters who warm our hearts and attest the truth of the Gospel. My brothers are there because of God's grace, my sisters are there because of Christ's faithfulness, I am there by the Spirit's prompting and conviction. This is an attestation of a beautiful truth; the gospel is so much bigger than me and Jesus, it is for God's glory and encompasses many others.
To shut ourselves off from others in worship is to deny a communication by God. One that authenticates the gospel, one that nourishes the Church.
Christ is also seen as the writer, they are Christ's letter. He communicated something through his faithfulness, through his choosing, through his gathering a Church together. We are his, we see his faithfulness while we worship in others.
Now is there an aspect of individuality in Christianity? Yes. In Christian worship? Yes. Is there an aspect of Church in Christianity? Yes. Is there an aspect of Church in worship? Yes.
There is a balance don't abuse it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)