Rapprochement

Hebrews 7:27  "who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for the people's, for this he did once for all when he offered up himself."

Hebrews 6:4-6 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put him to an open shame.

Hebrews 10:26-29 "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.  Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.  Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?"

I had an interesting conversation with some friends last night.  The most intriguing part of the discussion was a disagreement over the meaning of Catholic mass, specifically the Eucahrist and what is implied by the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.  By reading the above quotes, it's pretty easy to infer my view: Catholics recrucify Christ, which verges perilously close to the unpardonable sin.  My friend (who by the way, accurately defended the Catholic point of view--as research this morning has confirmed) said the Catholics view the mass not as a re-crucifixion of Christ, but as a re-presentation (not a representation, lest we get even more confused about symbolic language) of the crucifixion.  Although I fail to really see the distinciton, for the argument's sake, I conceded the point, at least insofar as I did not press on that particular issue of the discussion.

Even conceding the point, I still had to question about he idea of an eternally suffering Christ.  Doesn't this seem to undermine the "once-for-all" nature of his sacrifice?  His rejoinder (and again, as far as I can tell, it was a correct representation of Catholic belief) was that the "once for all" was time-bound language that was true from a human perspective, but that God's perspective, as timeless, may view Christ's sacrifice as eternally occurring.  Now I disagree with this: my understanding of the limitless efficacy of Christ's sacrifice is based on the value of His immeasurable worth as divinity, not on the duration of His suffering's (supposed) eternality.  Yet I have a deeper objection than just personal belief; namely, the injury done to the text by the Catholic position.  By supposing a dichotomy between God's perspective and His revelation to man (i.e. our perspective) they are undoing the force of the text.  The aorist tense in Greek means completed action.  So when God says that Christ died once for all, and uses an aorist, that means the action is completed.  Had the Lord wanted to imply a different meaning, he could have used a present tense verb, an imperfect verb, or any other tense with a durative implication.  But he didn't; he used an aorist, and the exegete in me has to believe that was for a reason.  So while the Catholic position may be logically tenable, and internally consistent, it is hermeneutically unsound.  I hate to get this technical and nuanced, but in theological arguments of this caliber it is someimtes necessary.  To sum up, in my opinion, Catholics are too shrewd to admit that they actually recrucifying Christ in their mass.  And I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and of Christian charity and concede that this is not really their intent.  Even given those concessions however, it seems that the only way to accept their description of mass is to ignore the plain meaning of scriptural revelation and to follow a contrived and possibly phantosmagorical distinction between the revelation of God and reality.  To put it succintly, their interpretation makes the word of God of no account.  Also, the precedent here is just terrible.  Any time someone were to make a valid exegetical point, once could defend their "theology" by imagining that God's perspective might fundamentally alter--might indeed by contrary--to His revealed will. 

I certainly mean no disrespect to my friend, who is kind, thoughtful, and not here to defend himself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the following, I do intend to heap calumny:

Brain Mclaren, one of the key mouthpieces of the emergent church, in his book The Story We Find Ourselves In, says of subsitutionary atonement that it "just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation.  It sounds like divine child abuse."  Perhaps his thinking has been influenced by his co-hort and fellow emergent bloviator Steve Chalke, who says, "The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse--a vengeful father, punishing his son for an event he has not even committed.  Understandably, both people inside and outside the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith.  Deeper than that, however, is that such a construct stands in total contradiction to the statement "God is love."  If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil."

Someone is making a mockery in the above quotes...but I don't think it's who Steve Chalke thinks it is. 

2 Corinthians 5:21  "God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

And as if that weren't straightforward enough, consider

Romans 3:25-36  "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.  He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forebearance he had left the sins committed before hand unpunished--he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

So I can't tell you the origin of McLaren and Chalke's dissatisfaction with the penal, substitutionary atonement--but I can tell you that it's not based on any scriptural objections.

I don't care that they aren't here to defend themselves: these guys are wolves in shepherds clothing, fleecing the faithful, while leading them down a path to hell.  Scripture says it would be better if they hung millstones around their necks and threw themselves into the sea.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So why put these two issues together?  A few reasons:

1)  The really obvious one: I was thinking about them both recently, and this is my blog.

2)  The pretty obvious one: they both deal with discussion about the atoning work of Christ, and how we view/celebrate it.

3)  The subtle one: both views evade (what I consider to be) the plain and obvious meaning of Scripture by appealing to an external consideration--"higher" theology, and postmodern sensibilities, respectively.  Sometimes I think people are too nice today.  We need to earnestly contend for the faith.  While I don't think we need to pull out the "h-word" with frequency, when someone demeans the atoning work of Christ, we should simply follow scriptural descriptions of their teaching--namely, label it the spirit of antichrist.

Kudos to you, how have endured this far, in reading this entry and in the faith.

Have a nice day!  

"Super"annuated

1 Corinthians 12:4  "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit"

After you're done reading, consider that I didn't eisegete that as bad as you might think, when you consider the broader application of what the text is saying....(ok that's really just me admitting that I did kind of rip the above verse out of context, which I normally try to avoid in these posts).

The last month has been a time of great reflection for me.  Laura's first Mother's day, our first anniversary, and my first Father's Day have certainly provided ample time to consider the manifold blessings from the Lord this, and every, year.  On an aside, on Father's Day we sang, Praise to the Lord, How Firm a Foundation, A Mighty Fortress is our God, and I Love Thee Lord Jesus.  Now that's a worship service!  If that's the type of hymnody we can expect, then every Sunday should be Father's Day.

A few posts ago, I mentioned some of the financial pressures we were facing as a family.  Perhaps this is an inappropriate forum for such thoughts.  Appropriate or not, I should learn to stop my mouth from grumbling and complaining, as God has always blessed me abundantly beyond my imgagination.  Over the course of a few weeks, a friend bought a lawnmower for us, a family member repaired my car, and our church replaced our entire HVAC unit (inside and out) for free.

I don't know--and I shouldn't--but I would estimate the total gifts at somewhere in the $5000 range. 

To say that we are overwhelmed and thankful would be a massive understatement.  I got a little choked up when my friend gave us the lawnmower, so you can imagine how we felt when our pastor called us and told us that they'd heard about our situation, and wanted to help.  This, from a church I've been attending less than two years.  What a blessing!

The long and short of it is this: the last year has not been perfect.  Indeed, even now my grandfather lies recovering from a severely dehabillitating stroke.  As I consider the prior twelve months, if I try, I am able to recall many negative things--fights with my wife, scares about Elijah's health, money concerns, etc.  But I am more struck by the fact that I can only recall these things if I try.  My natural inclination is to remember our wedding, Elijah's birth, and the gracious gifts of our friends, family, and church.  It has easily been the best year of my life.  It's easy to have levity in retrospect.  Would that I would have this same mind in the midst of my "troubles" and not just after them.

"Now to him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever, amen."

Have a nice day year!  I have!

PS  Many congratulations to the Fosters who are expecting their first child!
PPS  Welcome back to Donald Frank (Liz Eaton's husband) from his tour of duty!!
PPPS  Welcome back to my best man, and best friend, Greg Fennell, from a year teaching in China!!!

Art & Trash

Ephesians 4:11  "And He Himself gave some to be some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers..."

The church simply does not do a good job of supporting garbage collectors.  Whether we realize it or not, garbage collectors have a huge impact on society.  If anyone doubts this, take a moment to consider what modern life would be like without garbage collectors.  Despite their obvious contributions, it seems that garbage collectors are largely ignored by the church.  Little (if any) money is given to support them, and they are not normally considered for the more important ministry positions.  Is it any wonder that so many garbage collectors feel unappreciated, maybe even unwelcome, by the church?  Many pastors wonder, "Why are so many garbage collectors leaving the church?"  Perhaps a better question would be, "Why has the church closed its doors to the garbage collectors?"

Weird, right?    I agree.

Perhaps this will shed some clarity: in the paragraph above, replace the words "garbage collectors" with "artists." 

With all the palaver about the relationship between the church and the arts these days, I thought it might be helpful to consider the absurdity of the nature of their complaints if they were made by any other profession.  I'm fully ready to admit my feelings on this subject are reactionary, and probably overstated owing to the environment in which I live and work.  Moreover, I understand that there is a cultural difference between artistry and garbage collection.  Those facts conceded, it still seems to me that there is a great and growing hue and cry about the "plight" of artists in the church--or, more generally, the relationship between Christianity and the arts in general.  The conventional wisdom goes something like this, "Conservative Christians are too close-minded to appreciate great art.  Thus they don't support the arts, thus no Christian art is produced, and the arts really become less and less Christian, which in turn makes conservative Christians even more hostile to the arts.  Wash, Rinse, Repeat."

And at the risk of sounding redctionistic or tongue-in-cheek, I can't help but think, "So what?"  If any other field were to bemoan their lack of support from the church, would we take them seriously?  I'm a college administrator--should the church have a display of my work, with proceeds going in to my pocket?  My wife is a school teacher.; one would assume that education is an important value for the church...yet she has no patron.  In fact, aside from her (under)paycheck, I don't know that she has received one red cent of support from anyone in the church universal or local for her job (aside from me, that is; it's amazing how many financial burdens teachers are expected to bear for their classes--but that's a different issue).  My grandfather was a janitor his whole life, and I'm reasonably confident that his entire life's work was never once mentioned in a sermon, lesson plan, or any other church communique. 

Nor should it have been.  Nor should my wife or I or other faithful Christians expect the church to subsidize our careers.  That is not Her purpose.  It's not even particularly close to Her purpose.

I'm not anti-art.  Most of my college friends were communications majors.  I envy the musical ability of many people that I know.  One of my former roommates even makes his living by doing graphic design.  I appreciate music and poems and movies and paintings as much as the next quasi-liberal long-haired guy. I am, however, anti-entitlement.  If someone creates worthwhile art and feels led to (or just wants to) pursue a career in the arts, more power to them.  But they should not pillory the church if they don't succeed.

I write poetry.  I really enjoy it.  If I could do that as a living, I probably would.  There are a few things that stand in the way though:

1)  I'm not that dedicated
2)  I'm not that creative
3)  I"m not that talented

If more artists could honestly appraise the value of their art, I think we'd have a lot fewer malcontents.

Have a nice day! 

1 Samuel 7:12  Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen, and called its name Ebenezer, saying, "Thus far the Lord has helped us."

I once commented to Laura that she was my anti-muse.  The type of writing I do in this blog serves only three purposes:

1)  To keep people who care to know informed about my life;
2)  Ostentation/Amusement
3)  An outlet for the my artistic (and I use the term very loosely) and philosophical musings to get differing opinions and feedback.

It is in this third category that Laura functions as my anti-muse--I usually write about things I don't understand, or have trouble processing emotionally.  Laura makes me happy and content, so I tend to have less angst to use as fuel.  What I am saying is that I write more when I am confused and/or dissatisfied.  So in that light, one could look at my lack of postings as a positive--things are going well, so I'm not doing much navel-gazing.  And that is pretty much true.  That notwithstanding, I hope everyone is geared up for a monumental, three-part entry.  I will follow the format above.

I.  Details, Details

Elijah.  That pretty much says it all right now.  When at work, I want to be home with him; when at home, I want to hold him, play with him, train him up in the way he should go, etc.  He has some minor health issues which are taking a slight toll on us emotionally and physically, and a huge toll on us fiscally.
Also, Laura's car needs its exhaust system fixed, and the coolant light just started blinking on occasionally.  My car runs fine, but needs new tires pretty badly.  Additioanlly, it has no A.C., precluding it as viable transportation for baby in the sweltering SC summer.  And speaking of A.C., my HVAC is pretty much dead.  So that's a nice $5000 bill lurking out there for us.  I can't even afford a lawnmower right now, so I'm not entirely sure how this will play out.  I'm seriously considering working a graveyard shift at UPS or Walmart this summer.   

Okay, sorry about that, off of finances.  Parenthood is amazing, more on this below.  Laura seems to be recovering quite well.  Even our little puppy, Mango, seems to be recovering from her life-threatening ordeal (see previous postings).  The doldrums of summer have settled in at work; however, though they be tedious, they will provide a nice respite from the busyness of the previous year.  I'm looking forward to working at VBS in June, and camping on the Florida keys for week in July with Curtis, D'Anna, Greg, Luther, and other various friends.  (Take this as a blanket invitation if you're reading this and interested).  BTW, Laura and baby will be flying home to MI during that week--I'm not that bad of a parent. :)  First year of seminary went well, if not slowly.  I think I made all A's and definitely learned quite a bit (esp. 2nd semester).

II.  Ostentation

Here is a pic of Elijah:

I have newer and better ones, hopefully I'll get them up here soon.

Continuing an old tradition--here is the most perfect fulfillment (so far) of the "bottom three" game that Rudy LXF and I invited.  Curtis and Mark helped us this timeconceptually and Mark did the visual arts (obviously).

"The Mario Brothers"

"Hogan's Heroes"

Speaking of ostentation, I received the following remark on a paper: "A note on your writing style, and I say this to encourage you: at times, your writing conveys powerful and effective imagery, but at other times, it feels like you use too many big words."  I fear this is probably true.  In general, I try to write with flair, if only to hold my interest in writing and the professor's interest in reading.  However, it appears that this tendency is resulting in lugubrious, narcissistic, overwrought language...like that last phrase :) 

III. Artistic/Philosophical Musings

Fatherhood is a completely overwhelming experience.  I'm not going to try and do it justice with some stream-of-conciousness blog entry.  If I write something worthwhile in private, perhaps I'll foist it on you.  Suffice it to say that it stretches a man in every way--I feel more love than I knew I could, more responsibility than I anticipated, and more gratitude to God--both for my son's safety and His Son's sacrifice--than I had ever previously imagined.

I am not a wealthy man.  Read Section I if you need confirmation of this.  I know I'm saved, and healthy, and American, and I have much to be thankful for.  However, the comparative misery of some wretched, imagined cipher in some distant land does little to ameliorate the fact that I can just barely provide for my family's needs.  I don't live in Rwanda, I live here.  And there's just something a little crushing to a man's spirit--to mine anyway--to think that he cannot adequately provide for his family, even when he is working full-time.  I have a tendency to abstract things easily.  In my musings I can get consumed by the fact that I am on a very slow track in an MDiv program and lack the financial resources to accelerate it by even one class.  I got anxious--even angry--when I consider that the house I purchased has lost several thousand dollars over the past year due primarily to the fact that our president is a buffoon.  It is in this state that I find myself overwhelmed, not by the rising tide of expenses and obligations (though I obviously do flounder about in their wake sometimes), but rather by the torrent of love and support shown to us by our friends, family, and church.  When I go home and hug my wife, and hold my son, and pet my animals, and say my prayers, God drowns my sorrows in a river of mercy.  And he often does so via many who read this blog--so thank you, too. 

Here are a few non-sequiters for conversations:

1)  Who are you voting for this year?  I haven't got a clue...

2)  Which do you think is the definition of legalism (you can't say both--pick one):  

a.  "Salvation by good deeds"

b.  "Too much focus on rules"

I had a rather extended discussion (read: disagreement) with someone lately, and I'm curious what your thoughts are.  Yes, yours!

Thanks for enduring this far.

Have a nice day!