C.H. Cobb's Blog, page 17
July 25, 2014
Falcon Strike!
Time is running out . . . Vanished.Eight western scientists and an Israeli military officer havedisappeared without a trace, victims of a ruthless Soviet espionage program. USAF Major Jacob “Falcon” Kelly is the only American who knows where they are and why they've been taken.
Imprisoned.Suspected of treason by American intelligence, Kelly’s claims are dismissed and he is jailed by his own government. He finds himself in a deadly race to prove his innocence before Soviet assassins can shut his mouth—permanently.
Outwitted. Entangled in a high-stakes game of intriguewith Soviet military intelligence, American operatives are duped by a masterful disinformation campaign in which Kelly is a pawn. As his captors play right into the hands of the enemy, Kelly knows the window to stage a daring rescue operation and thwart the Soviet endgame is rapidly closing.
The exciting conclusion to the Falcon Series, Falcon Strikewill captivate readers as nonstop action and intrigue transport them on a thrilling adventure spanning the frozen coasts of Alaska, the suburbs of northern Virginia, and the snowy taiga of Siberia.
Available December 1st!
C. S. Lewis, the radical
I never realized what a radical C. S. Lewis was until reading his essays in God in the Dock. One of Lewis’s great concerns was the rise of the modern, technocratic welfare state. Lewis warned that the purpose of government is to protect individual liberties, not to transform society or to provide for its citizens. When a population forgets that limited role of government it is headed inevitably for tyranny.
Lewis writes, “. . . classical political theory, with its Stoical, Christian, and juristic key-conceptions (natural law, the value of the individual, the rights of man), has died. The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good—anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. Hence the new name ‘leaders’ for those who were once ‘rulers’. We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives aretheir business.” [from the essay, Is Progress Possible? in God in the Dock , 314]
Lewis published this in 1958. Apparently we weren’t listening.
Lewis writes, “. . . classical political theory, with its Stoical, Christian, and juristic key-conceptions (natural law, the value of the individual, the rights of man), has died. The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good—anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. Hence the new name ‘leaders’ for those who were once ‘rulers’. We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives aretheir business.” [from the essay, Is Progress Possible? in God in the Dock , 314]
Lewis published this in 1958. Apparently we weren’t listening.
July 23, 2014
Observations from the Bible on Fear, Part 3
2 Timothy 1:7-8 (NASB) For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, or of me His prisoner; but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God,
Fear doesn’t come from God. Rather, God offers in place of fear, power, love, and “a sound mind.” Why does Paul say “a sound mind” (KJV), or “self-discipline” (NIV), or “discipline” (NASB)? Paul uses these terms because fear militates against sound, disciplined thinking: fear expands itself irrationally when we give place to it. This is an important point and one that recurs as you read the Bible’s passages on fear. Fear feeds itself, even to the point where we perversely begin to fear fear itself. But what God provides is a spirit of love (the most important key to conquering fear outright) and power(in His power we are not helpless but can chose to exercise faith in His goodness and sovereign control), and discipline. Discipline enables us to control the wild flights of fancy in our minds (2 Corinthians 10:5), so that we are not carried away with gusts of fear (as the spies were in Numbers 13-14). To yield to these imaginations is to give way to panic.Paul has a real bell-ringer in 2 Timothy 1:8 in our battle against fear and panic. Notice that Paul did not advise Timothy to combat his fears by backing off his ministry. Paul didn’t give his young coworker a pass because Timothy was afraid. Rather, in verse 8 Paul says, “join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God.” Paul did not protect Timothy from suffering; he invited Timothy to embrace suffering with him for the sake of the gospel.We are not accustomed to think of fear in terms of moral responsibility. But there is a significant moral component to our fears when we allow them to interrupt the responsibilities and ministries to which God has called us.God desires that we confront our fears bynot allowing them to turn us aside from our obligations.Rather than giving in to fear and retreating, we are invited by God to step out onto the edge and labor together with Him. It is uncomfortable—to be sure—but “God hath not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”
Fear doesn’t come from God. Rather, God offers in place of fear, power, love, and “a sound mind.” Why does Paul say “a sound mind” (KJV), or “self-discipline” (NIV), or “discipline” (NASB)? Paul uses these terms because fear militates against sound, disciplined thinking: fear expands itself irrationally when we give place to it. This is an important point and one that recurs as you read the Bible’s passages on fear. Fear feeds itself, even to the point where we perversely begin to fear fear itself. But what God provides is a spirit of love (the most important key to conquering fear outright) and power(in His power we are not helpless but can chose to exercise faith in His goodness and sovereign control), and discipline. Discipline enables us to control the wild flights of fancy in our minds (2 Corinthians 10:5), so that we are not carried away with gusts of fear (as the spies were in Numbers 13-14). To yield to these imaginations is to give way to panic.Paul has a real bell-ringer in 2 Timothy 1:8 in our battle against fear and panic. Notice that Paul did not advise Timothy to combat his fears by backing off his ministry. Paul didn’t give his young coworker a pass because Timothy was afraid. Rather, in verse 8 Paul says, “join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God.” Paul did not protect Timothy from suffering; he invited Timothy to embrace suffering with him for the sake of the gospel.We are not accustomed to think of fear in terms of moral responsibility. But there is a significant moral component to our fears when we allow them to interrupt the responsibilities and ministries to which God has called us.God desires that we confront our fears bynot allowing them to turn us aside from our obligations.Rather than giving in to fear and retreating, we are invited by God to step out onto the edge and labor together with Him. It is uncomfortable—to be sure—but “God hath not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”
July 10, 2014
Observations from the Bible on Fear, Part 2
Numbers 13-14 contains a remarkable story of the experience of the children of Israel at Kadesh. They have arrived at Kadesh at the southern border of Canaan, and are ready to enter the Promised Land. Moses sends spies into Canaan with the responsibility of bringing back a report on the land, the people, the fortifications, and so on.
Numbers 13:25-29 (NASB): When they returned from spying out the land, at the end of forty days, they proceeded to come to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the sons of Israel in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh; and they brought back word to them and to all the congregation and showed them the fruit of the land. Thus they told him, and said, “We went in to the land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large; and moreover, we saw the descendants of Anak there. Amalek is living in the land of the Negev and the Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites are living in the hill country, and the Canaanites are living by the sea and by the side of the Jordan.”
There’s nothing wrong with the report so far; if you carefully examine what Moses asked them to do (13:17-20), the report indicates that they were quite thorough. The perceptions of the faithful and the perceptions of the fearful regarding the land were in agreement—so far. The majority report of Numbers 13:27-29 is not disputed by anyone.
It is in the reaction to the report that the trouble lies. Caleb tries to calm the people but to no avail. Fear began spreading among the children of Israel, and as is almost always the case, fear brings a distortion of reality.
Numbers 13:30-33 (NASB): Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it.” But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. “There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
Once the fearful had given way to their fears, the difficulties became distorted and magnified (vs 32-33). Yielding to their fear fueled it, and they wound up being dominated by it. Their fears became self-fulfilling.
Numbers 14:1-4 (NASB): Then all the congregation lifted up their voices and cried, and the people wept that night. And all the sons of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron; and the whole congregation said to them, “Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness!“And why is the Lord bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become plunder; would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?” So they said to one another, “Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt.”
Their fears also moved them to attack the character and purposes of God (why is the Lord bringing us into this land to fall by the sword?). Their fears led them to distorted memories of the “good old days” in Egypt when they were in hard servitude (would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?).
Finally, what is most significant for our purposes is that, because they chose to follow their fear rather than their faith, God gave them over to their fears. Their fears became self-fulfilling in a tragic way. They feared falling by the sword of the Canaanites, their children becoming plunder.
And so they did fall, but by the hand of God Himself, not the Canaanites. They wandered for forty years until every last one over the age of twenty (at the time of the rebellion) died, except for the two faithful ones—Joshua and Caleb. Everyone else died.
The irony is that God faithfully brought their children—whom they feared would become plunder—into the Promised Land. Their children—who walked in faith, not fear—became under the hand of God an invincible military juggernaut, conquering kings and cities and alliances by the power of God. No one was able to stand before them (other than Ai, and that defeat was due to sin).
There are some important observations about fear we can draw from this text.Fear can distort reality.Fear feeds on itself.Fear can become self-fulfilling.Our fears can accuse God of either being inadequate to protect us, or of having evil motives. Sinful fear is ultimately a slander on the character of God.When we choose to live by our fears instead of our faith, God may give us over to them.
Numbers 13:25-29 (NASB): When they returned from spying out the land, at the end of forty days, they proceeded to come to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the sons of Israel in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh; and they brought back word to them and to all the congregation and showed them the fruit of the land. Thus they told him, and said, “We went in to the land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large; and moreover, we saw the descendants of Anak there. Amalek is living in the land of the Negev and the Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites are living in the hill country, and the Canaanites are living by the sea and by the side of the Jordan.”
There’s nothing wrong with the report so far; if you carefully examine what Moses asked them to do (13:17-20), the report indicates that they were quite thorough. The perceptions of the faithful and the perceptions of the fearful regarding the land were in agreement—so far. The majority report of Numbers 13:27-29 is not disputed by anyone.
It is in the reaction to the report that the trouble lies. Caleb tries to calm the people but to no avail. Fear began spreading among the children of Israel, and as is almost always the case, fear brings a distortion of reality.
Numbers 13:30-33 (NASB): Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it.” But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. “There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
Once the fearful had given way to their fears, the difficulties became distorted and magnified (vs 32-33). Yielding to their fear fueled it, and they wound up being dominated by it. Their fears became self-fulfilling.
Numbers 14:1-4 (NASB): Then all the congregation lifted up their voices and cried, and the people wept that night. And all the sons of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron; and the whole congregation said to them, “Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness!“And why is the Lord bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become plunder; would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?” So they said to one another, “Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt.”
Their fears also moved them to attack the character and purposes of God (why is the Lord bringing us into this land to fall by the sword?). Their fears led them to distorted memories of the “good old days” in Egypt when they were in hard servitude (would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?).
Finally, what is most significant for our purposes is that, because they chose to follow their fear rather than their faith, God gave them over to their fears. Their fears became self-fulfilling in a tragic way. They feared falling by the sword of the Canaanites, their children becoming plunder.
And so they did fall, but by the hand of God Himself, not the Canaanites. They wandered for forty years until every last one over the age of twenty (at the time of the rebellion) died, except for the two faithful ones—Joshua and Caleb. Everyone else died.
The irony is that God faithfully brought their children—whom they feared would become plunder—into the Promised Land. Their children—who walked in faith, not fear—became under the hand of God an invincible military juggernaut, conquering kings and cities and alliances by the power of God. No one was able to stand before them (other than Ai, and that defeat was due to sin).
There are some important observations about fear we can draw from this text.Fear can distort reality.Fear feeds on itself.Fear can become self-fulfilling.Our fears can accuse God of either being inadequate to protect us, or of having evil motives. Sinful fear is ultimately a slander on the character of God.When we choose to live by our fears instead of our faith, God may give us over to them.
July 3, 2014
C. S. Lewis and Old Books
I'm reading through a book of C. S. Lewis essays, called "God in the Dock." Today's essay was from Lewis' introduction to a new translation of Athanasius' fourth-century work, "The Incarnation of the Word of God."
Anyway, Lewis is making a case for reading the old books, the books of the past that history has shown to have weight and heft. One of Lewis' points is that modern authors, even when they disagree with one another, share in common a huge set of assumptions--some of which are bound to be wrong. As moderns reading modern books, we too will be blind to the wrongness of those assumptions--since we ourselves share them. The only way we have to extricate ourselves, Lewis claims, is to read books of the past--not that they are error-free, but that they are operating on a different set of assumptions than those of the modern age. I'll let Lewis speak for himself:
"None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction" [202].
Anyway, Lewis is making a case for reading the old books, the books of the past that history has shown to have weight and heft. One of Lewis' points is that modern authors, even when they disagree with one another, share in common a huge set of assumptions--some of which are bound to be wrong. As moderns reading modern books, we too will be blind to the wrongness of those assumptions--since we ourselves share them. The only way we have to extricate ourselves, Lewis claims, is to read books of the past--not that they are error-free, but that they are operating on a different set of assumptions than those of the modern age. I'll let Lewis speak for himself:
"None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction" [202].
June 26, 2014
Fruit from my morning reading
Several interesting points from reading the Institutes this morning.
First, on the difference between the god of Islam and the True God.
Calvin makes the point that God is by necessity good, meaning that God cannot choose not to be good. To get the following quote, you must understand the way a philosopher or theologian uses the word, "necessary." Something that is necessary is something that must be due to the nature of things; it cannot not be. Here's Calvin: "The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead, that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; . . . " As I thought on this, I realized that it forms one of the most basic distinctions between the theology of Christianity, and that of Islam.
In a word, God does good things because God, in His essence, is good. God cannot fail to be good--it is His nature to be good, and God cannot contradict Himself.
However the god of Islam is arbitrary in his actions, sometimes doing good, sometimes evil. The god of Islam is only good when he decides to be so; his actions are not tied to his essence. This is one reason why Islam can justify any atrocity: Allah is not good, Allah is just what Allah determines to be at the moment.
The second interesting point comes from Calvin's discussion of free will and the bondage produced by sin. He quotes Augustine: "Man through liberty became a sinner [speaking of the Fall] but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted liberty into necessity." Calvin then says, several sentences later, "Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil." [Calvin, Institutes, Book II:3:5]
This is why we need a Savior, and this is why He must take the initiative in salvation. We won't. We can't.
First, on the difference between the god of Islam and the True God.
Calvin makes the point that God is by necessity good, meaning that God cannot choose not to be good. To get the following quote, you must understand the way a philosopher or theologian uses the word, "necessary." Something that is necessary is something that must be due to the nature of things; it cannot not be. Here's Calvin: "The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead, that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; . . . " As I thought on this, I realized that it forms one of the most basic distinctions between the theology of Christianity, and that of Islam.
In a word, God does good things because God, in His essence, is good. God cannot fail to be good--it is His nature to be good, and God cannot contradict Himself.
However the god of Islam is arbitrary in his actions, sometimes doing good, sometimes evil. The god of Islam is only good when he decides to be so; his actions are not tied to his essence. This is one reason why Islam can justify any atrocity: Allah is not good, Allah is just what Allah determines to be at the moment.
The second interesting point comes from Calvin's discussion of free will and the bondage produced by sin. He quotes Augustine: "Man through liberty became a sinner [speaking of the Fall] but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted liberty into necessity." Calvin then says, several sentences later, "Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil." [Calvin, Institutes, Book II:3:5]
This is why we need a Savior, and this is why He must take the initiative in salvation. We won't. We can't.
April 26, 2014
At Last!
As of today, the summer campus of the top-secret
C. H. Cobb Sermon and Book Production Facility
, (located at an undisclosed location somewhere in the Midwest) resumes operations, Toy Story mousepad and all. At long last. Thought winter would never end. Don't quote me on that, please.
Please hold, the coffee just finished. Back in a sec. . .
Okay, I'm back. If you look closely, you can see what I'm working on. Displayed on the monitor at the right is an advance peek at what will probably be the cover shot of Falcon Strike . My cover lady/book consultant extraordinaire (Dani Snell, aka my daughter) nixed all my other picks. She loves this one. It's from the prolific lens of Kris Klop and is a good sample of his aviation art. You really ought to check out his stuff at Clearskyphotography.com. Kris, reckon I'll be contacting you soon to purchase the rights to use this shot. He's the photographer for all of the gorgeous covers on the Falcon Series. Between his and Dani's work, I am very blessed.
Here I am, hard at work, slaving over a hot keyboard, as you can tell. You might see the pole for my umbrella, rising just aft of the monitor. "Why the umbrella, Cobb? It's not raining, and you're in the shade anyway?" It's those darn birds. They've got absolutely no respect. They keep dropping ordnance on me. The umbrella is part of my point defense system. A very necessary part.
Okay, coffee break's over. Back to work. Wonder what sort of trouble I can create for Jacob Kelly this evening . . . ?
Please hold, the coffee just finished. Back in a sec. . .Okay, I'm back. If you look closely, you can see what I'm working on. Displayed on the monitor at the right is an advance peek at what will probably be the cover shot of Falcon Strike . My cover lady/book consultant extraordinaire (Dani Snell, aka my daughter) nixed all my other picks. She loves this one. It's from the prolific lens of Kris Klop and is a good sample of his aviation art. You really ought to check out his stuff at Clearskyphotography.com. Kris, reckon I'll be contacting you soon to purchase the rights to use this shot. He's the photographer for all of the gorgeous covers on the Falcon Series. Between his and Dani's work, I am very blessed.
Here I am, hard at work, slaving over a hot keyboard, as you can tell. You might see the pole for my umbrella, rising just aft of the monitor. "Why the umbrella, Cobb? It's not raining, and you're in the shade anyway?" It's those darn birds. They've got absolutely no respect. They keep dropping ordnance on me. The umbrella is part of my point defense system. A very necessary part.
Okay, coffee break's over. Back to work. Wonder what sort of trouble I can create for Jacob Kelly this evening . . . ?
April 19, 2014
Observations from the Bible on Fear, Part 1
Before you read this post, read Mark 4:35-41.Notice how the disciples feared the storm and thought their lives were in danger. They awakened Jesus and accused Him of not caring that “we are perishing.” The object of their fear was the great storm and the very real danger of swamping the boat and drowning.Jesus rebukes their lack of faith and then—with a word—calms the storm. Rather than releasing them from their fear by removing the danger, the actions of Jesus renewed their fear, turning it in a different direction. Now they were “very much afraid” of this unusual person in their midst who had exerted such effortless control over nature.Positive lesson: it’s good for our fears to be turned from that which “can only destroy the body and after that have nothing more that they can do” (Luke 12:4), and to be refocused on the One who can destroy “both body and soul in hell” (Matthew 10:28). As Jesus conquers the objects of our fears by His mighty power, it’s a good and healthy thing that we transfer our fear to Him. The “fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). The only thing a Christian should truly and deeply fear is God Himself, and not with a slavish fear of judgment but with the devoted and reverent fear wholly appropriate to creatures in the presence of their omnipotent Creator.Negative lesson: a case can be made in this account that the disciples feared being at the mercy of forces beyond their control. Being at sea in a small boat during a great storm is a classic example of being “out of control.” The forces of nature are dominant--the most you can do is bail and pray. The potential for a terrifying death is very real. But more fearsome than that is to be in the presence of One who can create or eliminate such situations with nothing more than His command. In the startling calm of the now-placid sea, the shocked disciples realized that the mighty and powerful Person they were with was someone over whom they had no control. They were in the presence of a far more terrible power than a mere weather disturbance. While at the mercy of the storm they were under the control of an impersonal act of nature, something that with sufficient planning and diligence plus a bit of luck they could conceivably survive. But with Jesus they were at the mercy of a sentient Being, a thinking, acting, planning, volitional Person. Such power combined with purpose could not be defeated or resisted. And so they feared with the fear of those wholly at the mercy of vast forces beyond their control.How much, then, of fear has to do with a loss of control? What portion of the emotion of “fear” is really a frightened and frustrated reaction to being denied control of a difficult situation? How much of fear might be attributed to having a different agenda from that of our sovereign God? Perhaps what we are really afraid of is that God will do or permit something that will defeat our personal goals and subject us to unwanted pain and suffering.If in fact this is the case, then the innoculation against fear is twofold. First, we must gain a greater appreciation for the goodness of God. We must take confidence in the fact that His presence and His promises are sufficient to shepherd us through difficult times. Not only is it proper that He (and not us) is in control, it is preferable because He is unerringly and unendingly good (Psalm 119:68).Second, we must cultivate an attitude of submission, constantly bringing our goals and agendas under the control of His sovereign will. His way is often the way of pain and self-denial, stretching us beyond our comfort zone; but it is also the only path that leads to contentment and perfect peace (Isaiah 32:17; Romans 8). This peace we seek is notably denied to us when we yield to our own fears and our own lust for control. Isaiah 30:15-17 describes two options for responding to God: one is repentance, rest, and faith. The other is yielding to our fears and attempting to take control by employing our own measures for protection (“fleeing on horses”). The effect of such disobedience is the magnification of fear (“one thousand shall flee at the threat of one man”). We become frightened of our fear itself, and so its effect is heightened and worsened.Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee. (Isaiah 26:3)
April 4, 2014
Review: Killing Calvinism, by Greg Dutcher
This isn’t really a review, it’s more of a brief reflection. Dutcher has identified the weak underbelly of the Young, Restless, and Reformed stream of Christianity today. As with all critiques of this nature, the author is speaking of the movement in general; the reader will always find exceptions in his personal experience. That said, you will do yourself no favors if in quibbling on this point or that you miss the overall thrust of Dutcher’s theme: Calvinistic theology is in danger of being controverted by the arrogance of some of its proponents. I remember once thinking of a bombast I was listening to, “If you are a Christian, please don’t tell anyone else.” One could say the same thing about some of Calvinism’s fans. And there have been times one could say the same thing about me.Dutcher is not dealing with the arrogance of our opponents or their faults or failures; he’s pointing out sin in our camp. We who love Scripture and thrill in the doctrines of grace and feel deeply the depravity of man should be the very first to recognize—and confess—the scent of that depravity among ourselves—and in ourselves.
Dutcher is not a cheap-shot artist in the tradition of those who find it easier to criticise than construct. He’s rather a voice calling us to repentance, and to love, appreciate, respect, and learn from those who differ. Pick up any good volume on church history and turn to the early church fathers and read what they wrestled with as the orthodoxy of the church was discovered from Scripture over the first five hundred years or so after Christ, before you start slinging around the term “heretic.” Read Augustine, for instance. That godly champion of justification by faith had an amazing amount of residual Roman Catholicism in his belief system. Shall we call him a heretic?
And is it not possible that both we and our brothers and sisters in Christ will experience some recapitulation of “faith seeking understanding” as we wrestle with the meaning of Scripture? How many of today’s enthusiastic Calvinists went through their early Christian life with an essentially Arminian understanding until their ongoing study of Scripture reformed their thinking? I know I did. And are we not willing to give our brothers and sisters the love and respect and time and space to work through the issues themselves, just as we did?
Our church has a two year course in advanced theological training. Dutcher’s book just became part of the required curriculum. I commend it without reservation.
March 26, 2014
No-fault Divorce
World Vision today divorced itself from its policy decision, announced March 24th, to recognize gay marriage by hiring gays living in monogamous, faithful relationships.
To be fair, World Vision claimed in that same news release that they were expressly not recognizing gay marriage.
To be real, that’s precisely what they were doing.
World Vision states unambiguously that they require from their employees sexual abstinence outside of marriage. Unless World Vision has also redefined “abstinence,” one can hardly consider anal sex as sexual abstinence. Hence, they did recognize gay marriage as marriage, despite their sophistry to the contrary.
They proclaimed that this move was made to foster unity among the churches. Um, would that be the same sort of unity that has split The Episcopal Church, because last time I checked that's precisely what endorsing homosexuality did for TEC? Would that be the same sort of unity that is splitting the PCUSA?
And of what unity do they speak, anyway? The prayer in which Christ sought for unity among His people in John 17 also included a request for their sanctification—their holiness, by means of the truth. On what grounds does World Vision see homosexuality as a move toward sanctification?
Does World Vision ignore the great disdain in which the global south holds the practice of homosexuality? Do they wish to subject their workers to added danger as Muslims in other countries react with anger to this decision, as one more example of the decadence of the West?
This was not a policy or procedural error. This was an abandonment of truth.
In his explanation for their decision to divorce gay marriage after having married themselves to it, Richard Stearns said that he did not consult enough Christian leaders. Perhaps he could have saved himself a bit of trouble by consulting the Bible instead.
To be fair, World Vision claimed in that same news release that they were expressly not recognizing gay marriage.
To be real, that’s precisely what they were doing.
World Vision states unambiguously that they require from their employees sexual abstinence outside of marriage. Unless World Vision has also redefined “abstinence,” one can hardly consider anal sex as sexual abstinence. Hence, they did recognize gay marriage as marriage, despite their sophistry to the contrary.
They proclaimed that this move was made to foster unity among the churches. Um, would that be the same sort of unity that has split The Episcopal Church, because last time I checked that's precisely what endorsing homosexuality did for TEC? Would that be the same sort of unity that is splitting the PCUSA?
And of what unity do they speak, anyway? The prayer in which Christ sought for unity among His people in John 17 also included a request for their sanctification—their holiness, by means of the truth. On what grounds does World Vision see homosexuality as a move toward sanctification?
Does World Vision ignore the great disdain in which the global south holds the practice of homosexuality? Do they wish to subject their workers to added danger as Muslims in other countries react with anger to this decision, as one more example of the decadence of the West?
This was not a policy or procedural error. This was an abandonment of truth.
In his explanation for their decision to divorce gay marriage after having married themselves to it, Richard Stearns said that he did not consult enough Christian leaders. Perhaps he could have saved himself a bit of trouble by consulting the Bible instead.
