C.H. Cobb's Blog, page 14

The visual power of music

Matthew Continetti writes The Star Wars Symphony, a December 19th article on NRO, and he nails it!! Star Wars was created, in many respects, by the sounds and the score, much more than the script. As I said on a Facebook post, the score is so evocative that you could practically write the screenplay from the music alone.
This is a delightful characteristic possessed not only by Star Wars episodes 4-6, but also by the entire Lord of the Rings franchise. The music makes the movie.

There are no spoilers in Continetti's article. Read, enjoy, understand.

What's happened to American academics?

One would like to think that advanced educational attainment is not a dominant factor in causing people to lose all common sense, but after this week I am beginning to wonder.
I found myself having a cordial but firm disagreement with a young lady who possesses a Masters and Bachelors in History and who teaches history in a local community college. She was admonishing a young college student who is in my church regarding Islam. She made the claim that “Muslims are not violent. ISIS is not Muslim if you study their history. ISIS is to Islam in the same manner the KKK is to Christianity. Can't label billions for the actions of a few.”
Certainly I agree with her that you can’t label the billions for the actions of a few. But I am astounded that a woman who teaches history would have such an unhistorical knowledge of the background of Islam. A native of Mecca, Muhammad’s new religion was not accepted—at first—by the other tribes around him. They were polytheists and he was selling monotheism. He fled from Mecca to Medina, where he had greater success in building a following. Mecca itself later converted under the threat of the sword in the early seventh century. The rapid expansion of Islam in the entire Mediterranean region occurred primarily by military conquest, or the threat thereof. Islamic violence is not breaking news, it is a deep-rooted part of their history and finds vigorous theological support in the Quran. ISIS is perhaps the most faithful representation of Islamic roots that we have seen in the modern day.
She is correct that most Muslims today do not pursue violent jihad. Some have reinterpreted the Quran to view jihad as a personal spiritual battle in their pursuit of personal Islamic purity. But it will be unhelpful from both a national policy and personal relational standpoint to revise the history of Islam. Relationships built upon falsehoods are inherently unstable and unsustainable.
The second moment of dismay with academics this week also had to do with Islam. According to an article by Jessica Chasmar appearing in the Washington Times(12/16/2015), a “Christian” tenured Wheaton College faculty member said this: “I love my Muslim neighbor because s/he deserves love by virtue of her/his human dignity. I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.”
I agree with her that we need to love our neighbor, including and especially our Muslim neighbors at a time like this. And I can grant her the stated reason of “human dignity,” though I would frame it a different way: we should love our neighbor because Christ commands us to and because all humans bear the image of God.
But her other reasons are simply incoherent. By definition a Christian is one who places their faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for their sins. Muslims don’t believe that Jesus died on the cross, period. Which sort of puts a kibosh on the resurrection, too, you know? In other words, they deny the central doctrine of the Christian faith. Soooo, in what way exactly can she stand in “religious solidarity” with them?
Secondly, they are indeed people of the book. But it’s the wrong book. This is not trivial sectarianism. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING we know about God and redemptive history comes from the Bible. You don’t lose part of it in the Quran—you lose all of it. Soooo, how can this “Christian” professor make such a claim, tell me again?
Third, I am to understand that we worship the same God? Really? In fact, there is no resemblance, neither superficial nor at greater depth. The true God, the Christian God, exists as one God in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That truth is abominable to the Muslim. Both Christians and Muslims claim that their God is merciful, so that might be a similarity—until you dig deeper, anyway. Then you find that the true God of the Bible is merciful because it is His nature to be merciful and He always acts in perfect accord with who He is. Allah is not so. Allah is pure will. Islam does not think in terms of the attributes of its deity, only in terms of his will. Allah is only merciful if he decides to be so, and he may decide not to be. There is simply no correlation to be made between the true God of the Bible and the god of Islam—unless one is entirely ignorant of one or the other—or of both.
I applaud this professor’s desire to love her neighbor and to avoid disenfranchising her Muslim friends, and I stand with her in that regard. But if you stop and think about her words for just a moment you’ll realize she has dishonored both Christian and Islamic belief by trying to forge a non-existent via media between two irreconcilable belief systems. I certainly can’t stand with her there.
America once had a great educational system. But the words of these two educators make me wonder, what’s happened to American academics? They are not getting even the most basic facts right.

Intractable problems

Sin has immensely complicated matters in a fallen world, to the point at which in some cases there are not only no easy answers, there may not be any good answers. The expression of Christian love toward Syrian refuges may put at risk my neighbor. How is that loving? But refusing mercy to Syrian  refugees is not loving either. It is a conundrum, and I shouldn't be too quick to condemn people on either side of the issue.

There is only One who is able to bring resolution to a world intractably complicated by fallenness. In this Christmas season, I am glad that I belong to Jesus Christ, who has become to me wisdom, righteousness, and redemption.

Here's an article worth reading on the subject.

Hey, brothers, they’re eating our lunch!

Sitting in my sun room, marveling over Romans 5. On the other side of the glass is our suet feeder, and a Red-bellied woodpecker is having a hissy fit. Seems that the sparrows have taken a liking to her suet cake and she’s not reconciled to the idea of sharing. Funny: I don’t recall giving that suet cake to her .

Anyway, she’s (I am informed by a bird identification site that my greedy little feathered friend is of the female variety) busy fending off the sparrows, clambering around the feeder daring any bird to come close.
Problem is, that suet feeder has two sides. So while she is guarding side A, the sparrows are pigging out on side B. They’re eating her lunch. Guess who’s not eating her lunch. She isn’t. She’s so distracted that she’s not getting a bite while the sparrows are having a feast (and a load of fun at her expense).

One would think from watching this little display of greed and turfism that birds have a sin nature. Well, Paul does say the whole creation groans . . . .
This reminds me of how easy it is to get distracted in our preaching, teaching, and study. Sometimes we preachers can get off-track by the garden variety heresies such as those promoted by modern lightweights like Joel Osteen and others. Or think of how many of us get distracted by themes such as satan and demons, spiritual warfare and bondage, varieties of eschatology, or other very legitimate but lesser topics. “Lesser than what?” you ask dubiously. Well, lesser than the Gospel, for instance. Lesser than our union with Christ and all the implications that flow from it. Lesser than the nature and attributes of God, whom to know aright is life eternal. We need to concentrate on keeping the main thing the main thing.
I’ve read that when banks teach tellers to spot counterfeit cash, they don’t spend a great deal of time studying the counterfeits. Rather, they spend a lot of time handling the real McCoy so that when a counterfeit passes through their hands they can spot it immediately because it feels wrong.
And that’s what we should be doing. Unless God has given you a polemic, apologetic ministry (and perhaps, in truth, He has), the best way to protect your flock from the wolves is to consistently, day-in-day-out, teach truth and as the occasion presents itself contrast the truth with error. When the text touches on demons, spiritual warfare, eschatology, etc, then so do we. But the bulk and the main of our ministry ought to be the systematic, expositional, verse-by-verse presentation of the Christ-centered, Gospel-centered Word of God.
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.(2 Timothy 4:1-4, NASB)
In 2 Timothy 4:1-4, Paul gives us a balanced view of asserting truth and confronting error. It's important to draw a distinction between confronting false teachers and instructing confused believers. It’s easy to be distracted and become unbalanced in our ministries and to spend too much time talking about false teachers and  their ministries. Paul does confront false teachers (for example, 2 Tim 2:16-17), and so should we. But a close reading of Paul shows him focusing on the teaching, reproving, and correcting of the sheep (see 2 Tim 2:23-26).
Nor am I suggesting that we pit expositional preaching/study against topical preaching/study—there’s a valuable place for both—but I am saying this: nothing will ground your flock so deeply as a consistent ministry of expositional preaching that enables them to keep texts in context with both the surrounding passages and the overall history of redemption.
It might take longer to see results with this sort of ministry, but in the long run you will spend less time putting out little doctrinal fires in your congregation because you’ve enabled them to connect the dots for themselves. Protect them from the wolves not by teaching them about wolves but by drawing their attention to the Shepherd.
Preach the Word, bathe them in truth, and the Spirit will give your flock discernment as needed. Otherwise the lightweights will be eating our lunch.
Now, what was I doing? Ah, yes, Romans 5. Guess I got distracted . . . .

The sine qua non of knowing God

A condition described as sine qua non is an absolutely essential condition; the expression means “without which not.” The “sine qua non of knowing God” designates an essential condition that must be satisfied in order for one to know God truly.
“He,” said Jesus, speaking of the Holy Spirit, “will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you” (John 16:14). “Whatever you ask in My name,” Jesus instructed His disciples, “that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13). “I have glorified You on the earth,” prayed Jesus to His heavenly Father in John 17:4-5, “having accomplished the work which You have given me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
In that most beloved passage about the humiliation and exaltation of Jesus Christ, Philippians 2:5-11, God highly exalts His Son, giving Him a name which is above every name, with the result that at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow and “that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11).
But what is particularly interesting is the phrase: “to the glory of God the Father.” The Father is glorified when Christ is exalted as Lord; in other words, if I wish to glorify the Father I do so by exalting the Son, worshiping the Son, bowing before the Son as Thomas did and confessing, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). To deny the Son is to deny the Father. “He who does not honor the Son,” Jesus asserted, “does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23). The apostle John proclaims, “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:23).
What a conundrum have they who claim to worship the Father, and yet deny the truth of the trinitarian nature of God—that God exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For Jesus to recieve worship must of necessity mean that He is fully divine—fully God—otherwise the worship of Jesus Christ is idolatry.
In denying the deity of Christ, one dishonors the Father who sent Christ. No one may approach the Father except through the Son (John 14:6). “You know neither Me nor My Father,” Jesus said to the Pharisees. “If you knew Me, you would know My Father also” (John 5:19).
The Father is not truly known, except through the Son. Knowing and worshiping Christ is the sine qua nonof knowing and worshiping the Father. If you don't worship Jesus Christ as God, then you do not truly know the God of the Bible. At least, that's what the Bible says.

If only . . .

If only. . . .
Two words that often express a great deal of heartache. If only I had finished my degree. . . .If only he had not been driving so fast. . . .If only my child hadn't gone to school that day. . . .If only mom hadn't caught the flu. . . .If only I hadn't lost my job. . . .
Hindsight is twenty-twenty, as they say. How different would our lives be if we knew in advance the consequences of every decision?
But consider how wrong-headed that notion is. When we indulge ourselves in “if only” thinking we are behaving as if our lives, and history itself, progressed on the basis of some impersonal fate, a roll of the cosmic dice, rather than under the manifest control of a sovereign, good God.
This morning I was reading the last three chapters of Acts and it occurred to me that Paul had ample opportunity to engage in “if only” thinking after being jailed by the Romans:If only I had not agreed to join in that vow! (Acts 21:23-24)If only Felix had not been hoping for a bribe! (Acts 24:26)If only Felix had not been such a political animal! (Acts 24:27)If only I had not appealed to Caesar! (Acts 26:32)
As a consequence of these things, Paul spent over four years under arrest, and at least two of them in Roman prisons. He endured plots against his life, show trials, a terrifying storm at sea followed by a shipwreck, and numerous other problems. Paul's plans, ambitions—indeed, his life—was put on hold and forcibly redirected in ways he would not have chosen. If only. . . !
But Paul did not fall prey to this wistful, self-pitying sort of mindset. He shares with the Philippians his attitude about his troubles: Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel ,so that my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear.(Philippians 1:12-14, NASB)
Think about it: during Paul's missionary journeys he was constantly getting run out of town, beaten, jailed, mobbed by angry crowds, hauled before local officials under false accusation, etc. But from the time he was arrested in Acts 21, Paul was under the protection of the Roman empire . He was taken to Rome, and there, though under house arrest, was provided official protection while he freely preached the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles in the capital of the entire Roman Empire. Because of his arrest and incarceration, Paul had the opportunity to share the gospel with regional governors and officials. He was priviledged to testify at great length with the Roman centurians and the guards who guarded him. While on the isle of Melita, those same Romans witnessed Paul doing miracles of healing (Acts 28:8-9). In Rome, Paul presumably got the opportunity to testify to Caesar at his hearing. Paul enjoyed massive opportunities he would have never had if he hadn't been arrested by the Romans.
If only? Really?Maybe these heartaches, Christian, have come into your life “for the greater progress of the gospel.” Rather than being absorbed in regrets, start looking for the opportunities that God will provide in the very midst of your problems.

Book Review of Mending the Soul: Understanding and Healing Abuse

Steven R. Tracy has made an excellent contribution to the growing collection of biblical counseling literature possessed by the Church. He writes with three assets that serve him well: a broad knowledge of psychological studies of abusers and their victims, a deep well of experience in counseling victims of abuse and molestation, and a rich foundation of training in handling the Scriptures accurately.

The book is divided into three parts: the nature of abuse, the effects of abuse, and the healing path. He delivers, resoundingly, what each part promises. Mixing insights from psychological studies, careful exegesis of Scripture, and case studies, Tracy fully explores the horrific damage that abusers and abusive families perpetrate on victims. But he does not fall into the trap of ennobling and white-washing the victims. He also explores the (understandable) sinful responses of victims to their abuse, and he’s not afraid to label those responses as sin.
In a word, this is gentle pastoral care of souls ravaged by abuse, wrapped into an insightful, honest volume. Whether you are coming from the “Christian counseling” side of the aisle, or the “Biblical counseling” side, you’ll find much that’s useful. Tracy does a good job of staying true to Scripture while fully employing the observations and statistics of the world of psychology.
The chapters on "Facing the Brokenness" and "Rebuilding Intimacy with God" are outstanding. Here is real hope and practical guidance for counselors who are working with victims of abuse and molestation.
As a sidelight, those who are helping combat veterans dealing with PTSD might find useful insights in this volume. Tracy does a good job of showing the relationships between various kinds of high-stress high-trauma experiences.
The weakest part of the book, in my estimation, is his chapter on forgiveness. While I find myself in agreement of most of what he has to say, I think there are better treatments elsewhere. It’s a niggling, quibbling point, though, when you consider the overall excellence of the book.

The Wagon

You know that wagon you keep falling off? Maybe it's some part of personal or spiritual discipline. Maybe it's reading your Bible or doing a study or working on your anger or your tongue. Maybe it's an attempt to lose weight or change your eating habits. Maybe it's establishing a consistent prayer time, or talking to that neighbor about Christ.

Yeah, that's the wagon I'm talking about - the one you and I keep falling off.

Well, there's something really encouraging about that wagon maybe you hadn't noticed. It keeps coming back every morning so that you can climb back on.

Failure is just a bump in the road; it's not the end of the road. Failure is an opportunity to remember that we live in the grace of God, and that we will always, desparately need His grace. Failure is an opportunity to rebuke my pride, to remember who I am, and who He is, and that He is transforming me, ever so slowly into His image.

Failure is never an opportunity to quit, it's an opportunity to get up and get back on the wagon.

"Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen." (Jude 24-25)

[Picture Credit: Doris Cobb]

Book Review: Allegiance: Fort Sumpter, Charleston, and the beginning of the Civil War, by David Detzer

This is a good book. I started it wondering whether or not a 320 page book about one tiny battle would be able to hold my attention. It did. Detzer's writing is excellent, highly readable, and free from academic jargon. His research on the topic is exhaustive: he knows what he is talking about.

Detzer provides a fine snapshot of antebellum Charleston, its commerce and society, its colorful characters and politicians, and its slaves. He does a good job of pointing out the sad ironies of slavery amidst a free people: he's not preachy but at times very cutting.

Detzer sugar-coats no one, although he comes close in his portrayal of Major Robert Anderson, who is presented as a man of high character and leadership skills, who is blessed with equal but contradictory doses of pacifism and duty to country.

The final chapter was outstanding, and presented a very sensitive and appropriate retrospective on the later lives of some of the major characters as well as Charleston and Fort Sumpter.

It's an excellent book. There are a few weaknesses, all relatively minor. Dezter is a professional historian, but he gets pretty snarky in places. I'm still trying to decide whether it's endearing or irritating. He does a good bit of editorializing, as well. Usually in just a sentence, never more than a paragraph or two at a time, but liberally sprinkled through the book.

One example is his almost-gratuitous passage on the meaning of the flag, on pages 127-128, claiming that there is no true meaning of a flag. In fine postmodern fashion, Detzer intimates that the flag means whatever its wielder wishes it to mean. He then goes on to complete the book demonstrating (unconsciously, perhaps?) that it stands for the sovereignty of the nation whose emblem it bears. There seems to be no confusion about the meaning of the flag for either the soldiers in Sumpter or the civilians in Charleston--and they both seem to ascribe to it the same significance.

Another weakness in his writing is his tendency to skip around in chronology from one paragraph to the next without giving the reader due warning. I found on repeated occasions, well into the paragraph, that the matter being expounded happened before the matter in previous paragraph. I'm no fan of slavish chronology, but I would appreciate a warning when the time of the scene shifts backwards, otherwise it can be (and was) a little confusing.

All these petty gripes are minor in view of the excellence of the account Detzer has created. I recommend the book to anyone who has an interest in Civil War era history.

Thomas Jefferson, on settling questions about the Constitution

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. [emphasis mine]

This quotation of Thomas Jefferson was contained in a personal letter he wrote to William Johnson, June 12, 1823. In context, I understand it had to do with the Second Amendment. However I imagine that as a matter of principle this is how Jefferson would have every question on the Constitution settled ("On every question ," he said).

It's a far cry from the view taken by judical activists regarding a "living Constitution."